alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32.1





Certification


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Synergetics USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended October 29, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregg D. Scheller,
      President and Chief Executive Officer 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 to my knowledge:





(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 the Company.





Dated:
      December 10, 2007





/s/
                Gregg D. SchellerGregg
                D. SchellerPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
10879.

#### Mullins *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for possession of intoxicating liquors; from Harris superior court—Judge Howard. July 36, 1919.

A policeman testified, that he searched the defendant’s house for whisky on June 10, 1918, and in a bedroom found on a bed two gallon jugs, each about half full of whisky; that there was nobody at the house, but the defendant soon came to the house and was placed under arrest and said that a negro named Will Maddox left the whisky there, that he came there with a package in a sack and asked her to let him leave it, and he carried it into the room, and she did not know what was in the sack “until after they were going to town, when Will told her it was whisky;” that she very promptly told whom it belonged to, and, from the’information she gave, the witness went to the house of Will Maddox and, on. *358search, found there whisky of the kind found in the defendant’s house. Another officer testified, that on or about November 1, 1917, on seeing a negro standing near the defendant’s house, with a bottle in his hand and two or three other negroes, he searched the bouse for whisky; that none was found in the house, but he found under a large box near the back steps a gallon jug of whisky, partly filled; that the defendant was in the house ironing, with her daughter, who was about grown; that she made no objection to the search, and told him to go ahead, that she had no whisky there. This witness further stated that he thought there were some negroes boarding at the defendant’s house; that she was an industrious negro woman, who washed ánd ironed and cultivated a little patch; and tbit'there was no fence around the house; “it was just an open space around there.” No additional witness testified. In her statement at the trial the defendant asserted her innocence and repeated in substance the statements which the officers testified she had made to them.

*357Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of having, possessing, and controlling intoxicating liquors. The evidence as to her connection with the whisky was entirely circumstantial, and failed* to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of her guilt, and was consistent with the theory of her innocence. The court therefore erred in overruling her motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*358
      *George G. Palmer,*for plaintiff in error.

*O. P. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

HOLIFIELD, COGLEY, and STEWART

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Suzette A. PRADO

Aviation Traffic Controller First Class (E-6), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202100303

_________________________

Decided: 31 May 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Ryan J. Stormer

Sentence adjudged 18 August 2021 by a special court-martial convened 

at Naval Base San Diego, California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for 11 months,1 and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Commander Daniel O. Moore, JAGC, USN

 

1 Appellant was credited with 235 days of pretrial confinement credit.
United States v. Prado, NMCCA No. 202100303

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.2

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
|   | **Exhibit 10.1** |
|--------|------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| **ING USA PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT****by and among**

 

**ING USA ANNUITY AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,**

 

**ING GROEP N.V.**

 

**and**

 

**ING SUPPORT HOLDING B.V.**

 

**Dated as of March 31, 2009**

 

  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

NY12534:201921.4 

 

----
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4275

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to

come tax rate bracket.permanently extend the 10-percent individual in-

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4275

AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently

extend the 10-percent individual income tax rate bracket.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4275 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF 10-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL IN2 COME TAX RATE BRACKET.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 1(i)(1)(B) of

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the initial

5 bracket amount) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(i) $14,000 in the case of subsection

7 (a),’’.

8 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT BEGINNING IN 2004.—

9 Section 1(i)(1)(C) of such Code (relating to inflation ad10 justment) is amended to read as follows:

11 ‘‘(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In pre12 scribing the tables under subsection (f) which

13 apply with respect to taxable years beginning in

14 calendar years after 2003—

15 ‘‘(i) the cost-of-living adjustment used

16 in making adjustments to the initial brack17 et amount shall be determined under sub18 section (f)(3) by substituting ‘2002’ for

19 ‘1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof, and

20 ‘‘(ii) such adjustment shall not apply

21 to the amount referred to in subparagraph

22 (B)(iii).

23 If any amount after adjustment under the pre24 ceding sentence is not a multiple of $50, such

25 amount shall be rounded to the next lowest

26 multiple of $50.’’.
3

•HR 4275 EH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

3 December 31, 2003.

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET.

5 Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Rec6 onciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to—

7 (1) paragraph (1) of section 1(i) of the In8 ternal Revenue Code of 1986, and

9 (2) the amendments made by paragraphs

10 (1) and (7) of section 101(c) of such Act.

