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

CERTIFICATION OF 
  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ryan S. McCleery, Chief Financial Officer of Terrace Ventures
  Inc. (the “Company”), hereby 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 my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company,
        for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2004, and to which this certification
        is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Report”) fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                



| | By:    | /s/ Ryan S. McCleery   
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | RYAN S. McCLEERY       
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | December 20, 2004      

*A signed original of this written statement required by
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant
  and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is
  not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
  incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities
  Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
  the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language
  contained in such filing.*

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Topics 

#   Farming and Ranching

###### Share

Print FriendlyEmailTwitterFacebook

###### Farming and Ranching

              - Agricultural Safety
              - Agricultural Systems
              - Agriculture Technology
              - Farmer Education
              - Organic Agriculture
              - Small and Family Farms
              - Sustainable Agriculture

Successful operation of farms and ranches requires business management skills, ongoing training and education, and safety awareness. NIFA helps farmers, ranchers, foresters, and other agricultural professionals manage economically viable, ecologically sound, and socially responsible businesses.

Climate Change: Adaptation, Mitigation and Resilience 

Community and Economic Development

Farm Safety

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)

Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer Programs (SBIR/STTR)

Capacity Grants

Agricultural Research at 1890 Land-Grant Institutions

The Hatch Act of 1887 (Multistate Research Fund)

The Hatch Act of 1887

AFRI Foundational and Applied Science Program

AgrAbility

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP)

Enhancing Agricultural Opportunities for Military Veterans (AgVets)

Urban, Indoor, and Emerging Agriculture

Equipment Grants Program (EGP)

American Rescue Plan Technical Assistance Investment (ARPTAI) Program 

Aquaculture

Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN)

Laying Hen and Turkey Research Grant Program

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) Eligibility

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) Apply

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP)  FAQ

From Learning to Leading: Cultivating the Next Generation of Diverse Food and Agriculture Professionals (NextGen)

Farm Business Management and Benchmarking Competitive Grants Program

AgrAbility - Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with Disabilities

Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants Program

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) (Joint NSF) Competitive Grants Program

Agricultural Genome to Phenome Initiative

Farm of the Future

Equipment Grant Program

Research Facilities Act Program

Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network
#### City of New York, Respondent, v Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Monique's Smoke Shop et al., Appellants.

Decided August 31, 2010

Pursuant to the August 20, 2010 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit withdrawing its certification of questions accepted by the Court of Appeals on May 11, 2010 *[see*14 NY3d 880 (2010)], certified questions marked withdrawn.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                        $632,000
<SECURITIES>                                  $968,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               $1,914,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 $1,586,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            $5,193,000
<PP&E>                                      $3,388,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              $8,581,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       $2,069,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       $56,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  $6,456,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                $8,581,000
<SALES>                                     $2,699,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            $2,699,000
<CGS>                                       $1,358,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               $2,401,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $13,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               $298,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   $25,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           $273,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  $273,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $.005
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $.005
        

</TABLE>
#### BOWLES, Adm’r, OPA, v. McMINNVILLE MFG. CO.

No. 85.

District Court, E. D. Tennessee, Winchester Division.

Feb. 1, 1946.

*65John M. Cate, Thomas Gore and John F. Morrison Jr., all of Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Frank Davenport, of McMinnville, Tenn., for defendant.

DARR, District Judge.

As I understand, the defendant’s pleading denies that its operations come within the definition contended by the plaintiff whereby certain maximum prices are applicable. This becomes an issue in the lawsuit and perhaps the main issue.

I further understand that the information sought by the interrogatories objected to is such as will reflect upon the character of operation carried on by the defendant in determining the very issue above set out.

, The general holding seems to be that a party may not object to interrogatories on the ground that they would require extensive research, investigation and expense, if they relate to details alleged in his pleading and concerning which he presumably has information. See cases cited in Moore’s Federal Practice under the New Rules, Vol. 2, Pocket Part for 1945 at page 204.

Doubtless the plaintiff would have a right to obtain this information in some manner of discovery. If depositions were required, the same data would have to be assembled by some person connected with the defendant. So, I see no reason why it would not be just as easy to secure the information and let the interrogatories be answered as it would be if another method of discovery were required.

For the reason stated the objections to the interrogatories will be overruled.

If further time is needed in which to answer the interrogatories, the Court will consider a reassignment of the cause, which is now set for February 6, 1946.

An order will be entered in accord with this opinion.
#### Bernabe Encarnacion, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 917]

*1004Peters, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Weinstein, J.), entered September 24, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Claimant, an inmate, commenced this action seeking to recover damages for defendant’s alleged improper disclosure of his confidential medical records. Defendant answered and thereafter moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was not timely filed and served. The Court of Claims granted the motion, and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. “It is well established that the requirements of the Court of Claims Act as to the filing of claims must be strictly construed because the question of timeliness of filing is jurisdictional” *(Bush v State of New York,*60 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; *see Caci v State of New York,*107 AD3d 1121, 1122 [2013]). Whether grounded in negligence or intentional tort, claimant was required to serve and file his claim, or serve a notice of intention to file the claim, within 90 days of its accrual *(see*Court of Claims Act §§ 10 [3], [3-b]; 11 [a] [i]; *Skiptunas v State of New York,*290 AD2d 868, 870 [2002]). Claimant’s claim accrued on August 23, 2007, the date when he alleges that defendant disclosed his confidential medical information *(see A.F. v State of New York,*60 AD3d 1222, 1223 [2009]). As claimant failed to file his claim within 90 days thereof, the Court of Claims was divested of subject matter jurisdiction and the claim was properly dismissed *(see Davis v State of New York,*89 AD3d 1287, 1287-1288 [2011]; *Milner v New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp.,*24 AD3d 977, 978 [2005]).

