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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CaliforniaCoastal Communities, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in theirrespective capacity as an officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of their respective knowledge, that:

 
| · | the Report fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| · | the information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 
| Dated:  November 10, 2008                      |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |   |
| /s/ Raymond J.  Pacini                              |   |
| Raymond J.  Pacini                                  |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer                            |   |
|                                                |   |
| /s/ Sandra G. Sciutto                               |   |
| Sandra G.  Sciutto                                  |   |
| Senior Vice  President and  Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Standards Subcommittee

Mr. Jason Matusow

General Manager, Corporate 

Standards Group Microsoft 

Corporation

Subcommittee Chair

Dr. Jayne Morrow

Senior Advisor, Standards 

Policy, NIST
VCAT Subcommittee Charter

2

This VCAT Subcommittee is charged to report to the VCAT and make 

recommendations on the following, among other related topics: 

• the barriers to U.S. participation in standards development activity, and 

opportunities for knowledge and resource sharing to ensure U.S. equities 

from the private and public sector are supported -- especially in 

potentially disruptive, fast-moving technology areas; 

• opportunities to increase the number of professionals in CET sectors 

engaged in standards development activity, particularly in small and 

medium size enterprises (SMEs); and 

• opportunities for NIST to work effectively with private-sector stakeholders 

to foster greater U.S. investment in pre-standardization research that is 

essential to standards development activity.
VCAT Subcommittee Questions

3

1. Considering the recent release of the USG NSSCET and the VCAT 

Subcommittee charter, what feedback have you already received from the 

community? 

2. After receiving this presentation from NIST, how can NIST support the work of 

the SC and address any logistical challenges you see in leading the SC work? 

3. The CET standards landscape is broad, staying abreast of standards activities 

in the dynamic and rapidly changing fields is challenging. What barriers do 

you see in USG efforts to support enhanced engagement in standards 

development activities for CETs? 

4. What is the unique role of the USG in promoting standards as a critical 

component to the innovation ecosystem of the United States and the world? 

Question for the VCAT: Are there any additional 

questions the VCAT subcommittee should address?
**EXHIBIT 15**

To the Board of Directorsand Shareholder of

AllstateLife Insurance Company of New York:

Wehave made a review, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financialinformation of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York for the three-monthperiods ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, as indicated in our report dated May 72007; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on thatinformation.

Weare aware that our report referred to above, which is included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, isincorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:
| **Form S-3 Registration Statement  Nos.** | ** ** | **Form N-4  Registration Statement Nos.** |
|-------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------|
| 333-58512                                 |       | 033-65381                                 |
|  333-100029                          |       | 333-68344                                 |
|                                      |       | 333-81970                                 |
|                                      |       | 333-94785                                 |
|                                           |            |                                           |  |

 

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

/s/Deloitte& Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois

May 7, 2007

 

E-2

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCALES EXPRESS, INC. and LINCOLN )

GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No.: 05-719-BH-B

)

ELBERT R. SMITH, JR., et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company’s

(hereinafter, “Zurich”) Motion (Doc. 7) to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. However, as Plaintiffs’

Complaint states, this is an action of interpleader brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1335. Based on

the sparse pleading submitted by Defendant Zurich, the Court cannot rule that Plaintiffs’ Complaint

has been improperly plead. Therefore, Defendant Zurich is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE

or further support its Motion as to why this matter is due to be dismissed. Defendant Zurich’s

Response to this Order is due on or before January 12, 2006. Should Defendant Zurich fail to

respond, its Motion (Doc. 7) to Dismiss will be denied. 

So ORDERED, this 5th day of January, 2006. 

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00719-BH-B Document 9 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 1
11050.

#### Jackson *v.*The State.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Terrell superior court — Judge Worrill. October 4, 1919.

*R. R. Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold,*contra.

Luke, J.

