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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                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 on Form 10-K of Nashua Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, John L. Patenaude, Vice President -- Finance, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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
Company.

                                          /s/ John L. Patenaude
                                          ---------------------------
Dated: March 24, 2006                     John L. Patenaude
                                          Vice President -- Finance,
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1574 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1574

 To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to permit an individual to invest 
  in private issuers upon acknowledging the investment risks, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2023

 Mr. Davidson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to permit an individual to invest 
  in private issuers upon acknowledging the investment risks, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Risk Disclosure and Investor 
Attestation Act''.

SEC. 2. INVESTOR ATTESTATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 2(a)(15) of the Securities Act of 1933 
(77b(a)(15)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating clause (i) as subparagraph (A);
            (2) in subparagraph (A), as so redesignated, by striking 
        ``or'' at the end;
            (3) by redesignating clause (ii) as subparagraph (B);
            (4) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated, by striking 
        the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
            (5) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) with respect to an issuer, any individual 
                that has attested to the issuer that the individual 
                understands the risks of investment in private issuers, 
                using such form as the Commission shall establish, by 
                rule, but which form may not be longer than 2 pages in 
                length.''.
    (b) Rulemaking.--Not later than the end of the 1-year period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Securities and 
Exchange Commission shall issue rules to carry out the amendments made 
by subsection (a), including establishing the form required under such 
amendments.
                                 <all>
```
Considerations

Documentary Standards (Voluntary Consensus)

Standards Basics 

How might standards be used?

• Followed to accelerate new technology / 

product development

• Referenced in regulatory submission 

• In conformity assessment: 

demonstration that specified 

requirements (e.g. as defined by a 

standard) are fulfilled

• In accreditation: third party attestation 

that an entity has formally demonstrated 

it competence per a set of requirement 

(e.g. standard)

Reference Materials

Standards Development Principles

Fitness for intended use

Reference to specified 

properties 

Homogeneity

Stability

Consensus 

Scope: 

clearly 

defined 

Content: 

appropriate 

& technically 

sound 

Relevance:

global 

What are standards?

Common and repeated use of rules, conditions, 

guidelines or characteristics for products or 

related processes and production methods

Documentary standards:

• Performance characteristics

• Testing methodology

• Manufacturing practices

• Management systems

• Conformity assessment 

Reference Materials (reference standard) 

• Physical artifacts

Why Standards?

• Facilitate commerce and trade

• Protect public health, safety, 

and the environment

• Promote technology innovation 

and commercialization

❖ Improved operations, 

procedures, processes, 

products, systems, & 

training

❖ Equivalent results

❖ Harmonization
*optional stages

ISO Development stages

ISO Standards Development

ISO Deliverables

Technical Report 

(TR)

Publicly 

Available 

Specification 

(PAS)

Technical 

Specification 

(TS)

International 

Standard (IS)

Level of 

requirements

Informative (No 

requirements: 

may contain

guidance or 

supplemental 

information)

Normative (requirements)

Consensus 

level required

Technical 

Committee 

(simple majority 

of P members)

Working Group 

Technical 

Committee 

(2/3 pmember

approval)

Technical 

Committee & 

< 25% 

disapproval

PWI •Preliminary Work Item*

NP •New Work Item Proposal

WD •Working Draft*

CD •Committee Draft*

DIS •Draft International Standard

FDIS

•Final Draft International 

Standard*

IS •International Standard 

Effective Standards 

Writing

• Clear, consistent, plain 

language

• “Shall" indicates a 

normative 

requirement

• “Should" indicates a 

recommendation

• “May" indicates a 

permission

• “Can" indicates a 

possibility or a 

capability

ISO and National Mirror Committees: 

Roles and Responsibilities

Considerations
<PAGE>
 
                                                           EXHIBIT 99.1


     The undertaking set forth below is filed for purposes of incorporation by
reference into Part II of the Registration Statements on Form S-8, File Nos. 33-
28808, 33-5874, 33-32934, 33-50324, and 333-16569.

Item 9.   Undertakings
          ------------

     (a)  The undersigned Registrant hereby undertakes:

                Insofar as indemnification for liabilities rising under the
        Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") may be permitted to
        directors, officers or persons controlling the registrant pursuant to
        the provisions described in this registration statement, or otherwise,
        CoreStates Financial Corp (the "Company") has been advised that in the
        opinion of the Commission such indemnification is against public policy
        as expressed in the Securities Act and is therefore unenforceable. In
        the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities
        (other than the payment by the Company of expenses incurred or paid by a
        director, officer or controlling person of the Company in the successful
        defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such director,
        officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being
        registered, the Company will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the
        matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of
        appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it
        is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and will be
        governed by the final adjudication of such issue.
EXHIBIT 15

To
the Board of Directors and Shareholder of
Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York:

We
have reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the unaudited interim financial information of Allstate Life
Insurance Company of New York for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in our report dated May 7, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed
no opinion on such financial information.

We
are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:

Form S-3 Registration Nos.

Form N-4 Registration Nos.333-58512

333-68344333-100029

333-81970333-94785033-65381


We
also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or
certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/Deloitte &
Touche LLP

Chicago,
Illinois
May 7, 2004

E-2

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Bio-Lok International Inc.(the
Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September, 2003, hereof (the
Report), the undersigned officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |  |                                                                                                                                                        
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or5 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and                                 
|
| |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Bio-Lok International Inc.

(s) Ingo K Kozak

---
Letter Agreement between Ayman Sabi



 






Exhibit 10.6




ROADHOUSE GRILL, INC.

2703-A GATEWAY DRIVE

POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA 33069




November 17. 2005




Ayman Sabi

c/o Roadhouse Grill, Inc.

2703-A Gateway Drive

Pompano Beach, Florida 33069




Dear Mr. Sabi:




          This letter agreement (“Agreement”) between the parties hereto sets forth the terms under
which Ayman Sabi (“Sabi”) , in his role as a stockholder of the Company, will enter into a Voting
Agreement (the “Voting Agreement”) agreeing to vote the shares of the Company’s common stock that
he owns (including the shares owned of record by Tonto Capital Partners, GP) in favor of the
proposed Merger (the “Merger”) between the Company and Steakhouse Partners, Inc. (“Steakhouse”).




The Agreement




          Under the terms of that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 14, 2005
(the “Merger Agreement”), Steakhouse is requiring that Sabi and Tonto enter into a Voting
Agreement under which they agree to support the Merger transaction contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.




          For good and valuable consideration, as set forth herein, Sabi hereby agrees to execute the
Voting Agreement pursuant to which they will support the Merger in its role as a stockholder of the
Company. In return, the Company agrees that at the closing of the Merger, it will pay to Sabi a fee
of $50,000 in cash.




Other




          This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereof regarding the
subject matter hereof. This Agreement may only be changed by a written agreement signed by the
parties hereof.




          The subject headings in this Agreement are provided for the convenience of the reader and do
not make up a part of the Agreement itself.




1









 








          This Agreement will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Florida, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof.




          If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please sign and return one copy of this Agreement.
Any counterpart copies will constitute one single document with respect to this Agreement.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Sincerely,
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ROADHOUSE GRILL, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Michael C. Brant
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name: Michael C. Brant
	 	 	Title: EVP and CFO






Accepted and agreed to as of the 17th day of November, 2005.




	 	 	 
	/s/ Ayman Sabi
 


	 	 
	Ayman Sabi
	 	 







2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0696-WS-M

 :

JAMES M. SCROGGINS, et al, :

 :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been

no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED

as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be

and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.

DONE this 22nd day of March, 2010.

S/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00696-WS-M Document 11 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 1
10916.

#### Avery & Company *v.*Sorrell.

Decided September 17, 1920.

Trover; from Colquitt superior court—; Judge Thomas. August 18, 1919.

*Napier, Wright & Wood, Dowling & Askew,*for plaintiffs.

*W. F. Way,*for defendant.

Stephens, J.

1. Where the record shows the rendition of a verdict in the trial court and also a motion for a new trial excepting thereto, a bill of exceptions, excepting to the overruling of the motion for a new trial, is not subject to dismissal as being prematurely brought to this court, upon the ground that, since there nowhere appears any record of a judgment having been entered upon the verdict, the record fails to show a final judgment.

2. This being a suit in trover wherein the evidence authorized a recovery for the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs having elected to take a money verdict, but the jury having rendered a verdict awarding the property to them, the verdict was contrary to law, and, on their motion for a new trial, should have been set aside. *Avery*v. *Sorrell,*145 *Ga.*329 (89 S. E. 194).

3. There being no evidence that the attorney for the plaintiffs accepted from the defendant in full settlement of the plaintiff’s claim the property which was the subject-matter of the suit, it was error upon the part of the trial judge to instruct the jury that a tender of the property by the defendant to the plaintiffs’ attorney in full settlement of the plaintiffs’ claim and its acceptance by the plaintiffs’ attorney could defeat the plaintiffs’ right to a recovery of the value of the property.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, 

Petitioner, 

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2012-3160

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA3330110862-I-2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, 

Petitioner, 

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent,

AND

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Intervenor. 

__________________________ 

Case: 12-3161 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2013
ROBERT DONALDSON v. DHS 2

2012-3161

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC1221120087-W-1.

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

The Department of Homeland Security moves for 

leave to file corrected informal response briefs in the 

above-captioned appeals to correct an erroneous factual 

statement. Robert Donnell Donaldson opposes. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motions for leave to file corrected informal response briefs are granted.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

 Clerk

s21

Case: 12-3161 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2013
#### John A. Tucker *v.*Geo. L. Helm.

Execution — On Attached Property.

Where a sheriff has wrongfully attached part of the debtor’s property, in the levy of a subsequent execution he should proceed as if no attachment had issued.

APPEAL PROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 17, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Appellee was wrongfully deprived of the possession of his wheat and corn by virtue of the order of attachment sued out by appellant, *206as has been judicially determined. He was therefore entitled to have retained what is alleged to have been set apart to him- when the attachment was levied', independent of the action of the sheriff, but also- to: that which was taken. Consequently all that the sheriff did in having a part of the grain set apart was unauthorized. When the execution issued and was levied on the grain detained by him, that was a proceeding wholly different and distinct from, the levy of the attachment and could not relate back to what was done under said attachment and make valid that which was before invalid. The position seems to be that because appellant did not- take all of appellee’s grain when he had no right to take any he may now retain as much as the law declares shall be set apart for the use of the family and appropriate it to the payment of his debt in place of a part he left, when he had no right to- take any. The law will not sanction that mode of adjustments.

*Brown, Lewis, for appellant.*

*Hays, for appellee.*

The sheriff should have proceeded under the execution precisely as if no attachment had ever issued, and to this view the -instructions of the court below conform. Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
#### L. Rucker, Assignee, *v.*Simon Baker et al.

Dismissal and Non-Suit — Dismissal of Petition — Effect.

Where plaintiff dismisses his action, his petition,, and so much of defendant’s answer as makes a defense to the claim stated in the petition, are taken out of the record; but so much of the answer as sets up a set-off or counterclaim remains.

APPEAL PROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

October 27, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The note sued on was executed to’ G. D. Rucker, and by him assigned to Summers, and by him to appellant, L. Rucker.

The s'et-off pleaded was made up of accounts and notes against the remote assignor, G. D. Rucker, alleged to have been contracted or purchased by appellees before notice of assignment. If it be conceded that appellees might have proceeded, in such a state of case, with their cross-action after appellant dismissed his petition, a proposition by no means clear, in as much as there was then no party in court against whom they could take judg*253ment, it by no means follows that when appellant dismissed his petition, he also withdrew the reply he had theretofore filed to the appellees’ answer, controverting the set-off.

*Roberts, for appellant.*

*Z. Wheat, for appellees.*

Sec. 401, Civil Code of Practice provides that where a set-off or a counterclaim has been presented, the defendant shall have th’e right to proceed to the trial of his claim, although the plaintiff may have dismissed his action or failed to appeal.

When the plaintiff dismisses his action, his petition and so much of the defendants’ answer as makes defense to the claim therein asserted, go out of court without action; but so much of the answer as sets up the matter of set-off or counterclaim remains. So, likewise, the plaintiff’s reply to the matter so asserted, the pleadings thus remaining in the court, make up the issue as to the counterclaim as set up; and the issues, the defendant has the right to have tried, notwithstanding the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his original action, or its dismissal by him.

It results, therefore, that when appellant dismissed his petition, he did not withdraw 'his reply, and that when he was again brought into the litigation upon the cross-petition of Jones, it was only necessary for him to refile his petition as amended, to make up the pleadings as between himself and these appellees.

This he was' permitted to do without objections, and when it was done he occupied toward these appellees the exact position he did before it was dismissed. It results, therefore, that it was error after trial and verdict, to take appellees’ set-off for confessed and render judgment for them, notwithstanding the verdict. The judgment in their favor is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to overrule appellees’ petition for judgment on the set-off and for judgment in appellant’s favor in accordance with the verdict of the jury.
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 Annual Report of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 3, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Samuel E. Beall, III, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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, 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 Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: August 4, 2008 | /s/ Samuel E. Beall, III   |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------|

Samuel E. Beall, III

Chairman of the Board, President 

and Chief Executive Officer