alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
        32.02**
 
 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 Quarterly Report of Westside Energy Corporation (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"),
        the
        undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
        certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.
 
 Dated:
                  May 21, 2007
              /s/
                  Sean J. AustinSean
                  J. Austin,Chief
                  Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02272-WJM-MEH

GERUN L. SCURLOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWES HIW, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 2, 2012.

In light of the settlement of this case, Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs as

a Sanction Against Plaintiff for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Governing Rules [filed

February 29, 2012; docket #31] is denied as moot. 

Case 1:11-cv-02272-WJM-MEH Document 38 Filed 04/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### GLENS FALLS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company of Baltimore, Maryland, and George A. Hicks, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. Fuller WARREN, Governor of the State of Florida, for the use and benefit of HUGHES SUPPLY COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Sept. 28, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1954.

Rogers, Towers & Bailey, Jacksonville, Sanchez, Watkins & Watkins, Tallahassee, and J. L. Blackwell, Live Oak, for appellants.

. Cross & Hawes, Gainesville, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of J. B. McCrary Co. v. Dade County, 80 Fla. 652, 86 So. 612; City of Ocala for Use of Standard Oil Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 99 Fla. 736, 127 So. 326, 77 A.L.R. 8. See also Warren, Governor, for Use and Benefit of Hughes Supply Co. v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co., Fla., 66 So.2d 54.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, SE-BRING and HOBSON, JJ., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.
Exhibit 32.1

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vita Food Products, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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.

 
| Date: May 15, 2007 |   |                                   |
|--------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|               |   | /s/ Clifford K.  Bolen                 |
|               |   | Clifford K.  Bolen,                    |
|               |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|               |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

20

----
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending June 12, 2021

----

Bank Holding Companies            SVB Financial Group, Santa Clara, California -- (1) to merge with Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, and thereby indirectly acquire Boston Private Bank & Trust Company (BP Bank); (2) for Silicon Valley Bank (SVB Bank), Santa Clara, California, to merge with BP Bank and establish branches at the main-office and branch locations of BP Bank; and (3) for SVB Bank to change the general character of its business to engage in trust activities.            -Approved, June 9, 2021            Enforcement            SunTrust Bank, Atlanta, Georgia -- consent order dated November 19, 2019, terminated June 10, 2021.            -Announced, June 10, 2021            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
Order entered September 29, 2020 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00706-CV 

IN RE L.C. AKA S.R.M., Relators 

Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-07925Y 

ORDER 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relators’ petition for 

writ of mandamus without prejudice to refiling a petition that complies with the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. We also LIFT our stay order issued on 

August 5, 2020. 

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

 JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 10.41

                 WAIVER OF DEBT COVENANTS FROM SUB-DEBT HOLDERS



March 5, 1998



Mr. Richard R. Current, EVP
Medar, Inc.
38700 Grand River Avenue
Farmington Hills, MI  48335-1563

Ladies & Gentlemen:

Reference is made to the Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement dated as of July
15, 1997, as amended, among you and the undersigned (the "Agreement"). You
recently informed us that, based on the December 31, 1997 financial results of
Medar, Inc. (the "Company"), the Company is in default as of such date under
Section 8.1 of the Agreement. The undersigned hereby waive the above-described
default and agree not to declare an event of Default, or exercise any other
remedies, as a result of said default.

The waiver set forth in this letter shall not be deemed a waiver of any future
default or Event of Default, including under the same Section referenced above.
This waiver is conditional, however, upon the Company's and our receipt of a
written waiver of all the comparable defaults arising under the Senior
Indebtedness in effect on the date hereof, as defined in the Agreement.

Very truly yours,



State Street Bank and Trust Company,
as Trustee for
THE TEXTRON MASTER TRUST



By:  /S/Thomas C. Poppey
     --------------------------------------------
        Name:   Thomas C. Poppey
        Title:  Assistant Vice President




















                                    Page 44
Presidential Documents

57229 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 191 

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Executive Order 13474 of September 26, 2008 

Amendments to Executive Order 12962 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, and in order to conserve, restore, 

and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing 

opportunities nationwide, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1. Executive Order 12962 of June 7, 1995, is hereby amended: 

(a) in the preamble, by striking ‘‘and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (16 U.S.C 1801–1882)’’ and inserting before ‘‘, and 

other pertinent statutes,’’ the following: 

‘‘the National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-ee), the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), 

the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Wilderness 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the Coastal Zone Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 

U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)’’; and 

(b) by redesignating subsections (d) through (i) in section 1 as subsections 

(e) through (j), respectively, and inserting after subsection (c) the following 

new subsection: 

‘‘(d) ensuring that recreational fishing shall be managed as a sustainable 

activity in national wildlife refuges, national parks, national monuments, 

national marine sanctuaries, marine protected areas, or any other relevant 

conservation or management areas or activities under any Federal authority, 

consistent with applicable law;’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
57230 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 1, 2008 / Presidential Documents 

Sec. 2. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or 

benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any 

party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, 

its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 26, 2008 

[FR Doc. E8–23235 

Filed 9–30–08; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND.

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                MAY-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                 APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       0
<PP&E>                                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  0
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                       76,000
<COMMON>                                                           2,176
<OTHER-SE>                                                       167,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    (245,590)
<SALES>                                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       0
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           0
<EPS-BASIC>                                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sherrill L. White

v. Civil No. 08-cv-206-JL

Mark L. Sisti

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with the Order dated June 23, 2009, by United States District Judge

Joseph N. Laplante, judgment is hereby entered.

