alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. (the "Company") for the
period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter G. Schoonmaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/PETER G. SCHOONMAKER Peter G. Schoonmaker President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
March 31, 2009

---



QuickLinks
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 333-20803

                                 $1,000,000,000
                                    CITICORP
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                    Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
                Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing Supplement, dated February 21, 1997 (To Prospectus Supplement, dated
March 26, 1996, to Prospectus, dated February 8, 1996).

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

      The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement and
modify, to the extent applicable, the description of general terms and
provisions of Citicorp's Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E, set forth in
the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement. Capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:                    6.80% Subordinated Notes Due March 15, 2007
                                   (the "Notes").

Aggregate
Principal Amount:                  $3,234,000.00.

Price to Public:                   100.00%.

Issue Date:                        February 26, 1997

Stated Maturity Date:              March 15, 2007.

Interest Rate:                     6.80%.

Interest Payment Dates:            Monthly, on the 15th day of each month,
                                   commencing in April 1997, and at Stated
                                   Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:              The first day of the month in which the
                                   related Interest Payment Date occurs.

Sinking Fund:                      None.

Redemption:                        The Notes are subject to redemption, in whole
                                   but not in part, at the option of Citicorp,
                                   on not more than 60 or less than 30 days'
                                   notice, on any Interest Payment Date, on or
                                   after March 15, 2000, at a redemption price
                                   of 100% of their principal amount plus
                                   accrued and unpaid interest to the redemption
                                   date.

Selling Agent:                     J.W. Korth & Company.

Agent's Commission:                2.00%.

Minimum Denomination:              $1,000.

CUSIP Number:                      17303 MGD 5.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  F ORD M OTOR C OMPANY ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. J OE R. T ODECHEENE , as the surviving natural parent of Esther Todecheene, deceased; M ARY No. 02-17048 T ODECHEENE , as the surviving 

#  D.C. No. natural parent of Esther CV-02-01100-PGR Todecheene, deceased,

Defendants-Appellants, and N AVAJO N ATION D ISTRICT C OURT ; L EROY S. B EDONIE , The Honorable,

Defendants. 

# 

6669

#  F ORD M OTOR C OMPANY ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. J OE R. T ODECHEENE , as the surviving natural parent of Esther No. 02-17165 Todecheene, deceased; M ARY D.C. No. T ODECHEENE , as the surviving CV-02-01100-PGR



#  natural parent of Esther AMENDED Todecheene, deceased, ORDER

Defendants, and N AVAJO N ATION D ISTRICT C OURT ; L EROY S. B EDONIE , The Honorable,

Defendants-Appellants. 

# 

Filed June 4, 2007 Before: Barry G. Silverman, William A. Fletcher, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

ORDER The order filed February 1, 2007, is hereby amended. The entire text shall be replaced with the following text. Joe and Mary Todecheene’s Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED in part. The opinion in this case, Ford Motor Company v. Todecheene , 394 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2005) is WITHDRAWN.
The tribal court did not “plainly ” lack jurisdiction under the second exception, recognized in Montana v. United States , 6670 F ORD M OTOR C O . v. T ODECHEENE450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981), to the general rule that tribes do not have jurisdiction over non-members. See Boozer v. Wilder , 381 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring exhaustion unless the tribal courts plainly lack jurisdiction). As such, the appeal is stayed until Ford exhausts its appeals in the tribal courts. The panel retains jurisdiction over the appeal. Ford will be deemed to have exhausted its tribal remedies once theNavajo Nation Supreme Court either resolves the jurisdictional issue or denies a petition for discretionary interlocutory review pursuant to Navajo Nation Code tit. 7, § 303 ( “The Supreme Court [of the Navajo Nation] shall have the power to issue any writs or orders . . . [t]o prevent or remedy any act of any Court which is beyond such Court’s jurisdiction. ”). The parties shall notify this court no later than 15 days from the date the Navajo Nation Supreme Court either denies a petition for discretionary review, or, if the Navajo NationSupreme Court grants such a petition, the issuance of its opinion resolving the jurisdictional question. The petitions for rehearing en banc filed by Joe and Mary Todecheene and the Navajo Nation are DENIED as moot, and the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by Ford Motor Company are DENIED