Claimant’s argument that his claim should have been treated as a timely served notice of intention to file a claim was not raised before the Court of Claims and, therefore, is unpreserved for our review *(see Bush v State of New York,*60 AD3d at 1245; *Carter v State of New York,*284 AD2d 810, 811 [2001]).* To the extent not specifically addressed herein, claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Rose, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

*

 Even assuming, arguendo, that a claim may properly be treated as a notice of intention to file a claim *(compare*Court of Claims Act § 10 [8] [permitting a claimant to apply for permission to have a timely served notice of intention to file a claim deemed a timely served claim]), any such treatment would be fruitless here inasmuch as claimant did not serve a subsequent claim upon the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) *(see Caci v State of New York,*107 AD3d at 1121 n 1, 1124; *cf. Spaight v State of New York,*91 AD3d 995, 996 [2012]).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2562 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2562

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on MCPB Acid and MCPB Sodium 
                                 Salt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

  Mr. Burris introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on MCPB Acid and MCPB Sodium 
                                 Salt.

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

SECTION 1. MCPB ACID AND MCPB SODIUM SALT.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.94 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to MCPB Acid and MCPB Sodium 
Salt) is amended by striking the date in the effective period column 
and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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 Wolverine Tube, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Harold M. Karp,
Principal Executive Officer of Wolverine Tube, Inc., 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 my 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Wolverine Tube, Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Tube, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 7, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Harold M. Karp                   
|                     |  |  |  | Harold M. Karp                       
|                     |  |  |  | Principal Executive Officer          
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Operating Officer
# Fact Sheet: Takata Recall History and Key Terms

                                                                          Download file:                       Fact Sheet: Takata Recall History and Key Terms
##### 



Exhibit 32

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 HearUSA, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
we, Stephen J.
Hansbrough, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Gino Chouinard,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of our knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/Stephen J. HansbroughStephen J. HansbroughChief Executive OfficerHearUSA, Inc.August 12, 2003/s/Gino ChouinardGino ChouinardChief Financial OfficerHearUSA, Inc.August 12, 2003
|  | (i) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (ii) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      at the dates and for the periodspresented. |
|--|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      June 26, 2009 |
|--------------------------|
| By:                      | /s/ JAIME CELORIO. |
|                     | Jaime      Celorio. |
|                     | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Leonard P.Shaykin, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of TapestryPharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: March 31,2006
|        | /s/ LEONARD P.  SHAYKIN             |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   | Leonard P.  Shaykin                 |
|   | Chairman of the  Board of Directors |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer            |

 

----
#### Cabarrus Cty. v. Systel Bus. Equip. Co.

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 690

No. 051P07

Def and Third-Party Pit’s (Systel) PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06250 & COA06-425)

Denied 06/27/07

Brady, J., Recused
#### David E. HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John NALAND, President American Foreign Service Association (AFSA); Sharon Late, General Counsel American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-1245.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 28, 2009.

David E. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David E. Henderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action summarily asserting that Defendants refused to help him in'obtaining the medical retirement benefits he was allegedly denied in 1981, and asking his former union to proceed on his written request for benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Henderson v. Naland,*No. 1:08-cv-00535-LMB-TCB (E.D.Va. February 17, 2009). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
EX-10.1






FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE

OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS 




THIS FIRSTAMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS is made and entered into as of the 3rd day of December, 2007, by and between NNN
WOODSIDE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as “Buyer”) and NNN VF
WOODSIDE CORPORATE PARK, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as
“Seller”).



RECITALS:




A. Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property
and Escrow Instructions dated as of October 19, 2007 (the “Agreement”).



B. Buyer and Seller hereby desire to amend the Agreement as set forth below.



NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of ‘the mutual covenants contained herein and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by
each party hereto, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows:



1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby modified such that the Purchase Price of the Property
shall be Thirty-One Million Seven Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($31,700,000.00).



2. Section 10.1.5(a) is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: “Total rent due from
the State of Oregon shall be at the rate of at least Twenty and 13/100 Dollars per square foot per
year ($20.13/sf) with annual escalations; and”.



3. Reference to “December 31, 2007” in Section 10.1.5 of the Agreement shall be deleted and
replaced with “January 15, 2008”



4. Except as expressly modified herein, the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full
force and effect.



5. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement.



6. Seller and Buyer agree that this First Amendment may be transmitted between them by
facsimile machine or email. The Seller and Buyer intend that faxed or emailed signatures shall
constitute original signatures and that a faxed or emailed version of this First Amendment
containing the signature (original, faxed or emailed) of Seller and Buyer shall be counterparts,
each of which will constitute an original and all of which shall comprise the entire First
Amendment.



1



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Buyer and Seller have caused this First Amendment to Purchase and Sale of
Real Property and Escrow Instructions to be executed as of the day and year first above written.



SELLER: 



NNN VF WOODSIDE CORPORATE PARK, LLC


a Delaware limited liability company



	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	Triple Net Properties, LLC
	 	 	a Virginia limited liability company
	Its:

	 	Manager
	 	

	
 
	 	By:

Name:

Title:
	 	/s/ Richard Hutton

Richard Hutton

Executive Vice President






BUYER:



NNN WOODSIDE, LLC


a Delaware limited liability company



	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	Triple Net Properties, LLC
	 	 	a Virginia limited liability company
	Its:

	 	Manager
	 	

	
 
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Andrea R. Biller






	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 



                     Name: Andrea R. Biller
                     Title:        Executive Vice President
Name: Andrea R. Biller
    	 
	 	 	Title:	 	 	Executive Vice President






2