alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32**

 

**TIME AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Time America, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Thomas S. Bednarik, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Craig J. Smith, Vice President - Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.

 
| By:    | /s/ Thomas S. Bednarik                                                  |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Thomas S. Bednarik                                                      |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer                                   |   |
|   | May 16, 2005                                                            |   |
|   |                                                                    |
| By:    | /s/ Craig J. Smith                                                      |   |   |
|   | Craig J. Smith                                                          |   |
|   | Vice President - Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | May 16, 2005                                                            |   |

 

----
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3895

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit local public agencies 

to act as Medicaid enrollment brokers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2004

Mr. ISSA (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. TERRY, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. FILNER, and Mrs. DAVIS of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit 

local public agencies to act as Medicaid enrollment brokers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMITTING LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES TO ACT 

4 AS MEDICAID ENROLLMENT BROKERS. 

5 Section 1903(b)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1396b(b)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(C)(i) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not 

9 apply in the case of a local public agency that is act-
2

•HR 3895 IH 

1 ing as an enrollment broker under a contract or 

2 memorandum with a State medicaid agency, pro3 vided the local public agency does not have a direct 

4 or indirect financial interest with any medicaid man5 aged care plan for which it provides enrollment 

6 broker services. 

7 ‘‘(ii) In determining whether a local public 

8 agency has a direct or indirect financial interest with 

9 a medicaid managed care plan under clause (i), the 

10 status of a local public agency as a contractor of the 

11 plan does not constitute having a direct or indirect 

12 financial interest with the plan.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21               
                                             
                         MERCANTILE STORES COMPANY, INC.    
                         SUBSIDIARY SCHEDULE      
                         AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 1997   
                                                      STATE OF
     SUBSIDIARY COMPANY                            INCORPORATION
     J. BACON & SONS                                   KENTUCKY
     THE CASTNER-KNOTT DRY GOODS COMPANY               TENNESSEE
     THE O.J. de LENDRECIE CO.                         DELAWARE
     C.J. GAYFER & COMPANY, INCORPORATED               DELAWARE
     HENNESSY COMPANY                                  MONTANA
     THE JONES STORE COMPANY                           DELAWARE
     THE JOSLIN DRY GOODS COMPANY, INC.                COLORADO
     THE LAZARUS STORE, INC.                           DELAWARE
     THE LION DRY GOODS COMPANY, INC.                  OHIO
     THE McALPIN COMPANY                               KENTUCKY
     GAYFER'S MONTGOMERY FAIR CO.                      DELAWARE
     ROOT DRY GOODS COMPANY, INC.                      INDIANA
     J.B. WHITE & COMPANY                              SOUTH CAROLINA
     DULUTH GLASS BLOCK STORE COMPANY                  MINNESOTA
     THE McALPIN COMPANY                               OHIO
     THE PEOPLES STORE COMPANY                         WASHINGTON
     J.B. WHITE & CO.                                  NEW JERSEY
     THE MACDOUGAL & SOUTHWICK COMPANY                 WASHINGTON
     MCCREERY & COMPANY                                MAINE
     SERF CORPORATION                                  MISSOURI
     MERSCO REALTY CO., INC.                           OHIO
     THE JONES STORE COMPANY HAIRSTYLING SCHOOL        MISSOURI
     MERCANTILE STORES COMPANY, INC. (N.Y.)            NEW YORK
     MERSCO FINANCE CORPROATION                        DELAWARE
     MERCANTILE PROPERTIES, INC.                       DELAWARE
     MERCANTILE REAL ESTATE CO., INC.                  DELAWARE
     THE O.J. de LENDRECIE CO.                         MINNESOTA
     MERSCO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.                  DELAWARE
     MERCANTILE INTERNATIONAL, INC.                    DELAWARE
     MAISON BLANCHE, INC.                              LOUISIANA
     TSM HOLDING COMPANY, INC.                         DELAWARE
     GOUDCHAUX'S CAR CARE CENTERS, INC.                LOUISIANA
     MERCANTILE CREDIT CORP.                           LOUISIANA
     MERCANTILE LOGISTICS COMPANY, INC.                OHIO
NO. 07-07-0047-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

______________________________

C. WILLIENELL ZIMMER HAYNES, ET AL., APPELLANTS

V.

