alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.a



CERTIFICATION



I, David Morris, Principal Executive Officer of Blink Logic Inc. (the Company), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, that:



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



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



|                    |  |                                                                 
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 20, 2009 |  | /s/David Morris
David Morris
President & Chief Executive Officer
[No. 34326.

Department Two.

February 20, 1958.]

#### Clinton R. Perkins, Appellant, v. King County *et al., Respondents.**1*

*Wright & Wright,*for appellant.

*Charles O. Carroll*and *Charles R. Lonergan, Jr.,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 321 P. (2d) 903.

Finley, J.

This is an action for refund of eight thousand dollars, which sum, pursuant to RCW 28.45.010, was paid to King county as excise tax on a sale of real estate.

*762The facts are not in dispute. In March, 1955, plaintiff sold the Frye Hotel on contract, paid the excise tax as indicated above, and recorded the real-estate contract in the office of the King county auditor. Thereafter, a dispute arose between seller and purchaser. A lawsuit was started to forfeit the real-estate contract. The parties reached an agreement under- which the real-estate contract was rescinded and the lawsuit was settled. Plaintiff’s application to the county treasurer for a refund of excise tax was denied. He then initiated this action in the superior court for refund of the tax. A demurrer was sustained, and the action was dismissed. This appeal followed.

RCW 28.45.010 and King County Resolution No. 16360 impose an excise tax on sales of real estate. A sale is defined, in part, as

> “. . . any conveyance . . . of . . . property . . . and any contract for such conveyance ... or other contract under which possession of the property is given to the purchaser ...” RCW 28.45.010.

The constitutionality of the real- estate excise tax was questioned and was upheld, as applied in *Mahler v. Tremper,*40 Wn. (2d) 405, 243 P. (2d) 627.

In the instant case, the appellant urges that rescission of the contract vitiated the sale completely, — in legal effect as though it had never occurred; and that, under the doctrine of *unjust enrichment,*the tax should be refunded by the county. The argument is an ingenious and superficially persuasive one. However, it is indigenous to the field of contract law. There, it is homogeneous, its thesis workable and proper. We are not able to comprehend its applicability in the field of taxation — at least, under the facts of the instant case.

The actions of the parties in rescinding the real-estate contract certainly altered their legal relationships and, fictionally, may have vitiated the sale as far as their legal responsibilities were concerned. However, taxwise, their actions did not alter the facts of life: a sale, as defined by RCW 28.45.010, had been consummated, and a so-called taxable event or incident had occurred within the *763contemplation of the statute. The tax accrued. It was paid by the real-estate vendor to the proper county official. That should be — and as far as we are concerned it is — the end of the matter, because the legislature made no provision in the tax statute for a refund of the. excise imposed and collected under the circumstances involved in the instant case. Whether the statute as written and presently administered should be changed, is a matter of tax policy that must be determined by the legislature, not by the courts.

The judgment is affirmed.

Hill, C. J., Donworth, Rosellini, and Foster, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             112
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,442
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,811
<PP&E>                                         241,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 754,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         4,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     273,569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   754,735
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,509
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,549
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,127)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3,072)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,652
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,707)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    79.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of the United States Code**

 

I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

 

 

|   |   |   | /s/ E. James Ferland                    |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | **E. James Ferland**                    |
|   |   |   | Public Service Electric and Gas Company |
|   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                 |
|   |   |   | November 1, 2006                        |

 

 

 

----
Exhibit 10.26




Exhibit
10.26




M/I
Homes

Award
Formulas and Performance Goals

Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer

Effective
January 1, 2005







In
accordance with the terms of the M/I Homes 2004 Executive Officer Compensation
Plan (the “Plan”), the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) shall, for each
Participant, establish the award formulas and performance goals (as those terms
are defined in the Plan) annually to be measured to determine the amount of
bonus awards for each Plan Year. The following are the performance goals and
award formulas for the 2005 Plan Year for the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer.
As stated in the Plan, the maximum amount that any Executive Officer can receive
in one year is 500% of his 2004 base salary. 





	
      I.
	 	
      Actual
      Net Income:
       In the event the actual net income of the Company is at least 75% of
      budgeted net income, the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer will receive 70%
      of December 31 base salary. A maximum of 219% will be earned at 100% of
      budgeted income achievement; 9% higher than 2004’s achievement.
      

	 	 	 
	
      II.
	 	
      Customer
      Service:
      If 92% of the Company’s homeowners respond “yes” to Question #14 on the
      related questionnaire, the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer will receive
      50% of December 31 base salary. A maximum bonus of 73% will be earned at
      100% customer satisfaction achievement. If the actual net income of the
      Company is less than 50% of budget, a bonus will not be earned for this
      criteria.

	 	 	 
	
      III.
	 	
      Return
      on Beginning Equity (“ROE”): 
      If the ROE of the Company is 10%, the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer
      will receive 50% of December 31 base salary, with the amount increasing to
      a maximum of 73% at a 20% ROE achievement.










2005 cash
bonus is capped at 350% of 12/31/05 base salary.




PAYMENT




The
individual must be employed in this capacity with the Company on the date
bonuses are distributed to receive a bonus. No amounts are considered due or
payable if the employment relationship with the Company is terminated.





ACKNOWLEDGED:





	 	 	 
	
      Name
	 	
      Date
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

RAMEL WALTERS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 989

[ June 17, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Kirk C. Volker , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 1999

- CF

- 001235

- AXXXX

- MB

.
Ramel Walters, Bowling Green, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

L EVINE , C .J., D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 1-3 Filed 08/10/04 Page 18 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Patricia Donovan

v. Case No. 05-cv-211-SM

Linda Whalen

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.2

DOCUMENT/FILER: #35, Response to Defendant’s Objection for Temporary Injunction,

#35, Response to Defendant’s Objection to Motion to Compel

 filed by Plaintiff

DATE FILED: November 1, 2005

The documents above fail to comply with: 

LR 7.1(e)(3) Surreply memo is not permitted without prior leave of court

It is herewith ordered that the documents is stricken, returned herewith to the

submitting party, and must be refiled. 

SO ORDERED.

November 4, 2005 _______________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Patricia Donovan, pro se

Michael Sheehan, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00211-SM Document 37 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 1
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
MILOS PUACA, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERA NS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

______________________

2014

- 3173

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. CH

- 0432

- 12

- 0595 -I- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Milos Puaca moves for a 60

- day extension of time, until December 16, 2014, to file his opening brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted. Case: 14-3173 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2014PUACA v. DVA 2

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s21 Case: 14-3173 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2014
#### BENOIT v. BURKE.

No. 1994.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 6, 1939.

Chas. C. Jaubert, of Lake Charles, 'for appellant.

Robt. R. Stone, of Lake Charles, for ap-pellee.

OTT, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the case of Leon Myers v. John T. Burke, La.App., 189 So. 482, this day decided, it is ordered that the judgment herein appealed from be and the same is hereby annulled, avoided and reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment herein in favor of the plaintiff, Louis *485Benoit, and against the defendant, John T. Burke, in the full sum of one hundred dollars, with legal interest thereon from judicial demand until paid, and for cost in both courts.
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 333-32065

                                 $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 November 17, 1997 (To Prospectus Supplement, dated
August 27, 1997, to Prospectus, dated August 27, 1997).

                              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:                             6.75% Subordinated Notes Due
                                            November 15, 2009 (the "Notes").

Aggregate
Principal Amount:                           $9,728,000.00.

Price to Public:                            100.00%.

Issue Date:                                 November 20, 1997.

Stated Maturity Date:                       November 15, 2009.

Interest Rate:                              6.75%.

Interest Payment Dates:                     Monthly, on the 15th day of each
                                            month, commencing in December 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 November 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 & Co.

Agent's Commission:                         2.00%.

Minimum Denomination:                       $1,000.

CUSIP Number:                               17303 MHJ 1.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey Bennett

Bennett Law Firm PA

v. NH Civil No. 1:04-ds-401-PB

ME Civil No. 2:04-cv-212-GNZ

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company

Westport Insurance Corporation

O R D E R

 Defendant is ordered to file in camera all documents

withheld from discovery on the basis of attorney/client privilege

and/or work product protection. The documents are to be grouped

by discovery request number and sub-grouped into attorney/client,

work product or both. Filing is to be made by August 31, 2005. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 8, 2005

cc: Jens-Peter W. Bergen, Esq.

 Anne H. Cressey, Esq.

 Paul S. Douglass, Esq.

 U.S. District Court-ME, Clerk

 John S. Whitman, Esq.

Case 1:04-ds-00401-PB Document 34 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 1
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                         Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
President of Pyramid Oil Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



     Dated: November 14, 2005

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                                   President


























PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 99.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                       As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Pyramid Oil Company (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




     Date: November 14, 2005

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
#### The State, ex rel. Bricker, Atty. Genl., *v.*Goldenberg.

(No. 24533

Decided January 11, 1934.)

*Mr. John W. Bricher,*attorney general, *Mr. Joseph Godown*and *Mr. Isadore Topper,*for relator.

*Mr. Stanley Schwarts,*for respondent.

Now comes the state of Ohio by John W. Bricker, attorney general, and also comes the defendant, Harry Max Goldenberg, in person, and the said Harry Max Goldenberg enters his plea of guilty of the charges contained in the information in contempt filed herein. And the said defendant being now before the court for sentence and having nothing further to say, it is ordered and adjudged that said defendant pay to the clerk of this court a fine of one hundred dollars and that he pay the costs in this case to be taxed, and that he stand committed to the jail of the county of Franklin in the state of Ohio, at Columbus, Ohio, until such *594fine and costs are paid, or until otherwise discharged by law.

It is therefore ordered that the marshal of this court be charged with the custody of said defendant, and upon failure by him to pay said fine and costs, that said marshal shall deliver said defendant in person to the custody of the sheriff of said Franklin county, at the county jail for service of said fine and costs.

*Plea of guilty accepted.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Second Amendment to 2002 Long-Term Retention and Incentive Plan


 Exhibit 10.37 
  
 Second Amendment to the 
 BlackRock, Inc. 2002 Long-Term Retention and Incentive Plan 
  
 1. Sections 5(e), (f) and (h) of the BlackRock, Inc. 2002 Long-Term Retention and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) are each hereby amended, effective as of the date hereof, by inserting “; provided, however,
that the Committee may provide for different treatment in any award agreement” at the end of such section. 
  
 2. In all other respects the Plan is hereby confirmed. 
  
 Dated this 11th day of November,
2004.
| (logo) WELLS

            FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainTrust and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 29, 2018, by and among J.P.Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2018-AVM (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.7 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, ManagingDirector of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.           Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the period from June 29, 2018through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.           To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2019.

 

 

/s/ Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|