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



EXHIBIT 32.1 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, Ronald E. Hermance, Jr., is the chief executive officer of
Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. (the Company), and Denis J. Salamone, is the
principal financial officer of the Company. This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company
of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2004 (the Report). By execution of this statement, we certify that:  1)
    
    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(a) or 78o(d)), and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
Report. Date: May 6, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 6, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Denis J. SalamoneDenis J. SalamoneSenior Executive Vice President andChief Operating Officer
 Page 33
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
April 15, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 136228 (23) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices ROBERT BABUR BASAT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 136228 COA: 282091 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $47.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $328.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 15, 2008
Clerk
#### Irene C. TRITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William T. HENDERSON, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-55101.

D.C. No. CV-97-07581-CM(AJWx).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

*668Before D.W. NELSON, BRUNETTI, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM1

Tritz argues that the district court erred by refusing to consider alleged incidents which occurred outside the statutory limitations period in determining the existence of a triable issue of fact. We reject Tritz’s contention that these incidents constitute part of a “continuing violation” because they are neither reasonably related nor similar to the allegations contained in her EEOC complaint, and thus do not represent an ongoing unlawful employment practice. *See Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc.,*147 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1998). Because the continuing violation theory has no application here, those incidents are not actionable. *See Green v. Los Angeles Superintendent of Schools,*883 F.2d 1472, 1475-76 (9th Cir.1989).

In an opinion published after the district court’s decision, we indicated that evidence relating to untimely claims may serve as relevant background to put timely claims in context. *See Anderson v. Reno,*190 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir.1999). Having considered the additional evidence presented, we still conclude that no triable issues are raised.

AFFIRMED.

1

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                        844,185
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 909,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                  560,645
<INVENTORY>                                   724,890
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,065,832
<PP&E>                                      3,193,752
<DEPRECIATION>                                564,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,841,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,900,961
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                    10,000
<COMMON>                                      151,540
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,953,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                4,841,411
<SALES>                                     1,103,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,103,107
<CGS>                                       1,709,688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,709,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             96,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,744,240)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,744,240)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,744,240)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)




</TABLE>
#### Knighton *v.*State.

Opinion delivered July 13, 1925.

1. Criminal law — errors considered in absence of brief. — In a felony ease the record will be examined to determine whether any of the assignments of error in the motion for new trial were well founded, though no brief or argument on appellant’s behalf wias presented.

2. Criminal law — matters reviewable. — An assignment of error in refusing a continuance is not reviewable where neither the motion for continuance nor any reference thereto appears in the record except in the motion for new trial.

3. Intoxicating liquors — unlawful sale — evidence.—Evidence *held*to sustain a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor.

Appeal from Union Circuit Court; *L. 8. Britt,*Judge;

affirmed.

*H. W. Applegate,*Attorney General, and *John L. Garter,*Assistant, for appellee.

McCulloch, C. J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and appeals from the judgment, but no brief or argument has been presented here in his behalf. However, we examine the record to determine whether or not any of the assignments of error in the motion for a new trial are. well founded.

One of the assignments is that the court erred in refusing to grant a continuance. The motion for a new trial sets forth a motion for continuance, but neither the motion nor .any reference thereto appears anywhere else in the record. Hence there is nothing properly before us on that subject for review.

The only other assignment of error is that the evidence is not legally sufficient to: sustain the verdict. A witness testified that he went to the home of appellant and there purchased from appellant a bottle of whiskey, that appellant sold and delivered the whiskey and received payment therefor in money. Two other witnesses testified that they accompanied the other witness to appellaut’s. home, remained in the car about *294one hundred yards from the house, and saw said witness go into the house empty-handed and return in a few minutes with a bottle of whiskey. This testimony was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
OWOSSO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Three Months Ended              Six Months Ended
                                                                -------------------------    -------------------------
                                                                  April 28,     April 29,      April 28,     April 29,
                                                                    2002          2001           2002          2001
<S>                                                             <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>
BASIC:

