alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 32

                               HMN FINANCIAL, INC.

                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 Quarterly Report of HMN Financial, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael McNeil,
President of the Company, and I, Jon Eberle, Senior Vice President and CFO 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; and

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



Date:   May 4, 2006                /s/ Michael McNeil
                                   Michael McNeil
                                   President/Chief Executive Officer
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)

                                   /s/ Jon Eberle
                                   Jon Eberle
                                   Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
                                   (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Juan MARRIAGA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-1357.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 18, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 2010.

*156Juan Marriaga, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE and CORTIÑAS, JJ„ and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order denying a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The defendant contends that he does not qualify as a sexual predator under section 775.21, Florida Statutes.

The defendant was convicted of attempted sexual battery. The State response indicates that the crime was committed on a victim less than twelve years of age and that the crime was a felony of the first degree.

The defendant argues that as of the 1997 crime date, the Florida Sexual Predators Act did not apply to attempts. *Therrien v. State,*914 So.2d 942, 944-45 (Fla.2005). Attempts were added to the Act in 1998. *Id.*

As we interpret the *Therrien*decision, the question whether an offender qualifies under the Act is to be decided as of the date of sentencing. *See id.*at 944. At the time of defendant’s sentencing in 1999, an offender qualified under the Act if the offense was an attempt to commit a capital, life, or first-degree felony violation of chapter 794. § 775.21(4)(c)1.b., Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998).

The defendant argues that he is entitled to relief under *Therrien,*but he is incorrect. At the time of the sentencing in *Therrien,*attempts had not yet been added to the statute. At the time of this defendant’s sentencing, the “attempt” provision had gone into effect. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order on this issue, and affirm on the remaining issue without comment.

Affirmed.
First Amendment to the  Amended and Restated 2001 Outside Directors' Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.10 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED ACTUANT CORPORATION 2001 OUTSIDE 
 DIRECTORS’ STOCK
PLAN 
 THIS AMENDMENT to the Actuant Corporation 2001 Outside Directors’ Stock Plan (the “Plan”) is made on this
25th day of December, 2008, by Actuant Corporation (the “Company”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company has established the Plan as a
means to promote the growth and development of the Company and its shareholders by increasing the proprietary interest of non-employee directors of the Company in the Company and as a means to attract and retain highly qualified and capable
non-employee directors; 
 WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors has the authority to amend the Plan under Section 8.05
thereof; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of January 1, 2008: 
 1. A new Section 3.02(c) shall be added to the Plan as follows: 
 “(c) Any such adjustments described in this Section 3.02 shall be done in a manner that complies with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code, to the extent applicable.” 
 2. Section 8.05 of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following sentence at the end of such Section: 
 “Any action taken by the Board under this Section 8.05 shall be done in a manner that complies with the requirements of Section 409A of the
Code, to the extent applicable.” 
 3. All other terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first written above. 
  

					
	ACTUANT CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Susan Korthase
		 	Its:	 	 Vice President, Human Resources

		
	By:	 	/s/ Andrew G. Lampereur
		 	Its:	 	 Executive Vice President and CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>         1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,827
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         365,217
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           366,826
<LOANS>                                      1,103,889
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,542,468
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,019,705
<SHORT-TERM>                                   103,400
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             21,434
<LONG-TERM>                                    297,052
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,542,468
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 39,972
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,792
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    26
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                53,790
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              25,154
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,305
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,485
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      360
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,836
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,669
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,669
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.10
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,586
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,397
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,157
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,869
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      129
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,925
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,925
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-15T12:04:39Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-15T12:04:40Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-15T12:04:40Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="12595">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-15T12:04:39Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OPINION # o-7534 WAS NEVER ISSUED OK 
</p>
<p>WAS WITHDRAWN. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
Abatement Order filed September 10, 2020. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00352-CR

____________

ELIC MILTON LYMAN, SR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 83696-CR

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual of a child and 

sentenced to prison for thirty-five years. Counsel has filed an Anders brief on 

appeal.1 Appellant has been unable to file a pro se response due to the closure of 

the law library because of COVID-19 and seeks additional time to resp ond . See 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Recognizing a 

1See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
defendant is to be afforded the opportunity to file a pro se response). Accordingly, 

we enter the following order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when 

appellant’s pro se response is filed. The court also will consider an ap propriate 

motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the 

appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

      ( print page 61481)    
On September 15, 2010, the Commission provided notice that a meeting will be held to present the results of the cost benefit analysis conducted by Charles River Associates and Resero Consulting to study the effects of Entergy Services, Inc. and Cleco Power joining the Southwest Power Pool regional transmission organization. As stated in the September 15 notice, the meeting will be held on September 30, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the following address: 

Astor Crowne Plaza, 739 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, 504-962-0500. 

