alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
        32**
 
 
 **SECTION
        906 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350**
 
 I,
        Dennis
        W. Doll, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the periodic report
        being filed herewith containing financial statements fully complies with
        the
        requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934
        (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in said periodic
        report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of Middlesex Water Company for the period covered by
        said
        periodic report.
 
 
 /s/
                  Dennis W. DollDennis
                  W. DollChief
                  Executive Officer
 
 Date:
        March 13, 2007
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Middlesex Water Company and will be retained by Middlesex Water Company and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
EXHIBIT 4.34


 


Non-executive director
appointment letter – Mr Paul J Rizzo


 


The Non-executive director appointment letter of Mr Paul J Rizzo is
incorporated by reference to National Australia Bank Limited’s Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Commission on January 20, 2005
Exhibit 10(a)(3)
 
 
 
 September 23, 2011
 
 
 Sheila & William Steiner, Trustees
 Sheila Steiner Revocable Trust
 2600 Island Boulevard- Unit 2006
 Aventura, FL 33160
 
 RE:
Lease dated September 9, 2005 for 290 NE 68th Street, 297 NE 67th Street and 277 NE 67th Street, Miami, FL
 
 Dear Sheila and William:
 
 This letter is to confirm that Steiner-Atlantic Corp is exercising its option under Section 23 of the above captioned Lease to renew the Lease for another 36-month period commencing November 1, 2011 and ending on October 31, 2014.
 
 Please confirm that you have received a copy of this letter by signing below.
 
 If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
 
 Very truly yours,
  /s/ Michael S. Steiner
 
 Michael S. Steiner
 President
 
 
 RECEIVED BY:
 
 
 /s/ William K. Steiner___________________
 William K. Steiner, Trustee
 
 
 
 /s/ Sheila Steiner_______________________
 Sheila Steiner, Trustee
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Consolidated Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mineral Mountain Mining & Milling Company for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2018, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



(1)the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mineral Mountain Mining & Milling Company for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2018, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, fairly presents
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mineral Mountain Mining & Milling Company.



|By:    | /s/
    Sheldon Karasik                           | 
|------ | ------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Sheldon
    Karasik                              
|Title: | Chairman
    of the Board/Chief Executive Officer
|       |                                                  
|Date:  | January
    15, 2019                             



A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Mineral Mountain Mining & Milling Company and will be retained by Mineral Mountain Mining & Milling Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 23, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00606-CV

CHARLOTTE GATES, Appellant

V.

PLUM CREEK TOWNHOMES, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1135916

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a final judgment signed July 22, 2019. Appellant’s brief 

was due November 20, 2019. No brief or motion for extension of time to file the 

brief was filed. 

On December 3, 2019, the court ordered appellants to file a brief by December 

20, 2019. We cautioned that if appellants failed to comply with our order, we would 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No brief or 

motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed.
2

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant
Summary of Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.45 
  
 Director compensation summary 
  
 We pay no additional remuneration to our employees who also serve as directors of the General Partner. Each director of our general partner who is not an
employee of our General Partner receives an annual retainer of $20,000, plus $2,000 per board meeting attended, and is reimbursed for any travel, lodging and other out-of-pocket expenses related to meeting attendance or otherwise related to service
on the board. Each non-employee director serving as a member or chairman of a designated committee receives from $5,000 to $7,500 annually, depending upon the position and the committee, plus $1,000 per committee meeting attended. In addition,
non-employee directors receive an Initial Director’s Grant of 2,000 units upon their initial election or appointment to the Board, and an Annual Director’s Grant on September 1 of each year, equal to $15,000 divided by the fair market
value of a Common Unit on September 1, provided that such director is in office on such date. Director’s grants vest ratably over a three-year period.
PMI Complex Test Case 1

Includes Atomic Test Cases - 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 17, 21, 33, 48

 Models - 2012

Rev D

nist_ctc_01_asme1_rd
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1


                                                (214) 740-8416
       , 1998

                                    (DRAFT)

Hastings Entertainment, Inc.
3601 Plains Blvd.
Suite #1
Amarillo, TX 79102

         Re:     Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-47969)

Dear Sirs:

         We have acted as counsel for Hastings Entertainment, Inc., a Texas
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"), of an aggregate of 3,377,333
shares of the Company's Common Stock, $.01 par value per share (the
"Securities"). We have examined such documents and questions of law as we have
deemed necessary to render the opinion expressed below.

         Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Securities,
when issued and sold as described in the above-referenced Registration
Statement, will be legally issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

         We consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to our firm in the prospectus under
the caption "Legal Matters." In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit
that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the Act or the rules and regulations of the Securities and
Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder.


                                        Sincerely,
 
                                        LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL
                                        (A Professional Corporation)

                                         By: /s/ 
                                             -----------------------
                                                 Kent Jamison
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4477 

To amend the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

of 1994 to require employers to post a notice of the rights and duties 

that apply under that Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 2, 2004 

Mr. MCGOVERN (for himself, Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire, and Mr. 

EVANS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 to require employers to post 

a notice of the rights and duties that apply under that 

Act. 

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 ‘‘Patriotic Employer Act 

5 of 2004’’. 
2 

•HR 4477 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR EMPLOYERS TO POST NOTICE 

2 OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER USERRA. 

3 (a) NOTICE.—Chapter 43 of title 38, United States 

4 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

5 section: 

6 ‘‘§ 4334. Notice of rights and duties 

7 ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO POST NOTICE.—Each em8 ployer shall post in a conspicuous place in the place of 

9 employment for persons entitled to rights and benefits 

10 under this chapter a notice of the rights, benefits, and ob11 ligations of such persons and such employers under this 

12 chapter. 

13 ‘‘(b) CONTENT OF NOTICE.—The Secretary shall 

14 provide to employers the text of the notice to be provided 

15 under this section.’’. 

16 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

17 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding 

18 at the end the following new item: 

‘‘4334. Notice of rights and duties.’’. 

19 (c) IMPLEMENTATION.—(1) Not later than the date 

20 that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 

21 Act, the Secretary of Labor shall make available to em22 ployers the notice required under section 4334 of title 38, 

23 United States Code, as added by subsection (a). 
3 

•HR 4477 IH 

1 (2) The amendments made by this section shall apply 

2 to employers under chapter 43 of such title on and after 

3 the first date referred to in paragraph (1). 

Æ
Exhibit 32.2







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



In connection with the Annual Report of Siebert
  Financial Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December
  31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Ramos, Jr., in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer
  of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
  pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





| | (1) |  | the Report filed
      by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 for the period covered by the Report.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |                         | 
| | ----------------------- | 
| | /s/Joseph M. Ramos, Jr. | 
| | Joseph M. Ramos, Jr.    | 
| | Chief Financial Officer | 







A signed original of this
  written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
  acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
  within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
  906, has been provided to Siebert Financial Corp. and will be retained by Siebert
  Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
  staff upon request.
10106.

#### Swift Manufacturing Company *v.*Cunningham.

Bloodworth, J.

1. The court did not err in any of its rulings on the pleadings.

2. There is no error in any of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made that would require the grant of a new trial.

3. As far as legal and pertinent, the principles embraced in the requests to charge were sufficiently covered by the charge given.

4. Ground 13 of the motion points out no error that would require the grant of a new trial.

5. Granting, but not conceding, that the court erred in rejecting the evidence of C. A. Sweet, as complained of in the last ground of the motion for a new trial, this error is not of sufficient materiality to require this court to set aside the verdict, as practically the same evidence, without objection, went to the jury from this same witness and from witnesses Glass, J. M. Hancock, Bugg, and Jinriglit. In addition a model of the machine and pictures thereof were introduced in *171evidence, and were with the jury during the consideration of the case.

Decided September 18, 1919.

Action for damages; from Muscogee superior court—-Judge Howard. August *29,*1918.

*Battle &*Hollis, for plaintiff in error.

*T. H. Shanlcs,*contra.

6. There is evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, J. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Exhibit 99.1

                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 Annual Report of Mexco Energy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period  ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Nicholas C.
Taylor, 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:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m or
          78o(d)); 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:  June 26, 2003                   /s/  Nicholas C. Taylor
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.1







 


 


 



	
            Exhibit 10.1
 



 






 


 



 


 



	
            Exhibit 10.1
 



 






 



 


 



	
            Exhibit 10.1
 



 






 



 


 



	
            Exhibit 10.1
 



 






 



 


 



	
            Exhibit 10.1
 



 






 



 


 



	
            Exhibit 10.1
 



 






 



 


 



	
            Exhibit 10.1
 



 






 



 


 



 



	
            Exhibit 10.1
LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA ADMINSTRATIVE CODE 

TITLE 7 

AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS 

PART XXXV. DIVISION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 

Chapter 1. Division of Weights and Measures 

⎝ 101. Specifications, Tolerances and Regulation for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices 

 A. All of Handbook H-44 issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology entitled 

Specifications, Tolerances, and Regulations for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices is hereby 

adopted by reference. 