Net income (loss) available
          for common shareholders                               $ 4,115,000   $(1,159,000)   $ 2,225,000   $(3,373,000)
                                                                ===========   ===========    ===========   ===========
Weighted average number
          of common shares outstanding                            5,874,000     5,866,000      5,874,000     5,858,000
                                                                ===========   ===========    ===========   ===========
Basic earnings (loss) per common share                          $      0.70   $     (0.20)   $      0.38   $     (0.58)
                                                                ===========   ===========    ===========   ===========

DILUTED:

Net income (loss) available
          for common shareholders                               $ 4,115,000   $(1,159,000)   $ 2,225,000   $(3,373,000)
                                                                ===========   ===========    ===========   ===========
Weighted average number
          of common shares outstanding                            5,874,000     5,866,000      5,874,000     5,858,000

Dilutive effect of stock options                                       --            --             --            --
                                                                -----------   -----------    -----------   -----------
Weighted average number
          of common shares outstanding                            5,874,000     5,866,000      5,874,000     5,858,000
                                                                ===========   ===========    ===========   ===========
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share                        $      0.70   $     (0.20)   $      0.38   $     (0.58)
                                                                ===========   ===========    ===========   ===========
</TABLE>





                                       B-1
EXHIBIT 11



                           IPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                                                 August 31,            August 31,
                                                            -----------------------------------------
                                                              2001       2000       2001       2000
                                                            -----------------------------------------
<S>                                                          <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Net Income                                                   $5,359     $  151     $9,618     $  872
                                                             ======     ======     ======     ======

Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding          4,859      4,859      4,859      4,843
                                                             ======     ======     ======     ======

Shares used in computation of basic earnings per
     common stock                                             4,859      4,859      4,859      4,843
                                                             ======     ======     ======     ======

Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options and stock
     warrants after application of treasury stock method          0          0          0          0
                                                             ------     ------     ------     ------

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding-diluted       4,859      4,859      4,859      4,843
                                                             ======     ======     ======     ======

Basic and diluted earnings per common share                  $ 1.10     $  .03     $ 1.98     $  .18
                                                             ======     ======     ======     ======
</TABLE>


                                       14
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAUL ARLEQUIN.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 407

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONALD WILSON.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                              
|---- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1086-120,
12th Floor 550 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2014, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I
Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, Citibank, N.A., , as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate
Registrar and Authenticating Agent and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C17 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise
defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice
President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from August 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the Reporting Period) , and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been
made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO                                                  
|Daniel Bober Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert B. Goergen, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Blyth, Inc., certify that:

 

1.      I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blyth, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.      Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.      The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: September 4, 2008

 
|                                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  Robert B. Goergen                |   |
| Robert  B. Goergen                    |   |
| Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
	  Training
     
    Search & Site Index Blowing the Whistle Mini-Briefing
   **Note:**If you need a more accessible version of the   video, please e-mail mspb@mspb.gov or phone 202-653-7200, and TDD/videophone users should call via relay.
    **Video formats (streaming below in .wmv format)**
   Blowing the Whistle .mov - quicktime/Apple/iPhone | .mp4


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov
#### A.P. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, T/A STONEY FIELDS ESTATE v. THOMAS BAND AND KATHY BAND.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification granted.
584 A.2d 208

#### MARION KILGANNON v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 240 *N.J.Super.*4, 572 A.2d 201)
#### In re: James P. KIRWAN and Nikki L. Kirwan, Debtors. *702Irwin I. Tuttleman, Plaintiff-Appellant, and David M. Tuttleman, Appellant, v. James P. Kirwan, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-16107.

D.C. No. CV-97-21124-SW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 11, 2001.

Before WALLACE, FISHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and the parties’ arguments, we affirm for the reasons given in the district court’s order dated April 16,1999.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
585 A.2d 336

#### IN THE MATTER OF FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP.

July 10, 1990.

585 A.2d 336

Petition for certification denied. (See 240 *N.J.Super.*83, 572 A.2d 660).
584 A.2d 249

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID STETSON.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.