alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Teddy Moore, Appellant, v Frank Guerra, Defendant, and Christopher Bramwell et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 26, 2012;

decided January 10, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Intcomex, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Russell A. Olson, Chief Financial Officer of Intcomex, 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:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: November 14, 2007



/s/ Russell A. OlsonRussell A. OlsonChief Financial Officer


The certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,690]

      ( print page 31054)    
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 27, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Tube Fabrication Industries, Inc., Logansport, Indiana. The workers at the subject facility produce steel tube components.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15290 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
@misc{1210591,
  author = {Alexander Calis},
  title = {CMVP Approved Security Functions},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-25 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936506},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-140Cr2},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dr. Barry W. Karlin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do 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 my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Date: November 16, 2009             
|                                    
|/S/    DR. BARRY W.
KARLIN          
|Dr. Barry W. Karlin                 
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to CRC Health Corporation and will be retained by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Zulema Blair, Respondent, v Jack Meth et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[977 NYS2d 318]

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the defendants Jack Meth and Americare Certified, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated January 23, 2013, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Jack Meth and Americare Certified, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for defamation against, among others, the defendants Jack Meth and Americare Certified, Inc. (hereinafter together the moving defendants). The Supreme Court should have granted the moving defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The moving defendants were not properly served with process, as the summons was only mailed to them *(see*CPLR 308, 311, 3211 [a] [8]; Business Corporation Law §§ 306, 307). In any event, the statute of limitations for an action to recover damages for defamation is one year *(see*CPLR 215 [3]), measured from the date of publication of the allegedly defamatory statement *(see Nussenzweig v diCorcia,*9 NY3d 184, 188 [2007]; *Sethi v Morrissey,*105 AD3d 833, 834 [2013]). The plaintiff commenced this action on December 5, 2011, more than one year after December 2, 2010, the date that the allegedly defamatory statement was published. Accordingly, the complaint insofar as asserted against the moving defendants was barred by the statute of limitations *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [5]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the moving defendants’ remaining contention. Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT OF ESI 401(k) PLAN 
 This First Amendment of the ESI
401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) is adopted by ITT Educational Services, Inc. (the “Employer”). 

Background 
 A. Effective January 1, 2012, the Employer amended and completely restated the Plan. 
 B. The Employer now wishes to amend the Plan further. 
 Amendment

 Effective July 1, 2013, the Plan is amended as follows: 

1. Section 4.1(a)(vii)(A) of the Plan is amended to read as follows: 

 

	 	(A)	Basic Pre-Tax Savings – Contributions under this Section that are not in excess of 6% of the Member’s Salary for the payroll processing period for which the
contributions are made shall be known as Basic Pre-Tax Savings and shall be credited to his or her Pre-Tax Investment Account; and 

 2. Section 5.1 of the Plan is amended to read as follows: 
  

	 	5.1	 Matching Company Contributions. The Company shall contribute to the Plan on behalf of each of its Members who elects to make Basic Pre-Tax
Savings, a Matching Company Contribution each payroll processing period. The Matching Company Contribution amount is equal to 50 percent of the first 6 percent of the Member’s Salary contributed to the Plan as Basic Pre-Tax Savings on
behalf of the Member during each payroll processing period. In no event, however, shall the Matching Company Contributions pursuant to this Section exceed 3.0 percent of the Member’s Salary while a Member with respect to any Plan Year. The
Matching Company Contributions with respect to a Member shall be paid into the Trust Fund and credited to the Member’s Company Matching Contribution Account as soon as practicable. No Matching Company Contributions shall be made with respect to
a Member’s Supplemental Pre-Tax Savings or catch-up contributions described in Section 4.1(a)(vi). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Matching Company Contributions shall not be made during the period the Member’s Basic Pre-Tax Savings
are suspended as described in Section 4.3(c) or 9.3(d). Matching Company 










	 	
Contributions are made expressly conditional on the Plan satisfying the provisions of Section 4.1, 6.1 and 6.2. If any portion of the Basic Pre-Tax Savings to which the Matching Company
Contribution relates is returned to the Member under Section 4.1 or 6.1, the corresponding Matching Company Contribution shall be forfeited, and if the amount of the Matching Company Contribution is deemed an excess aggregate contribution under
Section 6.2, the amount shall be forfeited in accordance with that Section. 

