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

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 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 quarterly
period ended December 31, 2003 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

February 16, 2004
#### W. E. Morehouse v. Texas Trunk R’y Co.

(No. 3839.)

Appeal from Kaufman County.

J. D. Cunningham, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Davidson, J.

§ 267. *Pleading and evidence; variance between, held to be immaterial.*Appellant alleged in his petition that on or about the 10th day of June, 1890, he entered into a verbal contract with appellee to furnish him by 10 o’clock of 'the morning of June 14, 1890, a sufficient number of cars for transporting to East St. Louis a certain lot of cattle, said cattle to be placed at said point on June 17th. The cars were not so furnished, and suit was instituted for damages alleged to be caused by such failure to so furnish said cars. On the trial appellant *463offered to prove that the contract between himself and appellee was entered into on the 14th of June, and this was objected to ,by appellee on the ground that such testimony was a variance between the time alleged and the time sought to be proved. This objection was sustained and. the evidence exduded. We are of opinion that the testimony was legitimate and proper, and the court erred in excluding the same. “Time is not considered generally as forming part of the material issue, and usually one time or day may be alleged and another time or day proved. Such is ordinarily the rule, even in a prosecution for crime.” [3 Willson, Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 342.] In this case the precise time of entering into the contract is not a material matter. The material inquiry is the injury caused appellant by the failure of appellee to furnish the stipulated cars at the time and place specified and agreed upon between the parties. If appellant was injured by reason of a failure to so furnish the cars, it was immaterial on what particular day the contract was entered into. It was sufficient to prove that the damage occurred by reason of the failure of appellee to furnish the cars, without reference particularly to the date of the entering into said contract. [Id.; Railroad Co. v. Evans, 78 Tex. 369; Brown v. Sullivan, 71 Tex. 477.] Eor the error indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

December 9, 1891.

Reversed and remanded.
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission

# DATE AND TIME:

Thursday, September 23, 2010, at 10 a.m.

# PLACE:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

*Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-16:*                         EmblemHealth Services Company LLC and Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York by its counsel, Jerry H. Goldfeder, of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP.                    

*Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-17:*                         Stutzman for Congress by Christopher M. Marston.                    

*Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-18:*                         Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party by its counsel, Marc E. Elias, Esq. and Jonathan S. Berkon, Esq. of Perkins Coie, LLP.                    

*Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-19:*                         Google by its counsel, Marc E. Elias, Esq. and Jonathan S. Berkon, Esq. of Perkins Coie, LLP.                    

*Draft Advisory Opinion 2010-20:*                         National Defense PAC by its counsel, Dan Backer, Esq.                    

Management and Administrative Matters.

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Lisa Chapman, Recording Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

                        Judith Ingram, Press Officer,                         *Telephone:*                         (202) 694-1220.                    

Lisa Chapman,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-24329 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
#### LIGGETT GROUP LLC, Appellant, v. Franklin D. CAMPBELL, as personal representative of the Estate of Betty Jean Campbell, Appellee. Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Appellants, v. Franklin D. Campbell, as personal representative of the Estate of Betty Jean Campbell, deceased, Appellee.

Nos. 1D10-0207, 1D10-0210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 14, 2011.

Rehearing Denied May 13, 2011.

Kelly Anne Luther and Leonard A. Fei-wus of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, Miami and Karen H. Curtis of Clarke, Silverglate & Campbell, P.A., Miami, for Appellant Liggett Group, LLC.

Larry Hill and Charles F. Beall, Jr. of Moore, Hill & Westermoreland, P.A., Pensacola, Mark A. Belasic of Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, pro hac vice, Jason F. Keehfus, Stephanie E. Parker, and John F. Yarber of Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, pro hac vice, and Gregory G. Katsas of Jones Day, Washington, D.C., pro hac vice, for Appellant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

P. Michael Patterson of Emmanuel, Sheppard, Condon, Pensacola, Kenneth J. Reilly and Rafael Cruz-Alvarez of Shook, Hardy *&*Bacon, LLP, Miami, for Appellant Philip Morris USA, Inc.

David J. Sales of Searcy, Denney, Scaro-la, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach and Philip M. Burlington and Bard D. Rockenbach of Burlington & Rocken-bach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin,*53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

BENTON, C.J., WEBSTER, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.04



          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 on Form 10-K of Spectrum Organic Products,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
B. Fowles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



                                            /s/  Robert B. Fowles
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                 Robert B. Fowles
                                                 Chief Financial Officer


March 22, 2004




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Daniel HINTON, Jr.

No. 2009-K-0821.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this court’s action dated January 7, 2011; Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 12-07-0226 to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KA1849.

Reconsideration granted. Writ denied.
#### Scott THOMPSON v. Susan MOLINARI.

No. 2011-CP-0646.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Thompson, Scott; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 72107; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-805.

Denied.
#### Ralph *L.*SIMS, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 15471.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit,

Argued March 30, 1960.

Decided April 14, 1960.

Mr. Nicholas J. Chase, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. A. Kenneth Pye, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. John Jude O’Donnell, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Prettyman, Chief Judge, and Danaher and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of housebreaking and robbery on the testimony of two eye-witnesses, one of them the robbery victim. They said appellant was armed with a pistol. These witnesses had some acquaintance with appellant and their identification of him as the assailant was unequivocal. Six witnesses, relatives or friends of appellant, purported to corroborate appellant’s claimed alibi that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed.

It is contended that reversible error occurred when one witness testified: “When I opened the door Terrorizer came in. I didn’t know him as Ralph Sims. AH I know is Terrorizer.” No objection was made to this characterization of appellant and at no time was there a motion to strike or a motion for a mistrial.

The sharply conflicting evidence as to appellant’s participation in the crimes charged was submitted to the jury under instructions to which no objection was made or is now made.

We have also considered other contentions urged by the appellant. We find no error.

Affirmed.
[1014131-DePisigal #1 597

llarrio or Hsvru ' In Visa Petition Proceedings

A-12291717
Deckled by 

### MaPIA Director February 934, 1966• Since a physicist is a member of the professions within the meaning of sections 101(a) 

### (n) and 203(a) (3), Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended byP.L. 89-236, visa petition is approved to accord beneficiary, a qualified physicist, third preference classification.

Discussion: The petition was filed to accord the beneficiary a third .preference classification as a member 

## of tl
, r,professions based on his qualifications is a phisicist. The beneficiary is 

### a male, native and citizen of China, married, age 29, presently residing in Baltimore, Maryland; with his Wife. The beneficiary received a bachelor of science degree in 1959 from Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan, and a master of arts degree in physics in

.

June 1963 from Dartmouth College, • Hanover, New Hampshire. He served as a teaching fellow in the Physics Department, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Brooklyn; New York, from September 1963 to November 1965. He has been

-employed as a 

### physicist by lirestinghOuse Electric Corporation Baltimore, Maryland, from December 1965 to date. The beneficiary intends to engage in his profession in the United States as a physicist. A certification pursuant to section` 212(a) (14) of the Act, as amended, has been issued by the Department of Labor. - Physicists are listed among professional occupations under -code 0

- 3513 in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, volume II, second edition, prepared -by the United States Department of Labor. In the third edition of the above publication, phisicists are listed under professional, technical, and managerial occupations, cosies Q23.081 and .088. Occupations in this physical scientist group are concerned with the investigation of the laws of matter and energy and their. applications to problems in such fields

- as science, engineering, medicine, and production: The Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1966-67

. - 652

### Interim Decision #1597 edition, of the United States Department of Labor, states that a 

### bachelor's degree with a major in physics is the minimum entrance requirement for young people seeking careers as physicists; that physicists with master's degrees are able to qualify for many research jobs in private industry, educational 

### institutions, and government; 

### and that a doctor's degreels required for high-level college and university teaching positions. The average (median) annual salary for physicists was $12,000 in 1964, according to the National Science Foundation's National Register of Scientific and Technical Personnel. From the foregoing it has been established that the beneficiary is a qualified physicist 

### and as such is a member of the professions 

### within the meaning of sections 101 (a) (32) and 203(a) (3) of the Act, as amended. ORDER: 

### It is ordered that the petition be approved and the beneficiary accorded third preference under section 203.(a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
#### PERETZ PROPERTIES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellant, v. MRHOP INVESTMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellee.

No. 2D10-36.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 11, 2011.

Kevin L. Hagen of Hagen & Hagen, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellant.

W.A. “Drew” Crawford, Sean R. Parker, and Richard A. Lopez of Boswell & Dunlap, LLP, Bartow, for Appellee.

LaROSE, Judge.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *See Cunningham v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A.,*8 So.3d 438, 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding dismissal of compulsory counterclaim with prejudice is not an ap-pealable final order until final disposition of the underlying case).

KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2009 (the “Report”) of TF Financial Corporation (the “Company”) as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Kent C. Lufkin,President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis R. Stewart, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer), herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial position and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |                 |   | /s/ Kent C. Lufkin                                   |
|--------|----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  | August 14, 2009 |   | Kent C. Lufkin                                       |
|   |                 |   | President and CEO                                    |
|   |                 |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |                 |   |                                                 |
|   |                 |   |                                                 |
|   |                 |   | /s/ Dennis R. Stewart                                |
| Date:  | August 14, 2009 |   | Dennis R. Stewart                                    |
|   |                 |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                 |   | (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)  |

 

----
#### Linda HAMILTON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Herbert Hamilton, deceased, Appellant, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Asplundh Tree Expert Company, Boynton Landscape Company, Inc., and Susan Smith, Appellees.

No. 4D09-3971.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 24, 2010.