The excerpt from the charge of the court is subject to the criticism that it 'slightly inaccurately states the inference raised against one who is found in possession of stolen goods recently after the commission of a larceny of the goods. It does not, however, instruct the jury that recent possession creates a presumption of law that the defendant is guilty of larceny of the goods. The charge in this case is different from the charges given in *Falvey*v. *State,*85 *Ga.*158 (11 S. E. 607), and *Cuthbert*v. *State,*3 *Ga. App.*600 (60 S. E. 322), and cit. The charge complained of in the instant case instructs the jury that they would be authorized to presume that the defendant found in possession, 'Of the stolen property was the thief, unless his possession be explained. In the *Cutlibert*case, supra, the jury were instructed that recent possession is a circumstance which the law considers sufficient to justify the assumption that he is the thief. The charge of the court did not mislead the jury, and the evidence authorized the conviction of the defendant, and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7963

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ELAN CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier

Harris,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-94-94; CA-5-766-3)

Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elan Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire,

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elan Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order construing his application for a

writ of audita querela as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1584 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1584

      To establish Plum Island, New York, as a national monument.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2023

  Mr. LaLota introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To establish Plum Island, New York, as a national monument.

    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 ``Plum Island National Monument Act''.

SEC. 2. PLUM ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT.

    (a) Establishment.--Plum Island, New York, is hereby established as 
a national monument for the purpose of ecological conservation, 
historical preservation, and the discovery and celebration of our 
shared cultural heritage.
    (b) Area Included.--The National Monument shall consist of Plum 
Island, New York, including its lands and interests therein.
    (c) Administration.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall administer the 
        National Monument.
            (2) Administrative jurisdiction.--The Secretary shall 
        establish administrative jurisdiction over portions of the area 
        described in subsection (b) as necessary to carry out this Act 
        by entering into memoranda of understanding with the head of 
        each Federal department or agency with administrative 
        jurisdiction over lands or interests in lands within such area.
    (d) Management Plan.--
            (1) Deadline for completion.--Not later than 3 years after 
        the date on which funds are first made available to the 
        Secretary for the preparation of a general management plan for 
        the National Monument, the Secretary shall prepare a general 
        management plan for the National Monument.
            (2) Submission to congress.--On completion of the general 
        management plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit 
        to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
        Resources of the Senate the general management plan under such 
        paragraph.
    (e) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) National monument.--The term ``National Monument'' 
        means the national monument established by subsection (a).
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES R. WARD, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0663-M 

: 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : 

Commissioner of : 

Social Security, : 

: 

Defendant. : 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be

entered in favor of Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart and against

Plaintiff James R. Ward.

DONE this 19th day of July, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00663-M Document 26 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 1
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Ruby Tuesday, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-32697, 333-03165, 33-20585, 333-39321, 333-03157, 33-70490, 333-03153, 033-46218, 33-46220, 33-56452, 333-03155, 333-77965, 333-88879, 333-39231, 333-100738 and 333-122124) on Form S-8 and (No. 33-57159) on Form S-3 of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. of our reports dated August 4, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 3, 2008 and June 5, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 3, 2008, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 3, 2008, which reports appear in the June 3, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. Our report with respect to theconsolidated financial statements refers to changes in the method of accounting for share-based payments due to the adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment,*asof June 7, 2006 and for defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans due to the adoption of the recognition and disclosure provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, *Employer’s Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans – an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132 (R)*, in 2007.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Louisville, Kentucky

August 4, 2008
Amendment No. 1 to the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 COLDWATER CREEK INC. 
 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 
  
 This Amendment No. 1 to the Coldwater Creek Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan is effective as of November 1, 2005. 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 1. Effective as of October 30, 2005, Coldwater Creek Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), adopted the Coldwater Creek Inc.
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan. 
  
 2. The Plan provides that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Compensation
Committee”) shall serve as the Plan Administrator, with full authority to approve certain amendments to the Plan from time to time. 
  
 3. The Compensation Committee has approved an amendment to the Plan pursuant to Section 10.2 thereof and has authorized management to effect such
amendment to the Plan as set forth below, effective as of November 1, 2005. 
  
