alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

                Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

         The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial officer of Peoples  Bancorporation,  Inc., each hereby certifies that,
to the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form 10-Q of the issuer fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) 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 issuer.

August 13, 2006

                                                      /s/ R. Riggie Ridgeway
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      R. Riggie Ridgeway
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                                      /s/ Robert E. Dye, Jr.
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Robert E. Dye, Jr.
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 11

                         SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)

                    THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,    SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                    ---------------------------  ----------------------------
                        2004          2003           2004           2003
                        ----          ----           ----           ----

Basic earnings:

Net (loss)           $ (110,045)   $ (413,670)   $   (258,325)   $   (824,646)
                     ==========    ==========    ============    ============

Shares:
Weighted common
shares outstanding   30,509,700    30,429,491      30,509,700      24,490,264
                     ==========    ==========    ============    ------------

Basic and diluted
(loss) per share     $    (0.00)   $    (0.01)   $      (0.01)   $      (0.03)
                     ==========    ==========    ============    ============
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0944

_____________________________

KENNETH D. WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

October 26, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Kenneth D. Williams, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Douglas B. Mackie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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/ Douglas B. Mackie
Douglas B. Mackie
Chief Executive Officer
Date: November 14, 2003

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Great Lakes Dredge &
Dock Corporation and will be retained by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

31
**Exhibit 23**

***Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm***

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-102824) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-67253, 2-98696, 33-18177, 2-82823, 33-36602, 33-36603, 333-9261, 333-32675, 33-57913, 333-60031, 333-60033, 333-83973, 333-42478, 333-65990,333-97277, 333-107855, 333-107856, 333-109952 and 333-114803) of Wendy’s International, Inc. of our report dated March 3, 2006 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Columbus, Ohio 

March 3, 2006
No. 1034.

#### George F. Driscoll Co. *v.*United States.

May 27, 1946.

*Joseph J. Cotter, James C. Rogers*and *Arthur J. Phelan*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Mc-Grath, Assistant Attorney General Sonnett*and *Paul A. Sweeney*for the United States.

By special leave of Court, a brief was filed by *Allen Pope*(a layman), as *amicus curiae,*in support of the petition.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims denied.
#### WORTH v. TRANS WORLD FILMS, Inc.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 24, 1951.

Becker, Berman & Odell, New York City, for plaintiff.

Schwartz & Frohlich, New Yolk 'City, for defendant.

*198WEINFELD, District Judge.

The plaintiff moves for an order pursuant *to*Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. (1) vacating the notice for the taking of his deposition in this District on the ground that it will impose undue and unreasonable hardship as he is a resident of Chicago, Illinois; (2) in the alternative that his deposition be taken only on written interrogatories; (3) in the alternative that an oral examination be taken at Chicago, Illinois, and that defendant pay to plaintiff’s attorneys their expenses and a reasonable counsel fee for attendance at such examination.

The action was instituted by plaintiff to recover $107,276.89 and the American dollar value of 176,700 Austrian shillings allegedly due him as a result of defendant’s breach of contract. The defendant’s answer is a general denial except admission that the sum of $276.89 is due and that 176,700 Austrian shillings were not paid. In addition, defendant pleads as a separate defense two releases allegedly signed and delivered by plaintiff to defendant.

The Court is not persuaded that any undue or unreasonable hardship would be imposed upon the plaintiff if he were required to attend here for the taking of the deposition. No circumstances are set forth to warrant that conclusion. New York is readily accessible from Chicago by either plane or train, and considering the amount sued for, the expense involved in requiring plaintiff to appear is nominal.

With respect to the alternative re■quest that the deposition be taken only on written interrogatories, the advantages of oral examination over the rigidity of written interrogatories are readily acknowledged. Cross-examination of a witness who may be evasive, recalcitrant or non- , responsive to questions is an essential in ferreting out facts, particularly of an adverse party or witness. The affidavit submitted on behalf of the defendant indicates 'that the proposed examination will be far from a perfunctory one and no reason has been submitted why full scope of inquiry should be proscribed in this case.

Finally, there remains the request that the oral deposition be taken in Chicago and that the defendant be required to pay the expenses of plaintiff’s attorneys and a reasonable counsel fee. It seems- to the Court that the plaintiff if he decides not to come to New York City for examination should pay the expenses and counsel fee of the defendant.

Accordingly, the motion is denied except as otherwise indicated herein.

