alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd.

 

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 Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| DATE:  | **May 6,   2011** | ** ** | BY:                                    | /s/Sheldon Hoffman |
|--------|------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------|
|   |                   |       |                                   |               |
|   |                   |       | Sheldon   Hoffman                      |
|   |                   |       | Chief   Executive Officer and Director |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND MARCH 31,
1996 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,613,000
<SECURITIES>                                    22,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,356,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   122,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,136,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,264,000
<PP&E>                                       2,628,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 899,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,247,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,813,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       237,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,874,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,247,000
<SALES>                                      3,985,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,985,000
<CGS>                                        2,445,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,393,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 66,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             66,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    66,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
================================================================================

         This is an Exhibit to the Form 20-F of Secureview Systems Inc.

                     Attached find the following materials:

            CERTIFICATION OF ANNA MARIE CAIN PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

================================================================================

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In  connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 20-F for fiscal year ended March
31, 2004 of Secureview Systems Inc., a British Columbia, Canada corporation (the
"Company"),  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the "Annual Report"), I, Anna Marie Cain, 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 2003, that:

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

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

Dated: September 30, 2004
                                    /s/ Anna Marie Cain
                                    Anna Marie Cain, Chief Financial Officer and
                                    Director
#### In the Matter of Ace Hardware Corporation, Respondent, v Marjorie Little, as Assessor of the Town of Wilton, et al., Respondents, and South Glens Falls Central School District, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 682]

Cardona, P.J.

In 1996, petitioner and the County of Saratoga Industrial Development Agency (hereinafter SIDA) entered into an agreement whereby SIDA agreed to purchase a parcel of land in the Town of Wilton, Saratoga County, build a warehouse facility on it, and lease the property to petitioner. In return, petitioner agreed to make annual payments in lieu of taxes (hereinafter PILOT), the amounts of which would be based upon the assessed value of the property. In 2000, petitioner and SIDA sold a small portion of the parcel to the State to be used as a State Police helipad. As a result of the sale, the assessment for the parcel was reduced by $3,000, i.e., from $31,848,800 to $31,845,800. Thereafter, petitioner filed a grievance with respondent Marjorie Little and respondent Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Wilton, requesting that the assessment be reduced because it was incorrectly valued. Subsequently, the assessment was reduced to $29,637,300.

*1009In July 2003, petitioner commenced this RPTL article 7 proceeding challenging, among other things, the assessment of the parcel as excessive. Respondent South Glens Falls Central School District filed a notice of appearance and intervened in the proceeding. In June 2006, the School District moved to dismiss the petition. Supreme Court denied the motion, prompting this appeal by the School District.

During the pendency of this appeal, Supreme Court issued a decision which, among other things, dismissed the subject petition on the merits and a judgment to that effect was thereafter entered. Significantly, “[t]he right to take a direct appeal from an intermediate order terminates with the entry of a final judgment” (Pixel *Intl. Network v State of New York,*255 AD2d 666, 666 [1998]) and, therefore, the instant appeal must be dismissed *(see Dolan v Jaeger,*285 AD2d 844, 846 n 2 [2001]; *Pixel Intl. Network v State of New York, supra).*
      ***

Carpinello, Lahtinen, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

To the extent that the parties indicate that pivotal issues remain unresolved, we note that “an appeal from a final judgment brings up for review all interlocutory orders” *(Warnke v Warner-Lambert Co.,*21 AD3d 654, 655 n 2 [2005]: *see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
S05A2105.

#### DUBOSE v. HODGES.

(625 SE2d 745)

SEARS, Chief Justice.

In this mandamus action, the issue is whether the trial court erred by failing to order the appellee, a special prosecutor, to represent a criminal case to a grand jury.* 1 The trial court did not err, as mandamus relief is not available to compel a discretionary act,2 and as the appellee has broad discretion not to re-present the criminal case to a grand jury.3 Finally, although Dubose contends that the trial court had the authority to review and correct the grand jury’s and district attorney’s actions under OCGA § 15-6-8 (4),4 that Code section only authorizes review by a proper writ, such as mandamus or *153certiorari,5 and, as we have already held, Dubose is not entitled to relief pursuant to his writ of mandamus.