*171Diana L. Martin of Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., Palm Beach, Gardens, and Edwin Ferguson of The Ferguson Firm, Riviera Beach, for appellant.

Helen Ann Hauser and Maria E. Dalma-nieras of Restani, Dittmar & Hauser, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellee Florida Power & Light Company.

Mitchell L. Lundeen and Kevin M. O’Brien of George, Hartz, Lundeen, Coral Gables, for appellee Asplundh Tree Expert Company.

Rayford H. Taylor of Stiles, Taylor & Grace, P.A., Atlanta, Georgia, and Robert J. Grace, Jr., of Stiles, Taylor *&*Grace, P.A., Tampa, for appellee Boynton Landscape Company, Inc.

HAZOURI, J.

Linda Hamilton, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Herbert Hamilton, filed a wrongful death action against Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), As-plundh Tree Expert Company (Asplundh), Boynton Landscape Company, Inc. (Boyn-ton) and Susan Smith. FPL, Asplundh, and Boynton settled with Hamilton through her attorney for fifty thousand dollars each. Hamilton asserted that she had not given her attorney the authority to settle and FPL, Asplundh and Boynton filed motions to enforce settlement after Hamilton refused to execute the settlement agreement.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Hamilton had given her attorney the clear and unequivocal authority to settle. Following the evi-dentiary hearing, the trial court granted the appellees’ motions to enforce settlement from which Hamilton now appeals.

A party seeking to enforce a settlement agreement bears the burden of *172showing that the attorney proposing the settlement had the clear and unequivocal authority from his client to do so. *Sosnick v. McManus,*815 So.2d 759, 762-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The trial court’s factual findings that there was a clear and unequivocal grant of authority must be supported by competent, substantial evidence in order to be upheld on appeal. *See Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc.,*834 So.2d 295, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

At the hearing to enforce the settlement there was conflicting evidence regarding Hamilton’s attorney’s authority to settle. The trial court took testimony and resolved the conflict in favor of the appellees. When there is a nonjury finding on disputed evidence, it is reviewed on appeal for competent, substantial evidence because the lower court “is in the best position ‘to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.’” *Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer,*976 So.2d 1139, 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976)). Upon review of the record of the hearing on the motions to enforce settlement there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings and we therefore affirm.

*Affirmed.*

CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
#### Leroy BROOKS, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D10-3400.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 10, 2010.

Leroy Brooks, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Joe Belitzky, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We hereby grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The circuit court shall rule on the pending petition for writ of mandamus within a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 days from issuance of mandate in this cause. Because we are confident that the circuit court will issue a ruling, we withhold issuance of the formal writ.

WOLF, DAVIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
#### Aaron HARRELL v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS.

No. 2010-CI-0611.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Harrell, Aaron; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 574,776; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1421.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Eugene H. MOORE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1707.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Moore, Eugene H.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Cameron, 38th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 85,939; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-01328.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
#### Warren Hotel Corporation et al. *v.*Boss-Warren Hotel Co., Inc., et al.

[No. 19,359.

Filed November 18, 1960.]

*Frank M. McHale, William F. Welch, C. Severin Buschmann, Donald A. Schabel, McHale, Cook, Welch & McKinney,*of counsel, *Buschmann, Krieg, DeVault & Alexander,*of counsel, all of Indianapolis, and *Emerson Brunner,*of Shelbyville, for appellants.

*Michael L. Fansler, Gustav H. Dongus, Paul Barna/rd*and *Famler, Fauvre, Dongus & Barnard,*of counsel, of Indianapolis, for appellees.

Bierly, C. J.

Transcript and Assignment of Errors were filed in this cause on October 21, 1959. After the timely filing of petitions for extension of time to file Appellants’ Brief and the granting of the same, appellants filed their Brief on April 1, I960-. Subsequently thereto on April 27, 1960 appellees filed their Brief which was followed by Appellants’ Reply Brief being filed on June 18, 1960. Proper Service of Notice was filed in each instance required.

On November 15, 1960, appellants herein, by one of their attorneys, Honorable William F. Welch, and ap*260pellees, by one of their attorneys, Honorable Gustav H. Dongus, filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss this Appeal “for the reason that the matters heretofore in controversy between the parties and involved herein are no longer in controversy and the issues of this appeal are, therefore, moot.”

The court having examined said Joint Motion to Dismiss and being duly advised in the premises NOW FINDS that the same should be granted.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, DETERMINED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this appeal herein be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 170 N. E. 2d 238.
#### ST. TAMMANY PARISH v. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LACOMBE, a Non-Profit Corporation, Paul J. Leary, Sr., J.C. Hymel and IESI LA Corporation.

No. 2011-CA-2661.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 2011.

In re St. Tammany Parish; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial Court Div. F, No. 2011-11620.

Granted. The case is remanded to the district court, which is instructed to grant relators’ motions for suspensive appeal pursuant to La.Code Civ. P.art. 2123.