Settle order on notice which may contain an alternative provision that if plaintiff decides not to come to this District for the oral examination, it may be conducted in • Chicago, Illinois, upon condition that expenses and reasonable counsel fee shall be paid to defendant’s attorneys in an amount to be fixed by the Court.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 JESSE TORRES,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. NO. A-1-CA-37338

5 HUDSPETH & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

6 Defendant-Appellee.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Shannon C. Bacon, District Judge

9 Jesse Torres

10 Rio Rancho, NM

11 Pro Se Appellant

12 Snell & Widmer

13 Benjamin Anthony Nucci

14 Phoenix, AZ

15 for Appellee

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 VANZI, Chief Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} AFFIRMED.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 _______________________________

7 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 _________________________________

10 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge

11 _________________________________

12 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 6, 2011

y0829 

# Order

September 6, 2011

142558 & (27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142558 COA: 298250 Wayne CC: 05-012153-FC BERNARD KELLY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the January 5, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MC R 6.508(D).
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 to RegistrationStatement No. 333-180729 on Form N-1A of our report dated December 11, 2014, relating to the financial statements and financialhighlights of the American Funds College Target Date Series, comprising the American Funds College 2030 Fund, American Funds College2027 Fund, American Funds College 2024 Fund, American Funds College 2021 Fund, American Funds College 2018 Fund, American FundsCollege 2015 Fund and American Funds College Enrollment Fund appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is partof such Registration Statement, and to the references to us under the headings “Financial highlights” in the Prospectusand “Independent registered public accounting firm” and “Prospectuses, reports to shareholders and proxy statements”in the Statement of Additional Information, which are part of such Registration Statement.

 

 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Costa Mesa, California

December 29, 2014
#### In re TINLEY.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 15, 1902.)

No. 27

Original. Petition for Review.

Geo. H. Stillman, for petitioner.

Finley Burke, for respondent.

Dismissed, at costs of petitioner, pursuant to stipulation of the parties.
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.19.1 
  

			
		  	Maxygen, Inc.
 515 Galveston Drive
 Redwood City, CA 94063
 650.298.5300 main
 650.364.2715 fax
 www.maxygen.com


 

 
 5th December 2008 
 Michael S. Rabson 
 [Address] 
  

	Re:	Amendment to Consulting Agreement 

 Dear Michael, 
 This letter will reflect the agreement of Maxygen, Inc. (“Company”) and Michael Rabson
(“Consultant”) to amend that certain Consulting Agreement entered into between Consultant and the Company, effective 1st April 2008
(the “Agreement”). All capitalized terms under this letter amendment shall have the same meanings as those ascribed in the Agreement. 
 The Company and the Consultant hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 3.1 (under Article 3 “Term and Termination”) is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 “The term of this Agreement will begin on the Effective Date and will continue in full force and effect until March 31, 2009 (the
“Term”), unless earlier terminated as provided in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 below or extended or renewed pursuant to Section 3.4 below.” 
 Except as expressly provided in this letter amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged, and during the amended and extended term you will continue to provide consulting services to the Company and its
Affiliates in accordance with such terms and conditions. 
 Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by countersigning below and returning one copy
to the attention of Alice Um Kope at Maxygen, Inc., 515 Galveston Drive, Redwood City, California 94063. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	 /s/    LAWRENCE W. BRISCOE



  

			
	UNDERSTOOD, AGREED AND ACCEPTED BY:
	 MICHAEL S. RABSON

		
	 Signature:
	 	 /s/    MICHAEL S. RABSON

	Name:	 	Michael S. Rabson

 Date: December 10, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 276 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 17, 2003.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 342) to amend the Child 
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to make improvements to and reauthorize 
programs under that Act, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________



### m 98-60375

_______________ 

### HOCINE DAHOU,

Petitioner,

VERSUS



### IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

_________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A-74-674-574)

_________________________ November 3, 1999

Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hocine Dahou petition s for review of an

o rder of the Board of Immigration Appeals finding him ineligible for asylum. We deny the
pe t ition, concluding that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s finding, affirmed by the Board, that Da ho u had failed

to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Algeria. In the main, Dahou showed, at best, that there is general unrest in Algeria and that cond itions there have worsened since he left there, but he did not establish a particularized possibility of violence to, or persecution of, himself.

The petition for review is DENIED, and the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant t o 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion sho uld not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
[913 NYS2d 866]

#### In the Matter of Jeffrey M. Khaner et al., Respondents, v Gordon Gavin, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 17, 2010

*2APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*George S. Locker,*New York City, for appellant. *Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman LLP,*New York City, for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment, entered on or about March 7, 2010, affirmed, with $25 costs.

We reject tenant’s contention that a prior holdover proceeding commenced by one of the other owners of the premises to recover the subject apartment for that other owner’s personal use constitutes a bar to this proceeding *(see Michel v Chumbley,*NYLJ, Mar. 17, 1986, at 14, col 5 [App Term, 1st Dept]). Moreover, the dismissal of an owner-occupancy holdover summary proceeding on the merits does not preclude a subsequent proceeding where, as here, there has been a change in circumstances *(see Monacelli v Farrington,*NYLJ, Apr. 10, 1996, at 25, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept], *affd*240 AD2d 296 [1997]). We note that tenant does not contest Civil Court’s factual finding that landlord Kucera intended in good faith to recover the apartment for personal use as his primary residence.

