alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
                    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 Gulf & Orient Steamship
Company, Ltd. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June
30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we, Michael Vardakis, President and Melissa
Ladakis, Secretary/Treasurer of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Dated: 8/4/2006                           /s/Michael Vardakis
      ----------                          -------------------------
                                          Michael Vardakis
                                          President and Director


Dated: 8/4/2006                           /s/Melissa Ladakis
      ----------                          -------------------------
                                          Melissa Ladakis
                                          Secretary and Treasurer
1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Bezalel GROSSBERGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

Patrick RUANE and Marion RUANE,

Defendants.

 

 

Civ. No. 11-3728

OPINION and ORDER

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

This matter has come before the Court on Plaintiff Bezalel Grossberger’s renewed 

Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel [Docket # 10]. For the reasons that follow, the application 

is denied.

As stated in this Court’s initial Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff’s first application for 

pro bono counsel [8], neither the Supreme Court of the United States nor the Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit has found a constitutional right to counsel for litigants in a civil case. See 

Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456 (3d Cir. 1997). A court, however, “may request an 

attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). District 

courts are vested with broad discretionary authority in this regard. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 

147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993). The Court proceeds carefully in appointing pro bono counsel because 

“volunteer lawyer time is a precious commodity [that] should not be wasted on frivolous cases.” 

Parham, 126 F.3d at 458. Therefore, “[b]efore the court is justified in exercising its discretion in 

favor of appointment, it must first appear that the claim has some merit in fact and law.”

Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155 (citation omitted). 

Case 3:11-cv-03728-AET-LHG Document 11 Filed 12/05/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 103
2

In its initial denial of Plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel, the Court assumed for 

purposes of deciding that issue that Plaintiff’s claims had arguable merit. (Op. and Order of 

Nov. 2, 2011). The Court relied instead on a weighing of the Parnham factors, see Parham, 126 

F.3d at 457, in denying the application. (Op. and Order of Nov. 2, 2011). Since the denial of 

Plaintiff’s original application, Defendants subsequently moved before this Court to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), [9], arguing that Plaintiff has released all claims 

against the Defendants and that Plaintiff’s claims are otherwise barred by the statute of 

limitations. As such, this Court is no longer willing to assume that Plaintiff has presented a 

claim that has merit in either law or fact. That issue will need to be addressed in deciding 

Defendants’ pending motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s renewed application is denied, and Plaintiff 

should respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in accordance with the normal briefing 

schedule. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS on this 5

th day of December, 2011

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel [6] is DENIED; and it 

is 

ORDERED that Plaintiff is to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss [9] in 

accordance with the normal briefing schedule.

/s/ Anne E. Thompson

ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

Case 3:11-cv-03728-AET-LHG Document 11 Filed 12/05/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 104
ex10-18.htm











EXHIBIT 10.18


 


SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


 


The following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the Company’s non-employee directors as of January 1, 2013.  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.  Compensation of the non-employee directors may be adjusted from time to time.







Retainer







Non-employee directors each receive an annual retainer fee of $26,000.  The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $20,000, the Chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $10,000 and the Chairman of each of the Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee receives an annual retainer of $6,000.  A director that chairs more than one committee receives a retainer with respect to each Committee he chairs.  All of the retainers are paid on a quarterly basis.







Meeting Fees







Per meeting fees for non-employee directors are as follows:








	
  

	
–

	
For meetings of the Board of Directors, $2,500














	
  

	
–

	

For meetings of the Compensation Committee, Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee, $1,500.

















	
  

	
–

	
For meetings of the Audit Committee either in person or over the telephone, $2,500.  In addition, the Chairman receives an additional $2,500 for preparing to conduct each quarterly meeting.







