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 Quarterly Report of Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 result of operations of the
                Company.





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








/s/
      Richard E.
      Gathright


Richard
      E. Gathright


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


February
      14, 2006








/s/
      Michael S.
      Shore


Michael
      S. Shore


Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


February
      14, 2006






38
1

 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin, who as of

Feb. 14, 2013 has been named as the Acting Commissioner, is automatically substituted for Michael J.

Astrue as the defendant in this suit.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02463-REB

JENNIFER J. JOHANTGEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.1

FINAL JUDGMENT

This Final Judgment is entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) and in

accordance with the Order Affirming Commissioner [#17] entered by Judge Robert E.

Blackburn on March 22, 2013, which order is incorporated herein by this reference.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the conclusion of the Commissioner through

the Administrative Law Judge that plaintiff was not disabled is AFFIRMED.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 29th day of March, 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/Edward P. Butler 

Edward P. Butler

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02463-REB Document 18 Filed 03/29/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-229-PB

Scott McLain

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the February 6, 2007

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

complete discovery and prepare a defense. The government does

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 6, 2007 to May 1, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00229-PB Document 8 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 25, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 19, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 25, 2007

cc: Peter Papps, AUSA

Jonathan Saxe, Esq. 

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00229-PB Document 8 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2
# EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION

I, Gregory A. Wells, Chief Financial Officer of NTS
Capital Corporation, the general partner of NTS-Properties Associates IV, the general partner
of NTS-Properties IV (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | 1. | The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Partnership for the annual period ended
          December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies 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 Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 26, 2004

/s/ Gregory A. Wells

---

Chief Financial Officer of NTS Capital
Corporation,
General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates IV,
General Partner of NTS-Properties IV

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be
retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### Simon SIMRING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Jan. 25, 1955.

Rehearing Denied March 1, 1955.

Hubbard & Everett, Miami, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Moie J. L. Tendrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

HOBSON, Justice.

Appellant was tried on two separate in-formations: (1) #6075, which charged him with *possession*of obscene literature *for purposes of sale,*and (2) #6076, which charged him with *sale*of obscene literature. He was convicted and sentenced under each information. On motion of the State, appellant was required to elect the case he desired to appeal, under the principle we announced in Rocklin v. State, Fla., 61 So.2d 484. On July 24, 1954 he filed notice that he elected case #6075 as the one from which this appeal should stand.

Appellant first contends that it was error to admit in evidence the obscene literature obtained as the result of an unreasonable “search”. The record, however, shows an unmistakable case of consent, in that the appellant freely admitted his automobile contained obscene literature, and he himself opened the trunk to disclose it.

The next contention is that a confession was obtained from appellant by putting him in fear. This is not supported by the record, which shows that the officer merely tapped appellant on the shoulder, exhibited his badge, and said, “I want to talk to you,” whereupon appellant urinated in his trousers and “started shaking awfully”. Although appellant was apparently in fear, it was not the fear of a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances. Stated differently, it was not the reaction of a reasonable man to so mild an approach. Declarations against interest which were thereafter made 'by appellant were entirely voluntary, by any objective standard.

*834Appellant further contends that it was error to admit evidence of a sale of obscene literature to the witness Takacs when appellant was informed against for the sale of literature to one Kindt. The court instructed the jury that this testimony was to be considered only for its hearing upon “the question of intent or the purpose for which the defendant had in his possession these things * * * ” For its hearing on the *purpose*for which appellant had the literature in his possession in Case #6075 (possession for purposes of sale) this evidence was patently unobjectionable, and Case #6075 is the only one before us, by appellant’s own election.

Other points are raised, but we have considered them and find them to be without merit on this record.

Affirmed.

MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
#### KNABB v. KNABB.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
Fourth Department,

August, 1990

(August 10,1990)

#### Innovative Chemical Corporation, Respondent, v Howe Plastics & Chemical Companies, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: *966Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for leave to renew its prior consolidation motion and plaintiffs summary judgment motion. The renewal was based on evidence existing at the time of the prior motion, and defendant has failed to provide a valid excuse for not submitting the additional evidence in the original application *(see, Monroe Dewey Partners v MDR Dev.,*159 AD2d 949; *Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558, 568). In addition, we find that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has submitted evidence in admissible form demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant’s opposition consists of averments made by its attorney which were not made on personal knowledge. They have no probative value *(see, Matter of Johnson v Sharpe,*66 AD2d 955). Finally, defendant has failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the Erie County action and the New York County action contain common issues of law and fact, thus making consolidation inappropriate *(see,*CPLR 602 [a]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—change of venue.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 151 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 151

To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of the State 
                 of California, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of the State 
                 of California, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``California Ocean and Coastal 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE 
              OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act or any other law and except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), beginning on the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
        conduct of oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related 
        activities is prohibited in areas of the outer Continental 
        Shelf located off the coast of the State of California.
            ``(2) Effect.--Nothing in this subsection affects any 
        rights under leases issued under this Act before the date of 
        enactment of this subsection.''.

SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND 
              NATURAL GAS RESOURCES.

    Section 357(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
15912(a)) is amended by inserting after ``Continental Shelf'' the 
following: ``(other than the areas of the outer Continental Shelf off 
the coast of the State of California)''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:11-cv-02500-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02500-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02500-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ALPINE EQUIPMENT FUNDING, INC., A

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

v.