. 6671

F ORD M OTOR C O . v. T ODECHEENEPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2007 Thomson/West.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Henry R. Bond, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Agilysys, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies (1) with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 8, 2011



By:

/s/ Henry R. BondHenry R. BondSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



|(1) | As explained more fully in this Report, the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 does not include, as required by the
Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X, the separate financial statements of Magirus AG, a privately owned German Company in which the Company formerly held a 20% equity interest until the Company disposed of such interest on November 18, 2008.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Dorothy F. MARSHALL, Appellant, v. Merle A. MARSHALL, Respondent.

No. 56048.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Sept. 11, 1972.

W. F. Daniels, Fayette, for appellant.

Don Chapman, Jr., Chapman & Chapman, Chillicothe, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In this contested divorce case, the trial court found the defendant to be the innocent and injured party and granted him a divorce from plaintiff; and, in addition thereto, the court approved a property settlement entered into by the parties, and after having found it to be “fair and equitable” decreed specific performance of the same. Plaintiff has appealed only from the latter order.

The record reflects certain irreconcilable conflicts in the evidence which calls for our giving great deference to the finding of the trial court who had the parties and witnesses before him and was in a much better position to judge of their credibility than is this court; and, in addition thereto, we have concluded from our own review of the record that the trial court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.

MORGAN, P. J., HENLEY and DON-NELLY, JJ., and SCHOENLAUB, Special Judge, concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|             |  |                                              
|------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------
|             |  | /s/ Jeffrey D. Serkes                        
|May 10, 2005 |  | Jeffrey D. Serkes Principal Financial
Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00230

- CV

IN RE DAVECO INDUSTR IES, INC., ADA B. HELTERBRAND, HELTERBRAND FAMILY TRUST, AND HELTERBRA ND FAMILY, L.P. RELATOR S

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TRIAL COURT NO. 153

- 26 6829

- 13

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------

The cou rt has considered relator s ’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, DAUPHINOT, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: A u gust 1 , 2014

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     APR-30-1999
<CASH>                             4,910,663
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      2,934,552
<ALLOWANCES>                         289,000
<INVENTORY>                        3,858,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  11,612,602
<PP&E>                             5,504,792
<DEPRECIATION>                     2,745,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    14,587,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              2,455,462
<BONDS>                              107,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                           5,665,496
<OTHER-SE>                         6,256,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      14,587,945
<SALES>                            8,361,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   8,361,575
<CGS>                              5,809,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      5,809,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  12,139,732
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   379,241
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (9,609,932)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (9,609,932)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (9,609,932)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.75)


</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 02 3

- 1415

_____________________________
K ENSHAWN J AMAR S COTT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Jo hn T. Brown
, Judge

. April 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee

.
#### In the Matter of Fabulous Steak House, Inc., Appellant, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority dated July 13, 1988, which denied the petitioner’s application for a corporate change, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated March 27, 1989, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, the determination is annulled, the petitioner’s application for a corporate change is granted, and the respondent New York State Liquor Authority is directed to issue a license to the petitioner forthwith.

In reviewing the determination of the New York State Liquor Authority (hereinafter the Authority) to deny the petitioner’s application for a corporate change, the sole issue is whether the disapproval by the Authority of the application for a corporate change was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion *(see,*CPLR 7803 [3]), that is, whether the determination was justified or was without foundation in fact *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 231).

Relying upon the erroneous advice of counsel, the new sole shareholder of the petitioner began availing himself of the petitioner’s liquor license without having first applied for a corporate change and secured the transfer of the license. On the basis of this technical, albeit nonwillful, violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the Authority disapproved the application for the requisite corporate change. In disapproving the application on this basis, the Authority determined that "approval of this application would not be conducive to proper regulation and control * * * approval would tend to create a substantial degree of risk in the administration and enforcement of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and * * * public convenience and advantage would not be promoted by the approval of this application”.

We find that there is no rational basis for the determination by the Authority. The record lacks factual support for the Authority’s conclusions that the transfer of the license to the petitioner "would not be conducive to proper regulation and control” and that the approval of the corporate change "would tend to create a substantial degree of risk in the administra*312tion and enforcement of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law” *(see, Matter of Matty’s Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*21 AD2d 818, 819, *affd*15 NY2d 659). With the exception of the unwitting violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by the petitioner, it appears that the principal of the petitioner was otherwise eligible for licensing. Furthermore, given that there is an existing license for the subject premises, the Authority’s determination that "public convenience and advantage would not be promoted by the approval of [the] application” *(see generally,*Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 2) is not borne out by the record, especially since the original license was not revoked or canceled. Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
1... The relevant orders in this case were first signed by the Honorable Irma D. Hernandez, Associate Judge of

the 289th Judicial District Court, and then countersigned by the Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge of the 189th Judicial

District Court. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00741-CV

In the MATTER OF D.M.R.

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-JUV-01866

Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding1

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 14, 2010

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

D.M.R., a juvenile, pleaded true to one alleged probation violation in response to the State’s

second motion to modify disposition, and the State abandoned two other alleged violations.

Following a disposition hearing, the trial court placed D.M.R. in the custody of the Chief Juvenile

Probation Officer of Bexar County for the purpose of placement outside the home. D.M.R. filed a

timely notice of appeal. 
04-09-00741-CV

-2-

D.M.R.’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which

she asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements

of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d

296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (Anders procedures applyto appeals from juvenile delinquency adjudications);

In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d 359, 360 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (same). Counsel states

she has provided the juvenile and her guardian copies of the brief and motion to withdraw and

informed them of the juvenile’s right to review the record and file her own brief. See A.L.H., 974

S.W.2d at 360-61; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 1997, no pet.);

Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). No pro se brief

has been filed.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with

counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by D.M.R.’s appellate counsel

and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996,

no pet.).

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
EXHIBIT 10.2


 


FEBRUARY 2005 DISCRETIONARY
CREDIT NOTE


 


	
  $500,000

  	
   

  	
  Minneapolis, Minnesota

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  February 16, 2005

  



 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, MEDICALCV, INC., a Minnesota
corporation (the “Borrower”) promises to pay to the order of PKM
PROPERTIES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Lender”) at
its office in Minneapolis, Minnesota or at such other place as may be
designated from time to time by the holder hereof, in lawful money of the
United States of America, the principal sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000) or so much thereof as has been advanced by the Lender to or for the
benefit of the Borrower pursuant to that certain February 2005 Credit
Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, as amended from time to time, between
the Borrower and the Lender (the “Agreement”) and remains unpaid,
together with interest on the unpaid principal balance hereof from the date
hereof until this Note is fully paid, at an annual rate of interest, calculated
on the basis of actual number of days elapsed in a 360 day year, that shall at
all times be equal to the Interest Rate, as provided in the Agreement, each
change in the interest rate herein to become effective on the day the
corresponding change in the Interest Rate becomes effective.


 


Interest accruing on this Note shall be due and
payable on the last day of each month commencing March 31, 2005, and at
maturity or earlier prepayment in full. 
The principal of this Note and all accrued interest shall be due and
payable on or before the earlier of (a) June 16, 2005, or (b) the closing of
any debt or equity financing transaction by the Borrower after the date
hereof.  Payments hereunder shall be
applied first to the payment of accrued interest and then to the reduction of
principal.  The Borrower may prepay at
any time and from time to time, all or any portion of the balance from time to
time remaining on this Note, only as provided in the Agreement.


 


This Note is secured by, among other things, the May
Security Agreement, the Intellectual Property Security Agreement and other
Collateral referred to in the Agreement and is issued pursuant to and is
subject to the Agreement.


 


The Borrower agrees to pay all costs of collection,
including attorneys’ fees, in the event this Note is not paid when due.  This Note is being delivered in, and shall be
governed by, the laws of the State of Minnesota.  Presentment or other demand for payment,
notice of dishonor and protest are expressly waived.


 


	
   

  	
  MEDICALCV, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
    /s/ John H. Jungbauer, CFO

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: John H. Jungbauer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its: Vice President, Finance