 This
First Amendment of ESI 401(k) Plan (2012 Restatement) is executed this 15th day of May, 2013. 
  

			
	 ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.

 

	 By:
	 	 /s/ Angela K. Knowlton

		 	(Signature)
		
		 	 Angela K. Knowlton

		 	(Printed)
		
		 	 SVP, Controller & Treasurer

		 	(Title)


  

	
	 ATTEST:
  

	 /s/ Paula S. Rabb

	(Signature)
	
	 Paula S. Rabb

	(Printed)
	
	 Director, Compensation and Benefits

	(Title)


  
 -2-
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul Mann, Principal Accounting Officer of Quartz Mountain
Resources Ltd. (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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended July 31, 2011 (the Annual Report) fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                 

|Date:  | October 6, 2011              | 
|------ | ---------------------------- | 
|       |                              | 
|       | /s/ Paul Mann                | 
|       |                              | 
|By:    | Paul Mann                    | 
|Title: | Principal Accounting Officer | 

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
  20-F. A signed original of this 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norman Calvert, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 925]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 1, 1999 *(People v Calvert,*266 AD2d 226 [1999]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered December 23, 1996.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Florio, Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Summit Exploration Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alan Hart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 5th day of October, 2007.

BY:
/s/ ALAN HART                        Alan  Hart, Principal Executive Officer **
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 520 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 520

Remembering kindness in the United States and affirming our commitment 
 to fostering community and building resiliency through every day acts 
                              of kindness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 2019

 Mr. Correa submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Remembering kindness in the United States and affirming our commitment 
 to fostering community and building resiliency through every day acts 
                              of kindness.