 AMENDMENT 
  
 1. The
definition of “Average Monthly Earnings” in Section 12.3 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 
  
 12.3 “Average Monthly Earnings” means the average of the Participant’s monthly Earnings during the 60 consecutive months in which the Participant is
an Employee in the 120 months preceding Separation from Service, with respect to which the average is the highest, excluding any Earnings prior to October 30, 2005; provided that, in applicable instances, such 60 and 120 month periods shall
refer to such lesser number of months as measured from October 30, 2005 to a Participant’s Separation from Service. 
  
 2. Except as amended hereby the Plan remains in full force and effect according to its terms. 
  
 *
        *         *         *         * 
  
 This Amendment No. 1 to the Coldwater Creek Inc. Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan has been duly adopted and approved effective as of November 1, 2005. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Melvin Dick


	 	 	Melvin Dick
	 	 	 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.2


 


Use of Capital Supplemental Agreement


(Unofficial
English Translation Solely for Convenience)


 


Capital Lender: Shandong SNTON Group
Co., Ltd. (the “SNTON Group”)


Capital Borrower: Fuwei Films (Shandong)
Co., Ltd. (the “Fuwei Shandong”)


 


On May 20, 2014, Fuwei Shandong entered
into a Use of Capital Agreement with SNTON Group pursuant to which the parties agreed that SNTON Group will provide Fuwei Shandong
with a loan for a total amount of RMB15,000,000 to solely to purchase raw materials. The interest shall be calculated at the benchmark
rate, plus an additional 20% of the said benchmark rate, for the loan of the same term announced by the People’s Bank of
China. Fuwei Shandong has agreed to repay the said amount of RMB15,000,000 plus interest before December 31, 2014.


 


Considering the current financial status
of Fuwei Shandong, the two parties enter into a Supplemental Agreement as set forth below:


		1.	As of December 31, 2014, Fuwei Shandong shall repay the principle of this loan plus interest at
a total amount of RMB15,668,800.



		2.	Fuwei Shandong shall pay Shandong SNTON interest which shall be calculated at the benchmark rate,
plus an additional 20% of the said benchmark rate, for the loan of the same term announced by the People’s Bank of China.



		3.	Fuwei Shandong has agreed to repay the principle of this loan plus interest upon obtaining new
loans from financing institutions.



		4.	This agreement is in duplicates and each party holds one copy.



 


 


Shandong SNTON Group Co., Ltd. (chop)


 


Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co., Ltd. (chop)


 


 


 


Date: March 9, 2015.
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10(f)(i)

                                CABOT CORPORATION

                     COMPENSATION FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

                             AS OF DECEMBER 13, 2005

On January 10, 2003, the Board of Directors of Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")
approved the compensation outlined below for Cabot's non-employee directors,
effective April 1, 2003. There have not been any changes in these arrangements
since that time.

-     An annual cash retainer of $20,000, payable quarterly in equal
      installments of $5,000.

-     A per meeting fee of $1,700 for attending each Board meeting and each
      meeting of a Committee of which a director is a member.

-     An annual fee of $10,000, payable quarterly in equal installments, for
      serving as chair of the Audit Committee.

-     An annual fee of $4,000, payable quarterly in equal installments, for
      serving as Chair of any Committee of the Board other than the Audit
      Committee.

The standard compensation arrangements for non-employee directors also have
included an annual grant of 2,000 shares of Cabot common stock issued under
Cabot's Non-Employee Directors' Stock Compensation Plan. Cabot was not able to
issue stock pursuant to this plan in 2005. Accordingly, all non-employee
directors, other than Messrs. Enriquez-Cabot and McCance received a cash payment
of $65,000. Messrs. Enriquez-Cabot and McCance, who were elected as directors in
March 2005, received a pro-rated cash payment of $32,500.

Directors also are reimbursed for travel expenses incurred for attending Board
and Committee meetings and are covered by Cabot's travel accident insurance
policy for such travel.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DWIGHT BOYKIN, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CA 09-0747-WS-C 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 : 

 Defendant. 

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney=s fees in the 

amount of $3,996.43 under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 

DONE this 24th day of August, 2010. 

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00747-WS-C Document 24 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 1