alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glen A. Miller, Vice President 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:



| | (2) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 27, 2006



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Glen A. Miller                        
|Glen A. Miller                            
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Rodney Turner, Appellant, v Garten Foods, Doing Business as Barefoot Contessa, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[823 NYS2d 182]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated December 22, 2004, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant, Garten Foods, doing business as Barefoot Contessa, which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the cause of action against it as alleged a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injury in the process of removing duct work at premises owned by the defendant Garten Foods, doing business as Barefoot Contessa (hereinafter Garten Foods). According to the plaintiff, the accident occurred while he was standing on a ladder and using a tool called a sawsall to cut into the duct. The ladder was positioned so that the plaintiffs face was level with the duct work and his arms were underneath it. As the plaintiff cut into the metal, a piece of the duct swung downward and struck his left forearm, causing injury.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion by Garten Foods which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the cause of action against it as alleged a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the accident was not due to a hazard which is contemplated by that statute *(see Bond v York Hunter Constr.,*95 NY2d 883, 884-885 [2000]; *Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 500-501 [1993]; *Ofri v Waldbaum, Inc.,*285 AD2d 536 [2001]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

__________________________________________

:

WILFREDO VALERIO, :

: Civil Docket No. 11-1704 (FSH)

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : ORDER ON APPLICATION TO

PROCEED WITHOUT

PREPAYMENT OF FEES

: 

UNITED STATES, : 

:

Defendant. :

__________________________________________:

HOCHBERG, District Judge:

Having considered the application to proceed without prepayment of fees under 28

U.S.C.§ 1915;

IT IS, on this 18th day of July,

ORDERED that the application is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file the Complaint; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court issue summons and the United States Marshal 

serve a copy of the Complaint, summons and this order upon the Defendant as directed by 

the Plaintiff. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.

 /s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-01704-FSH-PS Document 4 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 33
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Brian E. Stewart, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David C. Dreyer, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Brian E. Stewart


Name: Brian E. Stewart


Title: Chief Executive Officer


Date: December 5, 2011





/s/ David C. Dreyer


Name: David C. Dreyer


Title: Chief Financial Officer


Date: December 5, 2011





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being “filed” as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall 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 this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
. . . . 

: : 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
? 

*. 

i% 

i: 

iI. 

: . 
l t, but in ~~aaotlonod b y (r ~0x1 ostabllahed r ulo of dooi8lonr in thlr Stats aad otbst 

stator, ::uoh aa aato of T-8 vr D.9108, 

105 Tox. 95, 141) 8. 111. 3301 Bradley we TMM 

Liqu4r oontro1 BoErd Per. ai*. QP., 108 

%4p2e&oo aennoli v, Tuar uqu4r Jon- 

# 

37 2. J., &n. 100, m&o 143. . . ." 

or, Olr, App. 142 $a ‘il. 26 732; 

The CQM or c8ootta ve ui8, 28 Ire (24) 6 7 

hold t&t a pwmittu h4 no mated fight in u nlo % ot 

pcrait, but held it cm llaitationo oreatdl by rSstut4. 

There 8 elty 4mot4 a ml14 oidlnmaea &moh;blt1% tha sala a1 al.ooh~Ua bormqrm rlthln 300 tsot e$ ux: 

ahuroh, pub110 mahool or pabllo horpl6al (a00 

l tatutorf mthod or arsamurment ), &or the prv~im -4 OM of 

Arti 6&25a, V, A. Fe P. 01 ruoh oale l~em4lat.d~ beoomam unlartul. Ii n a4aLrr a&or ruoh M ualmdul m&o 

hla llou60 w4uld be oubjeol to revooation by tha T.nr 

Liquor coatr41 fmta. 

We amme rroa your latter tbhat the bulldins mad 

promher darorlbod in JOW letter nm USO~ by a BOM fldo 

nll~l4u4 orplanitatba u 8 4bPrab. If tZ11e br true, we 

namer your rim puertion Sa the l fflnmtlro. 

IImln~; marore jrour rlrat ?uostiw in tha aiilr111;m, it beoomor unnoeerrary to l nanef your l oro~ mwl 

Va r y Wuly y o ur 8 

AP M R NET ~OFIiZIEhL Of TEXM
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Christopher D. White, Respondent. Jonathan B. Lurie, Doing Business as JBL Computer Solutions, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 390]

On November 23, 2004, the Department of Labor issued an initial determination holding claimant eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits and the employer liable for contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated. However, the employer did not request a hearing challenging the determination until March 3, 2005. Following a hearing on the issue, in two separate decisions, an Administrative Law Judge found that the hearing request was untimely as to the issue of claimant’s eligibility and as to the is*933sue of the employer’s liability for contributions. These decisions were subsequently affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The employer successfully moved to reopen and, upon reconsideration, the Board adhered to its prior decisions, prompting these appeals.

Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (2), an employer has 30 days from the mailing or personal delivery of a contested determination to request a hearing. Although the employer offered an excuse for its failure to request a hearing within the 30-day period following the November 23, 2004 determination, “the statutory time period in which to request a hearing is to be strictly construed, and the statute contains no provision permitting an extension of time in which an employer can request a hearing” *(Matter of Rago [Resource*One, *Inc.—Commissioner of Labor],*22 AD3d 1002, 1002 [2005]; *see Matter of Schwartz [Durhon Oldham Natl. Income Life—Commissioner of Labor],*17 AD3d 903, 903-904 [2005]). Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board’s decisions with respect to timeliness. In view of our disposition, we need not address the employer’s remaining claims.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
UNAUDITED INFORMATION FOR 1ST QUARTER 10-Q. THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF, AND FOR THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD
ENDED, MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                     2,102
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                       589
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,420
<PP&E>                                          24,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,926
<BONDS>                                          5,861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          7
<COMMON>                                           235
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,963
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,657
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,404
<INCOME-TAX>                                       645
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                759
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       759
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 Name of Subsidiary (Jurisdiction)
    
    OwnershipIVANHOE ENERGY INTERNATIONAL INC. (B.V.I.)
    
    100%IVANHOE ENERGY HOLDINGS INC. (NEVADA)
    
    100%Ivanhoe Energy Petroleum Projects Inc. (Nevada)
    
    100% (indirect)Ivanhoe Energy HTL Inc (Nevada)
    
    100% (indirect)Ivanhoe HTL Petroleum Ltd (Nevada)
    
    100% (indirect)Ivanhoe Energy HTL (USA) Inc. (Nevada & California)
    
    100% (indirect)IVANHOE ENERGY INTERNATIONAL VENTURES INC. (BVI)
    
    100%Ivanhoe Energy (Middle East) Inc. (BVI)
    
    100% (indirect)Energy Resources Development Japan Corporation (Japan)
    
    99% (indirect)Ivanhoe Energy (Latin America) Inc. (BVI)
    
    100% (indirect)SUNWING HOLDING CORPORATION (Barbados)
    
    100%Sunwing Energy Ltd. (Bermuda)
    
    100% (indirect)Sunwing Zitong Energy Ltd. (BVI)
    
    100% (indirect)Sunwing Management Limited (Hong Kong)
    
    99% (indirect)Pan-China Resources Ltd. (BVI)
    
    100% (indirect)Dagang Resources Ltd. (BVI)
    
    100% (indirect)IVANHOE ENERGY ADVISORY INC. (BVI)
    
    100%IVANHOE ENERGY LATIN AMERICA INC. (BC)
    
    100%Ivanhoe Energy Ecuador Inc. (BC)
    
    100% (indirect)Ivanhoe Energy Mexico Inc. (BC)
    
    100% (indirect)IVANHOE ENERGY MENA INC. (BC)
    
    100%IVANHOE ENERGY CANADA INC. (AB)
    
    100%IVANHOE ENERGY CANADIAN HOLDINGS INC. (AB)
    
    100%IVANHOE MONGOLIA INC. (AB)
    
    100%PanAsian Energy Ltd. (NEVIS)
    
    100% (indirect)Shaman LLC (MONGOLIA)
    
    100% (indirect)
Motion GRANTED and Order filed December 2 3 , 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00 849

- CV

____________ IN RE 4X INDUSTRIAL, LLC , Relator

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 33 4th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 65517



### ORDER

On December 2 2 , 2020, relator 4X Industrial, LLC filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable Steven Kirk land, Judge of the 3 34th District Court, in Harris County, Texas, to set aside h is December 13 , 2020 order granting the motion to c ompel r esponses to real party in interest Russell Marine, LLC ’s f i rst s et of r equests for p roduction of d ocuments to the extent the order ov errules relator’s objections to certain specified requests for2 production. The December 13, 2020 order was entered in trial court number 2019

- 65517 , styled Russell Marine, LLC v. Estebab Ruiz, Frank Thielen, and 4X Industrial, LLC

.
Relator also has file d a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On December 2 2 , 2020, relator ask ed this court to stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus.
It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will b e prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER the December 13 , 2020 order entered in trial court cause number
201 9

- 6 5517 , Russell Marine, LLC v. Esteba n Ruiz, Frank T hielen, and 4X Industrial, LLC , STAYED until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court.
In addition, the court requests real party in interest Russell Marine, LLC to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before January 20 , 2021

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Poissant.
Civil Action No.: I l-cv-3892 (PGS)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

VINUTHA RAJASEKHARAIAH, et al.,

Defendant.

A Report and Recommendation was filed on November 26, 2013 recommending that this

Court dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to comply with Court Orders and prosecute

their case. The parties were given notice that they had fourteen days from receipt thereof to fileand serve objections pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.l(c)(2). No objections having been

received, and the Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo, and good

cause appearing;

It is, on this 16th day of December, 2013,

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bongiovanni at

docket entry 27 is hereby adopted as the opinion of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice.

PE1FER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 188 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 9854
#### ADVERTISERS EXCHANGE, Inc., v. BAYLESS DRUG STORE, Inc.

Civil Action No. C-2424.

District Court, D. New Jersey.

Dec. 24, 1942.

See, also, 50 F.Supp. 169.