Whereas kindness means doing something for someone else with no expectation of 
        anything in return;
Whereas kindness can change a family, a neighborhood, a school, a city, a 
        nation, and ultimately, our world;
Whereas residents within the United States have a long history of demonstrating 
        kindness daily in their homes, schools, places of faith, businesses, 
        community organizations, and throughout their neighborhoods;
Whereas kindness has the power to connect people and to build community and is 
        the mortar that connects and builds our Nation's social infrastructure;
Whereas the culture of kindness and compassion can heal the country from within 
        and promote a healthier society;
Whereas studies have shown that kindness can improve several aspects of health, 
        mindfulness, self-compassion, compassion toward others, and 
        interpersonal conflict; and
Whereas kindness can foster strong bonds that will bring individuals together 
        despite their differences in order to tackle the challenges that face 
        our Nation in a nonpartisan manner: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States shall recognize kind actions in this country, 
encourage kindness, spread love, and foster a culture of being kind to 
one another.
                                 <all>
```
#### Toledo Bar Association *v.*Bell.

[Cite as *Toledo Bar Assn. v. Bell*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 88.]

(No. 96-2432

Submitted December 11, 1996

Decided March 26, 1997.)

*90
      *Dale W. Fallat*and *Harold M. Steinberg,*for relator.

*Lorin J. Zaner,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

“The guiding principle in * * * all our disciplinary proceedings * * * is the public interest and an attorney’s right to continue to practice a profession imbued with public trust.” *Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo*(1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 667 N.E.2d 1186, 1188-1189. Our Ethical Considerations state standards of professional conduct towards which every lawyer should strive; our Disciplinary Rules specify a minimum level of conduct below which no lawyer should fall.

The board has found that in a number of instances, respondent failed to meet even the minimum level of conduct. In representing Bofia, respondent changed her fee schedule during the case without informing her client and then refused to complete her contract unless the higher fee was paid. Respondent lied to her client Lusher about the commencement of the case and failed to return unearned fees. As to Fleming, respondent failed to return to the client papers her client was entitled to receive. Later, while representing a client to recover an animal from the dog warden, respondent lost control of her emotions and screamed epithets and racial slurs. Our Disciplinary Rules require that a lawyer not intentionally fail to carry out a contract with her client or cause damage to the client. They also require that a lawyer not lie to her clients or withhold papers *91from a client. Our Ethical Considerations, specifically EC 1-5, which encourages lawyers to maintain high standards of professional conduct, do not countenance the use of epithets and racial slurs.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings of the board and its conclusions with respect to the violation of specific Disciplinary Rules. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years, but the second year of the suspension is stayed, provided that respondent enters into an agreement with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program for the treatment of substance abuse and during the entire two-year suspension complies with that agreement, undergoes regular psychotherapy during the term of the suspension, and complies with a monitoring program as outlined in Gov.Bar R. V(9). The monitoring attorney will report monthly to the relator. In addition, respondent shall immediately return Fleming’s entire legal file and within ninety days of the date of this order reimburse Bofia, Lusher, and Fleming. Costs are taxed to respondent. •

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., dissents and would impose the sanction recommended by the board.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would stay a two-year suspension of respondent.
#### Frances Vitello, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Michael Vitello, Respondent, v General Motors Corporation (Chevrolet Motors Division), Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[853 NYS2d 550]

By its submission of the driver’s testimony that the vehicle hydroplaned on the wet road as. he went into a curve and the affidavit by an expert opining that the accident occurred because the vehicle’s handling and cornering effectiveness were diminished by the fresh rain, defendant established prima facie that the accident in which the infant plaintiff allegedly was injured was not the result of a defect that caused the vehicle’s inner bushing retainer nuts to come loose and the suspension control arm shaft to become bound or to break. This alleged defect was the subject of a recall notice issued by defendant seven years before the accident occurred. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to produce any direct evidence that the alleged defect was the cause of the accident or that the cause of the accident was not the above-cited road conditions or any other cause not attributable to defendant *(see Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*100 NY2d 38, 41 [2003]). The affidavit of plaintiffs’ expert, who did not examine the vehicle, was insufficient in this regard, because his opinion that the accident was caused by a defect in the inner bushing retainer nuts was based on the recall *449notice *(see Barry v Manglass,*55 AD2d 1, 10 [1976]) and on mischaracterizations of the driver’s testimony, particularly his description of how the vehicle handled as it entered the intersection immediately before the accident *(see Rosa v General Motors Corp.,*226 AD2d 213 [1996]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
July 21, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE ESTATE OF RUTH BAILEY, DECEASED

NO. 14-14-00291-CV 

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed March 14, 2014 in favor of 

appellee Effie Collins, which rendered final the partial summary judgment signed 

on November 5, 2013 in favor of Effie Collins, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order 

the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellants Iona Grant, Lauretta Moss, and Nannie Johnson jointly 

and severally to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 523 

Expressing support for the designation of National Public Safety Aviation 

Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Mr. BILIRAKIS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of National Public 

Safety Aviation Day. 

Whereas, for over 65 years, airplanes and helicopters have 

been an important part of public safety efforts in communities throughout the United States; 

Whereas professional public safety aircrews and pilots have 

flown millions of hours protecting persons and property, 

often under hazardous and dangerous conditions; 

Whereas public safety agencies have long recognized the value 

of utilizing airborne assets; 

Whereas professional public safety aircrews recognize the importance of aviation safety during their missions; and 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 523 IH 

Whereas July 26 would be an appropriate date to designate 

as National Public Safety Aviation Day: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of National Public 

3 Safety Aviation Day; 

4 (2) recognizes the men and women who fly pub5 lic safety missions to protect people and property in 

6 the United States; and 

7 (3) encourages the President to issue a procla8 mation calling upon the people of the United States 

9 to observe National Public Safety Aviation Day with 

10 appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS