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 SGS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), the undersigned each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | 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.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |                                                  
|--------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|August 10, 2009 |  | /s/ Henry R. Baughman                            
|                |  | Henry R. Baughman                                
|                |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  
|                | 
|August 10, 2009 |  | /s/ James M. Dahmus                              
|                |  | James M. Dahmus                                  
|                |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
  Eco
Global Corporation
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350)
  In
connection with the quarterly report of Eco Global Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel D. Correa,
Chief Executive Officer and 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.
 
 Dated: 
      May 20, 2009
              
              
              /s/
      Daniel D. CorreaDaniel
      D. Correa
                Chief
      Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
                and
      Director  (Principal Executive
      Officer &
                Principal
      Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 106 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13030]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11752 and <greek-i>11753]


West Virginia Disaster Number WV-00013

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West 
Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated 05/15/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides.
    Incident Period: 05/03/2009 and continuing.

DATES:  Effective Date: 05/27/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/14/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/15/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of West 
Virginia, dated 05/15/2009, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Mcdowell, Mercer, Raleigh.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Roger B. Garland,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13030 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<PAGE>
                                                            Exhibit 99.3
 
                REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
of Michael Baker Corporation:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of income, 
shareholders' investment and cash flows of Michael Baker Corporation (a
Pennsylvania corporation) and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,
1993.  These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
consolidated financial statements based on our audit.  We did not audit the
financial statements of Mellon Stuart Construction, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1993.  Those statements reflect total revenues which are 39% of 
the consolidated total for the year ended December 31, 1993.  Those statements
were audited by another major international accounting firm whose report has
been furnished to us and our opinion insofar as it relates to the amounts 
included for Mellon Stuart Construction, Inc., is based solely on the report
of the other auditors.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of 
material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation.  We believe that our audit and the report of other
auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based upon our audit and the report of other auditors, the 
consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of Michael Baker
Corporation and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1993, in 
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

As discussed in Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements, effective 
January 4, 1993, the Company changed its method of accounting for income taxes.

Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic 
statements taken as a whole.  The schedule listed in Item 14(a)(2) is the 
responsibility of the Company's management and is presented for purposes of
complying with the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules and is not part
of the basic financial statements.  This schedule has been subjected to the
auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements
and, in our opinion, fairly states in all material respects the financial
data required to be set forth therein in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole.

                                   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                   ------------------------  
                                   ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 February 14, 1994
obligation or in failing to award a greater upward deviation for child 

support. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 

(1996) (explaining that this court reviews a child support order for an 

abuse of discretion); see also Khaldy v. Khaldy, 111 Nev. 374, 377, 892 

P.2d 584, 586 (1995) ("Payments once accrued for either alimony or 

support of children become vested rights and cannot thereafter be 

modified or voided.") (internal quotation omitted)). We further conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's 

request for attorney fees under NRS 18.010 or NRS 125B.140(2)(c)(2), 

which allows an attorney fees award in an order enforcing child support, 

not modifying child support. See Miller v. Wilfong, 121 Nev. 619, 622, 119 

P.3d 727, 729 (2005) (explaining that this court reviews the district court's 

decision regarding attorney fees for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, 

we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge 

Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge 

Patricia A. Marr 

Warren G. Freeman 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'To the extent appellant's arguments are not addressed in this 