MOORE COUNTY GAS PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL., APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 69 DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUNTY; TH

NO. 01-72; HONORABLE RON ENNS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

C. Willienell Zimmer Haynes, et al., appellants, have filed a motion to dismiss this

appeal. No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). All costs incurred are

adjudged against the party incurring the same. No motion for rehearing will be entertained

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice
#### James F. Pursley *v.*Commonwealth.

Recognizances — Bond—Time for ^Appearance.'

Where a recognizance bond does not show that accused was charged with a public offense and that he was discharged from custody by reason- -of the giving of the bond, and does not stipulate that accused should appear before the court for trial of the charge, such omissions are fatal to the bond.

APPEAL FROM BARRE-N CIRCUIT COURT.

June 3, 1873.

*692
      *Boies & McQuown, for appellant.*

*Rodman, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

It neither appears from the bond or the recognizance in this case that Dennison, for whose appearance appellant undertook, was charged with a public offense; that he was discharged therefrom by reason of the giving of.said bond. Nor has appellant stipulated therein that Dennison should appear before the court for the trial of a charge. The omission of these substantial facts is fatal to the bond under Sections 77 and 80 of the Criminal Code.

Wherefore the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the proceeding against appellant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ZHU ZHAI HOLDINGS LIMITED and )

PETER PUI TAK LEE, )

) Case No. 20-cv-04985

Plaintiffs/Judgement Creditors, )

) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

v. )

) Hon Sidney I. Schenkier (Ret.),

STEVEN IVANKOVICH, ) Special Master

)

Defendant/Judgement Debtor

SPECIAL MASTER’S ORDER NO. 2

In Special Master Order No. 1, the Special Master ordered that “by April 2, 2024, 

defendant and the Third Party LLCs shall deliver to plaintiffs’ counsel and file on the court docket 

an identification of each such institution or entity with detail sufficient to permit the service of 

subpoenas on them. Defendant, and the person for the Third Party LLCs responsible for the search, 

shall file declarations describing what they did to search for the information and attesting that they 

have produced all such information they have located”(Doc. No. 305: Special Master Order No. 

1, 03/19/24, ¶ 1). By email dated March 28, 2024, to the Special Master’s case manager (with 

copies to all counsel), one of the attorneys for the Third Party LLCs expressed concern about filing 

on the docket the identity of institutions that are identified on the ground that this information may 

constitute “sensitive . . . personal financial records” within meaning of the District Judge’s 

appointment order (Doc. No. 290: Order Appointing Special Master, 01/19/24, ¶ 4). As a result, 

counsel requested that they be permitted to provide the listing to the Special Master and to counsel 

for the parties without filing them on the court docket.

The Special Master notes that the District Court’s order did not state that documents 

constituting sensitive personal financial records be withheld from the docket but stated that such 

documents must be filed under seal provisionally, and then absent valid objection within 14 days 

be unsealed (Order Appointing Special Master, ¶ 4). That said, no party has objected to the request 

by the Third Party LLCs, and thus for the present the Special Master will permit the production of 

the identification of the institutions and entities to the Special Master and to the parties without 

filing them on the court docket. However, the declarations concerning the search and production 

shall be filed on the court docket.

Entered:

___________________________________

HON. SIDNEY I. SCHENKIER (RET.)