Harry A. Ginsburg, of Atlantic City, N. J., for defendant and the motion.

Shoenholz & Shoenholz, of Newark, N. J., for plaintiff opposed.

AVIS, District Judge.

This action is based on the copyright law and alleges that defendant in advertising its business violated the rights of plaintiff under its copyright.

Plaintiff alleges it has entered in the regular way for copyright two books containing certain symbols of advertising, and alleges as to these that the notice of copyright is affixed to each pamphlet.

Defendant’s motion alleges (1) because the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and (2) because it does not show that the amount in controversy is $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

The second complaint is apparently abandoned in brief. United States copyright matters are cognizable in a United States court, regardless of residence of parties or amount involved. See 28 U.S.C. A. §371; 17 U.S.C.A. § 34.

The notice does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723c. Rule 12(b) provides that a motion may be made because of the failure of complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but Rule 7 (b) sets out that all motions must state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.

Technically this motion could be dismissed on that ground, but I think I must consider the case cited by defendant: Deward & Rich v. Bristol Savings & Loan Corporation, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 345.

I cannot agree with defendant’s construction of the principles stated in that case as being presently applicable to the pleadings in the instant case. The plaintiff declares that it has a copyright; that it was properly issued and contains all of the necessary requisites of such-a paper. The pleadings allege violation by defendant. No proof of any character has been here submitted.

The case referred to determines that if certain evidences of rights are not complied with in using the copyrighted articles the right is forfeited; that decision was after hearing and the evidence had been submitted. At present the facts here are not *179dear. I cannot decide it on preliminary motion without some additional understanding of the circumstances.

The motion will be denied.
Exhibit 10n

 

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

 

The following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the Company’s non-employee directors.  This document is intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee director. Non-employee director compensation may be revised from time to time by the Board of Directors.

 

Retainer and Meetings Fees

 

The Board of Directors of Rollins, Inc. (the “Company”), has approved effective January 1, 2013, the following fee schedule for the Board of Directors of the Company and all Committees of the Board of Directors of the Company.

 

	
Board   of Directors’

Annual   Retainer:

Board   Meeting Attended:
    	
 
    	
 

$26,000   per year to each non-employee Director

$2,500   per meeting attended
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Audit   Committee

Chairman:

 
    	
 
    	
 

$20,000   per year to the Committee Chairman (in addition to the per meeting fee and a   fee of $2,500 for preparation for each quarterly Audit Committee meeting)
    
	
Per   Meeting Fee:

Telephonic   Meeting:
    	
 
    	
$2,500   per Audit Committee meeting

$2,500   per Audit Committee telephonic meeting
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Compensation   Committee

Chairman:
    	
 
    	
 

$10,000   per year to the Committee Chairman (in addition to the per meeting fee)
    
	
Per   Meeting Fee:
    	
 
    	
$2,000   per Compensation Committee meeting
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Nominating/Governance   Committee

Chairman:
    	
 
    	
 

$6,000   per year to the Committee Chairman (in addition to the per meeting fee)
    
	
Per   Meeting Fee:
    	
 
    	
$1,500   per Nominating/Governance Committee meeting
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Diversity   Committee

Chairman:
    	
 
    	
 

$6,000   per year to the Committee Chairman (in addition to the per meeting fee)
    
	
Per   Meeting Fee:
    	
 
    	
$1,500   per Diversity Committee meeting
    


 

The above Committee fees are in addition to the fees otherwise payable to directors for service on the Board of Directors of the Company.

 

Equity Compensation

 

Under the terms of the Company’s Stock Incentive Plans, directors are eligible to receive stock options, stock awards, and other types of equity-based compensation awards.  However, the Company does not make any such awards to non-employees directors under its current compensation practices.

 

All non-employee directors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all services as a director, including committee participation of special assignments.
Case 3:11-mj-05017-TJB   Document 46   Filed 05/11/11   Page 1 of 3 PageID: 120

Case 3:11-mj-05017-TJB   Document 46   Filed 05/11/11   Page 2 of 3 PageID: 121

Case 3:11-mj-05017-TJB   Document 46   Filed 05/11/11   Page 3 of 3 PageID: 122
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5027

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postrez Post Office’’. Mascotte, Florida, as the ‘‘Specialist Eric Rami- al Service located at 411 Midway Avenue in

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5027

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 411 Midway Avenue in Mascotte, Florida,

as the ‘‘Specialist Eric Ramirez Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5027 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 411 Midway Avenue in Mascotte, Florida, shall

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Specialist Eric Ramirez

5 Post Office’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Specialist Eric Ramirez Post Office’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20976 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GILBERTO SAENZ MOYERS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CR-68-3

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Gilberto Saenz Moyers has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Moyers’ response discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
Case 3:11-cr-00390-JAP   Document 6   Filed 10/13/10   Page 1 of 3 PageID: 19

Case 3:11-cr-00390-JAP   Document 6   Filed 10/13/10   Page 2 of 3 PageID: 20

Case 3:11-cr-00390-JAP   Document 6   Filed 10/13/10   Page 3 of 3 PageID: 21