U.S. SEWER AND DRAIN CAYMAN, LTD., ALSO KNOWN AS U.S. SEWER AND DRAIN CAYMAN, LLC; U.S. SEWER AND DRAIN, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION; JEREMEY R. BOWMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL; U.S. PIPELINING, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND LISA G. BOWMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL

PETITION OF: U.S. PIPELINING, LLC, A

PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND LISA G. BOWMAN, AN

INDIVIDUA L :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 238 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 11



NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share

(Amounts in Thousands  Except Per Share Data)



|                                           |  |                                   |        |                                 |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |       
|------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------- | ------ | ------------------------------- | - | ------ |  | ---- | ------ |  | - | ------
|                                           |  | For the Three MonthsEnded June 30 |        | For the Six MonthsEnded June 30
|                                           |  | 2005                              |        | 2004                            |   | 2005   |  | 2004
|Net income                                 |  | $                                 | 6,459  |                                 | $ | 4,648  |  | $    | 11,148 |  | $ | 9,045 
|                                           |  |                                   |        |                                 |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Weighted average common shares outstanding |  |                                   | 15,005 |                                 |   | 15,005 |  |      | 15,005 |  |   | 15,005
|                                           |  |                                   |        |                                 |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Basic and diluted earnings per share       |  | $                                 | .43    |                                 | $ | .31    |  | $    | .74    |  | $ | .60   
|                                           |  |                                   |        |                                 |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |
1

Plaintiffs also attach a copy of the October 19, 2012 subpoena issued from this Court to

Waterous Company in St. Paul, MN; however, the Court quashed this subpoena on October 31,

2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02632-CMA-MEH

BARBARA CHURCH, individually, and

BARBARA CHURCH, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Church,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DANA KEPNER COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 6, 2012.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas for Confidential Settlement Agreements,

Motion for Protective Order of Confidential Settlement Agreements, Motion for Stay of Subpoenas

and Motion for Costs [filed November 2, 2012; docket #47] is granted in part and denied without

prejudice in part as follows. 

First, with respect to the motion to quash, the Court has already determined in its October

31, 2012 order that it has no jurisdiction to enforce subpoenas duces tecum issued from this Court

and served upon holders of documents in other districts, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(C). See

docket #45. Therefore, the subpoenas listed in Exhibit B to the present motion (docket #47-2) that

are issued from this Court and served upon the following recipients in other districts are quashed:

1. Custodian of Records for California Water Service, Co., San Jose, CA;

2. Custodian of Records for Familian Corp., Los Angeles, CA;

3. Custodian of Records for Hallstar Services Corp., Los Angeles, CA;

4. Custodian of Records for John K. Bice Co., Fullerton, CA; and

5. Custodian of Records for Slakey Brothers, Inc., Elk Grove, CA.1

With respect to the remaining requests for relief, in the interests of judicial economy and the

efficient management of its docket, the Court will deny the Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice for

seeking multiple requests for relief in a single motion in contravention of D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1C

(“A motion shall be made in a separate paper.”). The Plaintiffs may renew their request(s) in

accordance with this order and the applicable rules on or before November 13, 2012, after which

Case 1:11-cv-02632-CMA-MEH Document 52 Filed 11/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

time the stay, as provided in D.C. Colo. LCivR 30.2A, will no longer remain in effect.

Case 1:11-cv-02632-CMA-MEH Document 52 Filed 11/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

March 3, 2000

Mr. Markos I. Tambakeras
77 North Woodland Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15232

Re:  Pension Benefits

Dear Mr. Tambakeras:

Reference is hereby made to your Executive Employment Agreement dated as of May
4, 1999 with Kennametal Inc.

Each of the amounts set forth in Column B on Schedule I, the Supplemental
Benefit Table, of your Executive Employment Agreement is hereby increased by
$96,896. Your Executive Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect in
all other respects.

Please indicate your acceptance to this change in your Executive Employment
Agreement by signing below.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        KENNAMETAL INC.

                                        By: /s/ William R. Newlin
                                           -------------------------------------
                                            Authorized Officer

        /s/ Markos I. Tambakeras
   ----------------------------------
          Markos I. Tambakeras
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as *

provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral **

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court ***

for Western Michigan, Grand Rapids, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

VINCENT EDWARD CANTU,

 Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50597

D.C. No. 8:08-cr-00236-CJC-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Pasadena, California

Before: RYMER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District

Judge.*** 

Defendant, Vincent Edward Cantu, appeals the 162-month sentence he received

FILED

APR 15 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

after pleading guilty to two counts of armed robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a) and (d), and one count of brandishing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A).

First, Defense counsel’s vague objection that the prosecutor’s reference at

sentencing to Defendant’s having robbed other banks as not “appropriate” was

insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. See United States v. Cannel, 517 F.3d

1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition, under the proffer agreement, the

Government was free to use Defendant’s proffer statements to refute his lawyer’s

sentencing brief that Defendant “had no prior history of robberies or gun-related

crimes.” Furthermore, Cantu cannot establish prejudice. United States v. Marcus, 130

S. Ct. 2159, 2164 (2010). There is no indication that the district court even considered

the other robberies in determining the sentence.

Second, Defendant’s sentence was reasonable. The district court properly

considered the Defendant’s former occupation as a police officer both as a mitigating

and as an aggravating factor. See United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 874 (9th Cir.

2009). The district court also properly explained its reasons for imposing the sentence

it did and articulated that reasoning to a sufficient degree to allow for meaningful

appellate review. United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-517 (9th Cir.

2008). 

Third, Defendant was punished only once for brandishing a firearm with respect

to each robbery – via a sentencing enhancement as to the first and via § 924(c) as to
3

the second. 

Finally, Defendant makes no affirmative allegation that he did not read the

PSR; therefore he cannot show prejudice and any Rule 32(i)(1)(A) error is harmless.

See e.g., United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 863-64 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam);

United States v. Davila-Escovedo, 36 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, Defendant’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
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 Sbarro, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Beaudrault, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 10, 2010                   
|                                     
|/s/ Peter Beaudrault                 
|Peter Beaudrault                     
|Chairman of the Board of Directors,  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)        

NOTE: A
signed original of this certification 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.