alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Annual Report of Sundance Strategies, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, Randall F. Pearson, President and acting CFO of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Date:July 15, 2014By:/s/Randall F. PearsonRandall F. Pearson, President, acting CFO and  Director
389 A.2d 176

#### Commonwealth v. Munoz, Appellant.

Submitted March 22,1976.

John W. Packel, Assistant Defender, and Benjamin Lerner, Defender, for appellant;

Flora L. Becker, Assistant District Attorney, and Edward G. Rendell, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of sentence is reversed and the case is remanded for a new probation revocation hearing, preceding which appellant shall be given written notice of the alleged violations. *Commonwealth v.*Stratton, 235 Pa.Super. 566, 344 A.2d 636 (1975).

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

JOSEPH A. COLOSIMO, JR. 

v. Record No. 2669-96-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

VIRGINIA TRUCK CENTER, INC. MARCH 18, 1997 

AND 

GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Robert M. McAdam; David W. Hearn; Wooten & 

Hart, P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Richard D. Lucas; Carter, Brown & Osborne, 

P.C., on brief), for appellees. 

 Joseph A. Colosimo, Jr. (claimant) contends that the 

Workers' Compensation Commission (commission) erred in finding 

that he failed to prove that he sustained an injury by accident 

arising out of his employment on November 28, 1995. Upon 

reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily 

affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). To 

recover benefits, claimant must establish that he suffered an 

"injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the 

employment," Code § 65.2-101, and "that the conditions of the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

workplace or some significant work related exertion caused the 

injury." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 

484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1989). "The phrase arising 'out of' 

refers to the origin or cause of the injury." County of 

Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 74 

(1989). "Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a 

mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable by the appellate 

court." Plumb Rite, 8 Va. App. at 483, 382 S.E.2d at 305. 

However, unless we conclude that claimant proved, as a matter of 

law, that his employment caused his injury, the commission's 

finding is binding and conclusive on appeal. Tomko v. Michael's 

Plastering Co., 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 In denying claimant's application, the commission found as 

follows: 

 Injuries resulting from simple acts of 

bending or turning, absent a contributing 

factor from the workplace, are not 

compensable. In this case, the claimant 

merely bent over to pick up a virtually 

weightless object. He was not in a confined 

space or awkward position. We therefore find 

that the injury did not occur out of the 

employment. 

 The evidence established that claimant did not engage in any 

significant exertion, that his action of bending to retrieve a 

book from a filing cabinet drawer did not involve any awkward 

position, and that no condition or hazard peculiar to his 

workplace caused his injury. Therefore, we hold that claimant 

failed to prove as a matter of law that his injury arose out of 
 3 

his employment. 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Annual Report of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Reed J. Killion, President andPrincipal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

·                                        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m(a) or78o(d)); and

·                                        The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  | March 5, 2007 |   | By:    | /s/ Reed J. Killion                                         |   |
|--------|---------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |          |   |   | Reed J. Killion,  President and Principal Executive Officer |

 

*A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. and willbe retained by Uni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.*

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21176]



[[Page 52558]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62688A; File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-018; SR-BX-2010-044; SR-
CBOE-2010-065; SR-CHX-2010-14; SR-EDGA-2010-05; SR-EDGX-2010-05; SR-
FINRA-2010-033; SR-ISE-2010-66; SR-NYSE-2010-49; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-63; 
SR-NYSEArca-2010-61; SR-NASDAQ-2010-079; SR-NSX-2010-08]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board 
Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; EDGA 
Exchange, Inc.; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory 
Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange LLC; NASDAQ OMX BX, 
Inc.; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; New 
York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Amex LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Correction

August 19, 2010.
    The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in the 
Federal Register of August 18, 2010, concerning a Notice of Designation 
of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes 
Relating to Trading Pauses Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility by 
BATS Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; 
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; 
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; International Securities 
Exchange LLC; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; 
National Stock Exchange, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Amex 
LLC; and NYSE Arca, Inc. The document contained a typographical error 
in the signature block.
    In the Federal Register of August 18, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010-20366, 
on page 51138, in the 3rd column, correct the signature block to read 
``By the Commission'' and remove footnote 7.

