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 First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rick L. Wessel, 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 to my knowledge:





|(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:  May 6, 2009



/s/ Rick L. WesselRick L. Wessel
Chief Executive Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1670 

To amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 with respect to pre-agreement 

costs of emergency watershed protection measures, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2023 

Mr. CURTIS (for himself and Mr. GARAMENDI) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 with respect 

to pre-agreement costs of emergency watershed protection measures, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Making Access To 

5 Cleanup Happen Act of 2023’’ or the ‘‘MATCH Act of 

6 2023’’. 

7 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROGRAM. 

8 Section 403 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 

9 (16 U.S.C. 2203) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1670 IH

1 ‘‘(c) PRE-AGREEMENT COSTS.— 

2 ‘‘(1) SPONSOR.—For purposes of this sub3 section, the term ‘sponsor’ means a State or local 

4 government, or an Indian Tribe (as defined in sec5 tion 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Edu6 cation Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)). 

7 ‘‘(2) PRE-AGREEMENT PROJECT COSTS.—Not 

8 later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 

9 this subsection, the Secretary shall— 

10 ‘‘(A) identify a list of emergency watershed 

11 protection measures the cost of which may be 

12 incurred by a sponsor prior to entering into an 

13 agreement with the Secretary pursuant to this 

14 section; and 

15 ‘‘(B) develop a procedure, including appro16 priate deadlines, to be implemented at the State 

17 level, through which a sponsor may request, for 

18 a specified natural disaster, additional emer19 gency watershed protection measures the cost of 

20 which may be incurred by a sponsor prior to en21 tering into an agreement with the Secretary 

22 pursuant to this section. 

23 ‘‘(3) AGREEMENT CONTRIBUTION.—If the Sec24 retary and the sponsor enter into an agreement pur25 suant to this section, the Secretary shall consider 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1670 IH

1 any applicable pre-agreement costs incurred by a 

2 sponsor for undertaking emergency watershed pro3 tection measures identified pursuant to paragraph 

4 (2) as meeting part of the sponsor’s contribution to5 wards the project costs. 

6 ‘‘(4) ASSUMPTION OF RISK.—Nothing in this 

7 subsection requires the Secretary to enter into an 

8 agreement with a sponsor, and a sponsor under9 taking emergency watershed protection measures 

10 prior to entering into an agreement with the Sec11 retary pursuant to this section shall assume the risk 

12 of incurring any costs of undertaking such meas13 ures.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certificate 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 U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan Gold, President and Chief Executive Officer of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc., 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; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Alan Gold

Alan Gold

President and Chief Executive Officer

March 7, 2006

 

 

 

 
|   | 32 |
|--------|----|
<page>							         EXHIBIT 31.02


CERTIFICATIONS


I, Jeffrey D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is <page>
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and
<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Demeter's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.






Date:   November 14, 2003     /s/Jeffrey D. Hahn
                                 Jeffrey D. Hahn
                                 Chief Financial Officer,
                                 Demeter Management Corporation,
                                 general partner of the registrant
<PAGE>   1








                                Exhibit No. 11.1

                         Statement of Computation of Net
                          Investment Income Per Limited
                                Partnership Unit





<PAGE>   2




                    FIDUCIARY CAPITAL PENSION PARTNERS, L.P.


                         STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET
                          INVESTMENT INCOME PER LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP UNIT
               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND 1999


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               2000              1999
                                                          -------------     -------------
<S>                                                       <C>               <C>
Net Investment Loss                                       $     (62,635)    $     (38,334)

Percentage Allocable to Limited Partners                            100%              108%
                                                          -------------     -------------

Net Investment Loss Allocable
   to Limited Partners                                    $     (62,635)    $     (41,401)
                                                          =============     =============

Weighted Average Number of Limited
   Partnership Units Outstanding                                869,796           940,336
                                                          =============     =============

Net Investment Loss Per Limited
   Partnership Unit                                       $        (.07)    $        (.04)
                                                          =============     =============
</TABLE>
#### Julius A. Smith’s Adm’r *v.*Louisville Benevolent & Relief Association.

Administrator, Maintenance of Action — Decedent’s Association Membership.

Where a decedent died prior to any distribution of the proceeds of an association of which he was a member, and before the members were empowered by law, in, the event of a dissolution, to retain the property among themselves, the administrator cannot maintain an action against the living members for contribution.

Decedent’s Association Membership.

Where, under the rules of an association of which decedent was a member it was provided that at the death of a member his wife or mother would be entitled to certain named benefits, it is held where the wife died prior to her husband, but decedent’s stepmother survived him that such stepmother is not entitled to such benefits.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

October 15, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The administrator of Julius A. Smith can maintain no action against the appellee or its members for contribution, for the reason that his intestate died long before there ivas any distribution of the proceeds of the association (if any has been made), and before the members of the association were empowered by legislative enactment, in the event of a dissolution, to retain the property among themselves.

At Smith’s death, by the terms of the charter, as a consideration for what he had paid, and by reason of his membership, his relations, such as are designated by the charter, become entitled to certain benefits. The widow is to have twenty dollars per month, and if no widow or child, his mother is entitled to the same benefits. In the present case, Smith died without leaving a wife or children, but leaving surviving him a stepmother, who, in conjunction with his administrator, is prosecuting this action. There was no legal or natural obligation on the part of Smith to support and maintain his stepmother, and the relation between them was not such as would entitle her to the beneficent provision of the act in question. One may stand in *loco parentis*to another, and as such become responsible for the maintenance and education of the child for the reason that the latter is held out to the world as one of the family. So the intestate might have been made liable for the support and main*153tenance of a stranger when based upon a sufficient consideration. The mlere moral obligation, if any, to maintain in either case would not authorize a recovery against the intestate, and it was never contemplated that the clause of the charter in question entitled those occupying the relation of stepmother to its beneficial provisions. There was neither a natural nor legal obligation on the part of Smith to maintain the appellant (his stepmother); and as he having died without leaving any such kindred as those mentioned in the charter and who were alone entitled to the benefits, the money paid by him into the association passes to the surviving members. The judgment is therefore *affirmed.*

*Armstrong & Flemming, for appellant.*

*Russell &*Helm, *for appellee.*
ex10-82.htm


Exhibit 10.82

 

EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATE OF CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE

 

This Extension of Maturity Date of Convertible Debenture (“Extension”) is by and between the individual or entity named on an executed counterpart of the signature page hereto (such signatory is referred to as “Holder”) and OmniComm Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) and is entered into as of the day the Holder executes a copy of this Extension.

 

WHEREAS, Maker has delivered to Holder that certain 12% Convertible Debenture Series 08-04 of the Maker (“Convertible Debenture”) dated December 16, 2008 in the aggregate to the Holder in the principal of $25,000. 

 

WHEREAS, the Maturity Date of the Convertible Debentures, as that term is defined in the Convertible Debenture, is January 01, 2016, and all principal due thereunder remains unpaid as of the date hereof.

 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend the Maturity Date.

 

WHEREAS, Holder has all requisite power, authority, and capacity to enter into this Extension and to extend the Maturity Date of the Convertible Debenture.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Holder and the Maker hereby agree as follows:

 

	 	
1.
	
Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.



 

	 	
2.
	
Extension of Maturity Date. The Maturity Date is hereby extended to April 01, 2018.



 

	 	
3.
	
No Other Changes. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Convertible Debenture remain in full force and effect.



 

	 	
4.
	
Warrants Extension. Maker hereby agrees to extend the expiration date on the Warrants issued in connection with the Convertible Debenture on December 16, 2008, which were originally scheduled to expire on January 01, 2016. The new expiration date is April 01, 2018.



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Extension of Maturity Date of Convertible Debenture is executed as of the day and date the Holder executes a copy of this Extension.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
OmniComm Systems, Inc.
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By: /s/ Thomas E. Vickers	 
	 	 	Thomas E. Vickers	 
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer	 


 

[HOLDERS SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 


 

 




 


 

Exhibit 10.82 

 

[EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATE OF CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE SIGNATURE PAGE]

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned represents that it has caused this extension of Maturity Date of Convertible Debenture and Warrants to be duly executed on its behalf (if an entity, by one of its officers thereunto duly authorized) as of the date written below.

 

 

	
 
	
HOLDER:
	 
	
 
	
 
	 
	
 
	
 
	 
	
 
	
Stephen E. Johnson
	 
	
 
	
Printed Name of Holder
	 
	
 
	
 
	 
	
 
	
 
	 
	
 
	
 
	 
	
 
	
By: /s/ Stephen E. Johnson
	 
	
 
	
(Signature of Holder or Authorized Person)
	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Printed Name and Title if Authorized Person	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	April 30, 2015	 
	 	Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Attached is the financial data schedule for Netegrity, Inc. for the period ended
March 31, 1998.  It should be read in conjunction with the Company's Form 10-Q
and Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,019,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  669,823
<ALLOWANCES>                                    58,470
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,540,424
<PP&E>                                         612,741
<DEPRECIATION>                               (193,308)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,497,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,495,230
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,667
<COMMON>                                        92,886
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,892,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,497,336
<SALES>                                        809,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               808,821
<CGS>                                          346,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,848,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               304,432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,473,531)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,473,531)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,473,531)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
#### Leon R. KOZIOL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Utica Mayor Edward A. HANNA, Defendant-Appellant, and The City of Utica, New York, Defendant.

No. 00-9109.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 31, 2001.

John W. Dillon, Esq., Corporation Counsel for the City of Utica, Utica, NY, for appellant.

Leon R. Koziol, Esq., Utica, NY, for appellee.

*37Present JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Chief Judge, OAKES and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellant Edward A. Hanna, the mayor of Utica, NY, appeals from an August 1, 2000, order of the district court denying him qualified immunity from plaintiff-appellee Leon Koziol’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for money damages, which alleges free speech retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Hanna argues that the district court erred in denying him qualified immunity because, he contends, at the time of Koziol’s alleged retaliatory dismissal it was not “clearly established” that government employees holding policy-making positions were entitled to free speech protection from employment retaliation. *See Kaluczky v. City of White Plains,*57 F.3d 202, 210 (2d Cir.1995).

In January 1997, Koziol—in his capacity as corporation counsel for Utica—issued a public report on his investigation of a fire that had recently occurred in Utica and that had injured several Utica fireman. According to Koziol, the circumstances of his issuance of the report violated a “gag order” Hanna had instituted in September 1996, which precluded city employees from discussing “newsworthy” events with certain members of the press. Koziol contends that, as a result, Hanna retaliated against him by, among other things, making his position full-time so that he would be unable both to continue in it and to continue his private law practice, and giving him negative performance ratings. Koziol asserts that, due to these alleged retaliatory acts, he was forced to resign as corporate counsel in February 1997.

For substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion, *see Koziol v. Hanna,*107 F.Supp.2d 170, 182 (N.D.N.Y. 2000), the order denying qualified immunity is hereby AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Gaiam, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Janet Mathews,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  March 1, 2005 |
|----------------------|
|                 |
|                 |
|                 | /s/  Janet Mathews |   |
|                 | Janet  Mathews |
|                 | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----