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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life Insurance and Annuity 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, 2007 (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 9, 2007

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

          |   | David A. Wheat

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

                                                                                                                         |   |

 

 

----
NIST NRC PostDoc Opportunity

“Measurement Science for 

Manufacturing Robotic Systems”

In Gaithersburg, MD

Details:

Associateships are awarded for a two-year period

Competitive stipend and federal benefits package

The deadlines for applications are February 1st and August 1st of each year

Eligibility:

You must possess a doctoral degree

You must have held the doctoral degree for fewer than five years at time of application 

You must be a U.S. citizen

Follow NIST on:

Twitter twitter.com/usnistgov 

Facebook facebook.com/4NIST 

YouTube youtube.com/user/usnistgov

To learn more about NIST, visit www.nist.gov

NIST is an Equal Opportunity Employer

NIST's Postdoctoral Research Program supports a nationwide competitive postdoctoral program administered in cooperation with the 

National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. The postdoctoral program brings research scientists and engineers of unusual 

promise and ability to perform advanced research related to the NIST mission, shares NIST unique research facilities with the U.S.scientific

and engineering communities, and provides a valuable mechanism for the transfer of research results from NIST to the scientific and

engineering communities.

Opportunity: “The development and application of 

performance metrics, information models, test methods, and 

protocols to assess and assure the key attributes of robotic 

systems. Specific areas of interest include, but are not limited 

to, robot mobility, grasping dexterity, human-robot and 

robot-robot collaboration, agility, and interoperability.”

NIST Robotics Homepage - https://www.nist.gov/programsprojects/robotic-systems-smart-manufacturing-program

Robotics PostDoc Opportunity -

http://nrc58.nas.edu/RAPLab10/Opportunity/Opportunity.as

px?LabCode=50&ROPCD=507351&RONum=C0072
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In re : The Estate of Margaret Eugenia Tatum, Deceased

No. 06

- 15

- 00010

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

2009

- 0009

- P ). Memorandum Opinion

d elivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 17, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. M ORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-15T10:57:35Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-15T10:57:36Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-15T10:57:36Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="12656">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-15T10:57:35Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OPINION U O-7490 WAS NEVER ISSUED OK 
</p>
<p>WAS WITHDRAWN. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4352

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny a deduction for 

the portion of employer-provided vacation flights in excess of the amount 

of such flights which is treated as employee compensation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2004

Mr. EMANUEL (for himself, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Ms. LEE, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. STARK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. HOOLEY of 

Oregon, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Ms. DELAURO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny a 

deduction for the portion of employer-provided vacation 

flights in excess of the amount of such flights which 

is treated as employee compensation.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Corporate Jet Tax 

5 Shelter Reform Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 4352 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED 

2 VACATION FLIGHTS IN EXCESS OF THE 

3 AMOUNT OF SUCH FLIGHTS TREATED AS EM4 PLOYEE COMPENSATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 274(e) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to ex7 penses treated as compensation) is amended by adding at 

8 the end the following: ‘‘The amount allowable as a deduc9 tion by reason of this paragraph with respect to an air10 craft provided by the taxpayer shall not exceed the ex11 penses for goods, services, and facilities relating to such 

12 aircraft which are treated as such compensation and 

13 wages.’’. 

14 (b) REDUCTION IN PUBLIC DEBT.—The increase in 

15 Federal receipts in the United States Treasury by reason 

16 of the amendment made by subsection (a) shall be used 

17 solely for reduction of the public debt, and for such pur18 pose the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit an 

19 amount equal to such receipts in the account specified in 

20 section 3113(d) of title 31, United States Code. 

21 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

22 subsection (a) shall apply to expenses incurred after the 

23 date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending 

24 after such date.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Patrick Freeman, Chief Executive Officer of Cordia Corporation (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period September 30, 2004 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report):

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:/s/ Patrick Freeman





Patrick Freeman



Chief Executive Officer



March 10, 2005









*

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cordia Corporation and will be retained by Cordia Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2




                 ASSIGNMENT, ASSUMPTION AND GUARANTY AGREEMENT

                            (Network Holdings, Inc.)

         This Assignment, Assumption and Guaranty Agreement is made as of
January 1, 1998, among Westar Capital, Inc., a Kansas corporation ("Westar
Capital"), and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Protection One"), pursuant to Amendment No. 1, dated as of October 2, 1997,
to the Contribution Agreement, dated as of July 30, 1997, between Western
Resources and Protection One (as so amended, the "Contribution Agreement").

     1.          Westar Capital hereby assigns, transfers and conveys to
Protection One, without recourse to Westar Capital, or any of its
"Subsidiaries" or "Affiliates" (each as defined in the Contribution Agreement),
all right, title and interest of Westar Capital in and to (i) 97,987 shares
(the "Common Shares") of the Class A Common Stock, par value $.01 per share, of
Network Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Network"), (ii) the Stock Sale
and Purchase Agreement by and among Westar Capital, Onyx Holdings, Inc., Elm,
Inc., Network Holdings, Inc.  and the individuals listed on the signature pages
thereto, dated September 8, 1997 ("Stock Sale and Purchase Agreement"), and
(iii) each other agreement, instrument, certificate or document executed by, or
made in favor of, Westar Capital or any of its Subsidiaries pursuant to, or in
connection with, the Stock Sale and Purchase Agreement (including the
agreements described in clauses (ii) and (iii), collectively the "Ancillary
Agreements").

     2.          Protection One hereby assumes, agrees, and guarantees the
timely performance of all obligations of Westar Capital and its Affiliates and
Subsidiaries arising under the Stock Sale and Purchase Agreement and the
Ancillary Agreements.

         3.      Concurrently with the parties' execution and delivery hereof,
Protection One is paying to Westar Capital, and Westar Capital acknowledges
that Westar Capital is receiving from Protection One, the sum of $178,360,229
(one hundred seventy-eight million three hundred sixty thousand two hundred
twenty-nine dollars) in cash.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment,
Assumption and Guaranty Agreement as of the date first above written.


                                           PROTECTION ONE ALARM MONITORING, INC.
WESTAR CAPITAL, INC.                     



By:                                        By:
       ----------------------------------       --------------------------------
Title:                                     Title:
       ----------------------------------       --------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
10525.

#### Pynetree Paper Company *v.*Wilkinson County Bank.

Decided October 10, 1919.

Complaint; from Wilkinson superior court—Judge Park. April 9, 1919.

*Strozier*& *Moore,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. II. Carswell,*contra.

Bboyles, C. J.

1. The holder can not sue the drawee on a promise made to accept an existing bill, where the promise was made to the drawer of the bill after it had passed into the hands of the holder, and where the money sued for was paid or advanced by the holder before the promise was made, and not upon the faith of the promise. 8 Corpus Juris, 315, 316, § 485, and authorities cited in note 74; *Lugrue*v. *Woodruff,*29 *Ga.*648, 650; 7 Cyc. 766; *Parrish*v. *Taggart-Delph Lumber Co.*11 *Ga. App.*772 (76 S. E. 153); Coolidge *v.*Payson, 2 Wheat. 66 4 L. ed. 185); Exchange Bank *v.*Rice, 107 Mass. 37 (9 Am. R. 7); Carr *v.*National Bank, 107 Mass. 45 (9 Am. R. 6).

2. The amended petition, construed as a whole and most strongly against the pleader, clearly shows that the only money advanced by the plaintiff bank to the drawer of the draft was paid before the promise of the drawee to accept the draft was made, and that it was not paid on the faith of the promise. The petition, therefore, failed to set out a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the general demurrer.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
10468.

#### Williams *v.*The State.

Stephens, J.

1. Although there was no actual difference of opinion between the court and counsel as to the law applicable to the case, it was not error prejudicial to the accused, in that it destroyed the wholesome effect of his counsel’s argument before the jury, for the court to charge the jury that “where the court and counsel differ as to the law, it would be your duty to take the law from the court and apply that law given you by the court, and accept as law what is given you by the court.”

2. Where one was charged with the offense of making alcoholic liquors in violation of law, and the evidence showed that a substance commonly called “beer,” made out of cornmeal and water, was found in an outhouse in the possession of the defendant and on the premises where he lived, it was not error for the court to charge the jury that they would be authorized in presuming that the defendant was in possession of the “beer” and that he owned and made it. This charge instructed the jury that they were only authorized to conclude that the defendant made the substance in question, and did not instruct the jury that they were obliged, as a matter of law, to conclude that he made such substance. This charge is not subject to the objection that it eon-*54tamed, an expression of opinion as to what had been proved in the ease.

Decided June 27, 1919.

Accusation of manufacture of liquor; from Kandolph superior court—Judge Worrill. March *3,*1919.

*George E. Perry,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. T. Castellón), solicitor-general, B. B. Arnold,*contra.

3. A charge that one convicted of the ofíense of manufacturing liquors is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period not less than one nor longer than four years was inaccurate, in that it misstated the maximum penalty, which is five years. The jury could have considered the severity of the penalty prescribed, in determining whether or not they should recommend that the offense be punished as for a misdemeanor. But since the judge could have disregarded such recommendation, and since he sentenced the defendant to a term of only two years in the penitentiary, this misstatement was harmless.

4. Evidence that apparatus for manufacturing liquors prohibited by law and a barrel of “beer” which had fermented and was alcoholic and would produce intoxication were found in a house on the premises of the defendant where he lived, and he admitted that such apparatus and “beer” were in his possession, and that he intended to use the same for the purpose of making liquor, is sufficient to authorize his conviction of making liquor in violation of law.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of WorldCom, Inc.
(File No. 333-_______) of our report dated April 9, 1998 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of MCI Communications Corporation which report
appears in WorldCom, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K/A-3 dated November 9,
1997 (filed on May 28, 1998). We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.



Price Waterhouse LLP
June 15, 1998 
Washington, D.C.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,683
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,103)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,751
<PP&E>                                          29,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,847)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,073
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,222
<COMMON>                                        99,550
<OTHER-SE>                                    (59,737)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,182
<SALES>                                          7,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,238
<CGS>                                            6,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (72)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (84)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,414)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,414)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,243)<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)
<FN>
<F1>Deemed dividends on preferred stock = (1,829)
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 5.1

                                 August 4, 1998


Fresh America Corp.
6600 LBJ Freeway
Suite 180
Dallas, Texas 75240

         Re:      Registration Statement on Form S-8 for the Fresh America Corp.
                  1996 Stock Option and Award Plan as Amended and Restated
                  Effective May 22, 1998

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as special counsel to Fresh America Corp., a Texas
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of 475,000 shares (the "Shares") of the
Company's common stock, $.01 par value per share, issuable under the Fresh
America Corp. 1996 Stock Option and Award Plan as Amended and Restated Effective
May 22, 1998 (the "Plan"). The Shares are being registered pursuant to a
registration statement on Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about August 4, 1998 (the "Registration Statement").

         In connection with this opinion, we have examined such documents and
records of the Company and such statutes, regulations and other instruments and
certificates as we have deemed necessary or advisable for the purposes of this
opinion. We have assumed that all signatures on all documents presented to us
are genuine, that all documents submitted to us as originals are accurate and
complete and that all documents submitted to us as copies are true and correct
copies of the originals thereof. We have also relied upon such certificates of
public officials, corporate agents and officers of the Company and such other
certifications with respect to the accuracy of material factual matters
contained therein which were not independently established.

         Based on the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares will be,
if and when issued and paid for pursuant to the Plan, validly issued, fully paid
and nonassessable, assuming the Company maintains an adequate number of
authorized but unissued shares of common stock available for such issuance, and
further assuming that the consideration received by the Company for the Shares
exceeds the par value thereof.



<PAGE>   2


         We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement. In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are included in the
category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations of the Securities and
Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder.

                                                 Very truly yours,

                                                 HUGHES & LUCE, L.L.P.