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



Exhibit 32.1
STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Anthony Spier, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Wells-Gardner Electronics
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004:  (1)
    Fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934;(2)
    That the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
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. Date: March 28, 2005
    By:
    /s/ ANTHONY SPIERAnthony SpierChairman, President &
Chief Executive Officer
No. 1134.

#### Minor *v.*Ragen, Warden.

May 13, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
Exhibit 21.1
     The Ziegler Companies 1998 10-K

                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                          THE ZIEGLER COMPANIES, INC.


B.C. Ziegler and Company
Ziegler Thrift Trading, Inc.
PMC International, Inc.
PMC Investment Services, Inc.
Portfolio Management Consultants, Inc.
Portfolio Technology Services, Inc.
PMC Brokerage Services, Inc.
Ziegler Financing Corporation
Ziegler Asset Management, Inc.
Ziegler Collateralized Securities, Inc.
First Church Financing Corporation
Ziegler Capital Company, LLC
WRR Environmental Services Company, Inc.
WRR Northwest Enterprises, Inc.
EXHIBIT
32.2


Certification
Of Chief Financial Officer 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 Frontier Oil Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael C.
Jennings, Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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/ Michael C.
Jennings


Michael
C. Jennings


Executive
Vice President –


Chief
Financial Officer





February
28, 2008
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

s0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144177

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144177

COA: 304578

Ingham CC: 03-000476-FC

DERRICK DWAYNE COLEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
No. 908.

#### Mario Mercado Riera, Executor, et al. *v.*Maria Luisa Mercado Riera De Belaval et al.

May 6, 1946.

*Fred W. Llewellyn*and *Pedro M. Porrata*for petitioners.

*José A. Poventud*and *F. Fernández Cuyar*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 1115.

#### Borrelli *v.*Illinois.

May 13, 1946.

*Wm. Scott Stewart*for petitioner.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 11, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D19-2252 Lower Tribunal No. 19-918

________________ 

### Rodolfo J. Salgado-Martinez, et al.,

Appellants,
vs. 

### SafePoint Insurance Company,

Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull and Veronica Diaz, Judges. Rodriguez Tramont & Núñez, P.A., and Andrew V. Tramont, Paul M. Núñez and Paulino A. Núñez, Jr., for appellants. Bickford & Chidnese, LLP and Patrick M. Chidnese (Tampa); Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and George A. Hooker, for appellee. Before LOGUE, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           627,375
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          654,901
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            654,561
<EQUITIES>                                      35,459
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 901,734
<CASH>                                          15,714
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             343,671
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           7,892
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,573,786
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                880,929
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             50,906
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 94,955
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,157
<OTHER-SE>                                     329,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,573,786
<PREMIUMS>                                     369,403
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             53,662
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               7,682
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  61,361
<BENEFITS>                                     360,172
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     65,266
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            80,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 83,067
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,967
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,100
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.15
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### THOMAS v. COUNCIL BLUFFS CANNING CO. et al. COLLINS v. SAME.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 6, 1903.)

Nos. 1,783, 1,784.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa.

Warren Switzler and Jacob Sims, for plaintiffs in error. John N. Baldwin and George S. Wright, for defendants in error.

Affirmed, with costs, without an opinion.
|EXHIBIT 21                              
|----------------------------------------
|                                        
|SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT          
|                                        
|Name of Company                         
|                                        
|Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company                 
|                                        
|Northwestern Flavors, Inc.              
|L. A. Dreyfus Company                   
|Four-Ten Corporation                    
|Amurol Confections Company              
|Wrigley Enterprises, Inc.               
|Wrigley Manufacturing Company, LLC      
|Wrigley Sales Company                   
|The Wrigley Company Pty. Limited        
|Wrigley Austria Ges.m.b.H.              
|Wrigley Bulgaria EOOD                   
|Wrigley Canada                          
|Wrigley (Cayman) Ltd.                   
|Wrigley Taiwan Limited                  
|Wrigley Croatia d.o.o.                  
|Wrigley s.r.o.                          
|The Wrigley Company Limited             
|Wrigley France SNC                      
|Wrigley GmbH                            
|Wrigley B.V.                            
|Wrigley Europe B.V.                     
|Wrigley Asia, Limited                   
|The Wrigley Company (H.K.) Limited      
|Wrigley Hungaria, Kft.                  
|Wrigley India Private Limited           
|Wrigley Israel Ltd.                     
|Wrigley & Company Ltd., Japan           
|The Wrigley Company (E.A.) Ltd.         
|The Wrigley Company (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
|The Wrigley Company (N.Z.) Limited      
|Wrigley Philippines, Inc.               
|Wrigley Poland Sp. zo.o                 
|Wrigley Romania Produse Zaharoase SRL   
|OOO Wrigley                             
|Wrigley Slovakia, s.r.o.                
|Wrigley d.o.o.                          
|Wrigley Co., S.A.                       
|Wrigley Scandinavian AB                 
|Wrigley Middle East FZCo.               
|Wrigley Ukraine, TzoV                   
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|NOTE:
Written Description of Oral Agreement - Pypo Beijing and Beijing Ruizhi Jiye



