alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - May 2006 

Benefit payments May 2006 May 2005 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

$785,108,000 

512,485,000 

93,573,000 

156,275,000 

22,775,000 

$761,960,000 

493,432,000 

90,799,000 

155,423,000 

22,306,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month May 2006 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 587,800 ......... 2,300 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 280,300 $1,813 900 $2,262 ......... .........

 Age 196,200 1,772 2 200 2 2,879 $1,007 3 $1,322

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,400 1,619 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 49,700 2,110 400 2,351 943 995 

Spouses and divorced spouses 139,100 665 700 783 485 361 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 141,100 1,106 500 1,482 954 771 

Widowed mothers and fathers 900 1,402 4/ 1,150 720 708 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,600 738 100 781 5/ 5/ 

Children 11,700 828 4/ 1,091 660 657 

Other survivors 4/ 802 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

May 

2006 

$5,090,000 

May 

2005 

$5,133,000 

Number 

121,600 

Average 

$42 

Number 

300 

Average 

$41 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 34); about 300

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

May 2006 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 2,000 $474 $273 

Sickness 5,300 484 

May 2006 

Benefit payments 

277 

May 2005 

Unemployment

Total 

1,978,000 

$5,951,000 $5,473,000

1,800,000 

Sickness 3,973,000 3,673,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

 Recycled

 Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary
**ImmuCell Corporation**

**EXHIBIT 31**

**CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a)**

 

 I, Michael F. Brigham,certify that:

 

	1.	      I have reviewed this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of ImmuCell Corporation (the Company);

 

	2.	      Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes 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 thisreport;

 

	3.	      Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

	4.	      I am responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal controlover financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:

 

a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Company is made known to me by others, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;

 

b) designed such internalcontrol over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision,to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c) evaluated the effectivenessof the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) disclosed in this reportany change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

	5.      	I have disclosed, based on my mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of theCompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a) all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Exhibit 10.1
 SECOND EXTENSION TO
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
 2 May
         1.
    
    Extension. The parties hereto agree to extend the term of the Amended
MOSA so as to provide that the Amended MOSA continue through and terminate after May
31, 2010.




---



##### 



2.
    
    Other Terms Unchanged. Except as expressly modified by this Second
Extension, all terms and provisions of the Amended MOSA shall remain in full force and
effect.
 3.
    
    Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms not defined in the text of this
Second Extension shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the Amended MOSA.
This Second Extension may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and
may be executed and delivered by facsimile signature, which shall be considered an
original.
 4.
    
    Counterpart Signatures. This Second Extension may be executed in
counterpart originals, and the counterpart originals together shall constitute the
original of this Second Extension. Facsimile or PDF copy signatures shall be treated
as original signatures for this purpose.
  WESTERN IOWA ENERGY, LLC
    
    
    
    RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP, INC.By
    
    /s/ William J. Horan
    
    
    
    By
    
    /s/ Daniel J. OhName
    
    William J. Horan
    
    
    
    
    
    Name
    
    Daniel J. OhIts
    
    Chair
    
    
    
    
    
    Its
    
    PresidentREG SERVICES GROUP, LLCBy
    
    /s/ Daniel J. OhName
    
    Daniel J. OhIts
    
    PresidentREG MARKETING & LOGISTICS GROUP, LLCBy
    
    /s/ Daniel J. OhName
    
    Daniel J. OhIts
    
    President
  2 | Page
(October 19, 2006)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Green, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 441]

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered July 9, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (four counts) and petit larceny, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded for a hearing in accordance with the decision herein.

Under *People v Mendoza*(82 NY2d 415, 425, 433-434 [1993]), defendant is entitled to a hearing on the purely factual issue of whether or not the security guard involved in his detention was licensed to exercise police powers, or acting as an agent of the police. We find no meaningful distinction between the motion record in this case, and that which led the *Mendoza*court to grant the defendant this type of hearing. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Tom, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
# Cover

# State Order

# Size Order
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer, 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 Alamo Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Philip Mann, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alamo Energy Corp., and will be retained by Alamo Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 /s/ Philip MannPhilip Mann

Chief Financial Officer

March 22, 2011
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officersof Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to thebest of each officer’s knowledge that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 11, 2008 | /s/ C. RANDAL MILLS                           |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                       | C. Randal Mills, Ph.D.                        |
|                       | President & Chief  Executive Officer |
|                       |                                          |
| Date: August 11, 2008 | /s/ RICHARD W. HUNT                           |
|                       | Richard W. Hunt                               |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer                       |