 


Equity Compensation







Under the terms of the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, 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-employee 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 or special assignments.
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
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, 2006 (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/ Bradley E. Wittwer
Bradley E. Wittwer
Chief Financial Officer

August 18, 2006
,1

/

C ‘f
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

OF NEW JERSEY

Patrick Collins, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Jeff Hitchcock, Juan Dickerson, Mary Kline, 

Floyd G. Remley, and John Doe 23, and John 

Doe 33, 

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-04203-FSH-PS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SAMANTHA H. LUTZER certify as follows:

1. That I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action.

2. I served the Plaintiff, Patrick Collins, Inc., by email on the 27thth day of February, 2012, and 

by mail on the 3rd day of March 2012, by sending true and correct copies of the Court’s February 

27, 2012 Order to:

Patrick Collins, Inc.

Attn: Graham Travis

8015 Deering Avenue

Canoga Park, CA 91304

3. This is the business address of the Plaintiff. 

 

 SAMANTHA H. LUTZER

Case 2:11-cv-04203-FSH-PS Document 47 Filed 03/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 413
#### Steam-Gauge & Lantern Co. and another *v.*Follett Lantern & Manuf’g. Co.1

*(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.*

June 11, 1886.)

Patents for Inventions—Infringement—Tubular Lanterns.

Letters patent No. 104.318. of June 14, 1870, and No. 151,703, of June 9, 1874, to John H. Irwin, sustained, and defendants *held*to have infringed the first claim of the former, and the second claim of the latter.

*Edwin S. Jenny,*for complainant.

*Albert H. Harris,*for defendant.

1

 Edited by Charles C. Linthicum, Esq., of the Chicago bar.

Coxe, J.

It is unnecessary to add anything to the views expressed upon the argument, further than to say that I have examined with care the two patents to which my attention was particularly called, granted, respectively, to Holden and Giajola. I see no reason to alter the opinion then intimated. It is suggested that these patents were not fully considered by the court in *Steam-gauge & Lantern Co.*v. *Miller,*21 Fed. Rep. 514. Even though this were so, it is not easy to see, as an original proposition, how a construction can be given them favorable to the defendant’s theory. But it is entirely clear that the court in that case did give due consideration to all limiting *704and anticipating references. The following quotation will serve as an illustration:

> “Previous structures had supply tubes, which returned vitiated air to the burner, or which furnished fresh air from protected chambers, or which i urnished whatever fresh air would enter through an opon funnel or bell mouth; but no previous structure furnished fresh air by the aid of injectors, which compelled air, which would otherwise strike the lantern in such a direction as to exhaust the tubes, to enter the tubes in a continuous and irreversible current. ”

The open funnel or bell-mouthed structure here mentioned unquestionably refers to the Holden device. It is safe to assume, from the character of the counsel who argued that cause, and the judge who decided it, that nothing was overlooked or slighted.

The defendant infringes the first claim of No. 104,318, and the gecond claim of No. 151,703.

The complainant, as to these claims, is entitled to the usual decree for an injunction and an accounting.
In the Senate of the United States,

November 24, 2003.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 622) entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the exchange

of certain lands in the Coconino and Tonto National Forests

in Arizona, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENTS:

1 Ω1æPage 3, line 23, after ‘‘1976’’ insert: (43 U.S.C. 1701

2 et seq.)

3 Ω2æPage 4, line 17, after ‘‘NON-FEDERAL’’ insert: LAND

4 Ω3æPage 5, line 6, after ‘‘16,’’ insert: and

5 Ω4æPage 5, line 17, strike out øof the¿ and insert: of

6 Ω5æPage 5, line 22, after ‘‘FLPMA’’ insert: (43 U.S.C.

