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



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 As of the date hereof, I, Eric Borrmann, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Plumtree
Software, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Plumtree Software, Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by Plumtree
Software, Inc. and will be retained by Plumtree Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. By: /s/ Eric BorrmannName: Eric BorrmannTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 11, 2005
 44
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
I, Robert W. Winston, III, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2004 of Winston Hotels, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Companyand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of theCompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 8, 2004    /s/ Robert W. Winston, III   Robert W. Winston, III Chief Executive Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.E.V., Y.A.O., and * From the 446th District Court

A.M.O., children, of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. E-18-033-PC.

No. 11-19-00268-CV * February 13, 2020

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

 sitting by assignment)

 (Willson, J., not participating)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Joshua Montgomery TOLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-0501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 28, 2011.

*856Matt Shirk, Public Defender, and Richard Gordon, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition seeking a belated appeal of the judgment and sentence rendered on November 5, 2010, in Duval County Circuit Court case number 16-2009-CF-009876-AXXX-MA, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(5)(D). The court notes that the Public Defender has been appointed to represent petitioner in the appeal authorized by this opinion.

KAHN, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
ex10-82.htm


     

    EXHIBIT
10.82

    


    FIRST
AMENDMENT

    TO

    CAPITALBANK

    SPLIT
DOLLAR AGREEMENT

    DATED
DECEMBER 31, 2003

    FOR

    STEVE
O. WHITE

    


    


    THIS AMENDMENT is adopted this 31st day of
December, 2008 by and between CAPITALBANK a state-chartered commercial bank
located in Greenwood, South Carolina (the “Company”), and STEVE O. WHITE (the
“Executive”).

    


    The Company and the Executive entered
into the Split Dollar Agreement on December 31, 2003 (the
“Agreement”).  The Company and the Executive now agree to amend the
Normal Retirement Age.

    


    The undersigned hereby amend the
Agreement with the following changes:

    


    Section
1.6 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the
following:

    


    
      	
              1.6

            	
              “Normal Retirement Age”
      means the earliest of August 31st
      immediately following the Executive’s 61st
      birthday, the date of Termination of Employment on account of Disability
      or the date of a Change of Control.

            


    

    


    IN
WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Company and the Executive hereby consent to this
Amendment.

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    	
                            Executive:

                          	
                            CapitalBank

                          
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	
                            /s Steve O. White

                          	
                            By:
      /s R. Wesley
      Brewer

                          
	
                            Steve
      O. White

                          	
                            Title:  Chief
      Financial
Officer
#### Gary HARPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-564.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 17, 2011.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, C.J., and RAMIREZ and CORTIÑAS, JJ.

RAMIREZ, J.

Gary Harper appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. We affirm because it was within the trial court’s discretion to recall a jury that had not yet been discharged in order to correct a clerical error in its verdict.

The State charged Harper with kidnapping and burglary with an assault or battery. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the lesser count of false imprisonment, and of simple burglary. The jury read the verdict, and the court polled the jury. The court then reviewed the verdict form and found that the jury had failed to fill out completely the verdict form to indicate either the presence or absence of aggravating factors for burglary. The court immediately resubmitted the verdict form to the jury for completion. The jury completed the verdict form, finding existence of the aggravating factors that: the burglary was committed in a dwelling, with a human being inside, and that Harper committed both an assault and battery inside the dwelling. The court then polled the jury again and thereafter excused the jury.

The standard of review for challenges to a trial court’s decision to accept or reject a verdict is abuse of discretion. *See J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Servs., Inc.,*820 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). A trial court may recall a jury after being discharged to clear inconsistency, ambiguity, defect, or clerical error, provided that thei’e has not been opportunity for jury *1093contamination. *See Thomas v. State,*789 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); *Davis v. State,*631 So.2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Here, as the jury had not yet been discharged, there was no opportunity for jury contamination. In addition, the jury’s inadvertent failure to fill in part the verdict form constituted clerical error. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion when it resubmitted the verdict form to the jury for completion.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 61033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24900]



[[Page 61031]]

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

Part IV





The President





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



Memorandum of September 29, 2010--Provision of Aviation Insurance 
Coverage for Commercial Air Carrier Service in Domestic and 
International Operations


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 61033]]

                Memorandum of September 29, 2010

                
Provision of Aviation Insurance Coverage for 
                Commercial Air Carrier Service in Domestic and 
                International Operations

                Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States, 
                including 49 U.S.C. 44302, et seq., I hereby:

                1. Determine that the continuation of U.S. commercial 
                air transportation is necessary in the interest of air 
                commerce, national security, and the foreign policy of 
                the United States.

                2. Approve the provision by the Secretary of 
                Transportation of insurance or reinsurance to U.S. air 
                carriers against loss or damage arising out of any risk 
                from the operation of an aircraft in the manner and to 
                the extent provided in chapter 443 of title 49 of the 
                U.S. Code until September 30, 2011, when he determines 
                such insurance or reinsurance cannot be obtained on 
                reasonable terms and conditions from any company 
                authorized to conduct an insurance business in a State 
                of the United States.

                You are directed to bring this determination 
                immediately to the attention of all air carriers, as 
                defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(2), and to arrange for 
                its publication in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 29, 2010

[FR Doc. 2010-24900
Filed 9-30-10; 11:15 am]
Billing code 4910-9-P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1325 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1325

  To require the Government of Iraq to match, dollar for dollar, the 
 amount of United States assistance awarded for the reconstruction of 
                                 Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2007

  Mr. Sires introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Government of Iraq to match, dollar for dollar, the 
 amount of United States assistance awarded for the reconstruction of 
                                 Iraq.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Partnership for Iraq Reconstruction 
Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. MATCHING REQUIREMENT FOR UNITED STATES RECONSTRUCTION 
              ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ.

    (a) Matching Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, no officer or employee of the Government of the United States may 
award a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement for the 
reconstruction of Iraq unless the Government of Iraq agrees that, with 
respect to the costs to be incurred in carrying out programs, projects, 
or activities for which the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement 
is awarded, the Iraqi Government will make available non-United States 
Government contributions in an amount equal to not less than 50 percent 
of the amount of the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
    (b) Effective Date.--The matching requirement of subsection (a) 
shall apply with respect to grants, contracts, and cooperative 
agreements for the reconstruction of Iraq awarded on or after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall transmit to Congress 
a report on the implementation of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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





In
      connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of South Jersey
      Gas
      Company (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward
      J. Graham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
      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.

















/s/
      Edward J.
      Graham


Name:
      Edward J. Graham


Title:
      Chief Executive Officer


March
      6,
      2007
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To ZMAX Corporation:

We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States, the consolidated financial statements of ZMAX Corporation (a
Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries and have issued our report thereon dated
March 2, 2000. Our audits were made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the
basic financial statements taken as a whole. The schedule listed in Item 14,
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts, is the responsibility of the Company's
management and is presented for purposes of complying with the Securities and
Exchange Commission's rules and is not part of the basic financial statements.
This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the
audits of the basic consolidated financial statements and, in our opinion,
fairly states, in all material respects, the financial data required to be set
forth therein in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken
as a whole.

                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP




Vienna, Virginia
March 2, 2000




                                    - F-19 -
#### D. L. Green et al. v. W. B. Malone.

(No. 1827.)

Error from Hunt County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 466. *Pleading in county count on appeal from justice’s court; a plea which was held did not present new matter; case stated.*Green was the landlord of Malone, and sued him for the value of. a mule and other supplies advanced to him to enable him to make a crop, and dis-trained for said supplies. In the county court, to which the case had been appealed, the jury found that the distress warrant had been *unlawfully*sued out, and found for plaintiff $80 debt, and for the defendant $200 damages, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant for $120 and costs. In justice’s court, Malone pleaded that Green warranted that a wound which was upon the mule would not injure it, and that said mule afterwards died from said wound. In the county court he amended this plea by alleging that after the mule died Green purchased a horse and put in the place of the mule, and that Green executed his note for the purchase price of this horse, which note he, Malone, paid at maturity. Green moved to strike out this amendment, because it contained matter not pleaded in the justice’s court, and set up a set-off or counterclaim. This motion was overruled. *Held:*The amendment did not contain new matter, nor did it present a set-off or counterclaim. It simply pleaded the defendant’s evidence tending to prove the warranty. This transaction about the horse could have been proved under the original answer made by the defendant in justice’s court. It was only objectionable upon the ground that it pleaded defendant’s evidence.

§ 467. *Charge of the court cannot he complained of, when..*Although the charge of the court upon the measure of damages may not have been entirely correct, still it was more liberal to the appellant than a correct charge *410would have been, and such being the case, appellant cannot be heard to complain of the error.

November 19, 1884.

§ 468. *Judgment on appeal to county court in distress warrant suit, held to be correct.*The verdict of the jury being that the distress warrant was *unlawfully*sued out, not that it was *illegally*and *unjustly*sued out, would not warrant a judgment upon the distress warrant bond. *[Ante,*§ 57.] But the judgment in this case was not rendered against Green and the sureties upon his distress warrant bond, but was rendered against-him and the sureties upon his appeal bond, and in this there was no error.

Affirmed.
645 A.2d 135

#### THE NATIONAL STATE BANK OF ELIZABETH v. GLADYS GONZALEZ v. HENRY CISNEROS, ET AL.

June 22, 1994.

CORRECTED ORDER

Leave to appeal was improvidently granted;

And good cause appearing;

IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed. No costs.

Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, and STEIN join in the Order.

Chief Justice WILENTZ did not participate.
#### Quinn L. DUCOTE and Judy Ducote v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.

No. 2010-CC-2116.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 10, 2010.

In re Ducote, Judy; Ducote, Quinn L. et al.; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rap-ides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 218,842; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. CW 10-00735, CW 10-00742.

Moot; Plaintiffs motion to dismiss granted.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-68929, 333-64242 and 333-109332 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 15,
2005 on the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule
of Gevity HR, Inc. (the "Company") which report expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's adoption of the
provisions of Emerging Issues Task Force Issue 03-6, Participating Securities
and the Two Class Method under FASB Statement No. 128 and on management's report
on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which
expresses an adverse opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a
material weakness identified), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Gevity HR, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

Tampa, Florida
March 15, 2005
644 A.2d 74

#### IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD C. THOMAS, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

June 10, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court, recommending that EDWARD C. THOMAS, JR., of CLINTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, be temporarily suspended from practice and compelled to pay a monetary sanction for failure to pay a fee arbitration award, and said EDWARD C. THOMAS, JR., having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause in this matter, and good cause appearing;

*4It is ORDERED that EDWARD C. THOMAS, JR., is hereby-suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that EDWARD C. THOMAS, JR., pay a sanction in the amount of $500 to the Ethics Financial Committee within thirty days after the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with> Regulation 23 of the Administrative Guidelines Governing Suspended Attorneys.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certifies that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).

 

Dated:  November 9, 2009

 

/s/ Ellis L. Gutshall_____________

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|