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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Alfred S. Chuang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Date: March 28, 2008



/s/    ALFRED S. CHUANGAlfred S. Chuang Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

                           RULE 13a-14 CERTIFICATION

I, Peter J. Younger, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Cronos Group (the
"Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrant's auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrant's Board of Directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2004

/s/ PETER J. YOUNGER
Peter J. Younger
Chief Financial Officer

                                                                             E50
#### Shawn CHASE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D10-740.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 11, 2011.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any right Mr. Chase may have to file a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 addressing the issues raised in this appeal.

SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7658
MITCHELL ALFONSO KEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIM MCCAULLEY, Jail Administrator, Richland County Detention Center, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-1009-2-17-AJ) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mitchell Alfonso Key, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, John Thomas Lay, Jr., ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days withinwhich to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on October 11, 1995;Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension ofthe appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 123 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To authorize appropriations for the San Gabriel Basin 

Restoration Fund. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HR 123 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION FUND. 

2 Section 110 of division B of the Miscellaneous Appro3 priations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 2763A–222), as enacted 

4 into law by section 1(a)(4) of the Consolidated Appropria5 tions Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–554, as amended by 

6 Public Law 107–66), is further amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(3)(B), by inserting after 

8 clause (iii) the following: 

9 ‘‘(iv) NON-FEDERAL MATCH.—After 

10 $85,000,000 has cumulatively been appro11 priated under subsection (d)(1), the re12 mainder of Federal funds appropriated 

13 under subsection (d) shall be subject to the 

14 following matching requirement: 

15 ‘‘(I) SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER

16 QUALITY AUTHORITY.—The San Ga17 briel Basin Water Quality Authority 

18 shall be responsible for providing a 35 

19 percent non-Federal match for Fed20 eral funds made available to the Au21 thority under this Act. 

22 ‘‘(II) CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL

23 WATER DISTRICT.—The Central Basin 

24 Municipal Water District shall be re25 sponsible for providing a 35 percent 

26 non-Federal match for Federal funds 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

HR 123 RFS 

1 made available to the District under 

2 this Act.’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘(4) INTEREST ON FUNDS IN RESTORATION

6 FUND.—No amounts appropriated above the cumu7 lative amount of $85,000,000 to the Restoration 

8 Fund under subsection (d)(1) shall be invested by 

9 the Secretary of the Treasury in interest-bearing se10 curities of the United States.’’; and 

11 (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as fol12 lows: 

13 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be 

15 appropriated to the Restoration Fund established 

16 under subsection (a) $146,200,000. Such funds shall 

17 remain available until expended. 

18 ‘‘(2) SET-ASIDE.—Of the amounts appropriated 

19 under paragraph (1), no more than $21,200,000 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
4 

HR 123 RFS 

1 shall be made available to carry out the Central 

2 Basin Water Quality Project.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
exv10w35



 



NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION



Exhibit 10.35


Board of Directors Resolutions



     WHEREAS,
the current annual retainer paid to non-employee Directors of
the Corporation is $50,000;


     WHEREAS,
one-fourth of the annual retainer to non-employee Directors is
paid in the form of restricted shares of the Corporation’s common stock,
pursuant to a formula plan that was approved by the shareholders of the
Corporation effective January 1, 1996 (the “Restricted Stock Plan”); and


     WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors wishes to increase the annual retainer
paid to non-employee directors to $60,000 and amend the Restricted Stock Plan
to provide that the Plan will expire on December 31, 2005.


     RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby increases the annual retainer
paid to non-employee directors to $60,000, effective October 1, 2003; and


     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby amends the
non-employee Director Restricted Stock Plan to provide that the Plan shall
expire on December 31, 2005.


E-24
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 DELFIN SALAZAR, JR., 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 32,474 4 STATE OF NEW MEXICO TAXATION 5 AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 6 MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, 7 Respondent-Appellee. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CIBOLA COUNTY 9 George P. Eichwald, District Judge 10 John V. Nilan LLC 11 John V. Nilan 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellant 14 N.M. Taxation and Revenue Dept. 15 Julia A. Belles 16 Santa Fe, NM 17 for Appellee 182 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 WECHSLER, Judge. 2 {1} Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 3 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has 4 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 5 {2} DISMISSED. 6 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