7 1716(b))

8 Ω6æPage 7, line 3, strike out øa map¿ and insert: the map
 †

2

HR 622 EAS

1 Ω7æPage 10, line 1, after ‘‘TO’’ insert: NATIONAL

2 Ω8æPage 10, line 3, strike out ø3(d)(1)¿ and insert:

3 3(b)(1)

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 622

AMENDMENTS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         192,084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,957,839
<ALLOWANCES>                                   783,026
<INVENTORY>                                  2,384,565
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,794,529
<PP&E>                                         443,126
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,375,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,258,844
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,988
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,843,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,375,439
<SALES>                                     22,911,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,911,590
<CGS>                                       21,590,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,590,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,100,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             268,863
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,047,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,047,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,047,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>
[No. 32313-3-II.

Division Two.

December 20, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jesus Alejandro Vargas-Buenrostro, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 04-1-01201-5, John P. Wulle, J., entered September 20, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Van Deren, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
Series {
  Decimals = 3
  File = "I:\SeasAdj\Seas2018\IASA\Marie\2018 Marie IASA\IASA 2018 Marie Rogers\s7.dat"
  Format = Datevalue
  Save = (B1)
  Span = (2012.01,2018.12)
  Start = 2011.01
  Title = "Cereals and bakery products - last yr's job without 2011 (2012.01,2018.12)"
}
PickMdl { 
  File = "I:\SeasAdj\Seas2018\IASA\Marie\2018 Marie IASA\IASA 2018 Marie Rogers\x12a.mdl"
  Method = Best
  Mode = Fcst
  Overdiff = 0.95
}
Estimate { 
  Exact = ArMa
  MaxIter = 200
  Print = (LkStats)
}
Regression { 
  Variables = (AO2015.10
               RP2011.01-2011.10)
}
Transform { Power = 0.0 } 
X11 { 
  AppendFcst = No 
  Mode = Mult
  Print = (Brief +Extreme +D13)
  Save = (C20 D10 D11 D13)
  SeasonalMA = Msr
  SigmaLim = (1.5 2.5)
  Title = "Cereals and bakery products - last yr's job without 2011 (2012.01,2018.12)"
}
Spectrum {print=()}
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 22-0005 

IN RE THE MOTION OF JEREMY DUANE 

FINCH FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE 

STATE OF MONTANA 

11-j

MAY 1 7 2022 

Bowen Gr€:enwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Jeremy Duane Finch has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of 

Montana pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar 

Admissions Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the 

Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Finch has provided the necessary 

documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion 

under Rule V. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Jeremy Duane Finch may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of 

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk 

of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this '9, day of May, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

05/17/2022

Case Number: PR 22-0005
Justices
# CFOI FF, EMT, supFF

jj check emts and supervisors, 11-18 - continued		

jj check emts and supervisors, 11-18		

jj check emts and supervisors, 11-18 - continued		

jj check emts and supervisors, 11-18		

Page &P
Order filed August 21, 2013, Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated and Corrected Order 

filed October 28, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00678-CR

NO. 14-12-00679-CR

____________

MARVIN LEE WATTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1333900 and 1333901

ORDER

On August 21, 2013, this Court issued an order commanding Wilford A. 

Anderson to appear in person in the courtroom of the 14th Court of Appeals, on October 

28, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for 

failing to obey this court’s order of July 2, 2013, ordering him to file a brief in this cause 

with the clerk of this court on or before August 1, 2013. On October 24, 2013, counsel 

filed a brief. 
Our order of August 21, 2013, is withdrawn. The appeal is reinstated. The State’s 

brief is due within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the references to our firm in the Post-Effective Amendment to the Registration Statement on Form N-1A of Saturna Investment Trust and to the use of our reports dated January 13, 2012 on the financial statements and financial highlights of the Sextant Growth Fund, Sextant International Fund, Sextant Core Fund, Sextant Short-Term Bond Fund, Sextant Bond Income Fund, Sextant Global High Income Fund, and Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund, each a series of shares of Saturna Investment Trust. Such financial statements and financial highlights appear in the 2011 Annual Reports to Shareholders, which are incorporated by reference.

*/s/ TAIT, WELLER & BAKER LLP*Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

March 30, 2012
#### Latasha Ryan, Respondent, v Town of Smithtown et al., Appellants.

[854 NYS2d 483]

This action arises from a collision between a vehicle driven by *854the plaintiff and a dump truck owned by the defendants Town of Smithtown and Smithtown Highway Department and operated by the defendant John V Iannuzzi. At the time of the accident, the dump truck was being used to spread sand on a roadway during a snowfall, and thus the truck was “actually engaged in work on a highway,” as contemplated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b). Accordingly, the defendants may be held liable only if Iannuzzi acted in “reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b]; see *Riley v County of Broome,*95 NY2d 455, 466 [2000]).

At his deposition, Iannuzzi testified that the dump truck had been stationary for “maybe 20 seconds” at the time of the collision, and that the truck was equipped with backup lights and a beeping device that would sound when the truck was driven in reverse, both of which were operational on the day of the accident. However, at a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the plaintiff testified that as she proceeded through an intersection with a green light in her favor, the dump truck, which was situated on the intersecting street, backed up into her path of travel, causing her vehicle to collide with it. According to the plaintiff, she neither observed any illuminated reverse lights nor heard any warning sound as the truck backed up.

Thus, in response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Iannuzzi operated the truck with reckless disregard for the safety of others *(see Riley v County of Broome,*95 NY2d at 466; *Badalamenti v City of New York,*30 AD3d 452 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
907 A.2d 1007

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL BELL, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

September 8, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, limited solely to the sentencing issue raised by defendant, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of *State v. Natale,*184 *N.J.*458, 878 A.2d 724 (2005).
Case 2:11-cr-00395-DMC Document 15 Filed 10/03/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 36
Case 2:11-cr-00395-DMC Document 15 Filed 10/03/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 37
Case 2:11-cr-00395-DMC Document 15 Filed 10/03/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 38
Case 2:11-cr-00395-DMC Document 15 Filed 10/03/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 39
Case 2:11-cr-00395-DMC Document 15 Filed 10/03/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 40
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 672 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 672

To rename the Guam South Elementary/Middle School of the Department of 
Defense Domestic Dependents Elementary and Secondary Schools System in 
honor of Navy Commander William ``Willie'' McCool, who was the pilot of 
 the Space Shuttle Columbia when it was tragically lost on February 1, 
                                 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2003

 Ms. Bordallo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To rename the Guam South Elementary/Middle School of the Department of 
Defense Domestic Dependents Elementary and Secondary Schools System in 
honor of Navy Commander William ``Willie'' McCool, who was the pilot of 
 the Space Shuttle Columbia when it was tragically lost on February 1, 
                                 2003.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF COMMANDER WILLIAM ``WILLIE'' MCCOOL 
              ELEMENTARY/MIDDLE SCHOOL, APRA HEIGHTS, GUAM.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) Commander William C. McCool of the United States Navy, 
        pilot of the Space Shuttle Columbia when it was tragically lost 
        on February 1, 2003, attended Dededo Middle School and John F. 
        Kennedy High School on Guam.
            (2) Commander McCool carried a flag commemorating the 
        liberation of Guam on NASA mission STS-107 of the Space Shuttle 
        Columbia.
            (3) Commander McCool pursued his dream of space flight with 
        vigor and passion and, by his life and accomplishments, is an 
        inspiration for school children everywhere to dare to dream big 
        things, to believe in themselves, and to reach for the stars.
    (b) Designation.--The Guam South Elementary/Middle School of the 
Department of Defense Domestic Dependents Elementary and Secondary 
Schools System in Apra Heights, Guam, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Commander William `Willie' McCool Elementary/Middle School'', in 
honor of William C. McCool, who was a commander in the United States 
Navy and pilot of the Space Shuttle Columbia when it was tragically 
lost on February 1, 2003.
    (c) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Guam South 
Elementary/Middle School shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Commander William `Willie' McCool Elementary/Middle School''.
                                 <all>
```