The attached agenda provides details on the topics that will be discussed at the meeting. Those wishing to attend the meeting by teleconference may do so using dial-in number (877) 932-5833 and passcode 157403. 

For further information about this meeting, please contact: 

                    Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (317) 249-5937,                     *patrick.clarey@ferc.gov.*

                    Doug Roe, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6566,                     *douglas.roe@ferc.gov.*

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

## Final Presentation on the Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted by Charles River Associates and Resero Consulting To Study the Effects of Entergy Services, Inc. and Cleco Power Joining the Southwest Power Pool Regional Transmission Organization 

## Agenda 

9 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.—Introductions & Overview of Agenda 

9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.—Opening Statements 

9:50 a.m. to 10 a.m.—Overview of Study History & Process 

10 a.m. to 10:10 a.m.—Break 

10:10 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.—Final Results Presentation 

11:20 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.—Next Steps 

11:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.—Question and Answer Session 

12 p.m.—Meeting Adjourned 

[FR Doc. 2010-24946 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
858 A.2d 585

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. Charles C. STAROPOLI, Respondent.

No. 925 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 22, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2004, on certification by the Disciplinary Board that the respondent, CHARLES C. STAROPOLI, who was suspended by Order of this Court dated July 8, 2004, for a period of one year retroactive to July 1, 2003, has filed a verified statement showing compliance with all the terms and conditions of the Order of Suspension and Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E., and there being no other outstanding order of suspension or disbarment, CHARLES C. STAROPOLI is hereby reinstated to active status, effective immediately.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATIONS





The undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certifies that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, 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:  May 11, 2011
By:
/s/ Kimberly B. SnyderChief Financial Officer












48
#### Wilbur GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORLEY MILLS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 78-2008.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 30, 1980.

Richard E. Green, James W. Witherspoon, Donald L. Davis, Earnest Langley, Hereford, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Culton, Morgan, Britain & White, Jess C. Dickie, Amarillo, Tex., for defendant-appel-lee.

Before GODBOLD, GARZA and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s motion to modify the Court’s judgment and opinion, 614 F.2d 464, is GRANTED in the following respects. The last paragraph at page 467 of the opinion of the court, containing the mandate, is deleted and the following is substituted:

*568The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $20,000 plus interest thereon from March 2, 1978. This court expresses no view with respect to appellant’s claim for treble damages under the Texas Consumer Protection and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; this is a matter for consideration by the district court.
Order entered May 1, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00538
- CV IN RE PATRICK DOAK, JERRY ZEMANSKI AND S TEVEN BIN, Relators

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. 296
- 00538
- 2013



### O RDER The Court has before it relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. The Court requests that real party in interest and respondent file any responses by May 10, 2013.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
A93A0260.

#### MURPHY v. GEORGIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

(431 SE2d 147)

Pope, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff/appellant Robert Murphy appeals the grant of summary judgment to Georgia General Insurance Company (“Georgia General”), plaintiff’s uninsured motorist carrier. Plaintiff filed suit against a John Doe defendant, the driver of an unknown truck, seeking to *502recover damages stemming from an accident occurring on April 23, 1991 in which plaintiff contends a pipe fell from the bed of the unknown truck, struck the windshield of his vehicle and caused him to lose control of his vehicle. It is undisputed that plaintiff is the only eyewitness to this accident. Georgia General answered the complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment.

Decided April 19, 1993.

*Dozier, Akin, Lee & Graham, Neal B. Graham,*for appellant.

*Greer, Klosik & Daugherty, Robert J. McCune,*for appellee.

