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 Williams Industries,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending July 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Frank E. Williams, III, the Chairman, President, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to and for purposes of 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.

September 24, 2003    By: /S/ Frank E. Williams, III
                         -------------------------------
                         Frank E. Williams, III
                         Chairman of the Board,
                         President,
                         Chief Executive Officer,
                         Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                                    
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998

<CASH>                                         380,034
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,698,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                   208,500
<INVENTORY>                                    10,870,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,867,197
<PP&E>                                         2,695,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                 236,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 31,965,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,913,864
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       47,965
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,004,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   31,965,953
<SALES>                                        11,745,977
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,745,977
<CGS>                                          8,054,509
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,054,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,381,616
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             47,326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,262,526
<INCOME-TAX>                                   530,261
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,309,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   732,265
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .14
        



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2285
GIEDAY BAHILU, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-363-095) Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, John D. Williams, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gieday Bahilu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its previous order denying her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board ’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Bahilu’s motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003) (setting forth standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Bahilu , No. A75-363-095 (B.I.A. Sept. 26, 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1

OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

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 Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jackson E. Reasor, President and 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:

(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.

Date:
August 11, 2010



/S/ JACKSON E.
REASORJackson E. ReasorPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal executive officer)




28
#### SUN VALLEY MFG. CO. v. MYLISH et al.

No. 3873.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 6, 1944.

Levinthal & Levinthal, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Caesar & Rivise, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

KALODNER, District Judge.

This is an action to enjoin defendants’ use of the trade-mark “Sun Valley” and a simulating label on men’s shirts and sportswear manufactured and sold by the defendants.

The complaint here alleges that the term “Sun Valley” and a design of a setting sun and a valley have been in use by the plaintiff as a trade-mark to distinguish their manufactured products — “men’s and women’s sportswear, including ski outfits, slacks, slack suits, riding habits and other sport clothes, etc.” The complaint further alleges that the defendants, with knowledge of plaintiff’s use of the tra'de-mark, “adopted and began using the name Sun Valley in connection with their manufacture and sale of men’s shirts and sportswear” and that defendants further “caused labels similar in name and design.” to the labels of the plaintiff, to be attached to their shirts and sportswear.

The defendants’ motion for a bill of particulars is based on their contention that the complaint has not set forth with sufficient detail plaintiff’s complete line of products and that, for example, the terms “men’s and women’s sportswear” are indefinite.

The motion must be denied.

The complaint here states a complete cause of action upon which relief may be granted. The cause of action is averred with sufficient definiteness to enable the defendants to prepare their responsive pleading and to prepare for trial as set forth in Rule 12(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Where a complaint is sufficient to enable the defendant to prepare the required responsive pleading and where it adequately states the issue which the defendant must meet at the trial, a motion for a bill of particulars must be denied.

Our experience since the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has demonstrated not only that “the office of the bill of particulars is fast becoming obsolete” as pointed out by Judge Kirkpatrick in United States v. Hartmann, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 477, 478, but that in view of the adequate discovery procedure available under the Rules, motions for bills of particulars should be abolished altogether. See Best Foods, Inc., et al. v. General Mills, Inc., D.C., 3 F.R.D. 275, and the excellent note on page 278 of that opinion by Judge Leahy.

An order may be submitted in accordance with this opinion.
Exhibit 31(b)**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Richard D. Rodekohr, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northwest Pipeline Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 28, 2006     By: /s/ Richard D. Rodekohr         Richard D. Rodekohr
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00787

- CV

Thor Motor Coach, Inc., Appellant

v.
Daniel Rothwell, Individually, and as Dependent Administrator of the

Estate of Mary Rothwell, Decedent, and for the Use and Benefit of All Surv iving Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Mary Cano Rothwell, Appellee s

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C

- 1

- PB

- 19

- 000881 , THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRE SIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Thor Motor Coach, I nc. ha s filed two notices of appeal
, and each

appeal has been assigned a s eparate appellate c ause number in th is Court. In each cause , appellant seeks to appeal from an order signed by the probate court on October 7, 2 019
, denying

appellant ’ s special appe ar ance

. 1 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a. Appellant has now filed an unopposed

motion requesting that we consolidate the records an d dismiss one of the appeals. We grant the

motion and dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

1 On September 24, 2 0 1 9, t he probate cou rt granted a motion to transfer venue filed by one of a ppellant ’ s co

- defend ant s , and s ubsequently, the cause was transferred to the district court in Burnet County

. See T ex . R. Civ. P. 86, 89. According to appellant, it was unsure in which trial court it should file its notice of appeal and, in an abundance of caution, filed a notice of appeal in each court. See Tex. R . App. P. 26.1

. The noti ce o f appeal filed in Bu r n et C ounty was
a ssigned cause number 03

- 19

- 00788

- CV in this Court
, and appellant may continue to p ursue its appeal in that c ause.2 ____________________ __ _______ _____ ________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant ’ s Motion

Filed: February 7, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,547
<ALLOWANCES>                                       132
<INVENTORY>                                      3,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,527
<PP&E>                                           2,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,814
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           360
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,552
<SALES>                                         14,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,374
<CGS>                                            9,392
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  30
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,004
<INCOME-TAX>                                       370
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                634
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350 In connection with
the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Le@P Technology, Inc. (the
Company) for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual
Report), I, Mary E. Thomas, Acting Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge and belief that the
Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 28, 2007
/s/ Mary E. ThomasMary E. ThomasActing Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-K") of
Wolohan Lumber Co. (the "Issuer").