Schoenfeld, J.P, Shulman and Hunter, Jr., JJ., concur.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


   The subsidiaries of the Company at October 3, 1998 were:



      Name of Subsidiary                                    State or Other Jurisdiction                       Percentage
                                                            in which Organized                                of Ownership

<S>                                                             <C>                                          <C> 
           AI/FOCS, Inc.                                                   State of Delaware                  100%
           Aero-Motive Company                                             State of Michigan                  100%
           Aero-Motive (U.K.) Limited                                         United Kingdom                  100%
               Woodhead France S.A.R.L.                                               France                  100%
                     Elitec S.A.                                                      France                  100%
           Central Rubber Company                                          State of Illinois                  100%
           Daniel Woodhead Company                                         State of Delaware                  100%
           H. F. Vogel GmbH Electrotechnische Fabrik                                 Germany                  100%
           mPm S.r.l.                                                                  Italy                  100%
              mPm Elettronica S.r.l                                                    Italy                  100%
              mPm Handels GmbH                                                       Germany                  100%
              E.L. Sind S.r.l.                                                         Italy                   70%
           Woodhead Asia Pte. Ltd.                                                 Singapore                  100%
           Woodhead Canada Limited                                   Province of Nova Scotia                  100%
           Woodhead de Mexico S.A. de C.V.                                            Mexico                  100%
           Woodhead Finance Company                                  Province of Nova Scotia                  100%
           Woodhead Industries (The Netherlands) B.V.                        The Netherlands                  100%
              Akapp Electro Industrie B.V.                                   The Netherlands                  100%
           Woodhead Japan Corporation                                                  Japan                  100%
           W.I.S. Corp.                                                  U.S. Virgin Islands                  100%.

</TABLE>

                                       21
<PAGE>
Offer Letter between the Registrant and Max Mayer



 Exhibit 10.25 
 April 20, 2004 
 Mr. Max Mayer 
 Dear Max, 

Pegasystems is pleased to offer you the position of Vice President, Corporate Development, reporting directly to Henry Ancona, President and COO, in our Cambridge
office. Your starting salary for this position will be paid semi-monthly at a rate of $8,433.34 at the annualized rate of $200,000 per year. As you know, you will also be eligible to participate in our corporate incentive plan. The details of this
plan will be outlined during your first week of employment. 
 In the event that you are terminated from Pegasystems within the first two years of
employment, for reasons other than cause or resignation, you will receive a severance package equaling six months of your base salary. 
 In addition, you
will be granted an option to purchase 80,000 shares of Pegasystems’ common stock pursuant to our Long-Term Incentive Plan. These terms, which become effective on your date of hire, will be conveyed to you in a separate document after you become
a Pegasystems employee. 
 You will have the option to elect individual or family coverage in our medical and/or dental plans. In addition, we offer a
tuition reimbursement program, a 401 (k) plan, and child care reimbursement accounts, which enable you to pay for dependent childcare expenses with pre-tax dollars. The company will also provide you with short-term disability, long-term disability,
and life insurance coverage. You will accrue paid time off in accordance with Pegasystems’ Paid Time Off Policy. This includes 15 of vacation per year along with 10 paid Holidays plus 1 paid P per year. Your vacation and holidays are prorated
during your first year of employment. A summary of these benefits is included for your convenience. 
 This offer of employment is not a contract, and
Pegasystems reserves its rights as an employer at will. Thus, either you or Pegasystems may terminate employment at anytime. As we discussed, we would like you to begin working as a Pegasystems employee on a basis on May 1, 2004. At that time, we
will expect you to sign our Standards letter, as well as provide us with proper employment authorization. Please note that as a requirement to work in the United States, you must complete the Employment Eligibility Verification (1-9) form and bring
with you the required supporting documentation (i.e. drivers license and social security card; U.S. passport; appropriate work visa, etc.). Also, we would appreciate a written response no later than April 26, 2004. Please send or fax (617-494-5581)
your response to our Cambridge office, my attention. 
 We are all delighted that you are joining Pega, and are very excited at the prospect of working
together! 
 Sincerely, 
 /s/ Carmelina Procaccini 

Carmelina Procaccini 
 Vice President, Human Resources 
 I accept the terms of this offer letter and will begin work at Pegasystems on May 1, 2004. 
  

			
		
	/s/ Max Mayer	 	April 26, 2004
		
	Max Mayer	 	Date
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 34

Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 

House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. CALVERT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION

Designating majority membership on certain standing 

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and 

2 are hereby, elected to the following standing committee of 

3 the House of Representatives: 

4 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION: Mr. 

5 Ehlers, Mr. Mica, Mr. Linder, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Rey6 nolds.

Æ