alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32(a)

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer of Jordan Industries,
Inc., an Illinois corporation (the "Registrant"), hereby certifies that the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended March 31,
2007, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section
78m(a)) and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.

Date: May 15, 2007


/s/ John W. Jordan II
-------------------------------------
John W. Jordan II
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


                                      -23-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Wade KEY, also known as B.W. Key, also known as Billy Wade Key, Jr., also known as Billy W. Key, also known as Billy Key, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-6343.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 30, 2001.

Before HENRY, BRISCOE and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Billy Wade Key appeals his sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), following his plea of guilty to knowingly possessing a firearm in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

On June 6, 2000, Key was indicted on one count of “knowingly possessing] a firearm, that is a Charter Arms .38 caliber revolver ... which was in and affecting interstate commerce ... in violation of *693Title 18 United States Code, Section 922(g)(1), the penalty for which is found in Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(a)(2).” R. Vol. I, Doc. 1 at 1-2. Key entered a plea of guilty on July 7, 2000. The government filed a notice that it would seek imposition of a sentence under the enhanced penalty provisions of the ACCA. Key filed his objections, arguing imposition of a sentence under § 924(e)(1) would violate *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because he “was not charged with nor did he plead facts showing he had been previously convicted of three or more violent or drug felonies.” R. Vol. I, Doc. 21 at 2. On September 28, 2000, the district court sentenced Key to a term of imprisonment of 180 months.

On appeal, Key contends, under *Apprendi,*the district court erred in sentencing him under the ACCA to fifteen years in prison when the indictment charged him under a statute that earned a maximum penalty of ten years. Key acknowledges this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Dorris,*236 F.3d 582, 586-88 (10th Cir.2000), expressly rejected the argument he makes here. In *Dorris,*we held that *Apprendi*failed to overrule *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that prior felony convictions are mere sentence enhancements and not elements of an offense. Key states he brought this appeal to preserve the issue because he anticipates *Donis*will be overruled.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
EXHIBIT 4.39


 


Deed of access, indemnity and
insurance – Mr John M Stewart


 


The
Deed of access, indemnity and insurance of Mr John M Stewart 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 10.1

 

VERBAL AGREEMENT WITH OFFICERS, DIRECTORS AND PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS

 

The document is to disclose the material terms of the verbal agreement between the Company and its officers, directors and principal shareholders who have verbally agreed to provide capital up to $100,000.

 

Loan Amount: up to $100,000

 

Interest Rate: 0%

 

Repayment Terms: 24 months from date the funds are borrowed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     18106054
<SECURITIES>                               1671238
<RECEIVABLES>                              69940
<ALLOWANCES>                               17500
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           20160774
<PP&E>                                     3006398
<DEPRECIATION>                             1975398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             25910665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      681739
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   3750295
<OTHER-SE>                                 17966881
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               25910665
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3511071
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           2026414
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            1423281
<INCOME-TAX>                               490000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        933281
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               933281
<EPS-BASIC>                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0

</TABLE>
### JAMES H. KREIMEYER

ATTORNEY AT LAW

P.O. BOX 727 BOARD CERTIFIED-CRIMINAL LAW (254) 939-9393 BELTON, TEXAS 76513 TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION FAX (254) 939-2870

June 4, 2015

Hon. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Court of Appeals Third District of Texas P.O. Box 12547 Austin, Texas 78711-2547

RE: Tarsha Yvonne Wiley vs. The State of Texas Cause No. 03-14-00563-CR

Dear Mr. Kyle:

This is to inform the Court of Appeals that I, as attorney on appeal, have complied with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure by sending a copy of the Court’s Opinion in the above referenced case. This was done within five (5) days after the opinion was rendered.

Enclosed please find a copy of the return receipt. Please cause this letter and copy to be filed in this

matter.

Yours truly,

/s/ James H. Kreimeyer

James H. Kreimeyer

JHK:ar

Encl. ACCEPTED 03-14-00563-CR 5546117 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/4/2015 1:14:25 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. III


( A Limited Partnership )





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 Boston Financial Qualified Housing Tax Credits L.P. III (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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; and





2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street III, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Qualified


Housing Tax Credits L.P. III





Date:    August 16, 2010








A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Support for Conferences and Scientific Meetings (R13/U13).                    

*Date:*                         January 6, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Vasundhara Varthakavi, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 3E70B, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5020,                         *varthakaviv@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 5, 2014.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-29019 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         195,603
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     (174,070)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,236
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,517
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,561
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,397)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
<FN>
<F1>REGISTRANT HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
11143.

#### Citizens Trust Company *v.*Butler *et al.*

Decided August 16, 1920.

(Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court.)

Trover; from Gity court of Savannah — Judge Freeman. October 30, 1919.