order, we conclude they lack merit. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(01 1947A
#### L.D. Burton, Appellant, v Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 534]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John F. O’Donnell, J.), entered August 1, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action in September 2011 to recover monies that he had on deposit with defendant, alleging that the monies were wrongfully distributed by defendant to his former legal guardian. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was time-barred, and we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the motion. “As a general principle, the statute of limitations begins to run when a cause of action accrues *(see*CPLR 203 [a]), that is, ‘when all of the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred so that the party would be entitled to obtain relief in court’ ” *(Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v American Zurich Ins. Co.,*18 NY3d 765, 770 [2012], quoting *Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson,*67 NY2d 169, 175 [1986]). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, his cause of action accrued, at the latest, on December 28, 2000, when his former legal guardian closed the account *(see Gonzalez v Anchor Bank Corp.,*
      *1363245 AD2d 132, 132 [1997]; *see generally Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc.,*18 NY3d at 770). Plaintiffs action, which is governed by a six-year statute of limitations *(see*CPLR 213 [2]; *Gonzalez,*245 AD2d at 132-133; *see also Hechter v New York Life Ins. Co.,*46 NY2d 34, 39-40 [1978]) is therefore untimely. Plaintiffs additional contention based on UCC 4-406 is raised for the first time on appeal and is therefore not properly before us *(see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora,*202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present — Centra, J.P, Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
H. Res. 8 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2019. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Ms. Granger. 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Womack. 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mr. Walden. 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. McHenry. 

COMMITTEE ON RULES: Mr. Cole. 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Mr. Brady of Texas. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Angelette Coffey et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (And Third-Party Actions.) Frank Marcotrigiano et al., Appellants, v Angelette Coffey et al., Defendants, and City of New York et al., Respondents. Tammy Mack, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Rascal Lee Trent III, Deceased, Appellant, v *450Angelette Coffey et al., Defendants, and City of New York et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 551]

Plaintiff Angelette Coffey and decedents were injured on New Year’s Eve 1998 when their automobile was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by defendant Rodriguez, a city correction officer later determined to be intoxicated. The record reflects that Rodriguez had been sent for inpatient alcohol rehabilitation three years earlier, due to persistent lateness and absenteeism. After release, he failed to continue treatment on an outpatient basis. His record of employment reveals various infractions and a prior accident on the job, but with no alcohol involvement. Rodriguez testified at deposition that he had been given two drinks by a fellow correction officer while on the job that night, and after work he met two other officers and consumed two beers. The accident occurred two hours after he left work, as he headed home.

Plaintiffs seek to hold the City liable on the ground that it negligently retained Rodriguez despite his history of alcohol abuse. They further allege the City breached its duty of care to third parties when it failed to ensure the completion of his alcohol rehabilitation program. Rodriguez adds that the City should be held responsible for the actions of the fellow employee who plied him with alcohol while on the job.

Recovery on a negligent hiring or retention theory requires a showing that the employer was on notice of the relevant tortious propensities of the wrongdoing employee *(see Gomez v City of New*York, 304 AD2d 374 [2003]). The only apparent consequence of Rodriguez’s history of problems with alcohol was his lateness and absenteeism. There is no evidence that the City knew of his propensity for drunk driving, and it could not reasonably have foreseen that he would drive while under the influence of alcohol *(see Cygan v City of New York,*165 AD2d 58 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 855 [1991]).

*451Nor have plaintiffs cited any facts that suggest a special relationship with the City sufficient to impose a duty of care on the latter for the conduct of its employee *(see Laratro v City of New York,*8 NY3d 79 [2006]). Nothing in this record suggests that the City required Rodriguez to enter an alcohol rehabilitation program for the benefit of plaintiffs or the public at large. The program was an attempt to address the employee’s attendance problems only. Moreover, there is no basis on which to impute knowledge to the City that Rodriguez’s failure to complete the program would result in harm to third parties. In any event, plaintiffs could not have relied on the City’s ensuring that Rodriguez complete his alcohol rehabilitation program, since they had no knowledge of it. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Joseph DeMonico, Petitioner, v Raymond Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[852 NYS2d 124]

*266Although this proceeding was improperly transferred to this Court because the determination of respondent was not made pursuant to an administrative hearing, we nevertheless address the merits of the petition in the interest of judicial economy *(see Matter of McGann-Wayne v Lippa,*284 AD2d 279 [2001]; *Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth. of State of N.Y.,*24 NY2d 174, 180 [1969]).

