alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bull Run Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterly period ended May 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
Report), the undersigned Chief Financial 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 the best of his individual knowledge and
belief:  (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. Date:
    
    July 15, 2004Signed:
    
    /s/ FREDERICK J. ERICKSONFrederick J. EricksonVice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
================================================================================


                                    FORM 6-K

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                        REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                         For the month of September 2004

                        Commission File Number 333-101591


                          GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION


                              5100 W. Lemon Street
                                   Suite 3100
                                 Tampa, Florida
                                      33609


     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                       Form 20-F [ ]         Form 40-F [X]

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ______________

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ______________

     Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in
this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                             Yes [ ]         No [X]

     If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-_______________


================================================================================
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     Exhibit        Description
     -------        -----------
     <C>            <S>
       99.1         Material Change Report dated September 14, 2004
</TABLE>


<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Date:    September 17, 2004


                                        GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION


                                        By:  /s/ Tom J. Landa
                                             -----------------------------------
                                        Name:  Tom J. Landa
                                        Title: Vice-President, Finance, Chief
                                               Financial Officer and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,361
<SECURITIES>                                   126,329
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,989
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    109,356
<COMMON>                                         4,851
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,221,045)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,739
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,243
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,066)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,066)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (127,336)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (148,402)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
#### James CLARK, et ux., Plaintiffs, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 3:84-0922.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Dec. 12, 1984.

*996H. Stanley Allen, Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Darrell G. Townsend, Nashville, Tenn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

NEESE, Senior District Judge,

Sitting by Designation and Assignment.

The defendant contends that, as a matter of law, the claim of the plaintiffs for the statutory bad-faith penalty, T.C.A. § 56-7-105, is barred because the attorney for the plaintiffs attempted on July 13, 1984 to revoke the proof-of-loss which his clients had submitted previously. The Court finds such argument unpersuasive.

In order to justify the bad-faith penalty, *inter alia,*there must have been a demand on the insurer for payment, and the insurer must have refused to pay the claimed loss within 60 days therefrom. *Squires v. Republic Insurance Company,*572 F.2d 560, 561-562[2] (6th Cir.1978); *Tyber v. Great Central Insurance Company,*572 F.2d 562, 456[1, 2] (6th Cir.1978). Here, as the defendant recognizes, the plaintiffs’ proof-of-loss constituted such a demand, and such demand was rejected unqualifiedly by the defendant on July 29, 1984, which, it is noticed, was within 60 days of its submission.

The Court is not cited to, nor has it located, any authority holding that an insured may revoke retroactively a proof-of-loss after it has been acted upon by the insurer. At the time these plaintiffs attempted to revoke their proof-of-loss, their claim had been refused by the defendant and their right to sue under the policy had accrued. If the defendant acted in bad-faith in refusing such claim, the Court fails to see how any subsequent conduct of the plaintiffs could affect their right to sue for the bad-faith penalty.
Exhibit 10_6


		
			AMENDMENT TO THE APPVION, INC. 
		

		
			LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
		

		
			Consistent with amendments made to the Restricted Stock Unit plan in 2014, the company desires to amend Section 5.1 of the LTIP to include the following new sentence as shown below:
		
5.1      Vesting
		
			.  A Phantom Stock Unit shall vest and, except as otherwise provided in Section 5.3 or 5.4, become exercisable on the completion of three (3) full years of employment commencing with the Grant Date of the Phantom Stock Unit or the occurrence of a Change of Control.  Upon termination of employment due to the Participant’s death, Disability or Retirement, an award of Phantom Stock Units shall be 0% vested if such employment termination occurs before the completion of one (1) full year of employment commencing with the Grant Date, 33.3% vested if such employment termination occurs on or after the completion of one (1) full year of employment, but before completion of two (2) full years of employment commencing with the Grant Date, and shall be 66.7% vested if such employment termination occurs on or after the completion of two (2) full years of employment but before the completion of three (3) full years of employment commencing with the Grant Date.  Retirements on December 31 of any given Plan Year shall be treated as a full year of employment for vesting purposes.    Any grant of Phantom Stock Units, or portion thereof, not vested according to the foregoing schedule on the date of the Participant's termination of employment for any reason shall be forfeited.
		

		
			 
		

		 


		

			EAST\100302908.1
From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, *53vs. BRYAN HINDMAN, Defendant,

*52CAUSE NO. DC-06-434 *53DECISION

On January 28, 2009, the defendant was sentenced for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of eighteen (18) years, with fourteen (14) years, six (6) months suspended, for the offense of Sexual Assault, a felony. The Court recommends that Defendant be placed in a Sexual Offender Treatment Program as soon as possible followed by a Pre-Release Program that is not located in the Missoula area.

