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


Section
      1350 Certifications




**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




The
      undersigned is the Interim Principle Executive Officer of Imperiali Inc. This
      Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002.
      This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Imperiali
      Inc for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.




The
      undersigned certifies that such 10-QSB Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that the information contained in such 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Imperiali Inc as of May 31, 2008.




This
      Certification is executed as of July 22, 2008.




/s/
                Daniel Imperato(Interim
                Principal Executive Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      us, Inc. and will be retained by Imperiali Inc and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ACCEPTED12-15-00094-CRTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS7/23/2015 8:04:34 AMCATHY LUSKCLERK
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atwood Minerals and Mining Corp., a
Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Greg Goldberg., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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





Greg GoldbergGreg
      GoldbergPresident(Chief
      Executive Officer andChief
      Financial Officer)




July 10,
2009
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 21, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00805-CV 

IN RE GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. cc-14-02324-A 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Relator has advised the Court that the parties have settled the case underlying the petition 

for writ of mandamus and moves to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We grant the 

motion and dismiss the petition. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 

(Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between 

the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings.”); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 

245 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding) (controversy is justiciable, if real controversy exists between 

parties that will be actually resolved by judicial relief sought). 

150805F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard E. Contreras, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 904]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion and brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J.), imposed March 1, 2011, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248 [2006]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see*
      *650
      *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, EJ., Angiolillo, Balkin and Hall, JJ., concur.
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-65,906]

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 8, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Arrow Electronics, Inc., Melville, New York.

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

Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15214 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
SHARPER IMAGE CORPORATION
STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<CAPTION>
                                                    Fiscal Year        Fiscal Year        Fiscal Year
                                                       Ended             Ended               Ended
                                                  January 31,1999    January 31,1998    January 31,1997
                                                  ---------------    ---------------    ---------------
<S>                <C>                              <C>                <C>                <C>         
Net Earnings (Loss)($000)                           $     4,602        $       593        $    (4,345)

Weighted average shares of common stock
         outstanding during the period                8,532,588          8,303,425          8,260,208
                                                    ===========        ===========        ===========


Basic Income (Loss) per Share                       $      0.54        $      0.07        $     (0.53)
                                                    ===========        ===========        ===========



Weighted average shares of common stock
         outstanding during the period                8,532,588          8,303,425          8,260,208

Add:
Incremental shares from assumed
         exercise of stock options                      540,244            233,607                  *
                                                    -----------        -----------        -----------
                                                      9,072,832          8,537,032          8,260,208
                                                    ===========        ===========        ===========


Diluted Income (Loss) per Share                     $      0.51        $      0.07        $     (0.53)
                                                    ===========        ===========        ===========
<FN>

*Incremental  shares from assumed exercise of stock options are antidilutive for
diluted loss per share, and therefore are not presented.
</FN>
</TABLE>
#### BORGEN v. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, Inc.

Civ. No. 25457.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

April 27, 1949.

Davis *&*Lipps, Akron, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Donald M. Marshman, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when one of defendant’s buses, in which she was riding, collided with another of defendant’s buses directly ahead, which had come to a sudden stop. Defendant admits that the collision occurred and that plaintiff was injured, but denies that the accident was due to its negligence.

Plaintiff filed 16 interrogatories addressed to defendant. Defendant has answered some of the interrogatories and has objected to others. Plaintiff has filed no brief in opposition to the objections.

Defendant cites American Far Eastern Syndicate, Inc. v. Raphael Semmes, D.C.N.Y., 3 F.R.D. 71, as authority for two of its objections. That case is inapplicable here since it was in Admiralty involving Rule 31 of the General Admiralty Rules, 28 U.S.C.A. Rule 33, Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, 28 U.S. C.A. permits inquiry into “any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b)”. Rule 26(b) permits examination with regard to “any matter, not privileged, *210which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.”

Applying the foregoing principles to the objections herein, the defendant’s objections will be disposed of as follows: Interrogatories 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13— overruled. As to No. 15, the first part of this interrogatory is proper and should be answered. The objection will be overruled as to the question and sustained as to the request for a copy.
**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 SRKP 9, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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





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




/s/
                Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                C. Pintsopoulos
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              November
                7, 2006
#### LENSCH v. BOUSHELL CARRIER CO., Inc. (CASARI et al., Third Party Defendants).

District Court, S. D. New York.

Feb. 26, 1940.

Nicholas D. Lamorte, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Joseph Strauss, of New York City, for third party plaintiff.

Harold J. Robbins, of New York City, for defendants Casari and Steneck.

COXE, District Judge.