Special Master

April 1, 2024

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 308 Filed: 04/01/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3875
Pa

- rraguirre



### A )

3 J. Dougla

J. Cherry corroborated his testimony that he was responsible for the victim's death. Furthermore, while an expert indicated at trial that the DNA testing of the semen found on the victim was inconclusive, more accurate DNA results would not be exculpatory or contradict Amato's testimony. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Gregory George Amato Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2 We deny Amato's motion to supplement the record as moot in light of this disposition.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I 947A ea
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7293

STEPHEN A. SHARP,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES E. THOMPSON; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-97-409-AM)

Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: May 14, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen A. Sharp, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Stephen A. Sharp seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

Sharp v. Thompson, No. CA-97-409-AM (E.D. Va. July 24, 1998). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Dynamic Temperature Markov 

Chain Monte Carlo Sampling 

Without Posterior Distribution 

Distortion

JAMES VINSON – MONTGOMERY BLAIR HIGH SCHOOL

MENTOR – PAUL KIENZLE – NIST CENTER FOR NEUTRON RESEARCH
Fitting a Model 

 Given data and some set of parameters P with a function f(P) 

meant to fit the data, Markov Chain Monte Carlo Sampling 

attempts to do importance sampling of the parameter space 

to

1) Find particular set Pi to fit data

2) Find confidence intervals for all parameter values 

Introduction to MCMC Sampling 

Using Dream Algorithm

 Choose n different starting points in the parameter space

 For each point, through the DREAM algorithm a new possible point is 

picked

 The news points are either accepted and become the new current 

value for their chains. Or are rejected and then the chain value 

stays the same.
Problem

 Current DREAM Algorithm sometimes gets 

“stuck” exploring parameter space

No new points are accepted
Idea of Temperature: Possible 

Solution

 When exploring parameter space accepts new points with 

probability: 

 Can multiply this by value T. High values of T will lead to more 

expansive exploration of the parameter space.

 Note this is not the canonical definition of temperature for MCMC 

methods

Likelihood New Point

Likelihood Old Point
Dynamic Temperature Methods 

(Finding the Ideal Temperature for 

a Model)

 Ideal acceptance rate is around 20%

 Have stuckness multiplier to alter 

temperature based on the previous 

acceptance rate

 Solve MM = AAee−BB aaaaaaaaaaaa2given MM .2 =

1 aaaaaa MM′′(.2) = −1

 Current function: MM = 1.6ee−12.5 aaaaaaaaaaaa2
Innate Problems With High 

Temperature Sampling

 By its very nature sampling at high temperature will distort the 

posterior
Solution: Create a Transform

 First create function f(x) which is a pdf of the likelihoods of all 

selected points

 Transform (Weighting Function): W(x) = ∫0

xx ff dd +xx ∫xx1ff tt

tt dd

∫0

TT ff dd +TT ∫TTxx1 ff tt

tt dd

 Every sampled point is given a weight based on its likelihood

Recursion of Process

 In weighting function theoretically need likelihood distribution at low 

temperature

 Approximate it with the high temperature distribution

 Apply weighting function to create a more accurate likelihood pdf

 Recursively create more and more accurate distributions until an 

equilibrium is reached
Findings on a Gaussian
Findings On a Laplace Distribution
Analysis On Gaussians with 100,000 Samples
5 Dimensions 8 Dimensions 10 Dimensions 15 Dimensions
Applications

 Neutron Reflectometry

 MCMC Sampling used to solve for parameters in transfer-matrix

 Use method to resolve stuck problems

 Such as the orientation of the HIV Gag protein in the lipid bilayer based 

on 3 angles of axial revolution
Future Work

 Solve loss of accuracy and reliability at high temperatures and 

dimensionalities

 Problem of quantization of proposed posterior

 Give mathematical proof that method should theoretically 

converge onto the true posterior
Acknowledgements

 Dr. Julie Borchers

 Dr. Yamali Hernandez

 Mr. Paul Kienzle

 Dr. Frank Heinrich

 SURF Student Aaron Schankler
9845.

#### Christian *v.*Matthews.

Decided January 15, 1919.

Trover; from DeKalb superior court—Judge Smith. May 6 1918.

*Thomas B.*Brown, for plaintiff in error.

*Hewlett &*Dennis, contra.

Jenkins, J.