Passed the House of Representatives May 13, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
exv10w21



 






Exhibit 10.21




Outside Director Compensation Package




Cash Compensation





	•	 	All Outside Directors Base Compensation: $35,000 per year,
payable quarterly, subject to any applicable local, state or
federal withholdings.






	•	 	Audit Committee Chairman: $20,000 per year, payable
quarterly, subject to any applicable local, state or federal
withholdings. This amount is in addition to the Base
Compensation.






	•	 	All Other Committee Chairmen: $10,000 per year for each
committee, payable quarterly, subject to any applicable
local, state or federal withholdings. This amount is in
addition to the Base Compensation.






	•	 	Audit Committee Members (other than Chairmen): $10,000 per
year, payable quarterly, subject to any applicable local,
state or federal withholdings. This amount is in addition to
the Base Compensation.






	•	 	All Other Committee Members (other than Chairmen): $5,000 per
year for each committee, payable quarterly, subject to any
applicable local, state or federal withholdings. This amount
is in addition to the Base Compensation.






	•	 	Partial Years: Directors who are elected other than at the
beginning of a calendar year shall be entitled to a pro-rata
portion of the applicable cash compensation calculated based
on the number months remaining in the year.





Stock Based Compensation





	•	 	Initial Grant upon Election: Option grant of 50,000 shares
with a strike price equal to the market value on the date of
grant subject to the standard terms and conditions of
employee option grants, including vesting provisions.






	•	 	Annual Grant: Option grant of 25,000 shares with a strike
price equal to the market value on the date of grant subject
to the standard terms and conditions of employee option
grants, including vesting provisions. Grant will be made on
the anniversary date of the Outside Director’s election to
the board of directors.




54
9673.

#### Davis *v.*City of Rome

Jenkins, J.

1. The writ of error in this case having been originally filed in the Supreme Court, and that court having by formal order transferred it to this court, the transfer of the case is equivalent to a holding by the Supreme Court that the constitutional questions which the plaintiff in error attempts to raise by the writ are not properly made.

2. Under the ruling made by the Supreme Court in *Marks*v. *Rome,*145 *Ga.*399 (2) (89 8. E. 324), the charter for that municipality establishes a recorder’s court. Furthermore, if one in point of fact has been tried, convicted, and sentenced by the municipal authorities sitting as a recorder’s court, and the defendant, at the time of the trial, raised no objection as to the competency of the tribunal sitting as such, and entered no exception to the judgment thus rendered, he can not, in an action subsequently brought against the city for the fine paid and the value of the services rendered under the sentence imposed, and for the alleged tortious and illegal acts of the subordinate municipal officers, done while he was in their custody, collaterally attack the competency of the court rendering judgment against him. *Mayor &c. of Brunswick*v. *Sims,*14 *Ga. App.*315 (80 S. E. 730). See also *Bartlett*v. *Columbus,*101 *Ga.*300 (28 S. E. 599, 44 L. R. A. 795).

8. In so far as the petition shows, the alleged tortious acts complained of relate solely to the conduct of the city’s subordinate officials done in the performance of its governmental functions, and do not in anywise relate to any act done in connection with the corporate affairs of the municipality. For acts done in the illegal performance of purely governmental functions, however illegally the authority may be exercised, the municipality is not liable. Thus, even though the sentence imposed by the recorder might have been wholly void, and although the alleged acts of the warden might have been both tortious and illegal, the court *189did not err in sustaining the demurrer interposed by the defendant municipality. *Attaway*v. *Cartersville,*68 *Ga. 740; Gray*v. *Griffin,*111 *Ga.*361, 368 (36 S. E. 792, 51 11 R. A. 131); *Doster*v. *Atlanta,*72 *Ga.*233; *Hammond*v. *County of Richmond,*Id. 188; *Bartlett*v. *Columbus,*supra; Gilmor *v.*Salt Lake City, 32 Utah, 180 (89 Pac. 714, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 537, note, 13 Ann. Cas. 1016) ; 20 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, (2d ed.) 1193, 1194. Nor can a municipality ratify the unlawful acts of its subordinate officials- done in pursuance of its governmental functions, so as thereby to make itself liable for such acts. Caldwell *v.*Boone, 51 Iowa, 687 (2 N. W. 614, 33 Am. R. 154) ; Peters *v.*Linds*borg, 40*Kan. 654 (20 Pac. 490).

Decided January 14, 1919.

Rehearing denied January 28, 1919.

Action, for damages; from Floyd superior court—Judge Wright. January 15, 1918.

*Henry Walker,*for plaintiff

*Max Meyerhardt,*for defendant.

*Judgment■ affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-41268 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee

v. JOSE ARISMENDY GUERRERO-SOTO, Defendant–Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CR-815-1
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appo i nted to represent Jose Arismendy Guerrero-Soto h a s m o ved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guerrero-Soto has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal pre s e n t s no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 1 6, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-41268 Document: 00511604543 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2011No. 10-41268

to withdr a w i s GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 10-41268 Document: 00511604543 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2011
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

BEN FABRIKANT, individually, and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, an 

Illinois Federal Savings Association, and 

NATIONAL BANCORP HOLDINGS, INC., 

a Delaware corporation, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 1:20-cv-04818-VMK 

District Judge Virginia M. Kendall 

 

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT IN PRINCIPLE 

AND MOTION TO VACATE ALL DEADLINES 

 The parties respectfully notify the Court that the parties have agreed in principle to settle 

the above-captioned matter. Counsel for the parties are in the process of preparing and finalizing 

the Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Dismissal (“Agreement”). Accordingly, Defendants 

respectfully request that the Court vacate all deadlines as set forth in schedule as outlined in Status 

Report, ECF No. 17, as adopted in Minute Order, ECF No. 20. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: March 10, 2021 /s/ John J. Allegretto 

Ari Karen (Pro Hac Vice) 

John J. Allegretto (Pro Hac Vice) 

OFFIT KURMAN, P.A. 

1801 Market Street, Suite 2300 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (267) 338-1336 

E-mail: akaren@offitkurman.com 

 jallegretto@offitkurman.com 

Counsel for Defendants, 

The Federal Savings Bank and 

National Bancorp Holdings, Inc. 4839-0760-8800, v. 1

Case: 1:20-cv-04818 Document #: 32 Filed: 03/10/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:331
Exhibit 10.44

FIRST AMENDMENT TO        CONSIGNMENT AND MARKETING AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to Consignment and Marketing Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between
CALAVO GROWERS, INC., a corporation of the State of California ("Calavo"), and MAUI PINEAPPLE COMPANY, LTD., a corporation of the State of
Hawaii ("MPC"),

Whereas, Calavo and MPC entered into an Exclusive Consignment and Marketing Agreement dated October 22, 2007; and

Whereas, the parties wish to amend the Agreement in order to clarify the terms of payment and to add certain insurance requirements;

Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and
sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the parties, Calavo and MPC agree as follows:





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized representatives of the parties have affixed their signatures effective as of
10/29, 2007.

|By: |  | /s/LEE COLE                        |  | By: |  | /s/GERRY WATTS            10/29/07                   
|--- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|    |  | Lee Cole, CEO
Calavo Growers, Inc. |  |     |  | Gerry Watts, VP/Gen. Mgr
Maui Pineapple Company, Ltd.
|    |  |                                    |  | By: |  | /s/ROB WEBBER            11/2/07                     
|    |  |                                    |  |     |  | Rob Webber, CFO
Maui Land & Pineapple Company, Inc.  

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1149 DONNA M. HICKS, Widow of Troy E. Hicks, Petitioner, versus EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' CO MPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-1980-BLA) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donna M. Hicks, Petitioner Pro Se. Mark Elliott Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, ARTER & HADEN, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece, Rodger Pitcairn, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Hicks v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. , No. 95-1980-BLA (B.R.B. Jan. 26, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------


          I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
          on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report, of CWMBS, Inc., CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2004-J5;

          2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
          a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

          3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under
          the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
          these reports is included in these reports;

          4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
          that agreement; and

          5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
          master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
          based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
          after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
          Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as
          set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that
          is included in these reports.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
          information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
          The Bank of New York, as Trustee, Fifth Third Mortgage Company and
          GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Incorporated.


          Date: March 28, 2005


                                               /s/ Steve Bailey
                                               ----------------
                                               Steve Bailey
                                               Senior Managing Director
EXHIBIT 31.2
IEA Income Fund IX, L.P.
Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION
     I, John Kallas, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income FundIX, L.P. (the “Registrant”);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), theGeneral Partner of the Registrant, and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:
          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; and
          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, based on ourevaluation; and
          (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ JOHN KALLASJohn KallasVice President andChief Financial Officer of CCC