alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-6 Preflight","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UhbXl2YAuE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasas-spacex-crew-6-preflight-2\/\">NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-6 Preflight<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/nasas-spacex-crew-6-preflight-2\/embed\/#?secret=UhbXl2YAuE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-6 Preflight” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UhbXl2YAuE\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/52704988217-a8442a095c-o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":748}
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30289

CHRISTINE CARMOUCHE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AFFILIATED BLIND OF LOUISIANA,

INC., ET AL.,

Defendants,

AFFILIATED BLIND OF LOUISIANA,

INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1808)

December 8, 1997

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this case, grounded in racial discrim ination claims by

Plaintiff-Appellant Christine Carmouche, the district court granted2

a summary judgment in favor of her former employer, DefendantAppellant Aff i liated Blind of Louisiana, Inc., dismissing the

claims of Carmouche for failure to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination under Title VII. More specifically, the district

court determined that Carmouche was not constructively discharged

and that she failed to produce sufficient summary judgment evidence

to support an inference of discriminatory intent.

From our careful de novo review of the summary judgment record

from the district court , the facts evident therefrom and from

briefs of able counsel, and the l egal arguments presented by

counsel in their appellate briefs and their argument s to this

court , we can discern no reasonable basis in fact or law for

reversing the determination of the district court. Cons equently,

the judgment of that court dismissing Carmouche’s action is, in all

respects,

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**In connection with the filing of the financial statements of Chindex International, Inc. (“Registrant”) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”), theundersigned hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, 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, and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.       /s/ Lawrence Pemble         Lawrence Pemble    Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial Officer)  “A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Chindex International, Inc. and will be retained by Chindex International, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.”
EXHIBIT 99.6

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 40-F of NOVA Chemicals Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
"Report"), I, Jeffrey M. Lipton, Chief Executive Officer of NOVA Chemicals Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|March 1, 2007 |  | /s/JEFFREY M. LIPTONJeffrey M. Lipton Chief Executive
Officer
|------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
423 A.2d 1305

#### Commonwealth v. Brown, Appellant.

Submitted March 23, 1979.

James J. Demarco, for appellant; Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.44

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 6

                       SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL

                          EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


         This Amendment is executed by Service Corporation International (the
"Company") effective as of July 31, 2001.


                                   WITNESSETH

         WHEREAS, the Company executed the Service Corporation International
Stock Purchase Plan on August 22, 1979, Amendment No. 1 thereto on June 5, 1981,
Amendment No. 2 thereto on October 19, 1988, Amendment No. 3 thereto on June 19,
1990, Amendment No. 4 thereto on December 21, 1993, and Amendment No. 5 thereto
on January 1, 2000 (as amended, the "Plan"), which continues in force and
effect, and is made a part hereof by reference; and

         WHEREAS, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith will no longer
administer the Plan for those Employees of a Canadian Employing Company, and the
Company has arranged for Fastrak Systems, Inc., a corporation organized under
the laws of Ontario ("Fastrak"), to serve as the Plan's administrator for those
Employees of a Canadian Employing Company;

         WHEREAS, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith will continue as the
administrator under the Plan for those Employees of a U.S. Employing Company;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Company hereby
amends the Plan in the following respect:

         1. Section 1.1 is hereby amended and restated as follows:

         "1.11 Merrill Lynch/Fastrak: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
         Incorporated and Fastrak Systems Inc., the companies through which the
         Plan is administered as herein provided. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
         & Smith Incorporated serves as Plan administrator for those Employees
         of a U.S. Employing Company. Fastrak Systems Inc. serves as Plan
         administrator for those Employees of a Canadian Employing Company.
         References to Merrill Lynch/Fastrak shall be applied as the context
         requires."

         2. All references in the Plan to "Merrill Lynch" are hereby amended to
state "Merrill Lynch/Fastrak."

         3. Section 9 of the Plan is hereby amended to include the following new
Subsection:

<PAGE>


         "9.10 In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Plan
         and the provisions of the Administration Agreement by and between the
         Company and Fastrak Systems, Inc., the provisions of the Administration
         Agreement will control with respect to accounts administered by Fastrak
         Systems, Inc."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment to the Plan
effective as of July 31, 2001.


                                    SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL


                                    By: /s/ JAMES M. SHELGER
                                        -----------------------------

                                    Title:  SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
#### G. W. Chambers’ Admr. *v.*G. W. McAdams.

Accounts — Do not Draw Interest Unless Specified.

An account was made with, a defendant, of “$600.00 on deposit which I am to pay on demand”. Held, that without demand or failure to pay, or special contract, this would not bear interest, the writing evidencing a mere deposit and not a loan.

APPEAL FROM HANCOCK CIRCUIT COURT.

March 7, 1870.

*668
      *G. W.*Williams, *for appellant.*

*Bush, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

McAdams’ account of merchandise, cash, etc., against decedent. Chambers, down to the close of the year 1864, is reasonably established, and amounts to $643,93.