The verdict is amply supported by the evidence, and the charge of the court fully and fair-ly covered every issue made by the testimony and the pleadings. The failure to give certain instructions to the jury, as complained of, even had there been a timely request, would not have been error. *Hill*v. *Ludden & Bates,*113 *Ga.*320 (3) (38 S. E. 752).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
| **Exhibit 32.1** |
|------------------|

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| August 11, 2005

(Date) |   | By /s/    David A. Wheat 

David A. Wheat

Director, Executive Vice President and 

ChiefFinancial Officer |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Melton Ray Kennedy

, * From the 90 th District

Court of Stephens County,

Trial Court No. F33649

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00164

- CR * August 14, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson , J

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

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

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

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial c ourt is in all things affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A1 65 9 . LOLETHA HALE v

. AMEI KA P. BANKS.

Lo letha Hale f

iled a p etitio n in the s u p erio r c o urt seek ing rev iew o f a d ec isio n

o f the Henry Co unty B o ard of Elec tio ns and V oter Regist r atio n d isqu alif ying her as

a c a nd id ate f

o r j u d ge of the H enry Co u nty State Co u rt. The su p erio r c o u rt d enied the

p etitio n, and H ale ap p eals d irec tly to this Co u rt.

The Su p reme Co urt “ has exc lu siv e ap p ellate ju risd ic tio n ov er ‘ [a]ll c ases o f

elec tio n c o ntest. ’ ” C

o ok v

. Bd. o

f Regi s tra rs , 29 1 G a. 67

, 68 ( 2) (a) (1 ) (7 27 SE2d 47 8)

(201 2) (qu o ting Ga. Co nst. o f 1 9 83, A rt. V I, Sec

. V I

, P a r

. I I (2)). B e c au se the

u nd er l y ing su b j ec t matter o f this ac t io n is an “elec tio n c ontest,” it ap p ears that

j u risd ic tio n o v er this ap p eal may lie in t he Su p reme Co u rt. See C amp v

. Wi lli a ms , 31 4

Ga. 6 9 9, 6 9 9 (87 9 SE2d 88) ( 2022) (exerc ising ju risd ic t io n in “a disp ute o ver w ho can

ru n” fo r a j u d geship in an u p c o ming e l ec tio n). Fu r ther, the Su p reme Co u rt has the

u ltimate resp o nsibility f

o r d etermining ap p ellate j urisd ic tio n. See S a x to n v

. C o a s ta l

D i a lys is & Med. C

li n ic

, 26 7 Ga. 1 7 7

, 1 78 (47 6 SE2d 587 ) (1 9 9 6 ). A c co rd ingly, th i s

ap p eal is TRA NSFERRED to the Su p reme Co u rt f o r d isp o sitio n.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. July 02, 2024

07/02/2024
exv10w8



 




Exhibit
10.8




SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT




     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into as
of the 31st day of August, 2005 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Patrick Henry
Associates, L.P. (“Seller”) and Columbia Equity Trust, Inc. (“Purchaser”).



RECITALS




     A. Seller and Purchaser entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of August 5, 2005,
as amended (collectively, the “Contract”), pursuant to which Seller agreed to sell to
Purchaser, and Purchaser agreed to buy from Seller the Property (as defined in the Contract).



     B. Seller and Purchaser have agreed to modify the terms of the Contract as set forth in this
Amendment.



     C. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Contract.



     NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, Seller and Purchaser agree as follows:



AGREEMENTS




     1. The Outside Date is hereby extended to October 15, 2005. In the event Lender Approval is
not received on or before the Outside Date, either party on written notice to the other shall have
the right to extend the Outside Date to October 31, 2005.



     2. Except as modified by this Amendment, all of the terms of the Contract shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.



     3. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts all of which together shall constitute one
and the same instrument.



 









 






     
     

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Purchaser have entered into this Amendment as of the date first
above stated.



    	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	SELLER:	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	PATRICK HENRY ASSOCIATES L.P.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	SAP IV Patrick Henry NF GP L.L.C.,	 	 
	 	 	 	 	its sole general partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	By: 	 	SAP IV manager, Inc.,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	its manager	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Robert Bergman	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	Its: 	Executive Vice President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	PURCHASER:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	COLUMBIA EQUITY TRUST, INC.,

          a Maryland corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Clinton Fisch	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	Its: 	Director of Acquisitions