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**

 

 

I, David A. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months endedSeptember 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ David A. Smith

David A. Smith

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

November 8, 2006
News United States Air Force
 CSAF visits, thanks Yokota AB AirmenPublished Aug. 27, 2013
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Soo C. Kim
                        
                        
                        374th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan --**
                Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Mark A. Welsh III and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force James A. Cody visited Airmen here Aug. 27 as part of a two-week tour of the Pacific region.
During their visit to Yokota Air Base, Japan, Welsh and Cody thanked Airmen for the sacrifices they make while serving their country.
"I'm here for one reason -- to thank you. Thank you for everything you do," Welsh said. "You represent us so well; thank you for all the great work you've done."
Welsh also spoke of the current challenges facing the Air Force and how Airmen can overcome them by applying three C's: common sense, communication and caring more.
"You have the ability to change things," Welsh said. "You've just got to believe it and have the courage to do it." 
Welsh stressed the importance of knowing every Airman's story to build a stronger bond amongst the Air Force.
"Get to know the people you work with, learn what drives them and take care of each other," Welsh said.
Following his remarks, Welsh fielded questions from Airmen and invited them to personally meet with him, his wife, Betty, and Cody's wife, Athena.
Welsh's remarks left a lasting impact on those in attendance, such as Airman 1st Class Virbon Frial.
"I loved his speech, especially the last part," said Frial, a dental technician assigned to the 374th Dental Squadron. "Knowing everyone's story is the best way to lead, and I will take this speech to heart when I lead Airmen in the future as a noncommissioned officer."
Earlier in the day, Welsh visited the Japanese Air Defense Command to see the bilateral command and control functions operating at Yokota AB.
Welsh also visited the 374th Logistics Readiness Squadron's Combat Mobility Flight, where he met and coined Airmen for their critical role preparing air-drop payloads for day-to-day airlift operations and contingencies.
During Cody's visit, he met with senior NCO's to discuss challenges and opportunities in taking care of Airmen amidst an uncertain fiscal environment. Welsh's tour of the Pacific region continues until Aug. 31.CMSAF 



Yokota Air Base 



Pacific Air Forces 



CSAF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT LEON KELLEY, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 438 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Donterious Marquis EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5978.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 12, 2011.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *Jones v. State, 25*So.3d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                             CORECOMM INCORPORATED

All of the corporations listed below were incorporated in Delaware except where 
otherwise noted:

Cellular Communications of Puerto Rico, Inc.
CCPR Paging, Inc.
CCPR Services, Inc.
Cellular Communications of Arecibo, Inc.
Cellular Ponce, Inc. (Texas corporation)
Mayaquez Cellular Telephone Co., Inc. (South Carolina corporation)
Aguadilla Cellular Telephone Company, Inc.
CCI PR RSA, Inc.
SJCT, Inc.
San Juan Cellular Telephone Company (District of Columbia partnership)
Gamma Communications (Louisiana partnership)
Merrimack Telecommunications Corporation (Florida corporation)
Star Associates, Inc.
USVI Cellar Telephone Corporation
CCPR of the Virgin Islands, Inc.
USVI Paging, Inc.
CCPR Panama, Inc.
CCPR Wireless Cable, Inc
Norwich Communications, Inc.
CCPR PCS, Inc.
CoreComm Teleco, Inc.
CoreComm New York, Inc.
CoreComm Pennsylvania, Inc.
CoreComm Virginia, Inc.
CoreComm New Jersey, Inc.
CoreComm Maryland, Inc.
CoreComm Delaware, Inc.
CoreComm Massachussets, Inc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivie COURTS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morris Dabbs, a/k/a Ray Dabbs, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 00-4201, 00-4240.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 22, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

*139Anne R. Littlejohn, Greensboro, NC; Christopher F. Cowan, Cowan, North *&*Lafratta, L.L.P., Richmond, VA, for appellants. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United States Attorney, Andrew Mos-kowitz, Third-Year Law Student, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Ivie Courts and Morris Dabbs appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (West 1999). Courts contends that the district court erred by not reducing his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Dabbs contends that the district court erred by increasing his offense level based upon his role in the conspiracy. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

A district court’s factual determinations at sentencing are reviewed for clear error and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. *See United States v. Blake,*81 F.3d 498, 503 (4th Cir.1996). We find that the district court did not err by considering Courts’ criminal conduct not related to the offense of conviction in denying a reduction in the offense level for acceptance of responsibility. *See, e.g., United States v. Ceccarani,*98 F.3d 126, 129-30 (3d Cir.1996). We further find that the district court did not err by finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Courts did not voluntarily terminate or withdraw from criminal conduct or association. *See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 3E1.1, comment, (n. 1(b), 3) (1998).