 

 

This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-Qto which it relates, is not deemed filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 11655 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus MATTHEW KORCZ,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:19

- cr
- 00193

- RDP

- JHE

- 2

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11655 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 21

- 11655

Before NEWSOM, LAGOA and BRASHER , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: Charles Prueter, appointed counsel for Matthew Korcz in his direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent reviewof the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Korcz’s convictio n and sentence are AFFIRMED

. USCA11 Case: 21-11655 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.1





Certifications
of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Houston Wire & Cable
Company (the “Corporation”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Charles A. Sorrentino, as Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, and Nicol
G. Graham, as Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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
      Corporation.








Date:   August
      11, 2008
            /s/ Charles A.
      SorrentinoCharles
      A. SorrentinoChief
      Executive OfficerDate:   August
      11, 2008
            /s/
      Nicol G. GrahamNicol
      G. GrahamChief
      Financial Officer








This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Houston Wire &
Cable Company for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mihaly Kovacsezics, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles S. Solomon, J.), rendered on or about April 3, 2012, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42843

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

VON WAYNE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 558

Filed: July 20, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentences, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Von Wayne Williams pled guilty to two counts of possession of sexually exploitative 

material, Idaho Code §§ 18-1507, 18-1507A. The district court imposed a unified sentence of 

ten years, with two years determinate, on the first count and a consecutive sentence of five years 

indeterminate on the second count. The district court then suspended the sentences and placed 

Williams on probation for fifteen years. Subsequently, Williams admitted to violating several 

terms of his probation and the district court revoked probation and retained jurisdiction. Upon 

completion of the retained jurisdiction period, Williams was placed on probation for ten years. 

Shortly thereafter, Williams admitting to violating the terms of his probation and the district 
2

court revoked probation and ordered execution of Williams’ sentences. Williams filed an Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Williams appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent 

the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of 

Williams’ Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the 

foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Williams’ Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
32 Occupational Outlook Quarterly.Summer 2003

The Golden State shone for employment growth from

1998 to 2003, according to data from the Bureau of

Labor Statistics.

Between January 1998 and January 2003, California

boasted 4 of the 7 large metropolitan areas in the United

States in which employment growth was more than triple

that of the Nation’s overall. Total U.S. nonfarm payroll

employment increased 4.7 percent over the period, as the

Nation struggled through an economic downturn.

During that time, many metropolitan areas experienced

little employment growth or lost thousands of jobs. As

the chart shows, however, employment in 11 of the

metropolitan areas with at least 300,000 jobs in January

2003 grew by at least 21⁄2 times the national rate over the

same period—and 2 of them increased at more than 5

times the national rate.

But before packing your bags for one of these metropolitan areas, remember that these data do not show the

variation in the kinds of jobs added. For a discussion of

occupational earnings by location and other considerations for relocating, see “Whereabouts and wealth: A

study of local earnings and how they vary” in the spring

Occupational Outlook Quarterly. The article is online at

www.bls.gov/opub/ooq/2003/spring/art02.pdf.

Large metropolitan areas that had the fastest

employment growth, 1998-2003 (percent)

24.5%

24.2

17.9

17.6

17.1

15.8

14.4

13.6

13.0

12.0

11.9

4.7

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

Las Vegas, NV

Sacramento, CA

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach, FL

Northern Virginia

Fresno, CA

San Diego, CA

Austin-San Marcos, TX

Washington, DC

Phoenix, AZ

Monmouth-Ocean Counties, NJ

U.S. total
Exhibit 32.3


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 on Form 10-Q of Healthcare Trust of America Holdings, LP, or the Company, for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, or the Report, I, Scott D. Peters, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., general partner of Healthcare Trust of America Holdings, LP, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Scott D. PetersScott D. PetersChief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., general partner of Healthcare Trust of America Holdings, LP


Date: August 2, 2016





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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7889

LEVERN HENRY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-2908)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levern Henry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

although we grant Appellant's motions to supplement the record and

his motion to amend his informal brief, we deny his motion for a

detailed inventory of the pleadings in the record on appeal and

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Henry v. South Carolina, No. CA-95-2908 (D.S.C. Nov. 9, 1995). 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