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21176 Filed 8-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

UUSI, LLC,

Appellant

v.

WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1517

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-

00650.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOSEPH BARBER, Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC, 

Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

DANIEL BLISS, GERALD E. MCGLYNN III, Royal Oak, MI. 

CHARLES SANDERS, Latham & Watkins LLP, Boston, 

MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by GABRIEL

BELL, GABRIELLE LAHATTE, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

December 9, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2124

ABDUALI NIZAMETDINOV,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-603-350)

Submitted: April 7, 2004 Decided: April 16, 2004

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian E. Mezger, LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN E. MEZGER, ESQUIRE, Bethesda,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel,

Michelle R. Thresher, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil

Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Abduali Nizametdinov, a native of China and citizen of

Uzbekistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration

judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. 

Nizametdinov challenges the immigration judge’s negative

credibility finding. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in

light of the immigration judge’s findings and conclude that

Nizametdinov’s assertions are without merit. The immigration judge

cited specific, cogent reasons for concluding that Nizametdinov’s

testimony was not credible. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th

Cir. 1989). As the negative credibility determination is supported

by the record and is entitled to deference, Nizametdinov does not

qualify for the relief sought. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000); see

Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir. 2002).

The standard for eligibility for withholding of removal

is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. INS,

195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for withholding

must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Nizametdinov failed

to establish entitlement to asylum, he cannot satisfy the higher

standard for withholding of removal.
- 3 -

To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an

applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he

or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of

removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Nizametdinov’s

evidence does not support such a conclusion.

We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Acupuncture Approach, P.C., 	a/a/o Berky Lugo, Plaintiff-Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Tri State Consumer Ins. Co., Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered June 27, 2013, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Andrea Masley, J.), entered June 27, 2013, modified by reinstating plaintiff's claim for first-party no-fault benefits billed under CPT code 97039; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>Triable issues of fact are raised as to whether defendant-insurer properly denied plaintiff's no-fault claim billed under CPT code 97039, thus precluding summary judgment dismissing this claim. Defendant's submissions failed to establish prima facie its contention that the service is not reimbursable because it is a "physical medicine modality" and "outside the provider's specialty" (<a href="../2016/2016_50978.htm" target="_blank"><i>see TC Acupuncture, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.</i>, 52 Misc 3d 131</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50978[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; <a href="../2015/2015_50164.htm" target="_blank"><i>VS Care Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.</i>, 46 Misc 3d 141</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50164[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]; <a href="../2008/2008_07211.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also Forrest Chen Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co.</i>, 54 AD3d 996</a> [2008]). The remaining claims at issue on appeal were properly dismissed as premature, since it is undisputed that plaintiff failed to respond to the duly issued verification requests (<a href="../2011/2011_00214.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co.</i>, 80 AD3d 599</a>, 600 [2011]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 19, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
EX-10.6(c)



 EXHIBIT 10.6(c) 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT NO. 1
dated as of the 1st day of April, 2014 to the MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT made as of the 1st day of July, 2000, (the “Management Agreement”), among CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC (formerly SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC), a Delaware limited
liability company (“CMF”), DIVERSIFIED MULTI-ADVISOR FUTURES FUND L.P. II (formerly SMITH BARNEY DIVERSIFIED FUTURES FUND L.P. II), a New York limited partnership (the “Partnership”) and GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., a
Delaware Limited Partnership (the “Advisor”) (all parties together, the “Parties”). Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Management Agreement. 

W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, the Partnership currently pays the Advisor a monthly fee for professional management services equal to 2.0% per year of the
month-end Net Assets of the Partnership allocated to the Advisor; and 
 WHEREAS, effective as of April 1, 2014, the
Parties wish to change the professional management services fee to 1.75% per year; and 
 WHEREAS, the Parties wish to
amend the Management Agreement to reflect this change. 
 NOW, therefore, the Parties agree as follows: 

1. The text of Section 3(a) of the Management Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the
following: 
 “In consideration of and as compensation for all of the services to be rendered by the Advisor
to the Partnership under this Agreement, the Partnership shall pay the Advisor (i) an incentive fee payable quarterly equal to 20% of New Trading Profits (as such term is defined below) earned by the Advisor for the Partnership and (ii) a
monthly fee for professional management service equal to 1/12 of 1.75% (1.75% per year) of the month-end Net Assets of the Partnership allocated to the Advisor.” 

2. The foregoing amendment shall take effect as of the 1st day of April, 2014. 

3. In all other respects the Management Agreement remains unchanged and of full force and effect. 

4. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but
all of which together shall constitute the same agreement. 
 5. This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. 
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Management Agreement has been executed for and on
behalf of the undersigned as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

	 Name:
 Title:
	 	 Alper Daglioglu
 President
and Director

	
	DIVERSIFIED MULTI-ADVISOR FUTURES FUND L. P. II
		
	By:	 	 Ceres Managed Futures LLC

(General Partner)

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

	 Name:
 Title:
	 	 Alper Daglioglu
 President
and Director

	
	GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert E. Murray

	 Name:
 Title:
	 	 Robert E. Murray

CEO




  
 -2-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL E. HEGARTY

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02343-MSK-MEH Date: August 16, 2012

Courtroom Deputy: Cathy Coomes FTR – Courtroom A501

CHERYL ARABALO, Samuel Trapp

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF DENVER, COUNTY OF DENVER, Robert Nespor

ASHLEY KILROY, Jennifer Jacobson

CAPTAIN GUTIERREZ, and Cathy Havener Greet

PHILLIP DEEDS,

Defendants.

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

MOTIONS HEARING 

Court in session: 10:02 a.m.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel. Plaintiff is present. 

Argument and discussion regarding Defendant City and County of Denver’s Motion to Compel

Discovery (Doc. #67, filed 7/27/12).

ORDERED: Defendant City and County of Denver’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #67,

filed 7/27/12) is GRANTED as stated on the record. Counsel for City and County

of Denver shall file an affidavit of attorneys’ fees and costs on or before August

17, 2012. Mr. Trapp may file any evidence he has that mitigates the failure to

communicate on or before August 20, 2012.

Argument and discussion regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Doc. #73,

filed 8/3/12). 

ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Doc. #73, filed 8/3/12)

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated on the record. The

following deadlines are extended:

• Discovery: October 12, 2012. No further extensions will be

granted.

Case 1:11-cv-02343-MSK-MEH Document 80 Filed 08/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
• Dispositive Motions: November 13, 2012.

• A Telephonic Status Conference is set for August 30, 2012, at

10:00 a.m. Counsel are directed to first conference together and

then contact this Court’s chambers at (303)844-4507. 

Court in recess: 10:41 a.m. (Hearing concluded)

Total time in court: 0:39

Case 1:11-cv-02343-MSK-MEH Document 80 Filed 08/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 5, 2008*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.204 Checkable Deposits and Currency** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### United States Quarry Tile Co. *v.*Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District.

(No. 25828

Decided March 11, 1936.)

*Messrs. Cable & Cable,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Wilkin, Fisher <& Limbach,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Gerald L. Marshall, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-13-00127-CV v.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, successor by 

merger to Walter Mortgage Company, 

LLC, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court of 

Henderson County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

7231). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Gerald L. Marshall, Jr., pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JANUARY 15, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of TXP Corporation (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Bruce, Chief
      Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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
      TXP Corporation and will be retained by TXP Corporation and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





May
      14 ,
      2007




/s/*Robert
                Bruce**Robert
                Bruce*
              *Chief
                Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial
                Officer)*