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

 

Certification PursuantTo 18 U.S.C. 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cyanotech Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gerald R. Cysewski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)                                      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

 

2)                                      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | November 12, 2003 |   | /s/                                     | Gerald R. Cysewski |   |
|--------|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|   |                   |   | *Chairman of the Board of Directors,*   |
|   |                   |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
#### GREEN MACHINERY COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. Mary Charlotte SMITHEE, Administratrix of the Estate of W. A. Smithee, Appellee.

No. 8149.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

July 12, 1971.

*280Morehead, Sharp, Tisdel & Gibbins, John F. Morehead, Plainview, for appellant.

Robert E. Montgomery, Memphis, for appellee.

JOY, Justice.

This action involves a suit upon an open account brought against the estate of the deceased W. A. Smithee by Green Machinery Company, Inc. Summary judgment was granted against plaintiff below and hence this appeal.

Affirmed.

Appellant in its petition alleged it had sold goods and services to the deceased in August and September of 1967. Upon the death of W. A. Smithee, the widow qualified as temporary administratrix of the estate on March 20, 1968. On May 27, 1968, appellant mailed its claim to appellee’s attorney. On May 28, the claim was presented to the appellee administratrix, who refused to take any action thereon. The affidavit accompanying appellee’s motion for summary judgment in the trial court stated the claim was filed May 28, 1968 and the date was not controverted. Appellant filed suit against the appellee adminis-tratrix on September 16, 1969.

A claim against an estate is deemed to have been rejected by the representative of the estate 30 days from the date of the filing thereof. Section 310, Texas Probate Code, V.A.T.C.S.; (all sections hereinafter are Texas Probate Code); Childre v. Childre, 417 S.W.2d 464 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1967, no writ history). Whether the claim is rejected by the representative as provided in Section 309, or by operation of law as provided by Section 310, is immaterial. The claim stands rejected in either event and Section 313 requires that suit be brought within 90 days thereafter or the “claim shall be barred.” The appellant here had 90 days from June 27, 1968, within which to bring its suit. Having brought its suit on September 16, 1969, some 15 months after the expiration of the 30 days, its suit was barred. Stamps v. Varelas, 313 S.W.2d 141 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1958, no writ history); Russell v. Dobbs, 163 Tex. 282, 354 S.W.2d 373 (1962).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

REYNOLDS, J., not sitting.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7584
ELWOOD HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-879) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 18, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elwood Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Howard v. Angelone , No. CA-95-879 (W.D. Va. Aug. 22, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          12,969
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                53,085
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     34,699
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        123,552
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,810
<DEPOSITS>                                     196,132
<SHORT-TERM>                                    11,627
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,637
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 229,810
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,765
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,598
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,028
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,391
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,427
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,599
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,792
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      315
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  12
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,547
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         993
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.42
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,422
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,473
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      424
<RECOVERIES>                                        88
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,452
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:
    March 30, 2007
    
    /s/ Brian J. RoneyBrian J. Roney, Chief Financial Officer
exhibit101.htm


 







 



Exhibit 10.1







DESCRIPTION OF 2014 BONUS PLAN







    In March 2014, the Compensation Committee approved performance-based bonus opportunities for the Company's senior management group (the "2014 Bonus Program") under the Incentive Plan, including our Named Executive Officers.  As set forth in the Incentive Plan, the Compensation Committee may choose from a range of defined performance measures.  As in 2013, the percentage of 2014 salary assigned to each Named Executive Officer is based on the Compensation Committee's evaluation of (i) the magnitude of each Named Executive Officer's ability to impact corporate performance based on the executive's responsibilities at the time the targets were set, (ii) the composition of each Named Executive Officer's total compensation package, and (iii) our long-term financial goals.







    Under the 2014 Bonus Program and consistent with the objectives of the Incentive Plan, certain employees, including the Named Executive Officers, may receive incremental bonuses upon satisfaction of 2014 consolidated earnings per share targets (and, for Mr. Hough and Mr. Brower, the satisfaction of 2014 operating income and operating ratio targets established for CTI and Star, respectively) (collectively, the "2014 Performance Targets").  Each applicable 2014 Performance Target corresponds to a percentage bonus opportunity for the employee that is multiplied by the employee's base salary (or, in the case of Mr. Brower, $200,000) to determine the employee's bonus.  Pursuant to the 2014 Bonus Program, our Named Executive Officers may receive performance-based bonuses as follows:  (i) Messrs. Parker and Hogan may receive between 25.0% and 100.0% of their respective 2014 salaries depending on the 2014 Performance Targets that are achieved, if any, (ii) Mr. Cribbs may receive between 20.0% and 80.0% of his 2014 salary depending on the 2014 Performance Targets that are achieved, if any, (iii) Mr. Hough may receive between 4.0% and 16.0% of his 2014 salary depending on the 2014 Performance Targets achieved for the consolidated group, if any, and between 32.0% and 64.0% of his 2014 salary based on 2014 Performance Targets achieved for CTI, if any, and (iv) Mr. Brower may receive between 5.0% and 20.0% of $200,000 depending on the 2014 Performance Targets achieved for the consolidated group, if any, and between 20.0% and 80.0% of $200,000 based on 2014 Performance Targets achieved for Star, if any.  Consolidated EPS targets range from $0.40 and increase to $0.85; CTI performance targets range from operating income of $19,264,000 and operating ratio of 93.7% and increase to operating income of $26,147,000 and operating ratio of 91.4%; and Star performance targets range from operating income of $3,233,000 and operating ratio of 92.7% and increase to operating income of $4,835,000 and operating ratio of 89.1%.  As with the performance targets established in prior years, the Compensation Committee also created specific parameters for awarding bonuses within certain incremental ranges of achievement of the performance targets.