The plaintiff corporation sought to recover in trover certain personal property to which it claimed title under a bill of sale purporting to have been executed to it by the Universal Light & Power Company, to secure a debt. This instrument was attested by two witnesses, one of whom was a notary public; it was dated March 24, 1919, 'and was recorded April 2, 1919. The notary public was secretary of the plaintiff corporation, and received a *624salary from it as such, but was not a stockholder of the corporation, and was not otherwise pecuniarily interested in it. There was no corporate seal on the instrument. When it was offered in evidence the defendants objected to it on the grounds: (1) that the notarial witness was secretary of the plaintiff corporation, the vendee, when the instrument was executed, and therefore was disqualified to attest it, and the record of it was not notice to third persons; and. (2) that it did not bear the seal of the corporation by which it purported to have been executed. The court sustained the objections, and, there being no other evidence of title, granted a nonsuit; and the plaintiff excepted to the rulings stated. Counsel for the plaintiff requested the Court of Appeals to review and reverse the ruling in the case of *Barrow*v. *E. Tris Napier Co. v. Butler,*16 *Ga. App.*309, and contended that it should not be applied where the notary is not a stockholder of the corporation, and on this point cited: *2 Ga. App.*721; 1 Corpus Juris, 808, sec. 117; 125 Cal. 320 (57 Pac. 1070); 36 Fla. 575 (18 So. 850); 48 Neb. 514 (67 N. W. 485, 37 L. R. A. 434); 196 Ill. 554 (63 N. E. 1049, 89 Am. St. Rep. 330); 113 Iowa, 216 (84 N. W. 1041); 70 Neb. 815 (98 N. W. 34); 32 Wash. 572 (73 Pac. 680); 1 Am. Dig. (Cen. Ed.), sec. 109, col. 871; 1 Am. Dig. (Decen. Ed.), 195-7, sec. 20 (3); 16 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 141, notes; 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1075, 1078; 99 *Ga.*451 (3, 4); 122 *Ga.*439-40 (6); 145 *Ga.*580 (2), 584-5; 6 *Ga. App.*569-70; 149 *Ga.*479 (distinguished); 143 *Ga.*16 (3).

*623Stephens, J.

1. The attestation of a secretary of a corporation, in his capacity as a notary public, to a bill of sale in which the corporation is the vendee is not sufficient to admit the bill of sale to record. *Barrow*v. *E. Tris Napier Co.,*16 *Ga. App.*309 (85 S. E. 267).

2. The bill of sale not having been properly admitted to record, and there being no proof otherwise of its execution, it was properly rejected when offered in evidence by the plaintiff in a suit in trover by the vendee to recover the property therein mentioned.

3. There being no evidence to establish the plaintiff’s title to the property sued for a nonsuit was properly granted.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*

*624*Anderson, Cann, Cann & Walsh,*for plaintiff.

*George H. Richter,*for defendant.
Federal Building and Fire Safety Inves

of the World Trade Center Disast

Baseline Structural Performance 

Impact Damage Analys

Response to Public Commen

September 12, 2005

Fahim Sadek

Building and Fire Research Labo

National Institute of Standards and Tec

U.S. Department of Commerce

fahim.sadek@nist.gov
Statistics on Comments Received Statistics on Comments Received

• Total Number of submissions: 60

 2 from code organizations (editorial) 57 from two engineers from industry (

techn

clarifications)

 1 from an individual (questions and clarifica
Nature of Comments Nature of Comments

Most of the comments dealt with the following issues:

 Clarifications (or justifications) on the use of materials co

LS-DYNA for steel and concrete, including strain rate mo

 Adequacy of the plow-type impactor for the floor compon

 Accuracy and sources of the aircraft model. Reasonableness of the bounds used for the variables in 

analyses.

 Adequacy of using 32-bit precision versus 64-bit precisio The influence of the P-delta effects due to building sway  Accuracy and level of confidence in the SPH approach u

dispersion.
Changes to Project Report Changes to Project Report

The adequacy of using 32-bit precision versus 64-bit precisio

 To confirm the adequacy of the single precision an

subassembly impact analyses were performed on both single and double precision. The comparison analyses showed no substantial difference in the iand damage.

The influence of the P-delta effects due to building sway a

 P-

∆ effects generated due to the sway of the towe

observed in video evidence, were not expected to additional damage to the core columns. The core designed as axially loaded members without contiand thus would not develop significant P-

∆ mome

NCSTAR 1-2A).
Changes to Project Report Changes to Project Report

The accuracy and the level of confidence in the SPH approach used in mo

 Both the SPH and ALE analysis techniques avail

able for the 

impact and dispersion had limitations. Details of the fuel bewetting of the fuel against tower structures and interior c

onte

the fuel breakup into droplets are not accurately reproduced technique. How

ever, the momentum transfer from the fuel t

and subsequent i

mpact damage produced by the fuel can b

analysis techniques.The detailed predi

ctions of the fuel dispersion and di

strib

utio

global impact analyses had significant uncertainties i

n the a

validati

on testing. However, some aspects of the distributio

confi

dence. The floors confined the vertical motion of the fu

distribution of fuel was controlled more by the geometry of thcon

diti

o

n

s. As a result, thi

s distribution by floor has a highe

Similarly, the interior contents and partition walls, and the dastructures, controlled the spread of fuel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIO-LOK INTERNATIONAL INC. FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD
ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          19,915
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  518,111
<ALLOWANCES>                                   115,256
<INVENTORY>                                  1,217,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,660,289
<PP&E>                                         909,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                 726,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,873,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          756,438
<BONDS>                                        299,353
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,423
<OTHER-SE>                                     762,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,873,534
<SALES>                                        452,603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               452,603
<CGS>                                          150,731
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,606
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
FILED: February 10 , 202 3

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 2 2

- 1209

KIRIL ZAHARIEV

,

P laintiff

– Appellant,

v.

HARTFORD LIFE & ACCID ENT INSU RANCE COMPANY

,

Defe ndant

– Appellee.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed February 3 , 202 3 , as follows:

The final sentence of the opinion is changed to read, “ We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. ”

For the Court

– By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor , Clerk USCA4 Appeal: 22-1209 Doc: 32 Filed: 02/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 1
11612.

#### Watts *v.*Sanders.

Decided July 28, 1920.

Broyles, C. J.

Under the pleadings and the evidence as disclosed by the record, the verdict for the defendant was amply authorized, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows cause for a reversal of the judgment below.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*543Action on contract; from city court of Greensboro — Judge Brown. May 14, 1920.

*Miles W. Lewis,*for plaintiff.

*J. G. Faust, Noel P. Park,*for defendant.