The trial court correctly granted Georgia General’s motion for summary judgment. This case is controlled by our decision in *Scott v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*200 Ga. App. 296 (407 SE2d 492) (1991). In this case, as in *Scott,*the plaintiff cannot prevail on his uninsured motorist claim against John Doe because there was no physical contact between the plaintiffs vehicle and the John Doe truck and plaintiff’s description of how the accident occurred was not corroborated by another eyewitness to the occurrence. Id. at 297; see OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (2). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention otherwise, it is now well-settled that the corroboration requirement set forth in OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (2) can only be met by the testimony of an eyewitness to the occurrence and not by circumstantial evidence, including statements given by the plaintiff to police, testimony of the plaintiff in both affidavits and depositions and/or physical damage to the plaintiff’s automobile. See *Universal Security Ins. Co. v. Lowery,*257 Ga. 363 (359 SE2d 898) (1987); *Scott,*200 Ga. App. at 297.

Plaintiff’s reliance on our recent decision in *State Farm Fire &c. Co. v. Guest,*203 Ga. App. 711 (417 SE2d 419) (1992) is misplaced, both because *Guest*offers only physical precedent and this case is factually distinguishable from *Guest.*In *Guest,*the plaintiffs vehicle struck an “integral part” (a tire assembly) of an unknown vehicle. Id. at 711. In this case, however, plaintiff’s vehicle struck a pipe which he alleges was being transported as cargo and fell off an unknown truck. The pipe clearly is not a component or “integral part” of the unknown truck. Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument that this case is governed by *Guest*must fail.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Birdsong, P. J., and Andrews, J., concur.*
#### W. C. Munn v. J. M. Martin.

(No. 2864.)

Appeal from Colorado County.

Kennon & Mansfield and W. S. Delaney, counsel for appellant.

Ford, Thompson & Townsend, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 60. *Argument; opening and conclusion of; case stated.*Appellant sued appellee to recover an indebted*96ness amounting to $968.50, and sued out writs of attachment and sequestration, which were levied upon appellee’s property. Appellee replevied a portion of said property, but a portion of it he did not replevy, and it remained in the hands of the officer, who seized it, and was never restored to appellee. Appellee pleaded in re-convention for actual damages in the sum of $828, and for exemplary damages in the sum of $170, alleging that' said writs of attachment and sequestration were wrongfully and maliciously sued out, etc. A verdict was rendered as follows: “We, the jury, find the account of W. C. Munn to be correct, and allow him full amount of interest on note, $172.03, and also account acknowledged by defendant, amount being $968.50. We, the jury, further agree to allow J. M. Martin the amount sued for, $998, in offset of W. O. Munn’s account, and give defendant judgment for the overplus, same being $29.50.” Upon this verdict judgment was rendered in favor of appellee against appellant for the sum of $29.50 and costs. Appellant’s first assignment of error is the ruling of the court giving appellee the opening and conclusion of the evidence and argument. The sureties on appellee’s replevy bond did not join in said admission, nor was it, in our opinion, necessary that they should do so, for they were not defendants in the suit within the meaning of the rule.

§ 61. *Verdict; certainty of.*Assignments of error sixth, seventh and tenth call in question the sufficiency of the verdict. It is claimed by appellant that the verdict is general, not responsive to the charge of the court, does not separate the actual from the exemplary damages awarded appellee, and does not specify whether exemplary damages were given for the malicious suing out of the attachment, or for the malicious suing out of the sequestration, etc. We are of the opinion that these assignments should not be sustained. It is sufficiently certain, looking to the pleadings of the case, the evi*97dence and the charges of the court, that the verdict awarded the appellee the damages as claimed in his plea of reconvention; that is, the actual damages therein alleged, and the exemplary damages therein claimed. “ That is certain which may be rendered certain” is a maxim of the law which is applicable to the verdict in this case.

February 15, 1890.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Northfield Laboratories Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven A. Gould, M.D.,
Chief Executive Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., 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; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Northfield Laboratories Inc.


Date: April 14, 2003


/s/ Steven A. Gould, M.D.
-------------------------------
Steven A. Gould, M.D.
Chief Executive Officer