McAdams, on March 12, 1863, executed the following writing:

> “Received of G-. W. Chambers six hundred dollars on deposit, which I am to pay on demand.”

Without demand and failure to pay or special contract this would not bear interest, the writing evidencing a mere deposit and not a loan.

Added to this was an allowance by the commissioner against McAdams for net proceeds of tobacco shipped by him for

decedent........................................$214.03

Aggregate of both items...........................$814.03

Deduct McAdams'account..........................$643.93

Balance.......................................$170.10

The commissioner evidently made a mistake in the addition of McAdams’ account, reducing it to $573.93, which, when corrected leaves the proper amount for which judgment against McAdams should be rendered one hundred and seventy dollars and ten cents, with interest thereon from the time he recovered the proceeds of the tobacco sold up to the rendition of the judgment hereafter to be made and then interest thereon until paid.

The judgment in favor-of ajipellant being too large it must be reversed on the cross-appeal and affirmed on the original appeal, with directions to render another judgment conformable to the directions herein.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed on the cross-appeal, but *affirmed*on the original appeal.
Case 2:15-mj-01685-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01685-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01685-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 45","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"n4ecWJ0zij\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-45\/\">Expedition 45<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-45\/embed\/#?secret=n4ecWJ0zij\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 45” — NASA\" data-secret=\"n4ecWJ0zij\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/exp45-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
#### Nooe *v.*Higdon.

In error.

*Saturday, December 24.*

TRESPASS *quare clausum fregit,*for breaking the plaintiff’s stable and taking away his horse. Pleas, 1st, That the stable was in the possession of the defendant and one *A.*as tenants of the plaintiff; that the horse belonged to the defendant and *A.,*and was in M.’s part of the stable, &c. 2dly, That *B.*had obtained a judgment against C. before a justice, and that the defendant and JL. were *C.’s*replevin-bail; that *afi. fa.*was issued on. the judgment and delivered to a constable; that the horse was C.’s, but the plaintiff kept him concealed and locked up in the stable, and refused to deliver him, &c.; and that the defendant, by *A.’s*permission, opened the stable, &c. Replications to these pleas, and issues. *Held,*on the trial, that *A.*was a competent witness for the defendant.

If an execution be proved to be lost, its contents may be proved by parol evidence.
#### Thomas Hogan *v.*John Hogan.

Gifts — Gratuitous Promise.

The alleged promise by appellee to appellant to give him all he could make by attending to the suit was gratuitous and could not be enforced.

APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 23, 1868.

Wilkins, *for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

It being equally the duty of each partner to attend to the collection of the Herrigan debt the alleged promise by the appellee to the appellant to give him all he could make by attending to the suit for it, was gratituous and could not be enforced.

The circuit court therefore did not err in either instructing or refusing to instruct the jury.

And therefore, the credits claimed by the appellant having been conceded, the verdict was authorized by the law and the facts.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
Case 2:15-mj-01855-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01855-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01855-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3
CIPHER
HOLDING CORPORATION
 
 EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cipher Holding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the year quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Corey Conn,
Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the quarterly report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 
 
 Date:
October 19, 2005
 
 
 
 /s/ Corey
Conn
 Chief
Financial Officer,
 
 
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

133334 Michael F. Cavanagh (74) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133334 COA: 261458 Oakland CC: 04-197600-FH JAMES REDMOND, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reco nsideration of this Court's September 21, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

l1119 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.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
Case 2:15-mj-01696-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01696-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01696-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 of REGI U.S., Inc. (the "Company") on
  Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Vandeberg,
  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
  as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | I have reviewed the Report;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|2. | based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue
      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
      to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
      statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
      by the Report; and
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|3. | based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
      financial information included in the Report, fairly present in all material
      respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows
      of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.                            



/s/ James Vandeberg
  James Vandeberg, Chief Financial Officer 
  (Principal Financial Officer)



---
No. 14,593.

#### Poole *v.*McGahan.

Filed Nov. 21, 1890.

From the Marion Superior Court.

*R. Hill,*for appellant.

*C. P. Jacobs*and *J. P. Baker,*for appellee.

Berkshire, C. J.

— This was an action of replevin brought by the appellee against the appellant.

The case was tried at special term, without a jury, and a finding and judgment rendered for the appellee, except as to a few of the articles of property described in the complaint, which were adjudged' to the appellant.

From the judgment at the special term an appeal was taken to the general term; the court in general term affirmed the judgment of special term, and from the latter judgment this appeal is taken. The only question presented for our consideration is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the court at special term.

We have examined the evidence, and are unable to say that there is not some evidence to support the finding of the court. Indeed, we think from the evidence, as we find it in the record, that the court might reasonably reach the conclusion to which it arrived.

No useful purpose would be subserved by reviewing the evidence in this opinion; hence, we do not do so. We find no error in the record.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

END OF MAY TERM, 1890.
**Exhibit 32**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of PSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.     /s/ Anthony DiSandro,     President and Chief Executive Officer     /s/ John Carrozza,     Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer     Dated: May 15, 2006
27