In view of the objective medical evidence demonstrating that petitioner’s cardiomyopathy was of unknown origin and that while he had high blood pressure since 2003, it was unlikely that this was the cause of the cardiomyopathy because he had no history of hypertension, the statutory presumption set forth in General Municipal Law § 207-k was sufficiently rebutted, and the determination that petitioner’s condition was not job-related had a rational basis *(see Matter of Walsh v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Police Dept. Pension Fund, Art. II,*37 AD3d 370 [2007]; *Matter of Seldon v Kelly,*21 AD3d 840 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31773-31774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15632]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 
ACRS Subcommittee on ESBWR; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on the Economic Simplified Boiling Water 
Reactor (ESBWR) will hold a meeting on July 21-22, 2009, 11545 
Rockville Pike, Room T2-B3, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Tuesday, July 21, 2009--8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Wednesday, July 22, 2009--8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    The Subcommittee will review the Safety Evaluation Report with Open 
Items associated with the North Anna Combined License Application 
referencing the ESBWR design. The

[[Page 31774]]

Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff, General Electric Hitachi, Dominion, 
and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee 
will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and 
formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 
deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Christopher Brown, (Telephone: 301-415-7111) five days prior to the 
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of 
the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the 
conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the 
Federal Register on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268-58269).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: June 25, 2009.
Cayetano Santos,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E9-15632 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# table166_q_naics
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Liam O’Grady, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for Eastern Virginia, Alexandria, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERMAN KUSNADI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71955

Agency No. A079-572-257

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2011

San Francisco, California

Before: GOODWIN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and O’GRADY, District Judge.** 

Petitioner Herman Kusnadi seeks review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing an appeal from an order of the Immigration

Judge (IJ) that held—among other things not relevant to this appeal—that Kusnadi

filed a frivolous asylum application. We conclude that Kusnadi was not afforded

FILED

JUN 27 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
sufficient notice and adequate opportunity to explain the grounds invoked for the

frivolousness determination. We therefore grant the petition for review and

remand to the BIA for further proceedings.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because Kusnadi’s brief to the

BIA clearly argues that the IJ erred in finding that he filed a frivolous application

for asylum, we hold that Kusnadi has properly exhausted his claim. See Zhang v.

INS, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004). Where, as here, the BIA “conducts its own

review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision,” our review

“is limited to the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is

expressly adopted.” Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2011). We

review de novo the BIA’s determination of whether the IJ complied with the

“procedural requirements for a frivolousness finding.” Id.

The BIA decided Kusnadi’s appeal two days before publishing In re Y-L-, 24

I. & N. Dec. 151 (B.I.A. 2007), a case that provided generous guidance on the

procedures that immigration judges should follow in determining whether an

asylum application is frivolous. In this case, the requirements of Y-L- were not

met. In particular, the record demonstrates that Kusnadi was not given sufficient

notice and opportunity to explain the grounds invoked for the frivolousness

determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2; Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 241–43; cf. Liu, 632

F.3d at 1158 (granting a Petition for Review where this requirement was not met). 
Because of this deficiency, the IJ did not have the opportunity to “separately

address [Kusnadi’s] explanations in the context of how they may have a bearing on

the materiality and deliberateness requirements unique to [the frivolousness]

determination,” as she was required to do. Matter of B-Y-, 25 I. & N. 236, 240

(B.I.A. 2010). We therefore grant Kusnadi’s petition and remand to the BIA for

further proceedings consistent with Y-L-. 

GRANTED and REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15657]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-920-1310-08; OKNM 119294]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
OKNM 119294

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Class II provisions of Title IV, Public Law 97-451, 
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement of oil and gas lease OKNM 119294 from the lessee, Plano 
Petroleum, LLC, for lands in Ellis County, Oklahoma. The petition was 
filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date 
the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margie Dupre, BLM, New Mexico State 
Office, at (505) 438-7520.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No valid lease has been issued that affects 
the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and 
royalties of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year, and 16\2/3\ 
percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500.00 
administrative fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $166.00 cost 
for publishing this Notice in the Federal Register. The lessee met all 
the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 
31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We 
are proposing to reinstate lease OKNM 119294, effective the date of 
termination, December 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions 
of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

    Dated: March 18, 2009.
Margie Dupre,
Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication Team.
[FR Doc. E9-15657 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1310-FI-P