B. That part of Handbook 130 issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology entitled 

Examination Procedure for Price Verification is hereby adopted by reference. 

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 3:4606 and R.S. 3:4608. 

HISTORICAL NOTE: Adopted by the Department of Agriculture, Commission of Weights and 

Measures, April 1953, promulgated by the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Office of AgroConsumer Services, Division of Weights and Measures, LR 19:1530 (December 1993), amended LR 

23:857 (July 1997), amended by the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Office of Agro-Consumer 

Services, Weights and Measures Commission, 

LR 24:1495 (August 1998), LR 34:408 (March 2008). 

⎝ 117. Bar Code Scanning Devices and Labels 

A. The price of a commodity or item offered for retail sale which is labeled with a 

computerized bar code label shall be plainly displayed, either by a price marked in English on 

the package containing the individual commodity or item, or by a placard or card placed on 

the shelf in front of the commodity or item which is clearly visible and legible. 

B. The price displayed on the shelf, commodity or item required by Subsection A of this 

Section shall be precisely equal to the price actually charged by the seller. 

C. In calculating violations of the Section, multiple items contained in the same lot shall 

constitute one violation. 

AUTHORITY NOTE: Promulgated in accordance with R.S. 3:4608. 

HISTORICAL NOTE: Promulgated by the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Office of 

Agro-Consumer Services, Division of Weights and Measures, LR 19:1533 (December 1993), 

amended LR 23:857 (July 1997) 

§4617. Fraud by vendors or by purchaser 

A. No one shall misrepresent the price or quantity of a commodity, thing, or service sold or offered or 

exposed for sale, to any actual or prospective customer. 

B. No one shall take more than the quantity represented of any commodity, thing, or service, when, as 

buyer, he furnishes the weight, measure, or weighing or measuring device by means of which the amount 

of the commodity, thing, or service is determined.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0343

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM JAMES HARNING,

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until November 29, 2021, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 19 2021

10/19/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0343
|   | 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. |
|--------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/      Andre Scholz                                                       |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Andre      Scholz                                                           |   |
|   |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer(principal      executiveofficer) |

|   | By:    | /s/      Craig Cody                                                                                  |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Craig      Cody                                                                                      |   |
|   |   | Chief      Financial Officer(principal      financial officer and principal accounting      officer) |

----
10197.

#### Central of Georgia Railway Company *v.*Scrivens.

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit against a connecting carrier in interstate commerce, to recover for damage to goods received by it from a preceding carrier and delivered by the connecting carrier at the point of destination in a damaged condition, proof that the goods were delivered in a good condition to the initial carrier raises a presumption that they were received in a good condition by the connecting carrier. There is nothing in the acts of Congress, including the Carmack amendment of June 29, 1906, c. 3591 (34 Stat. 595, U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8604, 8604 aa), fixing the liability of interstate carriers for goods damaged in transit, which relieves a connecting carrier of this presumption.

2. The presumption that goods delivered in good condition to the initial carrier were in good condition when received by the connecting carrier is not conclusive as a matter of law, but may be rebutted by proof. In the absence of competent evidence rebutting this presumption and showing that the goods were not in good condition when received by the connecting carrier, the evidence is sufficient, where there is proof of the other material allegations in the plaintiS’s petition to support a verdict against the connecting carrier. *Capital City Oil Co.*v. *Central of Ga. Ry. Co.,*16 *Ga. App.*750 (86 S. E. 57).

*(a)*Where the only evidence introduced.in rebuttal of this presumption was that of the baggage-master of the connecting carrier, who testified that the goods were received by it from the preceding carrier in bad condition, and that he knew this only from his records, the jury had a right to conclude that the witness was testifying to a conclusion merely, and had no actual personal knowledge of the circumstances. In view of the presumption it cannot be said that as a matter of law this *178evidence was conclusive of tlie fact that the carrier had received the goods in a bad condition. *Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry.*v. *Truitt Co.,*17 *Ga. App.*236, 240 (86 S. E. 421).

Decided September 18, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Americus—Judge Harper. November 2, 1918.

*B. T. Ilawkins, Yeomans & Wilkinson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hixon & Pace,*contra.

3. The charge of the court as a whole instructed the jury the the defendant carrier would not be liable unless the goods were damaged while in the defendant’s possession, and that the presumption as to receipt of the goods in good condition by the defendant was one of fact and subject to rebuttal. This was fairly submitted to the jury. The charge of the court was not erroneous for any reason assigned, and the evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*