alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(c)

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

I,
Kenneth W. DeFontes, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

(i)    The
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)   The
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company.

|/s/KENNETH W. DEFONTES, JR.                                    |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Kenneth W. DeFontes, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

Date:
March 11, 2005

---



QuickLinks
#### Michael Buxbaum, Appellant, v Nadine Castro, Respondent.

Decided September 12, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
Exhibit 10.3

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (this “Amendment No. 2”) is made by and between United Online, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Charles B. Ammann (the “Employee”), effective as of July 29, 2013.

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement on February 7, 2011, as amended by the Amendment dated as of January 25, 2013 (as amended, the “Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee now wish to amend the Agreement as set forth below.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:

 

1.                                      Section 1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the reference to “February 15, 2014” and replacing it with “February 15, 2015”.

 

2.                                      Except as modified by this Amendment No. 2, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Employee have executed this Amendment No. 2, in the case of the Company by a duly authorized officer, as of the date stated in the opening paragraph.

 

	
UNITED   ONLINE, INC.
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Mark R. Goldston
    	
 
    	
Date: July 29, 2013
    
	
By:
    	
Mark R. Goldston
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
EMPLOYEE
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Charles B. Ammann
    	
 
    	
Date: July 29, 2013
    
	
Charles B. Ammann
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

2
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 02-13-00367-CR OFFENSE: 19.03

Gordon Ray Lewis v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Hood

173-/5-

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 355th District Court

DATE: 12/18/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR12234

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Gordon Ray Lewis v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

AFP£l/^l*/tJS

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: /oMwiT

JUDGE: jcM CltsL^

Petition

CCA#: 173 -IS

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
H. Res. 420 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 25, 2019. 

Resolved, That on such date as the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives may designate, official photographs of the 

House may be taken while the House is in actual session. 

Payment for the costs associated with taking, preparing, and 

distributing such photographs may be made from the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of

INDEPENDENT BANCSHARES, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Independent BancShares, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Independent BancShares, Inc.'s Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Independent BancShares, Inc.

/S/ Mark A. Imes
Mark A. Imes
President and Chief Executive Officer
December 8, 2006
Exhibit 32.1



Certification



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:



(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;



(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.



|       |                                                                  
|------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    | Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation                        
|       | General Partner                                                  
|       |                                                                  
|       |                                                                  
|By:    | /S/ Brenda G. Gujral                                             
|       |                                                                  
|Name:  | Brenda G. Gujral                                                 
|Title: | President of the General Partner and                             
|       | principal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P
|Date:  | May 11, 2006
#### ROSENBLUM v. DINGFELDER et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 30, 1941.

See, also, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 179.

Bernard Gordon, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Harry Weinberger, of New York City, for defendants.

KNOX, District Judge.

There are many cases under Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to the effect that a party should not be ordered to permit a general inspection of all of his records simply because the moving party cannot specify which documents he needs. The *310information necessary to enable the moving party properly to identify the desired documents may be obtained by deposition under Rule 26, upon oral examination under Rule 30, and upon written interrogatories under Rule 31. I so held in the instant case, reported in 2 F.R.D. 49. See, also, Monarch Liquor Corp. v. Schenley Distillers Corp., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 51; Judge Conger based his motion in the instant case upon his decision in Clark v. Chase Nat. Bank, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 94; see, too, cases under Rule 34, in Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4, of Federal Rules Service, all to the same effect.

Not only must a motion for the production of documents show the nature of the ones sought to be inspected, but the motion papers should likewise show that the documents will in some way aid the moving party in the preparation of his case.

As to papers procured by counsel for parties, in making preparation for trial, it may be said that the case of Piorkowski v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 407, holds that a party should not be required to produce written statements so secured.

The instant question is whether defendants shall again be permitted to examine the plaintiff. The minutes show that when Rosenblum was in New York some months ago he was examined rather fully. The examination was terminated when counsel for defendants discontinued the examination in order to attend a dinner engagement. Rosenblum returned to Texas, and thereafter counsel went before Judge Hulbert for various rulings on the scope of the inquiry. These, Judge Hulbert resolved in plaintiff’s favor.

The attorney for defendants is well acquainted with the practice under the new rules and could have obtained information as to what documents he wanted to examine long before this date. The present motion was made upon the eve of trial, and I think it should be denied. Defendants’ counsel has already seen many of plaintiff’s papers, and I am of opinion that he can go to trial without prejudice to his clients’ case. Treating this proceeding as a motion for a further examination, I think, as I have indicated, my discretion should be exercised by a denial of the motion upon the ground of prejudice to the plaintiff. His case is ready for trial and he is a man who, to be examined fully, must come to New York, and neglect his interests in Texas.

Motion denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7690** 

CLAUDE V. JONES, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE , Respondent

– Appellee, and ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON, Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 4:13

- cv - 03009

- JMC )

Submitted : March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015

Before GREGORY , DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Claude V. Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublis hed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Claude V. Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The orde r is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Sl ack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and tha t the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Jones 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company et al., Respondents, v American Re-Insurance Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Submitted December 3, 2012;

decided December 11, 2012

Motion by United Policyholders for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
[979 NE2d 1192, 955 NYS2d 865]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tobias Boyland, Appellant.

Decided November 19, 2012

*880APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*David J. Seeger,*Buffalo, and *Leigh E. Anderson,*for appellant.

*Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney,*Buffalo *(Donna A. Milling*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed. Whether a protective sweep is justified under particular circumstances involves a mixed question of law and fact. Where, as here, there exists record support for the Appellate Division’s *881resolution of this question, the issue is beyond this Court’s further review. Defendant’s remaining claims are without merit.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-60103

Summary Calendar

 

STANLEY J. and MARY C. SMACZNIAK,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from Tax Court

TC # 21448-89

- - - - - - - - - -

August 7, 1996

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The portion of the judgment assessing $567.88 in liability

for the 1982 tax year is vacated. A recomputation of the

interest related to the Smaczniaks’ overpayment for tax year 1982

is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tax Court in this case and

beyond the limited scope of our remand. See Smaczniak v. C.I.R.,

998 F.2d 238, 243 (5th Cir. 1983). The judgment of the Tax Court

is affirmed as modified. 
All outstanding motions are DENIED.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED, MOTIONS DENIED.
#### Jennifer L. Chappelear, Appellant, v Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[823 NYS2d 50]

Order (denominated a judgment), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered August 9, 2005, which granted defendant Dollar Rent-A-Car’s motion for a trial order of dismissal of the complaint against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when the taxi in which she was riding was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by Dollar and operated by defendant Gilchrist. Dollar’s dismissal motion was on the ground that Gilchrist did not have its consent, express or implied, to operate the vehicle. Plaintiff argues that issues of fact precluded summary disposition of the case against Dollar, and that dismissal conflicted with our prior decision in this case (5 AD3d 187 [2004]).

Dismissal of the complaint against Dollar did not violate the law of the case doctrine, since it was not based on the same evidence underlying this Court’s prior order denying summary judgment *(see Brownrigg v New York City Hous. Auth.,*29 AD3d 721 [2006]). The uncontroverted evidence adduced at trial established that the vehicle involved in this accident was reported stolen six days earlier, after the individual who rented it, Reginald Grant, had failed to return it. The evidence also demonstrates that Gilchrist, who was arrested at the scene of the accident for unauthorized use of a vehicle, had obtained the vehicle from Grant. Finally, the VIN number on the incident report filed by Dollar after Grant failed to return the vehicle matched the VIN number of the vehicle impounded by the police after the accident. In the record before us on our prior decision, we noted discrepancies in both the VIN numbers and the *514license plate numbers between the vehicle reported stolen and the one involved in the accident. This time, the evidence established that the car operated by Gilchrist at the time of the accident was the same car reported stolen by Dollar, permitting the trial court to address the merits, on Dollar’s motion, of the issue of consent to Gilchrist’s operation of the vehicle *(see Murdza v Zimmerman,*99 NY2d 375 [2003]; *Leotta v Plessinger,*8 NY2d 449, 461 [I960]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Malone, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         166,959
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               207,268
<PP&E>                                       8,823,402
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,997,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,062,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,153,307
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,976
<OTHER-SE>                                    (94,574)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,062,736
<SALES>                                        709,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               759,220
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  355,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             508,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (104,790)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (104,790)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

2009 Cash Bonus Plan Summary

As reported in the FGX International Holdings Limited (the "Company") Current Report on Form 8-K dated
February 11, 2009, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company adopted the 2009 Cash Bonus Plan (the "Plan") for the Company's fiscal year ending January 2, 2010.
Bonus payouts under the Plan will constitute Performance Units under the Company's 2007 Incentive Compensation Plan. The Compensation Committee designated employees serving in the position of vice
president and above of the Company ("Executive Officers"), and the Chief Executive Officer may designate certain other key employees of the Company or its subsidiaries, to participate in the Plan.

The
Compensation Committee approved a target bonus amount, expressed as a percentage of salary, for each Executive Officer. The following table sets forth the target bonus percentage for
the Company's principal executive officer, principal financial officer and each other named executive officer.

Executive Officer

Title

Target as a % of
Base SalaryAlec Taylor

Chief Executive Officer


50John Flynn Jr.

President


50Anthony Di Paola

Exec. VPChief Financial Officer


50Steven Crellin

Exec. VPSales


50Jeffrey J. Giguere

Exec. VPGeneral Counsel


50


Bonus
payouts under the Plan will be based on the Company's achievement of an earnings per share (EPS) goal for fiscal 2009 set by the Compensation Committee, as adjusted to exclude
certain non-recurring items that occur outside of the ordinary course of the Company's business operations. Achievement of the adjusted EPS goal will produce bonus payouts equal to the
target amounts. Achievement of adjusted EPS of 95% to 105% of the adjusted EPS goal will produce a commensurate reduction or increase in the bonus payouts. Achievement of adjusted EPS of 90% to 94.9%
of the adjusted EPS goal will produce a reduction in the bonus payout equivalent to three-tenths of a percent for each corresponding one-tenth of a percent decrease in adjusted EPS.
Achievement of adjusted EPS of 105.1% to 120% of the adjusted EPS goal will produce an increase in the bonus payout equivalent to two-tenths of a percent for each corresponding
one-tenth of a percent increase in adjusted EPS. There will be no bonus payout for achievement of adjusted EPS below 90% of the goal unless authorized by the Compensation Committee, and
bonus payouts are capped at 135% of the target bonus amount.

After
the end of the fiscal year, the Compensation Committee will evaluate the Company's performance against the EPS goal and will determine whether a bonus payout is required for all
participants. In general, a participant must remain an employee through the date of the bonus payout to be eligible for payment.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of

INDEPENDENT BANCSHARES, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(Adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Independent BancShares, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Mark A. Imes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Nicholas J. Panicaro, 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:



|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 as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in such Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      |  |  |  |                         
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------
|/s/ Mark A. Imes                      |  |  |  | /s/ Nicholas J. Panicaro
|Mark A. Imes                          |  |  |  | Nicholas J. Panicaro    
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer 
|                                      |  | 
|Date: August 27, 2008                 |  |  |  | Date: August 27, 2008