 Exhibit 10.63 
 Written description of oral agreement between Beijing Pypo Technology Group Company 
 Limited and
Beijing Ruizhi Jiye Investment Co., Ltd. 
 In December 2007, Beijing Pypo Technology Group Company Limited, or Pypo Beijing, received
cash advances of approximately $12.8 million from Beijing Ruizhi Jiye Investment Co., Ltd., a company controlled by Mr. Kuo Zhang. These advances were unsecured, interest-free obligations. Pypo Beijing obtained these advances to meet its
short-term working capital requirements. Pypo Beijing repaid this loan in March 2008.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated May 14, 1999 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of York Research Corporation
and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 1999. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of York Research on Forms S-3 (File No. 33-36056, effective August
16, 1990; File No. 33-73616, effective November 2, 1994; File No. 33-89418,
effective February 22, 1995; File No. 33-90654, effective April 6, 1995; File
No. 333-10035, effective August 29, 1996; and File No. 333-14151, effective
October 24, 1996) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-63730, effective June 3, 1993;
File No. 33-67616, effective August 20, 1993; File No. 33-75850, effective
March 2, 1994; File No. 33-74730, effective July 2, 1994; and File
No. 333-11781, effective September 11, 1996).


GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New York
May 14, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 403 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 403

  To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic 
Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 
   connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 5, 2015

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Franken, Mr. Sanders, Ms. 
Stabenow, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Peters) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic 
Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 
   connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North Country National Scenic Trail 
Route Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. ROUTE ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
1244(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
            (1) by striking ``thirty two hundred miles, extending from 
        eastern New York State'' and inserting ``4,600 miles, extending 
        from the Appalachian Trail in Vermont''; and
            (2) by striking ``Proposed North Country Trail'' and all 
        that follows through ``June 1975.'' and inserting ```North 
        Country National Scenic Trail, Authorized Route' dated February 
        2014, and numbered 649/116870.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

         Re: The John Nuveen Company

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") of The John Nuveen Company (the "Company") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

                  (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                  (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


Dated as of this 13th day of August 2002.



                                 /s/  Timothy R. Schwertfeger
                                 --------------------------------------------
                                 Timothy R. Schwertfeger
                                 Chief Executive Officer




                                 /s/  Margaret E. Wilson
                                 --------------------------------------------
                                 Margaret E. Wilson
                                 Senior Vice President, Finance
                                 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. v. ALLIED CHEMICAL ALKALI WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 1, et al.

Civ. A. No. 27958.

United States District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D.

June 5, 1951.

Thos. E. Lipscomb, Cleveland, Ohio, Brouse, McDowell, May, Bierce & Wort-man, Akron, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Smoot & Riemer and Mortimer Riemer, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action to recover damages for an alleged breach by defendants of a collective bargaining agreement between the parties. It arises out of a work stoppage which occurred at plaintiff’s limestone mine from January 10, 1951 to January 27, 1951. Plaintiff charges defendants with participation in, and encouragement of, this work stoppage in violation of Article 30, Sections 1 and 2, of the agreement.

In preparation for trial, plaintiff has been taking the depositions of various persons who participated in the work stoppage. Defendants now move the court for an order terminating, or in the alternative, limiting the scope of, further examination of witnesses by plaintiff on the ground that the examination is being conducted “in bad faith and in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass and oppress the defendants”.

The record of this examination to date makes it clear that plaintiff has gone far enough in its present line of inquiry. Twenty-three witnesses have been examined, and their testimony comprises over one thousand pages. This lengthy examination has been both an expense to and burden upon defendant union and the witnesses. Also, at times the examination has gone too far afield. Plaintiff has inquired into details of alleged grievances against the Company, and into the activities of the witnesses on a so-called “picket line”, without connecting up these matters with possible issues in the action.

Although the witnesses, members of defendant union, have been reluctant to testify, plaintiff has gained a disclosure of the information necessary to prepare its case. A continuation of the present line of inquiry can be only repetitious. Defendants are entitled to an order under Fed. *519Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 30(b), 28 U.S.C.A. limiting the taking of further depositions in this action.

Plaintiff may take the depositions of the officers of defendant union who have been named individual defendants in the complaint. It is ordered that the examination otherwise be terminated.

Motion granted.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

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



|Date:   August 31, 2006 | Signed:    /s/ Donald M. Boone    
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------
|                        | Donald M. Boone, President and CEO
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6184

MELVIN CHERRY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID GARRAGHTY, Warden of the Greensville Correctional Center; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-171) Submitted: May 14, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Cherry, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; George Maralan Kelley, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Melvin Cherry, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. SeeCherry v. Garraghty , No. CA-02-171 (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2003). 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.

DISMISSED
#### JENNINGS v. FANTI.

Civ. A. No. 3873.

United States District Court M. D. Pennsylvania.

May 10, 1951.

See also, 96 F.Supp. 264.

William J. Oliver, R. Carl Griffith, Scranton, Pa., for plaintiff.

Ivo V. Giannini, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for defendant.

WATSON, Chief Judge.

This is an action by Emerson P. Jennings, Plaintiff, to recover damages for goods and equipment stored with the De*549fendant .by the Plaintiff under an alleged bailment contract. Before answering, Defendant filed a motion for a more definite complaint under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., and that motion is now before the Court for disposition.

Motions filed under Rule 12(e) o'f the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be granted only where their object is to amplify pleadings which are so insufficient that a responsive pleading cannot be filed thereto. Pearson v. Hershey Creamery Co., D.C.M.D.Pa.1939, 30 F.Supp. 82, 83.

The complaint filed in this action is sufficiently definite to enable the Defendant to frame an answer. If the Defendant desires any 'further particulars in order to prepare for trial, he must look to other provisions of the Federal Rules of .-Civil Procedure which provide for the obtaining of such details.

An appropriate order denying Defendant’s motion for a more definite complaint will be filed forthwith.