__________________________________ 8 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

_________________________________ 11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 12

_________________________________ 13 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 14
583 A.2d 308

#### WINDING BROOK MOBILE HOME PARK, ETC. v. HOWELL TOWNSHIP RENT STABILIZATION AND CONTROL BOARD.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 F-16 crashes in ArizonaPublished June 25, 2015
                        
                        
                        162nd Wing Public Affairs
                **TUCSON, Ariz. (AFNS) --**
                An F-16 Fighting Falcon flying with the 162nd Wing, Arizona Air National Guard, crashed at about 8 p.m. June 24, five miles east of Douglas Municipal Airport, Arizona.
The F-16 was on a night training mission with one person on board at the time of the incident.
The status of the pilot is unknown at this time.
A board will be appointed to investigate the incident. Additional details will be provided as soon as they become available.crash 



Arizona Air National Guard 



ANG 



guard 



Arizona 



F-16 Fighting Falcon Related Links
        F-16 Fighting Falcon
                                Sept. 23, 2015
                                The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost, high-performance weapon system for the United States and allied nations.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58330-58331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24034]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3000


Minerals Management: General

CFR Correction

    In Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1000 to End, 
revised as of October 1, 2009, on page 331, in

[[Page 58331]]

Sec.  3000.12, move paragraph (b) to below the table on page 332.

[FR Doc. 2010-24034 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
#### Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Nellie Fleming et als.

(No. 470, Op. Book No. 2, p. 30.)

Appeal from Marion County.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 539. *Injunction; where judgment is void for want of legal service.*' There being no legal service, the original judgment was void. This, however, would not neces*271sarily dispose of the injunction case in the county court, but upon proper pleadings the correct practice was for said court to retain jurisdiction, try the case and render judgment on the original cause of action, if the plaintiff was legally entitled to it on the merits. [Witt v. Kaufman, 25 Tex. Sup. 384.]

December 20, 1878.

Reversed and remanded.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Charles F. DAVIS, Appellee.

No. 5D10-3433.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 17, 2011.

*892Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Roller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Adam B. Reiss, Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida appeals the probationary sentence imposed on Charles F. Davis, following his plea to a charge of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Davis scored a minimum sentence of 21.3 months in prison on his Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet. Over the State’s objection, the trial court departed downward, explaining that: “Given Mr. Davis’s almost complete absence of a prior record, a downward departure is appropriate in this case.... ” This is not a valid basis for departure. *State v. Stephenson,*973 So.2d 1259, 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“The trial court lacks discretion to grant a downward departure sentence based on factors already taken into account by the sentencing guidelines.... A defendant’s prior criminal record, or lack thereof, is one such factor.”) (internal citations omitted). As the trial judge gave no other reason for imposing a departure sentence, we reverse the sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing.1
      *See Jackson v. State,*64 So.3d 90 (Fla.2011).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

PALMER, LAWSON, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

. If Davis’ plea was induced by the trial judge’s promise of a probationary sentence, as the record suggests, Davis must also be allowed to withdraw his plea if no valid basis for downward departure is found on remand. *See State v. Jackson, 55*So.3d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
#### Jock et al. *v.*Ruth Worak; Jock et al. *v.*Lewis Worak

[No. 19,188.

Filed September 20, 1960.]

*James K. Northam,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Kelley, J.

These actions were consolidated for trial in the trial court. Appellees instituted their respective actions against appellants, seeking recovery on promissory notes executed by appellants, together with attorney fees and costs. The appellants answered appellees’ complaints under the rules and, affirmatively, that appellees were, respectively, the payees named in the *37notes and were not holders thereof in due course, and that there was a want or failure of consideration for said notes other than the sum of $125.00 due appellees for the purchase from them by appellants of certain corporate stock. The trial court found for appellees and entered judgment that they recover of appellants the sum of $11,875.00 and $1200.00 attorney fees, with costs.

Appellants assign as error that the decision of the court is contrary to law and is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Appellees have made no appearanee herein nor have they filed any brief in support of the finding and judgment appealed from. It follows that we are required to observe only whether appellants have demonstrated prima facie error warranting a reversal of said judgment. *Abair*v. *Everly*(1959), 130 Ind. App. 192, 163 N. E. 2d 34, and cases cited.

The only evidence given at the trial consisted of a stipulation by the parties and oral testimony of appellant, Paul F. Jock. Appellants concede that they are obligated to appellees on said notes in the amount of $125.00 but they contend that there was a pro tanto failure of all other consideration for said notes in that the same were executed and delivered by appellants as an accommodation arrangement with appellees, predicated on the successful result of an effort to “salvage” the financial interests of appellants and appellees in a dishwashing machine production project in which they had engaged and which had failed with consequent financial destitution of three corporations utilized in the project. The whole project failed. Appellants’ brief clearly demonstrates that the decision appealed from is contrary to law.

As the only evidence given in the cause was by stipu*38lation on behalf of appellees, and said stipulation and oral testimony of Paul F. Jock on the part of appellants, and there appears no material dispute therefrom, the record establishes that a new trial of this action is unnecessary. Therefore, the trial court is instructed to set aside and vacate its judgment herein appealed from and to enter judgment for appellees and against appellants in the consolidated action in the amount of $125.00 and costs, together with a reasonable fee for appellees’ attorney.

Bierly, C. J., Gonas and Smith, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 169 N. E. 2d 128.
#### BROWARD CHILDREN’S CENTER, INC., Appellant, v. PLANTATION NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER and Agency for Health Care Administration, Appellees.

No. 1D11-0230.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 4, 2011.

Kevin J. O’Donnell and John F. Gilroy, III, of Gilroy & O’Donnell, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Peter A. Lewis of the Law Offices of Peter A. Lewis, P.L., Tallahassee, for Ap-pellee Plantation Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; Tracy Lee Cooper, Chief Appellate Counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration, Tallahassee, for Appellee Agency for Health Care Administration.

DAVIS, J.

Appellant, Broward Children’s Center, Inc., appeals a Summary Final Order denying its Petition for Leave to Amend in the rule challenge proceeding filed by Appellee, Plantation Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (“Plantation”). In denying the petition, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) noted that this case was in an unusual, if not unique, procedural posture because the Agency for Healthcare Administration (“AHCA”) agreed with Plantation that Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1295(7)(e) was invalid. The ALJ correctly reasoned that intervention was inappropriate in this case because Appellant, who wished to defend the rule’s validity and who could not be aligned with either party, would be improperly elevated to the status of a principal party if intervention were permitted.

*1064As we have previously explained, the rights of an intervenor are subordinate to the rights of the parties. *Envtl. Confederation of Sw. Fla., Inc. v. IMC Phosphates, Inc.,*857 So.2d 207, 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Intervention is a dependent remedy in the sense that an intervenor may not inject a new issue into a case, and the rights of an intervenor are conditional in that they exist only as long as the litigation continues between the parties. *Id.*Although, as Appellant argues, the ALJ ultimately determined the rule’s validity, AHCA, like other administrative agencies, is afforded wide discretion in interpreting a statute which it is given the power and duty to administer. *Sullivan v. Fla. Dep’t of Envt'l. Prot.,*890 So.2d 417, 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The ALJ was mindful of this discretion when ruling that the rule was invalid. Under the facts of this case, the ALJ properly denied Appellant’s petition.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Summary Final Order.

WOLF and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
OBN Holdings


December 18, 2003

Dr. Larry Taylor
4322 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90010

Re:	OBN Holdings Stock Owned by Creighton Taylor
        with you as Custodian

Dear Dr. Taylor:

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which
is hereby acknowledged by the parties, on behalf of Creighton Taylor,
a minor, you agree to the following:

     1.  All shares of OBN Holdings, Inc. common stock owned by you,
         which totals 5,000, shall have a lock-up period of one (1)
         year from the effective date of the current SB-2 filing, and
         may not be sold prior to that time;

     2.  Should, prior to the aforementioned lock-up period, you elect
         to gift, or otherwise grant any third party shares of stock
         you currently own, any such stock gifted or granted shall have
         the same lock-up provisions as if you continued to own the
         shares; and

     3.  Once the lock-up period has expired, you shall not exceed the
         currently existing SEC 144 Regulations, which includes not
         selling any more than one percent (1%) of the outstanding
         shares within a ninety (90) day period, and filing Forms 3, 4
         or 5 with the SEC.

If you are in agreement with the aforementioned terms and conditions,
please acknowledge by signing below.

Sincerely,

/s/ Donald Wilson
Donald Wilson
Corporate Secretary


Agreed and accepted

/s/ Larry Taylor
_________________________________________
Larry Taylor f/b/o Creighton Taylor, a minor

8275 South Eastern Ave., Suite 200 . Las Vegas, NV 89123
        (702) 938-0467 . (702) 990-8681 Fax

<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 90 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a 
period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________
```