alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Craft College Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Pat Castillo, 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 contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of August, 2007.

BY:
/s/ PAT CASTILLO                        Pat Castillo, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer**
Exhibit 10.19 Non-employee director compensation (1)






Exhibit 10.19


Non-Employee Director Compensation


We currently pay our non-employee directors an annual retainer of $35,000, plus $1,000 per day for attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors or $500 if the meeting is telephonic.  Our lead director is paid an additional annual retainer of $15,000.  Pay for attendance at meetings of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors by the Chairperson of the Committee is $1,500 per day or $750 if the meeting is telephonic and for other Board of Director attendees is $1,000 per day or $375 if the meeting is telephonic.   Pay for attendance at meetings of the Compensation Committee and Nominating Governance Committee of the Board of Directors by the Chairperson of the Committee is $1,500 per day or $750 if the meeting is telephonic and for other Board of Director attendees is $750 per day or $375 if the meeting is telephonic.  Each Chairperson of a Committee of the Board of Directors also receives an annual retainer.  The annual retainer for the Audit Committee Chairperson, the Compensation Committee Chairperson and the Nominating Governance Committee Chairperson is $18,500, $7,500 and $5,000, respectively.


Starting in 2012, the equity component of the director's compensation is valued at $110,000.  Half of the annual equity package consists of  restricted stock units and the other half consists of  stock options. On February 1, 2012, our non-employee directors received an option grant to purchase 1,875 shares of our common stock.  On May 11, 2012, our non-employee directors received an option grant to purchase 1,508 shares of our common stock and 1,022 restricted stock units .  The options become exercisable one year after the grant date and expire ten years after the grant date.  The restricted stock units vest one year from the grant date.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. William H. Walls

v. : Criminal No. 2:10cr876

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

TERIEK EDWARDS

This matter having been opened to the Court by Paul J. Fishnian, United States

Attorney for the District ofNew Jersey (Sharon Ashe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing), and

defendant Teriek Edwards (Chester Keller , appearing), for an order granting a continuance ofthe

proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period ofsixty days, from March 23,2013, to

May 22, 2013, allow the parties to conduct plea negotiations and attempt to finalize a plea

agreement, and the defendants being aware that they have the right to have this matter brought to

trial within seventy (70) days of date the defendants appeared before ajudicial officer ofthis

court and that a continuance shall serve to delay a trial in this matter, and the defendants through

their attorneys having waived such rights and consented to the continuance; and for good and

sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FiNDING OF ThIS COURT that this action should be continued for

the following reasons:

1. The defendants are involved in plea negotiations with the government,

which, ifsuccessful, would render trial ofthis matter unnecessaiy.

2. Defendants have consented to the aforementioned continuance,
3. The grant of a continuance will likely conserve judicial resources.

4. Pursuant to Title 18 aithe United States Code, Scelion 3161(h)(7), the

ends ofjusticc served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and

the defendant in a speedy trial.

5. This is the eleventh continuance order sought by the parties.

/ III I

WIIERI3FORE, it is on this c/day of A’ L-” “ 2013.

ORi)iRiD that the proceedings in the above-captioned matter are continued for

the sixty (60) day period from from March 23, 2013, to May 22, 201 3;

IT iS FUR’I}IER ORI)ERfD that the period between from March 23, 2013, to

May 22, 2013 shall bc c\cluchtblc in wmpullng time undet th Spu.dy Irial Au of j)74

/‘

/ If

/

/

LLiALLS

United States I)istrict Judge

Chester Keller

Attornc.y for Terick fdwnr4

17 / I

1a7

Sharon Ashe

Assistant United States Attorney

A -

Ronnell Wilson

Acting Chief, OCDETF and Narcotics Division
#### Dorian Burrell, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 598]

*483The manner in which a police officer operates his or her vehicle in responding to an emergency call may not form the basis of civil liability to an injured third party unless the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]; *Saarinen v Kerr,*84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994]; *Rodriguez v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport,*21 AD3d 1024 [2005]; *Molinari v City of New York,*267 AD2d 436, 436-437 [1999]). The “reckless disregard” standard requires proof that the officer intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow *(see Szczerbiak v Pilat,*90 NY2d 553, 557 [1997]; *Saarinen v Kerr,*84 NY2d at 501; *Campbell v City of Elmira,*84 NY2d 505, 510 [1994]).

Here, the defendant City of New York failed to meet its initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the defendant police officer did not act in reckless disregard for the safety of others when she entered the intersection, where the subject accident occurred. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (b) (2) permits an emergency vehicle to “[p]roceed past a steady red signal . . . only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.” The City’s submissions failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether the police vehicle had its emergency siren and flashers on and whether the officer operating the vehicle accelerated, rather than slowed down, as she approached the intersection. Moreover, there are issues of fact as to whether the defendant police officer’s view of the intersection was obstructed by a parked vehicle and/or the inclement weather. Accordingly, the City did not establish its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of General Municipal Law § 205-e insofar as asserted against it *(see Campbell v City of Elmira,*84 NY2d at 510-511; *Badalamenti v City of New York,*30 AD3d 452, 453 [2006]; *484
      *Lupole v Romano,*307 AD2d 697, 698 [2003]; *Luca v Town of Crawford,*294 AD2d 410 [2002]; *Baines v City of New York,*269 AD2d 309 [2000]; *Gordon v County of Nassau,*261 AD2d 359 [1999]; *cf. Salzano v Korba,*296 AD2d 393, 394-395 [2002]), and we thus need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                        COLLECTIBLE CONCEPTS GROUP, INC.
                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 of  Collectible  Concepts  Group,
Inc.  (the  Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period  ended  February  28, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
Report), I, Paul Lipschutz, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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.

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

Date:  July 18, 2006

/s/ Paul Lipschutz
---------------------------
Paul Lipschutz
Principal Financial Officer
DENY; and Opinion Filed December 19, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01158-CV

IN RE JAMES DONDERO, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-16417

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

In this original proceeding, relator complains of the trial court’s September 27, 2018 

enforcement order. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court 

has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential 

Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, 

we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested because he has an adequate 

remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to 

the relief sought).

181158F.P05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 99.1



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         I, Moshe BenBassat, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd. on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd.



March 20, 2003



                                             By:    /s/ MOSHE BENBASSAT
                                                    -------------------
                                             Name:  Moshe BenBassat
                                             Title: Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                    Officer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-K CLICKSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.                                     PAGE 62
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-1675EM

_____________ Patricia M. Rhoads, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. The Jones Financial Companies; * Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: November 17, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Patricia M. R

hoads brought this action against The Jones Financial Companies (JFC) and Edward D. Jones & Co. (EDJ) alleging violations of Title VII, the Ag e Discrimin ation in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Missouri Human Rights Act. On summary judgment, the magistrate judge rejected Rhoads' s claims
. After careful review of the record, we agree with the magistrate judge tha t Rhoads was a general partner r ather than an employee of JFC and EDJ, and she could not invoke the protections of statutes which afford relief to employees. Having failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), Rhoads's argument that the-2-

district court prematurely granted summary judgment before she had an opportunity to co nduct discovery is foreclosed by the holdings of this court. See Allen v
. Bridgestone/

Firestone, Inc. , 81 F.3d 793, 797-98 (8th Cir. 1996). We thus affirm the magistrate judge's ruling. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5016 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5016

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend the water service contract for the Ainsworth Unit, Sandhills 
         Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Nebraska.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AINSWORTH UNIT, SANDHILLS DIVISION, PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI 
              BASIN PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall extend for the 
period described in subsection (b) the water service contract for the 
Ainsworth Unit, Sandhills Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, 
Nebraska, consisting of--
            (1) the water service contract entered into by the 
        Secretary of the Interior under--
                    (A) section 9(e) of the Reclamation Project Act of 
                1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(e));
                    (B) section 9(c) of the Act of December 22, 1944 
                (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665);
                    (C) the Act of August 21, 1954 (68 Stat. 757, 
                chapter 781); and
                    (D) the Act of May 18, 1956 (70 Stat. 160, chapter 
                285); and
            (2) the water service contract for the set project located 
        in Cherry, Brown, and Rock Counties, Nebraska, for the use of a 
        part of the waters of the Snake River, a tributary of the 
        Niobrara River.
    (b) Period of Extension.--The water service contract described in 
subsection (a) shall be extended for 4 years after the date on which 
the contract expires under the water service contract and law in 
existence before the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Case 2:11-cv-00712-CCC-JBC Document 16 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 61
This Amendment shall be governed by the same provisions as set forth in Section 12(d) of theAgreement. If any part of this Amendment is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be voidor unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue with full force and effect. The headingsin this Amendment are for convenience only and shall not effect the interpretation of thisAmendment.This Amendment has been agreed to and executed by the following parties on the dates set forthopposite their names:           /s/ Judy Verses   November 14, 2008     Judy Verses   Date             Blackboard Inc.                        By: /s/ Justin Tan    November 14, 2008    Justin Tan   Date    Senior Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16717]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1400-000]


Milford Wind Corridor Phase I, LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

July 8, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Milford Wind Corridor Phase I, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is July 28, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aee8ebfcede1c0c2c7c0cbfddbdedec1dcdaeec8cbdccd80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f6b0b3a4b5b9989a9f9893a5838686998482b690938495d8919980">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-16717 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 1 of 13 PageID: 8499

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 2 of 13 PageID: 8500

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 3 of 13 PageID: 8501

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 4 of 13 PageID: 8502

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 5 of 13 PageID: 8503

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 6 of 13 PageID: 8504

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 7 of 13 PageID: 8505

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 8 of 13 PageID: 8506

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 9 of 13 PageID: 8507

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 10 of 13 PageID: 8508

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 11 of 13 PageID: 8509

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 12 of 13 PageID: 8510

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1107   Filed 11/12/09   Page 13 of 13 PageID: 8511
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1 D 2 0 2 4

- 0 481

_____________________________
C HARITY N OELLE W OOD , Appellant,

v.

J ONATHAN H AWKIN , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County

. David Frank , Judge

.

August 14, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED as untimely

.
R OBERTS , B ILBREY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Charity Noelle Wood
, pro se, Appellant.2 No appearance for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5206 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5206

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
                 certain hazard mitigation assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2004

  Mr. Foley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
                 certain hazard mitigation assistance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR CERTAIN DISASTER MITIGATION 
              PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to disaster relief payments) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Certain Disaster Mitigation Payments.--Gross income shall not 
include the value of any amount received directly or indirectly as 
payment or benefit by the owner of any property for hazard mitigation 
with respect to the property pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act or the National Flood 
Insurance Act.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years ending on or after December 31, 2004.
                                 <all>
```