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





CERTIFICATION 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 of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzChief Executive OfficerAugust 18, 2010
#### Dallas HALE, Appellant, v. Homer BAKER et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 23, 1972.

Alva A. Hollon, Hollon & Hollon, Hazard, for appellant.

Charles R. Coy, Coy & Coy, Richmond, for appellees.

NEIKIRK, Judge.

Dallas Hale’s complaint for damages based on malicious prosecution arose out of an incident that occurred in Berea. Several persons had met in that city ostensibly to attend a meeting of the National States Rights Party. A serious confrontation developed, and during a “skoot-out” two persons died as a result of gunshot wounds. An immediate investigation of the happening was conducted by the Commonwealth’s attorney, the county attorney, and other peace officers. Upon the advice of these officers that there was probable cause for a warrant of arrest against Hale and seven other persons, Sgt. Lewis Babb, Jr., a member of the Kentucky State Police, signed and presented a sworn complaint to the judge of the Madison Quarterly Court, charging Hale and seven other named persons with the murder of one Leno Boggs. The judge issued a warrant for the arrest of the eight men. Hale was arrested, lodged in jail, and later released on bond. No further proceedings were brought against Hale, nor was an indictment rendered by a Madison County grand jury.

Thereafter, Hale instituted this action for malicious prosecution against Sgt. Babb and eight other peace officers. The Madison Circuit Court granted the officers summary judgment and dismissed Hale’s complaint. Hale appeals. We affirm.

Hale contends that the circuit court erred in granting the summary judgment against him, but he refers us to no malicious prosecution cases as authority for his contention. Hale does cite several cases involving false arrest. We need not discuss these cases as the instant case was brought against the appellees as an action for malicious prosecution, not false arrest.

We have examined the affidavits and exhibits filed by the appellees in support of *134their motion for summary judgment. We find that these present a full and fair disclosure of all material facts. The complaint for the warrant of arrest of Hale was made on the advice of the attorneys who had conducted the entire investigation. This constituted probable cause to have the warrant of arrest issued. The advice of the attorneys, based on a full and fair disclosure of all material facts, is a complete defense to an action for malicious prosecution. These facts not being in dispute, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the appellees. Stanhope v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 210 Ky. 674, 276 S.W. 567 (1925); Reid v. True, Ky., 302 S.W.2d 846 (1957); Puckett v. Clark, Ky., 410 S.W.2d 154 (1966); Taylor v. Shepherd, 6 Cir., 391 F.2d 263 (1968).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
Exhibit 11

National Presto Industries, Inc.



The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be exercised.



(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)



Third Quarter
        
        First Nine Months2006
        
        2005
        
        2006
        
        2005Net Earnings (1)
        
        $
        7,180
        
        $
        2,657
        
        $
        12,712
        
        $
        5,507Weighted average common shares outstanding  (2)
        
        
        6,832
        
        
        6,826
        
        
        6,831
        
        
        6,825Common share equivalents relating to stock options when dilutive
        
        
        1
        
        
        2
        
        
        1
        
        
        2Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for computation  (3)
        
        
        6,833
        
        
        6,828
        
        
        6,832
        
        
        6,827Net earnings per share:Basic  (1 divided by 2)
        
        $
        1.05
        
        $
        0.39
        
        $
        1.86
        
        $
        0.81Diluted  (1 divided by 3)
        
        $
        1.05
        
        $
        0.39
        
        $
        1.86
        
        $
        0.81






---
(July 9, 1990)

#### Linda D. Anzalone and Another, Infants, by Their Father and Natural Guardian, James Anzalone, Respondents, v Scientific Exterminating Services Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Scientific Pest Control Corp., sued here as Scientific Exterminating Services Corp. and Scientific Termite-Proofing Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated July 21, 1988, which denied their motion for a final order of preclusion and for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, by adding a provision thereto conditioning the denial of the appellants’ motion on the plaintiffs’ attorney personally paying $1,000 to the appellants; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiffs’ attorney’s time to personally pay the $1,000 is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion. CPLR 3126 (3) affords the court discretion in imposing sanctions upon a party for refusal to comply with an order to disclose. The plaintiffs served the bill of particulars approximately 90 days following an order directing them to serve the bill within 45 days. The record indicates that the delay was the result of plaintiffs’ counsel moving his law office and was not the result of willful or contumacious behavior *(see, Gaylord Bros, v RND Co.,*134 *349AD2d 848). Moreover, since the order directing them to serve a bill of particulars within 45 days was not in the form of a conditional order of preclusion, it was appropriate for the court to find that the short delay did not justify granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs *(see, Perritt v Smith-town Gen. Hosp.,*122 AD2d 256).