Under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, a defendant may bring in a third party who “is or may be liable” either to the original defendant or to the original plaintiff. This is quite different from Section 193, subdiv. 2 of the New York Civil Practice Act, which merely allows a defendant to bring in a third party against whom there is a liability over. Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc., 257 N.Y. 305, 178 N.E. 289, 78 A.L.R. 578. Rule 14 is clear in its language, and plainly covers the present case. I think, therefore, that the order of January 11, 1940, was proper.

The motion of the third party defendants to vacate the order of January 11, 1940, is denied.
#### UNITED STATES v. MARYLAND & VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS ASS’N, Inc., et al.

Cr. No. 294-48.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Dec. 2, 1949.

John J. Wilson, of Washington, D. C., for defendant Chesnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy Co., for the motion.

Robert H. Winn, of Washington, D. C., for the United States, opposed.

*510HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

In this prosecution for alleged violátion of the Sherman law, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., the defendants have applied for a subpoena duces tecum directing the Government to produce for the defendants’ inspection all documents which the Government has obtained from any person who is not a party to this proceeding. In other words, the defendants seek a broad discovery of all documentary evidence that the Government has obtained in support of its case, with the exception of such material as is covered by the recently coined and apt term of “work product” of a lawyer.

Defendants seek to support their application by reference to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 'Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. This rule relates to the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum and contains the following provision on which the defendants here rely: “The court may direct that books, papers, documents or objects designated in the subpoena be produced before the court at a time prior to the trial or prior to the time when they are to be offered in evidence an<d may upon their production permit the books, papers, documents or objects or portions thereof to be inspected by the parties and their attorneys.”

The purpose of this provision is a limited one. It is to make it possible to require the production before the trial of documents subpoenaed for use at the trial. Its purpose is merely to shorten the trial. It is not intended as a discovery provision.

In this case the proposed subpoena duces tecum is not intended to be used to secure evidence to be introduced at the trial, but is intended to be employed as a broad discovery for the purposes of inspecting all the documentary evidence in possession of the Government and which the Government intends to use at the trial.

It is well settled that in a criminal case, unlike a civil action, such a right of broad discovery does not exist. As I said before, Rule 17(c) was not intended to be a discovery provision, but merely a means to make a subpoena duces tecum returnable prior to the trial in order that time at the trial may be saved while documents are being examined and inspected.

In the light of these considerations, the motion is denied.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11789 and #11790]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

                        This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1842-DR), dated 06/19/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and Straight-line Winds.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/06/2009 through 05/08/2009.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         06/25/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         08/18/2009.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         03/19/2010.                    

# 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 Presidential disaster declaration for the State of ALABAMA, dated 06/19/2009 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Counties:*

(Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Bullock.

*Contiguous Counties:*

(Economic Injury Loans Only): Alabama, Barbour, Russell.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15716 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# table164_q16.4_state
# table34_q5.1_naics
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7787

DENNIS EDWARD PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARJUSRI BASU, Nurse Supervisor; JEFF WALKER, Nurse; DR. 

SELENE PAREKH; DR. VINCENT C. IGOEKWE,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

BRYAN JONES, Lawyer; SHERIFF JOHN MCDIVETT; A. B. SAUNDERS, 

Nurse,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:10-ct-03069-D)

Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded by unpublished 

per curiam opinion.

Dennis Edward Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Street Brown, 

Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, 

Raleigh, North Carolina; Kari Russwurm Johnson, CRANFILL, SUMNER 
2

& HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Edward Phillips appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and, as to Defendants Basu, 

Saunders, Parekh, Igboekwe, McDevitt, and Jones, we find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as to 

these parties for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Phillips v. Basu, No. 5:10-ct-03069-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2011; 

Nov. 3, 2011; & Sept. 13, 2012).

As to Defendant Walker, however, we vacate the 

district court’s order dismissing Phillips’ claim against him,

because the court failed to advise Phillips of its conversion of 

Walker’s motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); Davis v. Zahradnick, 600 F.2d 458, 460 

(4th Cir. 1979) (stating requirements for converting Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment motion). The court 

also failed to sufficiently apprise Phillips of his rights under 

Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975). 

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment 

in favor of Walker and remand for further proceedings.* We deny 

Phillips’ motions to voluntarily dismiss Jones from the appeal, 

 * By this disposition, we indicate no view as to the outcome 

of the proceedings on remand.
4

to file an attachment to his informal brief, and for an 

emergency stay. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          80,029
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,257,996
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,338,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,324,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,338,025
<SALES>                                         71,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,540
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,656
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,656
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,656
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.20
        

</TABLE>