By the Court,

/s/ Deborah A. Eastman-Proulx

Deborah A. Eastman-Proulx, Deputy Clerk

June 24, 2009

cc: Sherrill L. White, pro se

Christopher D. Hawkins, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00206-JL Document 29 Filed 06/24/09 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 Quarterly Report of Westside Energy Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof
("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.

Dated: May 19, 2006              /s/ Jimmy D. Wright
                                 -------------------
                                 Jimmy D. Wright
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS Document 10 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS Document 10 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS Document 10 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
#### Arnold Ceglia et al., Respondents, v Marine Midland Bank, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 470]

In an action for a judgment declaring the amount due on a line of credit agreement, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated May 1,2001, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment in its favor on its first, second, ánd fifth counterclaims.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the motion and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion to the extent of granting partial summary judgment to the appellant on the issue of *474liability on the first, second, and fifth counterclaims; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court erred in denying, as premature, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its first, second, and fifth counterclaims, to recover on a line of credit agreement and guarantee and for the costs of enforcing the agreement and guarantee. The defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting proof that the plaintiff Sky-Sea Forwarding Corp. (hereinafter Sky-Sea) defaulted on its obligations under the line of credit agreement and that the plaintiff Arnold Ceglia failed to honor his guarantee of Sky-Sea’s obligations *(see Governor & Co. of Bank of Ireland v Dromoland Castle,*212 AD2d 759). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of a defense to the counterclaims. However, they did demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether they are entitled to certain offsets. The plaintiffs came forward with evidence that Sky-Sea was charged certain fees in breach of an oral agreement that such fees would not be charged. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the alleged oral agreement does not contradict the terms of its “Rules for Deposit Accounts” which authorize, but do not require, the imposition of such fees. Consequently, there is an issue of fact as to the amount owed by the plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on its first, second, and fifth counterclaims.

In making our determination, we have not considered matter in the plaintiffs’ brief which is dehors the record, nor their argument based upon it. Santucci, J.P., Altman, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




CERTIFICATE
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Foldera, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Richard Lusk, Chief
      Executive Officer, 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.


May 14, 2007/s/
                Richard LuskRichard Lusk
                Chief Executive
                  Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,893
<SECURITIES>                                     3,604
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                       636
<INVENTORY>                                      7,813
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,829
<PP&E>                                         104,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,465
<BONDS>                                         63,370
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,261
<SALES>                                        184,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               184,804
<CGS>                                          108,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,038
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,240
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,798
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,798
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55


</TABLE>
#### The State, ex rel. Campbell, Pros. Atty., *v.*Court of Appeals of Seventh Judicial District, etc.

(No. 24663

— Decided October 17, 1934.)

*Mr. Willard D. Campbell,*prosecuting attorney, for relator.

*Mr. Milton H. Turner,*for respondents.

This is an original action in mandamus and *procedendo*filed in this, court on February 24, 1934. The action was brought against the three then living members of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Judicial District, wherein the relator sought a writ of mandamus compelling the individual members of that court “to specify the error or errors found upon which said judgment of reversal is based ** * **and to specify in writing- the grounds of such reversal and make the same a part of the record in the ease as provided by law.”

It appears that one E. D. Shively had been convicted in a criminal prosecution and- that the Court of Appeals, on review, had reversed the judgment of conviction. After the announcement of the judgment on November 17, 1933, counsel for the state and for the defendant disagreed as to the form of journal entry. This disagreement continued until January 10, 1934, when a journal entry, approved by one of the judges since deceased, was filed and spread upon the journals of the Court of Appeals, reciting that, “The Court find that there is error apparent upon the facs *552of the record in the admission of incompetent testimony to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error, E. D. Shively.” Thereupon the court reversed the judgnlent for said assigned reason, ordered that a new trial be granted and that the cause be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings according to law. In the petition for a writ of manda•mus, the relator asks that the judges of that court be compelled, as heretofore stated, to specify the errors found and to state more specifically the grounds of reversal.

Since this action was instituted in this court two of the respondent judges of the Court of Appeals, concurring in the reversal, have died, and no substitution of parties has been made. However, were substitution to be made, it is apparent that the' two new judges would be unable to determine the mental processes or the exact reasons that caused the two deceased judges to concur in the judgment of reversal; therefore a writ of mandamus .compelling new judges to ascertain such reasons would be wholly unavailing in the existing situation.

The relator has not established a clear, present right to the remedy he now seeks and the prayer for a writ of mandamus will be denied.

Since it appears that the state has filed its motion to certify the record and for leave to file a petition in error from the judgment of the Court of Appeals, we do not pass upon the merits or upon the legal sufficiency of the journal entry or whether it is an insufficient compliance with Sections 12248 and 12273, General Code. Those questions will be considered upon the hearing of the motion for certification and for leave to file.

*Writs denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., ¡Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-45-01-SM

Jose Rosario Santana

O R D E R

Defendant Santana’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 11). Trial has been rescheduled for the August 2008

trial period. Defendant Santana shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than June 2, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: July 25, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: August 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00045-SM Document 12 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

May 19, 2008

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00045-SM Document 12 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 2