Decided January 17, 2006.

*Joseph Wiley, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Christopher S. Brasher, Kay Baker, Assistant Attorneys General,*for appellee.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The first grand jury returned a no-hill and was discharged on November 30, 2004.

2

 See *Dept. of Transp. v. Peach Hill Props.,*278 Ga. 198, 201 (599 SE2d 167) (2004).

3

 See *State v. Wooten,*273 Ga. 529, 531-532 (543 SE2d 721) (2001); *State v. Hanson,*249 Ga. 739, 742-744 (295 SE2d 297) (1982) (discussing broad discretion of prosecutors in deciding when to bring charges).

4

 OCGA§ 15-6-8 (4) provides, in relevant part, that superior courts have the authority “[t]o exercise a general supervision over all inferior tribunals and to review and correct, in the manner prescribed by law, the judgments of: (A) Magistrates; (B) Municipal courts or councils; (C) Any inferior judicature; (D) Any person exercising judicial powers. . . .”

5

*McAuliffe v. Outz,*139 Ga. App. 62 (227 SE2d 807) (1976).
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5396

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for 

a portion of any dividend received by a domestic corporation from a 

qualified foreign corporation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2004

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA ́ 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 allow a 

deduction for a portion of any dividend received by a 

domestic corporation from a qualified foreign corporation.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Financial Transactions 

5 Equity Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 5396 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DIVIDEND RECEIVED DEDUCTION FOR DIVIDENDS 

2 RECEIVED FROM QUALIFIED FOREIGN COR3 PORATIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 245 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 (relating to dividends received from 

6 certain foreign corporations) is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(d) DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM CORPORATIONS

9 ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH

10 OF PUERTO RICO.—

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of dividends re12 ceived by a domestic corporation from a corporation 

13 organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of 

14 Puerto Rico, there shall be allowed as a deduction 

15 an amount equal to the percent (specified in section 

16 243 for the taxable year) of such dividends. 

17 ‘‘(2) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN DIVIDENDS.—

18 Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any dividend re19 ceived from a corporation organized under the laws 

20 of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the extent 

21 that the dividend consists of earnings and profits ac22 cumulated during a taxable year that such corpora23 tion was a controlled foreign corporation (as defined 

24 in section 957). 

25 ‘‘(3) COORDINATION WITH SECTION 1248.—For 

26 purposes of this subsection, the term ‘dividend’ does 
3

•HR 5396 IH 

1 not include any amount treated as a dividend under 

2 section 1248.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
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



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Acting Chief Financial Officer of Speaking Roses International, Inc., a Utah
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months ended June
30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

By   /s/ Dan Mumford
Dan Mumford,
Acting Chief Financial Officer

August 19, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                             $       500
<SECURITIES>                       $         0
<RECEIVABLES>                      $         0
<ALLOWANCES>                       $         0
<INVENTORY>                        $         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   $       500
<PP&E>                             $         0
<DEPRECIATION>                     $         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     $       500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              $         0
<BONDS>                            $         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              $         0
<PREFERRED>                        $         0
<COMMON>                           $       500
<OTHER-SE>                         $         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       $       500
<SALES>                            $         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   $         0
<CGS>                              $         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      $         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   $     1,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   $         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 $         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    $         0
<INCOME-TAX>                       $         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                $    (1,330)
<DISCONTINUED>                     $         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    $         0
<CHANGES>                          $         0
<NET-INCOME>                       $    (1,330)
<EPS-BASIC>                        $        (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      $         0


</TABLE>
#### Woodward *v.*Gould.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

April 21, 1886.)

Assumpsit—Pleadings—Contracts.

In a suit for breach of a contract the complete performance of which, has been abandoned by the plaintiff because of the defendant’s refusal to proceed, the petition should show that something is due the plaintiff on account of what he did before such refusal and abandonment.

At Law.

*Krum & Jonas,*for plaintiff.

*Bennett Pike,*for defendant.

1

 Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

Treat, L,

*(orally.)*When this ease was presented to the court on the demurrer to the first amended petition an order was made that the then amended petition should be made more definite. The second amended petition is now to be considered under a demurrer filed. The said second amended petition is, to a large extent, quite as vague and indefinite as the former amended petition, yet the demurrer must rest on the allegations as now presented. Applying the ordinary rules pertaining to pleadings, it seems that there was an arrangement between plaintiff and defendant for the organization of a corporation the benefits of which, when organized, were to be divided between the respective parties on the terms stated, the defendant paying certain preliminary costs and expenses. The petition avers that the plaintiff, on whom the duty devolved, had done some work looking to the organization of the proposed corporation, which corporation never was organized. The petition also avers that certain expenses for the survey and location of the proposed railroad had been incurred. It nowhere avers that said expenses had not been paid by the defendant. It does aver that while the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the agreement on his part, the defendant refused to proceed further under said agreement. What, under such statement, would be the cause of action ? Damages actually incurred by such breach, but not prospective or speculative damages. Nothing appears in the petition to show non-payment by the defendant of all costs and expenses incurred prior to the abandonment of the enterprise. On the face of the petition it appears that the plaintiff did not complete the organization of the corporation as agreed, nor that the expenses for preliminary work had not been fully paid by defendant. Therefore, despite the general allegation in the petition that the plaintiff had performed all that was required of him to be performed, the specific allegation shows that he did not so do. The legal consequence is that a contemplated enterprise having been abandoned, neither party proceeding therewith, the sole right of recovery under the most favor*339able circumstances would be a reimbursement to plaintiff of expenses incurred and unpaid by the defendant for which he was liable. In this latter respect the petition is devoid of essential allegations to* make a cause of action.

Demurrer sustained.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: December 18, 2009
    /s/ Brendan J. McGillBrendan J. McGillExecutive Vice-President and

     Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 141 (Friday, July 24, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36610-36611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17308]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900-AK95


Recoupment of Severance Pay From VA Compensation; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Correcting Amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the regulation of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that governs recoupment of lump-sum 
readjustment pay from disability compensation. This correction is 
required in order to amend an authority citation in the regulation. No 
substantive change to the content of the regulation is being made by 
this correcting amendment.

DATES: Effective: July 24, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Figliozzi, Office of 
Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-4902.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VA published an amendment to a final rule in 
the Federal Register on September 27, 2002 (See 67 FR 60868), that, 
among other things, added 10 U.S.C. 1174(h)(2) and 10 U.S.C. 1212(c) as 
authority citations for 38 CFR 3.700(a)(2)(iii). The citation to 10 
U.S.C. 1212(c) is incorrect, because that statute governs the 
recoupment of disability severance pay. A subsequent amendment to the 
final rule on June 5, 2009 (See 74 FR 26957) retained this incorrect 
authority citation. This document corrects that error. Because the 
citation to 10 U.S.C. 1174(h)(2) is correct, it remains unchanged.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 
Health care, Pensions, Veterans, Vietnam.

0
Accordingly, 38 CFR part 3 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 3--ADJUDICATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  3.700, revise the authority citation after paragraph 
(a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  3.700  General.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) * * *

[[Page 36611]]


(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1174(h)(2))

* * * * *

William F. Russo,
Director of Regulations Management.
[FR Doc. E9-17308 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This First Amendment to Officer Employment Agreement (“First Amendment”) is entered into effective March 5, 2013, by and
between Callaway Golf Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Oliver G. Brewer, III (“Employee”). 
 A. The Company and Employee are parties to that certain Officer Employment Agreement entered into as of February 24, 2012 (the “Agreement”). 

B. The Company and Employee desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other consideration, the value and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the
Company and Employee agree as follows: 
 1. Term. Section 1 of the Agreement is amended to extend the termination
date of the Agreement to and including April 30, 2014. 
 2. But for the amendment contained herein, and any other written
amendments properly executed by the parties, the Agreement shall otherwise remain unchanged. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
have executed this First Amendment on the dates set forth below, to be effective as of the date first set forth above. 
  

							
	EMPLOYEE	 		 		 	COMPANY
		 		 		 	 Callaway Golf Company,
 a
Delaware corporation

				
	 /s/ Oliver G. Brewer, III
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Ronald S. Beard

	Oliver G. Brewer, III	 		 		 	 Ronald S. Beard
 Chairman of
the Board

				
	Dated: March 5, 2013	 		 		 	Dated: March 4, 2013