We also find that the district court did not err by finding that Dabbs was a manager or supervisor within the conspiracy and the conspiracy had five or more persons or was otherwise extensive. *See*USSG § 3Bl.l(b) (1998). There was substantial evidence that Dabbs instructed other members of the conspiracy and that the conspiracy contained five or more persons.

We affirm the convictions and sentences. 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.*
EXHIBIT 21


                             SUBSIDIARIES OF
                   DAKOTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.



     NAME                            STATE OF INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION
     ----                            --------------------------------------

Dakota Telecom, Inc.                              South Dakota

Dakota Telecommunications Systems, Inc.           South Dakota

Dakota Wireless Systems, Inc.                     South Dakota

DTG Communications, Inc. (formerly
  TCIC Communications, Inc.)                      South Dakota

DTG Internet, Inc. (formerly Iway, Inc.)          South Dakota

DTG DataNet, Inc. (formerly Futuristic, Inc.)     South Dakota

DTG Community Telephone, Inc.                     South Dakota
Exhibit 10.61

Aerospace/Defense, Inc.
4838 Jenkins Avenue
North Charleston, SC 29405
Telephone: (843) 744-5174
Facsimile: (843) 747-4092
E-mail:garfinklej@intertechsc.com

January 10,
2008

John
F. Wall, III, Esquire
Vice President, Legal Affairs
Force Protection Industries, Inc.
9601 Highway 78
Ladson, SC 29456



Dear
Mr. Wall:

Pursuant
to Section 27K of the Leases (referencing amending each Lease), this letter, when signed by an authorized representative of each Tenant, shall serve as an amendment (the
"Extension Amendment") to each of the Leases referenced above.

TheInitial Term(as that term is defined in each such Lease) is hereby extended to and will expire on January 14, 2009.

For
clarification and avoidance of doubt, Section 2 of each Lease (with respect to extending the terms of each Lease) provides in part that the Tenant may extend its option to
renew by notice in writing to the Landlord served at least six (6) months and not more than twelve (12) months prior to the end of the Initial Term or the then-current Option
Period, as the case may be. Therefore, in order for the Tenant to exercise its option to extend the Initial Term of each Lease (should the Tenant so desire to exercise such right(s)) due to expire on
January 14, 2009, as provided for in this Extension Amendment, the Tenant must serve a notice in writing upon the Landlord no later than July 14, 2008.

---



If
this Extension Amendment or the signature page, as executed, is transmitted by one party to the other by facsimile transmission or electronic "pdf" transmission, such transmission
shall be deemed an executed original of this Extension Amendment and of such signature.

Except
as modified by this Extension Amendment, the Leases remain unchanged.

If
the Tenants agree to the terms and provisions of this Extension Amendment, please have an authorized representative of each Tenant sign below and thereafter either fax or pdf to me
the original hereof.

Aerospace/Defense, Inc.

By:

/s/M. JERRY GARFINKLEM. Jerry GarfinkleIts:

Assistant Secretary


We agree to the above Extension Amendment

Force Protection Industries, Inc.

Force Protection, Inc.By:

/s/MICHAEL MOODY

By:

/s/MICHAEL MOODYIts:

President

Its:

President


2

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0001034237
<NAME>                        AEROCENTURY IV, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    US DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                           432,330
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    218,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 651,060
<PP&E>                                         4,273,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                   491,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,087,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            407,650
<BONDS>                                        4,869,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         243,420
<OTHER-SE>                                      (432,600)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,087,470
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 729,120
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 593,070
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               486,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (350,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (223,930)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (126,920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (126,920)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.52)



</TABLE>
#### THOMAS SMITH *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 23352)

Schaller, West and Hennessy, Js.

Submitted on briefs March 21

officially released April 15, 2003

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           13950
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       5982
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            5884
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          21311
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   35337
<DEPOSITS>                                       26573
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                490
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           627
<OTHER-SE>                                        7647
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   35337
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   1237
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  597
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  1834
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 907
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 910
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              924
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       14
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (24)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (15)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### SILVER DOLLAR LIQUOR, INC. v. RED RIVER PARISH POLICE JURY.

No. 2010-C-2776.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Silver Dollar Liquor Inc.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div., No. 34,883; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,637-CA.

Granted.
#### Leandez McGEE v. BRAND SERVICES, INC.

No. 2010-C-2447.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re McGee, Leandez; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Workers’ Compensation District 8, No. 08-4805; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0307.

The ruling and judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeal for full review, argument and opinion under the manifest error standard.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

                              AMENDMENT TO THE ESCO
                 ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 1994 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         WHEREAS, ESCO Technologies Inc. (formerly ESCO Electronics Corporation)
("Company") adopted the ESCO Electronics Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan
("Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company retained the right to amend the Plan pursuant to
Section 16 thereof; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan:

         NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of August 7, 2003 the Plan is amended as
follows:

         1. The following sentence is added at the end of Section 3:

The Committee may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to grant
stock options of up to 5,000 shares of stock each (and 50,000 per fiscal year in
the aggregate) to employees who are not reporting persons under Section 16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or covered employees (as defined in section
162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code).

         2. The third sentence of Section 6 is amended to read as follows:

The purchase price is to be paid in full upon the exercise of the stock option,
either (i) in cash, (ii) in the discretion of the Committee, by the tender to
the Company of shares of the Common Stock of the Company, owned by the optionee,
having a fair market value equal to the cash exercise price of the stock option
being exercised, with the fair market value of such stock to be determined in
such appropriate manner as may be provided for by the Committee or as may be
required in order to comply with, or to conform to the requirements of, any
applicable laws or regulations, or (iii) in the discretion of the Committee, by
any combination of the payment methods specified in clauses (i) and (ii) hereof;
provided that, no shares of Common Stock may be tendered in exercise of an
option if such shares were acquired by the optionee through the exercise of an
Incentive Stock Option unless (i) such shares have been held by the optionee for
at least one year and (ii) at least two years have elapsed since such prior
Incentive Stock Option was granted.

         3. The following sentence is added at the end of Section 9:

The Committee may delegate to such employee or employees as it deems appropriate
its authority to extend an option beyond termination of employment, so long as
the optionees whose options have been extended are not reporting persons under
Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or covered employees (as
defined in section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code).

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing amendment was adopted on the
7th day of August, 2003.
Exhibit  99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002
(18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted),  Richard  B. Slansky, Chief Financial
Officer of SpaceDev, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of
their  knowledge:

1.     the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December  31,  2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

2.     the  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of the Company.
Dated:  April  6,  2004

                         By:  /s/ Richard B. Slansky
                         ----------------------------
                         Richard  B.  Slansky
                         CHIEF  FINANCIAL  OFFICER
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PEGGY PIERCE,

Appellant,

v.

JEFF KESTER, ROYALTY SUPPLY, INC., 

and ROYALTY WELL SERVICE, INC.,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00242-CV

Appeal from the

143rd Judicial District Court

of Ward County, Texas

(TC# 22-04-25995-CVW)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the joint motion to dismiss the appeal, which 

indicates the parties have settled their dispute in the underlying litigation, and concludes the motion 

should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further 

order each party to bear their own costs of this appeal pursuant to their agreement and joint motion. 

This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2024.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
760 A.2d 367

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. John LUDOVICI, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 27, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2000, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, and the order of the Superior Court is REVERSED on the basis of *Commonwealth v. Randolph,*553 Pa. 224, 718 A.2d 1242 (1998) and *Commonwealth v. Forbes,*450 Pa. 185, 299 A.2d 268 (1973), *292and the matter remanded to the trial court for the entry of an order granting Petitioner’s Motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
**Exhibit 12.1**FIRSTINDUSTRIAL, LP****Ratioof Earnings to Fixed Charges(Dollars in Thousands)**               **12/31/2005** **12/31/2004** **12/31/2003**Income from Continuing Operations  12,488   40,214   31,540   **Plus:**              Interest expense  108,164   98,458   94,637  Amortization of DFC and IRPA  2,122   1,928   1,761      Net Earnings  122,774   140,600   127,938      Interest Expense  108,164   98,458   94,637  Capitalized Interest  3,721   1,304   761  Amortization of deferred financingcosts and IRPA  2,122   1,928   1,761      Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Div  114,007   101,690   97,159       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges  1.08   1.38   1.32      (a) For purposes of computing the ratios of earnings to fixedcharges and preferred stock dividends, earnings have been calculatedby adding fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest) to incomefrom continuing operations before minority interest allocable tocontinuing operations. Fixed charges consist of interest costs,whether expensed or capitalized and amortization of deferredfinancing costs.**