 


Return to Form 10-Q
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000
       
<S>                                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                      OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                                                    127
<SECURITIES>                                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          22,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             (275)
<INVENTORY>                                                             3,926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       31,536
<PP&E>                                                                 11,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                                         (5,731)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         44,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  25,647
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                                   29
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                                             16,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           44,968
<SALES>                                                                50,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       50,721
<CGS>                                                                  32,690
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          32,690
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       16,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       (965)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                         1,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     1,019
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                            1,019
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                             .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             .03
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 9, 2009

Decided February 19, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

    RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

     KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐3610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

CHARLES WOODS,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 1:00‐cr‐10089‐MMM‐JAG‐1

Michael M. Mihm,

Judge.

O R D E R

This court has carefully reviewed the final order of the district court, the record on

appeal, and the briefs filed by the parties.  Based on this review, the court has determined that

this case raises the purely legal issue of whether a district court, when considering a sentence

reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), has the authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence

below the retroactively amended Guidelines range based on Booker.  For the reasons recently

articulated in United States v. Cunningham, Nos. 08‐2901 and 08‐2931, 2009 WL 249886 (7th Cir.

Feb. 4, 2009), we hold that it does not.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the order of the district court is summarily AFFIRMED.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
```

                                                            Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND
        (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                  Dated:   February 14, 2005         /S/ VICTOR INSETTA
                         ---------------------    --------------------------

                                                   Chief Executive Officer

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NEI Institutional Training Grant Applications II.                    

*Date:*                         September 1, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NEI, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anne E. Schaffner, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, 301-451-2020,                         *aes@nei.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 23, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-21346 Filed 8-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# j ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24-0364
ANASTASIA SHIHO LAKE,

Petitioner,

v. SHERYL ZIEGLER, Commander,

Respondent. ORDER

rrw ' 71 &no 11141, JUN 

## 18 2024 Bowen C;reenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana Anastasia ShihoLake has filed a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus, requestingher release from the Missoula County Detention Facility. She indicates that her bail is excessive, but she has provided no amount. Lake explains that she was arrested on March 10, 2024, and that dueto her mental health careneeds, she asks for leniency. She contends that her constitutional, civil, and "parenting rights are being violated by the 4th Judicial [District] Court." She adds that she has not been sentenced by this "`Crime ofPassion,' yet" she has learned that may have a year of incarceration "for her crimes" before sentencing. Lake expressesconcern forher children and feelsthatas anAsian woman, she faces a double standard in the criminaljudicial system. We secured a copy oftheMissoula County District Court's register ofactions. The court granted leave for the State to file its Amended Information on March 11, 2024. The court issued an arrestwarrant that day with a bond amount of$25,000. The court has since held two hearings, and counsel for Lake filed a notice ofappearance on April 11, 2024. A few days later, the court issued an order for commitment to the State Hospital for examination. Sincethen,the Statehas sought leaveto file a SecondAmendedInformation, forwhich the court granted leave and set another arraignment. 06/18/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0364Lake's remedy for relief is not with this Court, and she is not entitled to release.

The cause of her incarceration is her pending criminal case. Gates v. Missoula Cnty. Comm'rs, 236 Mont. 261, 261-262, 766P.2d 884, 884-885 (1988). Following an arraignment, Lake awaits to be transported to the State Hospital for an evaluation. Her claims cannot be addressed by a writ of habeas corpus. Lake has not demonstrated illegal incarceration. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. She has not shown want ofbail here either. Section 46-22-103, MCA. This Court has determined that a district court has the discretion to grant or deny release and bail as well to set conditions. Grafft v. Mont. FourthJudicialDist. Ct., 2021 MT 201,¶11, 405Mont. 192, 492 P.3d 1213. The District Court set a bail amount in her case. Lake should present any concerns to her attorney. Lake is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Lake's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: the Honorable Leslie Halligan, District Court Judge; Amy McGhee, Clerk ofDistrict Court, under Cause No. DC 24-107, and for distribution to the counsel of record there; Commander Ziegler; counsel ofrecord, and AW,sia Shiho Lake personally. DATED this 

# r Ta

- y ofJune, 2024.

Justices

2