On August 6, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Ethan Lerman. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of August, 2009.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
##### 



Sun Life Financial increases quarterly dividend
on Common Shares and declares dividend on Preferred Shares
 Toronto  July 28, 2005 
    Note to Editors: All figures in Canadian dollars.
  Media Relations Contact:
    
    Investor Relations Contact:Susan Jantzi
    
    Tom ReidManager, Media Relations
    
    Vice-President, Investor RelationsTel: 519-888-3160
    
    Tel: 416-204-8163susan.jantzi@sunlife.com
    
    investor.relations@sunlife.com
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 25, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00120

- CV

IN RE Brandon HJELLA

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

On February 24 , 20 20 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for stay

pending final resolution o f the petition for writ of manda mus

. This court believes a serious

question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real part y in interest may file a response to the petition in t his

court no later than M a rch 11, 2020

. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relator ’ s request for a stay is GRANTED , in part

. The trial court’s orders regarding

payment of attorney ’ s fees , including its January 30, 2 0 2 0, “ Order Granting Motion for

Attorney ’ s Fees ” and all proceedings on “ P laintiff ’ s Motion to Enforce Attorney ’ s Fees Order, to

Show Cause and to Enter Sanctions ” are STAYED pending final resolution o f the petition for

wri t of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED on February 25, 2020

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED T O: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CI15792 , styled Red McCombs M otors, Ltd. v. Brandon Hjella

, pending in the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
<PAGE>

                            [GERDAU AMERISTEEL LOGO]

                       GERDAU AMERISTEEL REACHES AGREEMENT
                   WITH UNITED STEELWORKERS IN WHITBY, ONTARIO

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

TORONTO, ONTARIO, MARCH 26, 2004 - Gerdau Ameristeel (TSX: GNA) has reached an
agreement with United Steelworkers members at the company's Whitby, Ontario,
steel mill on a new, three-year contract.

The new contract extends through February 28, 2007, and covers approximately 400
employees at the Whitby steel mill. Employees voted on and approved the
ratification of the agreement yesterday.

"We are very pleased that we are able to continue to successfully provide
competitive wages and benefits for our employees in Whitby," said Vice President
of Human Resources Jim S. Rogers. "The contract will allow the operations to run
more efficiently. It will also help us sustain the competitive strength required
to tackle the challenges of the steel industry's current economic environment."

ABOUT GERDAU AMERISTEEL

Gerdau Ameristeel is the second largest minimill steel producer in North America
with annual manufacturing capacity of over 6.8 million tons of mill finished
steel products. Through its vertically integrated network of 11 minimills
(including one 50%-owned minimill), 13 scrap recycling facilities, and 32
downstream operations, Gerdau Ameristeel primarily serves customers in the
eastern half of North America. Gerdau Ameristeel's common shares are traded on
the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol GNA.TO. For additional information,
visit www.gerdauameristeel.com.

CONTACT:             Tom J. Landa
                     Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Gerdau Ameristeel
                     5100 W. Lemon St., Suite 312
                     Tampa, Florida  33609
                     Phone: 813-207-2300
                     Fax: 813-207-2328
[Cite as State v. Conger, 2024-Ohio-128.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLINTON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

CHRISTOPHER L. CONGER,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2023-08-017

D E C I S I O N

1/16/2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. CRI 2023-5080

Andrew T. McCoy, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katie Wilkin, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Craig A. Newburger, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Christopher L. Conger, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the 

transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Clinton County Court of Common 

Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review 
Clinton CA2023-08-017

- 2 -

of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of 

both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response 

having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error 

prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel 

for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed 

for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.

NOTICE TO THE CLERK:

Serve a copy of this decision upon appellant at: #A817997, Christopher L. Conger, 

Mansfield Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 788, Mansfield, OH 44901
[Cite as State v. Conger, 2024-Ohio-128.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                        
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                       
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    897
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                              99
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          996
<PP&E>                                  7,914
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,440
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          7,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      32
<BONDS>                                 1,351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              6,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            7,512
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          455
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         73
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           180
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       180
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              180
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            8.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                            8.27
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32(a)
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc., (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2004 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 that the information contained in this Form 10-QSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 10, 2004



/s/ Roy T. Eddleman
-------------------------------------
Roy T. Eddleman
Chief Executive Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.




                                  EXHIBIT 32(b)
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc., (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2004 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 that the information contained in this Form 10-QSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 10, 2004



/s/ Brian A. Watts
-------------------------------------
Brian A. Watts
Chief Financial Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 23 , 202 4

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 4

- 00 077

- CV

MARIA LOPEZ , Appellant

V.

8601 BROADWAY MANAGEMENT CO LLC , Appelle e

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1216735

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed January 25 , 202 4

. The court reporter indicated on March 28, 2024 that there was no reporter’s record. The clerk’s record
was file d April 3
, 202 4

. No brief was filed.

On May 6 , 20 24
, we issued a notice stating that unless appellant filed a brief along with a motion requesting an extension of time on or before May 16 , 20 24 , the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00613-CV

Gary P. LAWTON, M.D., FACS,

Appellant

v.

Rachel JOAQUIN,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-16544

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the trial court’s order 

denying the motion to dismiss is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the trial court for 

(1) entry of an order granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice, and (2) other proceedings 

consistent with our opinion.

SIGNED February 26, 2014.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice