alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of Quintek  Technologies,  Inc. on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Robert  Steele,  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report 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 result of  operations of the
Company.

Date:  October 14, 2003

/S/ ROBERT STEELE
-------------------------
    Robert Steele,
    Chief Executive Officer
#### Pope *v.*Colbert.

The writ of prohibition is designed to prevent the performance of some official act unauthorized by law, and not to relieve against the consequences of such an act. Accordingly, where a county judge had declared a county office vacant and had ordered an-election to fill the vacancy, it was too late to “prohibit and direct him to abstain and desist from proceeding further to have said election.” Whether the county judge originally had authority to pass such an order or not, and if so, whether or not it was rightly passed in the given case, it is certain that after the order was in fact passed he had no further jurisdiction or control over the matter.

April 29,1895.

Brought forward from the last term. ‘ Code, §4271(a-c).

Petition for prohibition. Before Judge Butt. Taylor county. February 23, 1895.

A. E. Thornton and C. J. Thornton, for plaintiff.

W. S. Wallace; for defendant.

Simmons, Chief Justice.

Pope presented to the judge below a petition for a writ of prohibition against the county judge of Taylor county, in which he alleged that he had been duly elected sheriff’ of that county, and that he had executed and filed his bond as such sheriff, as by statute provided, but that the .county judge was endeavoring to have an election held in-the county for sheriff, and had issued an order to that effect, declaring therein that a- vacancy exists in the office because of petitioner’s failure to give bond and qualify as sheriff of the county. -He. prayed *792that the writ of prohibition issue, directed to the county judge, directing him to abstain from proceeding further to cause said election. The petition contained other allegations, to the effect that the county judge has no jurisdiction and'power over the election, bond and qualification of petitioner, as county, judge or otherwise; but in the view we take of the case it is unnecessary to consider these allegations. Whether the county judge originally had authority to pass such an order or not, and if so whether it was rightly passed or not, it is certain that after the order was in fact passed, he had no further jurisdiction or control over the matter. The election having been ordered, the matter had passed out of his hands, and a writ of prohibition would therefore have no office to perform. The wilt of prohibition lies to “arrest” or prevent the performance of an official act unauthorized by law, but does not lie to relieve against the consequences of such an act. (Code, §3209(a); 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, “Prohibition,” p. 264.) The court below-did not err, therefore, in refusing to grant the writ prayed for. *Judgment affirmed.*
#### Naber Electric Corp., Appellant, v Hawthorne Cedar Knolls Union Free School District et al., Respondents.

[855 NYS2d 559]

“[A]n appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” *(Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Since the extension of notice of mechanic’s lien would have expired on August 8, 2007 *(see*Lien Law § 17), the parties’ rights would not be affected by a decision and order reinstating the extension of notice of mechanic’s lien. Thus, this appeal has been rendered academic *(see Matter of Fullerton Land Dev. v Meyer,*292 AD2d 607 [2002]). Moreover, this case does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doc*699trine *(see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d at 714-715). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed March 25, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01766-CR

JOE EARL WALTON, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-53044-Y

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Lewis

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the 

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and 

this decision be certified below for observance.1

 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131766F.U05

 1

 Appellant’s motion to dismiss referenced only cause no. 05-13-01766-CR and does not affect the appeal in cause no. 05-13-01761-CR.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Ellen M. Ingersoll, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Viad Corp;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant andhave:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
 b) Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statementsfor external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;
 c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
 d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 5, 2010
By **/**s/ Ellen M.Ingersoll
Table 32. Displaced workers1

 by age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and 

employment status in January 2008

Total

Total, 20 years and over.................. 3,641 100.0 67.1 18.0 15.0

 20 to 24 years.............................. 127 100.0 67.5 22.8 9.7

 25 to 54 years.............................. 2,602 100.0 72.6 17.4 10.0

 55 to 64 years.............................. 708 100.0 60.8 20.7 18.5

 65 years and over........................ 204 100.0 18.4 12.6 69.0

Women, 20 years and over............ 1,617 100.0 63.5 16.9 19.6

 20 to 24 years.............................. 53 100.0 ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) 

 25 to 54 years............................. 1,112 100.0 70.1 15.1 14.8

 55 to 64 years............................. 352 100.0 53.4 23.6 23.0

 65 years and over....................... 101 100.0 22.4 9.8 67.8

Men, 20 years and over................. 2,024 100.0 69.9 18.8 11.2

 20 to 24 years............................. 75 100.0 66.4 22.5 11.1

 25 to 54 years............................. 1,490 100.0 74.4 19.1 6.5

 55 to 64 years............................. 356 100.0 68.0 17.9 14.0

 65 years and over....................... 103 100.0 14.4 15.4 70.2

White

Total, 20 years and over................. 3,032 100.0 67.9 16.8 15.3

 Women.................................... 1,348 100.0 64.4 14.9 20.7

Men 1 684 100 0 70 8 18 2 11 0

Age, sex, race, and Hispanic 

or Latino ethnicity

Total 

(in 

thousands)