         I, Edward J. Dean, Corporate Controller of the Issuer, certify that:

         (i)      the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

         (ii)     the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition, results of
                  operations and cash flows of the Issuer.

Dated: March 26, 2003

                                                Edward J. Dean
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Edward J. Dean
                                                Corporate Controller
                                                (Chief Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 21
                             SUBSIDIARIES OF ZENITH
 
    Set forth below are the names of certain subsidiaries of Zenith. Certain
subsidiaries, which considered in the aggregate would not constitute a
significant subsidiary, are omitted from the listing below.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                JURISDICTION OF
                  NAME                           ORGANIZATION
----------------------------------------  ---------------------------
<S>                                       <C>
Zenith Insurance Company                          California
CalFarm Insurance Company                         California
ZNAT Insurance Company                            California
CalFarm Insurance Agency                          California
Zenith Star Insurance Company                        Texas
Perma-Bilt, a Nevada Corporation                    Nevada
ZIC Lloyd's Underwriting Limited                    England
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 229 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 15, 2003.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1527) to amend title 49, United States Code to authorize 
appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal years 
2003 through 2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered as read. During consideration 
of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 
has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 
 GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY 
 GUARANTEED INCOME STEP-UP ENDORSEMENT 

 
 This endorsement amends the GROUP GUARANTEED INCOME
CONTRACT AND CERTIFICATE to which it is attached. 
 This endorsement is effective [January 1, 2008]. 
 The following provision is added to ARTICLE IV – FUNDING PHASE – CHANGES IN WITHDRAWAL GUARANTEE: 
 Step-up of Guaranteed Income 
 If the Certificate Owner has not taken
any Withdrawals, the Withdrawal Guarantee may increase on each Birthday. 
 If the Withdrawal Guarantee would otherwise be lower, the new Withdrawal
Guarantee will be the sum over all Additions subject to Account Limit of: (a) multiplied by (b), where: 

	 	(a)	is (i) multiplied by (ii), where; 


	 	(i)	is the Addition; and 


	 	(ii)	is 1 plus the daily step-up factor multiplied by number of days since the Addition was made. 


	 	(b)	is the Withdrawal Guaranteed Factor in effect on the Certificate Date for the Attained Age. 

 For Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, 
 /s/ Pamela S. Schutz 
 President
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 52 

To close the loophole that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to obtain credit cards 

from United States banks that financed their terrorist activities, to 

ensure that illegal immigrants cannot obtain credit cards to evade United 

States immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To close the loophole that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to 

obtain credit cards from United States banks that financed their terrorist activities, to ensure that illegal 

immigrants cannot obtain credit cards to evade United 

States immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VERIFICATION OF IDENTITY FOR NON-UNITED 

4 STATES PERSONS OPENING BANK ACCOUNTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5318(l) of title 31, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 52 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through 

2 (6) as paragraphs (4) through (7), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(3) RESTRICTIONS ON VERIFYING IDENTITY.— 

6 ‘‘(A) CUSTOMER INFORMATION.—For the 

7 purpose of verifying the identity of an indi8 vidual who is a non-United States person seek9 ing to open an account in accordance with the 

10 regulations issued under this section, a financial 

11 institution may only accept— 

12 ‘‘(i) a social security number; 

13 ‘‘(ii) a passport number and the coun14 try of issuance; 

15 ‘‘(iii) an alien identification card num16 ber; or 

17 ‘‘(iv) any combination of items de18 scribed in clauses (i) through (iii). 

19 ‘‘(B) CUSTOMER VERIFICATION THROUGH

20 DOCUMENTS.—For the purpose of verifying the 

21 identity of an individual who is a non-United 

22 States person seeking to open an account in ac23 cordance with regulations issued under this sec24 tion, a financial institution may not accept 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 52 IS

1 identification documents issued by a foreign 

2 government, other than an unexpired passport. 

3 ‘‘(C) DEFINITION.—As used in this para4 graph, the term ‘non-United States person’ 

5 means any individual that is not a citizen or na6 tional of the United States, as defined in sec7 tion 101 of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1101).’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 5318(l)(6) 

10 of title 31, United States Code, as redesignated by this 

11 section, is amended by striking ‘‘(4)’’ and inserting ‘‘(5)’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS