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 LILM,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ended March 31, 2007,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, George I. Norman,
III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/   GEORGE I. NORMAN, III
-------------------------------
George I. Norman, III
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2007



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
#### BOWLES, Price Administrator, v. SIGEL.

Civil Action No. 619.

District Court, D. Minnesota, Fifth Division.

March 7, 1946.

Harris J. Nuernberg and Bessie Levine, Attys., Office of Price Administration, both of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.

W. O. Bissonctt, of Duluth, Minn., for defendant.

DONOVAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff commenced action for treble damages and an injunction under Section 205(e) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 925(e). The complaint is of the customary type used in this sort of proceeding. Defendant’s motion to make the complaint more definite and certain is directed at paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9, which are summarized as follows:

Paragraph 6 alleges defendant’s failure to post selling prices prior to November 20, 1945;

Parargraph 7 alleges defendant offered for sale and sold commodities in excess of maximum prices;

Paragraph 8 alleges the sales complained of were made more than 30 days prior to the commencement of this action, and that buyers and consumers have taken no action against defendant;

Paragraph 9 alleges the sales and amounts charged by defendant exceeded maximum prices and that plaintiff has no knowledge of the number of such sales and precise amount of the excessive charges.

The motion must be denied.

The Court has considered Bowles v. Schultz, et al., D.C., 54 F.Supp. 708, and Bowles v. National Erie Corporation, D.C., 3 F.R.D. 469, cited in defendant’s brief.

Suffice it to say that the information sought is in the possession of defendant, who is legally charged with notice of the Act and the regulations thereunder which are here applicable. Bowles v. Ohse, et al., D.C., 4 F.R.D. 403.

*109The complaint gives defendant fair notice of the nature and basis of the matters complained of so as to permit answering. Best Foods, Inc., et al. v. General Mills, Inc., D.C., 3 F.R.D. 275; Makan Amusement Corporation v. Trenton-New Brunswick Theatres Co. et al., D.C., 3 F.R.D. 429; Sun Valley Mfg. Co. v. Mylish et al., D.C., 4 F.R.D. 170; Raudenbush v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., D.C., 4 F.R.D. 171; Bowles v. Anderson, D.C., 4 F.R.D. 181; Klages v. Cohen, D.C., 5 F.R.D. 32.

The point here made by defendant is in principle the same as that presented in Bowles v. Jack, D.C., 5 F.R.D. 1, where a similar complaint was held sufficiently definite and certain to permit defendant to meet the issues raised therein.

If defendant’s books, records and similar sources of knowledge do not disclose the information required in preparation for trial, such necessary data can be obtained under and pursuant to appropriate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
#### Lillian N. Nall et al., Appellants, v Estate of Dawn Powell, Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted November 13, 2012;

decided January 8, 2013

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the denial of the motion to amend the complaint, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Bruce G. LIVINGSTON.

No. 89 CR 1006.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois.

Aug. 20, 1991.

Fred Foreman, U.S. Atty. by Brenda Atkinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chicago, 111., for plaintiff.

Paul Ben Axelrood, Law Offices of Ralph M. Schelly, Chicago, 111., for defendant.

ORDER

BUA, District Judge.

Defendant Bruce G. Livingston moves, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a), for a correction of sentence. Essentially, he requests that the court modify the amount of restitution he has been directed to pay. The court denies defendant Livingston’s motion for the following reasons.

Defendant Livingston was found guilty of sixty-five counts of engaging in a scheme to defraud using the mails and making false statements in applications for payments of funds. As part of his sentence, defendant Livingston was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and $100,000 in restitution. He now contends that the $100,000 in restitution is excessive under *Hughey v. United States,*495 U.S. 411, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990). The court finds differently.

In *Hughey v. United States,*495 U.S. 411, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 1983, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990), the Court found that “restitution *441... is intended to compensate victims only for losses caused by the conduct underlying the offense of conviction.” The recodified statutory provision governing restitution, 18 U.S.C. § 3663, defines a victim of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, a conspiracy, or a pattern of criminal activity any person directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy or pattern. 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2).

In this case, defendant Livingston was convicted of Count I of the indictment which charged him with a scheme to defraud using the mails. Paragraphs in Count I delineated numerous entities and/or persons that bore the brunt of Livingston’s fraudulent activities including Medicare, a number of private insurance companies, and a physician who bought a bogus weight loss business from Livingston. Under the terms of the statute, these persons or entities can be considered victims for the purposes of restitution.

The court finds that the victims delineated in Count I suffered at least $100,000 in losses. After reviewing the medical records provided by Livingston, Medicare’s medical director in Illinois estimated that Medicare was defrauded of approximately $34,864 by Livingston. From the records Livingston provided with respect to privately insured patients, it was estimated that $51,784 was paid by private insurance companies in response to fraudulent claims. And, the indictment itself puts a figure of at least $65,000 on the loss suffered by the physician who bought the bogus weight loss clinic.

Therefore, the court finds that the $100,-000 in restitution ordered in this case was correctly calculated in light of *Hughey*and 18 U.S.C. § 3663. Defendant’s motion for correction of sentence is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0689. RICKY SMITH v. AUTO OWNER’S INSURANCE COMPANY.

Auto Owner’s Insurance Company sued Ricky Smith. The trial court granted

summary judgment to Auto Owner’s, awarding $2,239.36, plus accrued interest in the

amount $355.60, plus costs. Smith filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

“Although the grant of a motion for summary judgment is in general directly

appealable, where the amount of the judgment is [$10,000] or less, an application for

discretionary appeal is required.” Lightwerk Studios v. Door Units of Ga., 184 Ga.

App. 148, 149 (361 SE2d 32) (1987); see OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6). As the total

judgment in favor of Auto Owner’s is for less than $10,000, the entry of summary

judgment provides no basis for a direct appeal in this case. See Ca-Shar, Inc. v.

McKesson Corp., 204 Ga. App. 865, 865-866 (420 SE2d 810) (1992). Because Smith

was required to file a discretionary application, we lack jurisdiction to consider this

direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Hill v. Rose Electric Co., 220 Ga.

App. 603, 604 (469 SE2d 844) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 04, 2019

12/04/2019
----

----

| 1.   | The Report 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            | Applied Minerals, Inc. |
|---------------------------------|------------------------|
|                            |                   |   |
| Date:  March 29, 2010 | By:                    | /s/ ANDRE ZEITOUN |
|                            |                   | Andre Zeitoun |
|                            |                   | Chief Executive Officer |

----
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 

INCREMENTAL COMMITMENT ACTIVATION NOTICE 
  

	


			
	 To:
	  	JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent
		
	 Date:
	  	July 24, 2013
		
	 Re:
	  	Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Reference is made to the Credit Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2012 (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”), by and among
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Borrower”), the Lenders from time to time parties thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent, an L/C Issuer and Swing Line Lender. Capitalized terms used
herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Credit Agreement. 
 This notice
is an Incremental Commitment Activation Notice referred to in the Credit Agreement, and the Borrower and the New Lender party hereto hereby notify you that: 
  

	 	1.	The New Lender party hereto agrees to make a Commitment Increase in the amount set forth opposite such New Lender’s name below under the caption “Commitment
Increase Amount.” 

  

	 	2.	The proposed Incremental Commitment Effective Date is July 24, 2013. 

 [Signature Page Follows] 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Incremental Commitment Activation Notice as of the date first set forth above. 
  

							
		 		 	 ENBRIDGE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., a
 Delaware limited partnership as Borrower

				
		 		 	By:	 	 ENBRIDGE ENERGY MANAGEMENT,

L.L.C., as delegate of Enbridge Energy
 Company,
Inc., its General Partner

				
		 		 	By:	 	/s/ Stephen J. Neyland
		 		 		 	Name: Stephen J. Neyland
		 		 		 	Title: Vice President - Finance

  

							
	 Commitment Increase Amount:
	 		 	BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY
	 $50,000,000
	 		 	
		 		 	By:	 	/s/ DeVon J. Lang
		 		 		 	Name: DeVon J. Lang
		 		 		 	Title: Vice President

 Accepted and Acknowledged by: 
 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 
 as Administrative Agent 

 

			
		
	By:	 	        /s/    Juan
Javellana        
		 	 Name: Juan Javellana
 Title:
Executive Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Buchanan, Also Known as Science, Also Known as Scientific, Appellant.

Submitted February 19, 2013;

decided March 21, 2013

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Ruiz, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 887]

*439Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of establishing various risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. As to the three particular factors totaling 40 points that defendant challenges on appeal, the court properly assessed points based on defendant’s history, notwithstanding his allegedly improved behavior during the months preceding the classification hearing.

Defendant’s challenge to the choice of risk factors made by the Legislature and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders *(see*Correction Law § 168-Z [5]) is unavailing *(see People v Joe,*26 AD3d 300 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 703 [2006]). Concur— Saxe, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



--------------------------------------------------------------------



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gold Holdings Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Demitro Marianovich, Principle Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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, as amended; and



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





|Registrant
Date:  November 3, 2010 | Gold Holdings Corporation
By: /s/ Demitro Marianovich                             
|---------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                   |                                                                                   
|                                   | Demitro Marianovich                                                               
|                                   | Chief Executive Officer (Principle Executive Officer, Principle Financial Officer)



27



|
|
Exhibit
10.1


 


ENZON PHARMACETICALS, INC


Amended and Restated 2013 Outside Director
Compensation Plan


 


Annual Retainers:


 


On an annual basis, outside directors will receive:


 


	a cash retainer of $30,000




	an additional cash retainer of $10,000 for services as chair
of the Audit and Finance Committee; and




	an additional amount cash retainer of $5,000 for services as
a member of the Audit and Finance Committee

The cash elements above are to be paid quarterly at the end
of each quarter, beginning with the third quarter of calendar 2013.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; CF Center Competitive Revisions.                    

*Date:*                         July 29, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         3 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michele L. Barnard, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 753, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898,                         *barnardm@extra.niddk.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 8, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-13940 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Eldon D. Dietterick, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2003 of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company and Big Boulder Corporation (together , the Registrants);



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 registrants other certifying officer(s) 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) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants 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



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants boards 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 registrants 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: February 9, 2004



/s/ ELDON D. DIETTERICK

Eldon D. Dietterick

Executive Vice President

and Treasurer
#### In the Matter of Arisleda Duarte, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

Submitted January 7, 2013;

decided January 10, 2013

Motion by Prisoners’ Rights Project of the New York City Legal Aid Society 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.