Percent distribution by employment status

Total Employed Unemployed Not in labor 

force

 Men........................................... 1,684 100.0 70.8 18.2 11.0

Black or African American

Total, 20 years and over.................. 408 100.0 58.6 28.2 13.3

 Women..................................... 187 100.0 56.3 31.1 12.6

 Men........................................... 221 100.0 60.5 25.7 13.8

Asian

Total, 20 years and over.................. 122 100.0 67.3 11.7 21.0

 Women..................................... 57 100.0 ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) 

 Men......................................... 65 100.0 ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) 

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

Total, 20 years and over................ 423 100.0 68.4 17.4 14.1

 Women.................................... 153 100.0 65.5 6.9 27.6

 Men......................................... 270 100.0 70.1 23.4 6.6

1 Data refer to persons who had 3 or more years

of tenure on a job they had lost or left between

January 2005 and December 2007 because of plant

or company closings or moves, insufficient work, or

the abolishment of their positions or shifts. 2 Data not shown where base is less than 75,000.

NOTE: Estimates for the above race groups

(white, black or African American, and Asian) do not

sum to totals because data are not presented for all

races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as

Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.

SOURCE: January 2008 Displaced Worker

supplement to the Current Population Survey, U.S.

Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

87
```

Exhibit 32

                           **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the annual filing of HydroFlo, Inc., a North Carolina
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10KSB for the period ended June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Dennis
Mast, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Dennis Mast
    Dennis Mast
    Chief Financial Officer and CEO

Date: 9/19/03
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7068

RICK TODD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATTI LLEWELLYN; CINDY TINKHAM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-02-313)

Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rick Todd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rick Todd appeals the district court’s order dismissing as

frivolous his action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Todd v. Llewellyn, No. CA-02-313 (E.D.N.C. June 12,

2002). We deny Todd’s motion for appointment of counsel. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**Form of Section 906 Certification**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Pacific Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Brant Dees, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby 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.

/s/ Brant Dees

Brant Dees

Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Financial Officer

Date:  May 14, 2003
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

In connection with the Form 10-QSB of DirectView, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger Ralston, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/Roger Ralston

Roger Ralston

Chief Executive Officer

November 20 , 2006

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
ex10m7dec2012








EXHIBIT 10.2






AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
SENIOR EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT


This is Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”), effective as of December 28, 2012, to the Senior Executive Retirement Agreement (the “Agreement”) by and between Crown Holdings, Inc. (“Crown”) and Gerard Gifford (the “Participant”), which was entered into as of June 1, 2012.


Background


WHEREAS, the Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which the Participant participates in the Crown Senior Executive Retirement Plan, as amended and restated January 1, 2008; and 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Participant, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 


Terms
    
1.    The following new Section 15 is hereby added to the Agreement:


“15.    Taxes.  The Participant acknowledges and agrees that Section 6.3 of the Plan shall not apply to any benefit payable to the Participant or the Participant's surviving spouse.”


2.    Except as expressly modified herein, the Agreement is hereby ratified and affirmed in its entirety.  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.




	
		
	 
	CROWN HOLDINGS, INC.

	 
	/s/ John W. Conway

	 
	By:

	 
	/s/ Gerard Gifford

	 
	GERARD GIFFORD
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

XAVIER WILLIAMS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4302

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed August 10, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; William H. Burgess, III, 

Judge.

Xavier Williams, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 559 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 559

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain manufacturing equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain manufacturing equipment.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking heading 
9902.84.85 and inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
heading:

      

``    9902.84.85    Extruders to be   Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     used in                                                                 31/2005          ''
                     production of                                                                             .
                     radial tires
                     designed for
                     off-the-highway
                     use with a rim
                     measuring 63.5
                     cm or more in
                     diameter
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     4011.20.10,
                     4011.61.00,
                     4011.63.00,
                     4011.69.00,
                     4011.92.00,
                     4011.94.40, or
                     4011.99.45),
                     numerically
                     controlled, or
                     parts thereof
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     8477.20.00 or
                     8477.90.85)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appellant,

v.

CARE WELLNESS CENTER, LLC a/a/o VIRGINIA BARDON

- DIAZ
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 2254

[ February 16, 2022 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; John D. Fry , Judge; L.T. Case No. CONO 14

- 7576 (70)

.

Nancy W. Gregoire of Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, Fort

Lauderdale

, and Scott E. Danner of Kirwan

, Spellacy & Danner, P.A., Fort

L auderdale, for appellant.

Marlene S. Reiss of Law Offices of Marlene S. Reiss, Esq., P.A., Miami,

and Thomas J. Wenzel of Cindy A. Goldstein, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellee.

Peter J. Valeta of Cozen O’Connor, Chicago, Illinois, for Amicus Curiae

Florida Justice Reform Institute.

Matthew C. Scarfone of Colodny Fass, P.A., Sunrise, for Amicus Curiae Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.

Mac S. Phillips of Phillips|Tadros, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and David M. Caldevilla of de laParte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa, for Amicus Curiae Floridians For Fair Insurance, Inc.

G ROSS

, J.

This case is before the court on remand from the Florida Supreme

Court. We affirm the s ummary final judgment and remand to the county court for further proceedings consistent with Progressive Select Insurance Co. v. Florida Hospital Medical Center , 260 So. 3d 219 (Fla. 2018).

Affirmed

.2 F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.