However, in view of the failure of the plaintiffs’ attorney to timely comply with the order to disclose we deem it appropriate to require the plaintiffs’ attorney to personally pay the sum of $1,000 to the appellants. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### BROUSSARD v. G. B. ZIGLER CO. et al.

No. 1545.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1936.

Emile A. Carmouche, of Lake Charles, for appellants.

Griffin T. Hawkins, of Lake Charles, for .appellee.

OTT, Judge.

The minutes show that the case was tried in the district court of Jefferson Davis parish on April 16, 1935, and was to be argued and submitted after the evidence was filed; and it was agreed that the case .might be argued either at Jennings or Lake Charles.

The record shows that a judgment was ‘“read, rendered, and signed” at Lake •Charles, La., on the 26th day of August, 1935. The minutes of the court of Cal-casieu parish show, under date of September 17, 1935, that this case was transferred by consent of counsel to Calcasieu •parish for the purpose of arguing .the motion for a new trial, for decision thereon, and for appeal by either side; that on that day the motion for a new trial was argued and overruled. At the same time defendants were granted an appeal returnable to this court on October 15, 1935.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is based ■on the ground that the appeal was taken at a subsequent term of court from that in which the judgment was rendered and signed, and the appellee was not cited to answer the appeal in this court. From the order of appeal it does not appear that any citation of the appellee was asked for hy appellants nor ordered by the court.

From the rules of the Fourteenth judicial district court, in which the parishes of Calcasieu and Jefferson Davis are included, it appears that the terms of court begin on September 1st of each year and continue throughout the district for ten months in the year, ending June 30th. It follows that on September 17, 1935, when the order of appeal was entered in the case, the court was sitting at a term of court which began September 1st.

The judgment was rendered and signed on August 26, 1935, prior to the beginning of the term of court at which the order of appeal was granted, and under repeated decisions of the courts of this state, it wás necessary for a citation of appeal to issue to the appellee. As appellant did not ask for the citation of the appellee and as no such citation was ordered or issued, the appeal must be dismissed. Officer et al. v. American Ins. Co., 182 La. 1054, 162 So. 771; Jacobsen v. McGarry, 178 La. 79, 150 So. 838; Bass v. Lane et al., 169 La. 681, 125 So. 853.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32.2


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*


In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laurence A.
Schiffer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)       August 7, 2007


<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company
 and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities
 and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,469
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  133,168
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,985)
<INVENTORY>                                     46,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311,766
<PP&E>                                       2,254,747
<DEPRECIATION>                               (938,414)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,783,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,825
<BONDS>                                        578,907
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,378
<COMMON>                                       447,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     351,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,783,059
<SALES>                                        202,978
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,978
<CGS>                                          109,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,279
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00<F1>
<FN>
<F1>*All common stock is owned by parent, no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    NOV-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         AUG-27-1999
<CASH>                                       482
<SECURITIES>                               3,860
<RECEIVABLES>                              4,438
<ALLOWANCES>                                (488)
<INVENTORY>                                7,142
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          15,851
<PP&E>                                     1,893
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            16,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2,607
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                   1,533
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                11,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              16,002
<SALES>                                   16,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          17,059
<CGS>                                     10,448
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             14,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            2,687
<INCOME-TAX>                               1,077
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1,609
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               1,609
<EPS-BASIC>                               1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                               1.16


</TABLE>
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                     FORM 15

   Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration under 12(g) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty to File Reports
       Under Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        Commission File Number 333-24489
                         MORTGAGE CAPITAL FUNDING, INC.
                  (Issuer in respect of Multifamily/Commercial
              Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1998-MC3)
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                           399 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor
                            New York, New York 10043
                                 (212) 559-0163
   (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of
                    registrant's principal executive offices)

   Multifamily/Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1998-MC3
            (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)

                                 Not Applicable
   (Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to file reports
                     under section 13(a) or 15(d) remains)

     Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropriate rule
provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

        Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i)       [ ]          Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii)      [ ]
        Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii)      [ ]          Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i)       [ ]
        Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i)       [ ]          Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(ii)      [ ]
        Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii)      [ ]          Rule 15d-6                [x]
        Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i)       [ ]

     Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or
notice date: 46

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Mortgage Capital Funding, Inc. has caused this certification/notice to be signed
on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.

Dated as of: January 26, 1999                By:/s/ Michael J. Tarpley
                                                ----------------------
                                                Michael J. Tarpley
                                                Assistant Secretary

Instruction: This form is required by Rules 12g-4, 12h-3 and 15d-6 of the
General Rules and Regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
registrant shall file with the Commission three copies of Form 15, one of which
shall be manually signed. It may be signed by an officer of the registrant, by
counsel or by any other duly authorized person. The name and title of the person
signing the form shall be typed or printed under the signature.
#### Ross Hurley HUNT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 45512, 45513.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 12, 1972.

Jerry D. Birdwell, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and James B. Scott, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

These appeals are from convictions for the offense of unlawful delivery of a dangerous drug [Article 726d, Sec. 3(a), Vernon’s Ann.P.C.] to-wit: Methamphetamine. The punishment was assessed at five years in each case.

Appellant’s sole ground of error attacks the sufficiency of the evidence.

The record shows that appellant entered a plea of guilty before the jury to both offenses herein, after he had agreed to try said causes together. He testified and confessed his guilt from the witness stand.

This court has consistently held that a plea of guilty to a felony charge before a jury admits the existence of all facts necessary to establish guilt, and in such cases the introduction of evidence is to aid the jury in assessing punishment. See, e. g., Alexander v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 44; Maldonado v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 467 S.W.2d 468.

The judgments are affirmed.
**Exhibit 35.1**

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify to WaMu AssetAcceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2006 (the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee,and Christiana Bank & Trust, as Delaware Trustee the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2006-AR3 for the 2006 fiscal year  (the “Relevant Year”):

1.                  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has beenmade under my supervision.

2.                  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the ServicingAgreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year, except as set forth in paragraph 3 below.

 

3.         Washington Mutual Bank improperly approved for repurchase by Washington MutualMortgage Securities Corp. four loans from WMALT Series 2006-AR3 in December 2006.  Each loan was believed to be in breach of the representation that no loan is delinquent as of the applicable cut-off date of the securitization.  It was determined that theloans were not delinquent as of the applicable cut-off date.  

Dated as of March 15, 2007.

 

|            */s/ H. John Berens*_________________________________________Name:  H. John BerensTitle:    Senior Vice President |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




NRG Energy, Inc.




NEO 2004AIP Payout and 2005 Base Salary Table




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	2004 Annual Incentive Plan Payout	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Deferred	 	2005 Base
	Name	 	Title	 	Total Value	 	Cash	 	Stock Units	 	Salary
	David W. Crane

	 	President and Chief
Executive Officer
	 	$	1,312,500	 	 	$	590,625	 	 	$	721,875	 	 	$	919,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Robert C. Flexon

	 	Executive Vice
President and Chief
Financial Officer
	 	$	400,000	 	 	$	185,000	 	 	$	215,000	 	 	$	450,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	John P. Brewster

	 	Executive Vice
President,
International
Operations and
Regional President,
South Central
Region
	 	$	216,000	 	 	$	96,750	 	 	$	119,250	 	 	$	309,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Scott J. Davido

	 	Executive Vice
President and
Regional President,
Northeast Region
	 	$	210,000	 	 	$	93,750	 	 	$	116,250	 	 	$	309,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Timothy W. J.
O’Brien

	 	Vice President,
General Counsel and
Secretary
	 	$	203,000	 	 	$	90,625	 	 	$	112,375	 	 	$	299,000
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6869 

To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque 

and reprisal for the purpose of seizing the assets of certain Russian 

citizens, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2022 

Mr. GOODEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the President of the United States to issue 

letters of marque and reprisal for the purpose of seizing 

the assets of certain Russian citizens, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF MARQUE AND RE4 PRISAL FOR PURPOSE OF SEIZING ASSETS OF 

5 CERTAIN RUSSIAN CITIZENS. 

6 (a) AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.—The President of 

7 the United States is authorized and requested to commis8 sion, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6869 IH

1 so many of privately armed and equipped persons and en2 tities as, in the judgment of the President, the service may 

3 require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, 

4 to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside 

5 the geographic boundaries of the United States and its 

6 territories any yacht, plane, or other asset of any Russian 

7 citizen who is on the List of Specially Designated Nation8 als and Blocked Persons maintained by the Office of For9 eign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury. 

10 (b) SECURITY BONDS.—No letter of marque and re11 prisal shall be issued by the President without requiring 

12 the posting of a security bond in such amount as the 

13 President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the 

14 letter be executed according to the terms and conditions 

15 thereof. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS