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 Quarterly Report of First Ipswich Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald
P. Gill, 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

      This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B)
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.


/s/ Donald P. Gill
------------------------------
Donald P. Gill
Chief Executive Officer

August 16, 2004
Order entered February 17, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00585 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B.H., A CHILD On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 10 - 13791 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellant Kala Dhrama’s February 12, 2015, unopposed motion for extension of time to file her reply brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant Kala Dhrama file her reply brief no later than March 27, 2015

. /s/ CRAIG STODDAR T JUSTICE
#### Cleveland Rolling-Mill Co. *v.*Texas & St. L. Ry. Co.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

April 27, 1885.)

Practice—Order to Furnish List of Stockholders—Bev. St. Mo. *j*737.

Where a creditor of a corporation, has obtained judgment and had execution issued against it, and the execution has been returned *nulla bona,*without any demand having been made upon the officer in charge of the company’s books, for a list of the names, places of residence, etc., of the stockholders liable for unpaid balances upon their stock, this court will not make a peremptory order on such officer to’ furnish such list.

At Law.

*Fisher & Rowell*and *Ira C. Terry,*for plaintiff.

*Phillips & Stewart,*for defendant.

*Dyer, Lee & Elies, Broadhead & Haeussler,*and *Boyle, Adams & MeKeighan,*for stockholders.

1

 Beported by Benj. F. Bex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

Treat, J.

On application of plaintiff for peremptory order on J. W. Paramore and A. C. Stewart, respectively president and secretary of defendant company, to furnish a list of the names, etc., of stockholders. It appears from the records in the case that no demand had been made by the marshal, holding the execution, for such list. There is a recital to that effect in the application of February 13th, last, for a rule on the respondents, but there is no return on record thereof. Since the argument on this motion and evidence submitted, a return of the execution *nulla bona*has been filed. The argument before the court proceeded to a large extent as if no such return had been made. It now appears that execution was duly issued; and indorsed thereon is a return of *nulla bona,*January 12th, last, not filed, however, until the twenty-fourth inst. 'By the statutes, it was necessary, as preliminary to the summary proceedings contemplated against stockholders, that execution should have issued, and an order of court had against the stockholders, respectively, etc.

Section 737, Rev. St. Mo., requires “the clerk or other officer having charge of the books of any corporation,' on demand of any officer *holding any execution*against the same, shall furnish the officer with the names,” etc. From the record, the officer holding the execution in this case never made the demand authorized upon either of the respondents. This proceeding is based upon the fact of such demand and refusal to comply therewith. As no such demand is shown, the rule must be discharged. The evidence sufficiently discloses that, under the requirements of law, custody of the stock-book is subject to the control and in charge, lawfully, of the respondents. Hence, if the demand had been made by the marshal when holding the execution, and they had failed or refused to comply therewith, a peremptory order against them would be granted.

*721As heretofore stated, the plaintiff had no right to institute these proceedings in the nature of a *mandamus*until a legal demand had been made by the marshal. The rule is discharged.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

April 28, 2014

d0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148441

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148441

COA: 310472

Barry CC: 11

- 100158

- FC

JASON LEE KEIPER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 12, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, becau se we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Filed 8/2/16 Marks v. Bucato, LLC CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

WALTER N. MARKS, INC.,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BUCATO, LLC,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B267019

 

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC584545)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

Rafael A. Ongkeko, Judge. Affirmed.

Duringer Law Group and Eric J. Bautista for Defendant and Appellant.

Cox, Castle & Nicholson and Perry D. Mocciaro for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________
2

Following the alleged nonpayment of rent on a lease by defendant and appellant 

Bucato, LLC (the tenant), plaintiff and respondent Walter N. Marks, Inc. (the landlord) 

filed an action for unlawful detainer against the tenant. After a court trial, judgment was 

entered in favor of the landlord. Specifically, the landlord was entitled to possession of 

the premises and monetary damages in the amount of $141,841.82. The tenant timely 

appealed.

On February 9, 2016, the landlord filed a motion for dismissal, as moot, of that 

portion of this appeal appealing from the termination of lease and award of possession of 

the subject premises in the underlying unlawful detainer action. No timely opposition 

was filed. On February 29, 2016, we granted the landlord’s motion; our order was filed 

March 3, 2016. According to our order, the only portion of the appeal currently pending 

is the award of damages.

On March 11, 2016, the tenant filed a “motion for order vacating court’s ruling on 

[the landlord’s] unopposed motion for partial dismissal of appeal and opposition to [the 

landlord’s] motion for partial dismissal of appeal.” The landlord opposed that motion. 

On March 28, 2016, we denied the tenant’s motion.

On April 1, 2016, the tenant filed its opening brief in this appeal. According to the 

tenant, the trial court’s entry of judgment for unlawful detainer in favor of the landlord is 

not supported by substantial evidence. Because the “Trial Record does not contain 

substantial evidence to support the Trial Court’s Judgment of unlawful detainer against 

the [tenant, . . .] the judgment for unpaid rent and holdover damages awarded in such 

judgment . . . should be overturned.” Because the tenant’s challenge to the damages 

award (the only pending issue on appeal) hinges on its challenge to the entire judgment, 

which, pursuant to our earlier order, has been dismissed, there is nothing for us to review.
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The landlord is entitled to costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

______________________________, Acting P. J.

ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

_______________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

_______________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT
Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Ziegler Companies, Inc. of
our report dated February 14, 2001, included in the 2000 Annual Report to
Shareholders of The Ziegler Companies, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8, No. 33-39543) of The Ziegler Companies, Inc. and related Prospectus
pertaining to The Ziegler Companies, Inc.'s 1989 Employees' Stock Purchase Plan,
in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-74636) of The Ziegler Companies,
Inc. and related Prospectus pertaining to The Ziegler Companies, Inc. 1993
Employees' Stock Incentive Plan and in the Registration Statement and related
Prospectus pertaining to certain plans of The Ziegler Companies, Inc. on Form S-
8 filed March 29, 2000 (Form S-8, No. 333-33476), of our report dated February
14, 2001, with respect to the financial statements of The Ziegler Companies,
Inc. incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2000.

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 26, 2001
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OSAR IO ANTON; M AYR A DOLOR

ES M AR TINEZ LEAL, Pe titione rs, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72070 Age n c y Nos. A075-653-149 A095-317-278 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. R osa rio Anton a

nd M ay ra Dolore s M artine z Le a l, na tive s a nd c itiz e ns of M e x ic o, pe tition for re vie wof the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of the ir m otion to re ope n re m o va l proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for a buse of disc re tion theB IA’ s de nia l of a m otion 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).to re ope n, N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we de ny the p e tition for re v i e w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing pe titione rs’ untim e ly m otion to re o pe n b a se d on c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions, whe

re pe titione rs’ m otion fa ile d to spe c ific a l ly

ide ntify any e vide nc e pre se nte d

to show tha

t c onditions in M e x ic o ha d in fa c t c ha

nge d from

the tim e of the ir initial re m o va l he aring. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c ); se e a l so N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 987 (re quiring tha

t e vide nc e of c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions “

be ‘ qua lita

tive ly diffe re nt’ from the e vide n c e pre s e nte d at the pre vious he aring” ) (c ita t ion omitte d). W e re

je c t pe titione rs’ c onte ntions tha

t the B IA a

pplie d the inc o rre c t le ga l sta nda rd and/or fa i le d to a de quate ly

re vie w the e vide nc e . Se eN a jmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 990-91 (B IA a de quate ly

c onside re d

e v ide nc e and suffic ie ntly announc e d its de c ision); se ealso Shooshtary

v . IN S , 39 F.3d 1049, 1051 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ [T] he pre c ise ne ss we re quire of the B oa

rd de pe nds upon the

pre c i se ne ss of theproof offe re d by the pe titione r.” ). Fina lly , we re je c t pe t itione rs’ c onte ntion tha t the B IA e rre d by fa iling to make a

finding re ga

rding whe the r pe titione rs a re m e m be rs of a pa rtic ula r soc i a l group. Se eN

ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 986 (B IA m ay

de ny a m o tion to re ope n on a ny of at le a st thre e se pa

rate grounds). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D. 2 1 2 - 7 2 0 7 0
#### Eileen Sanly et al., Appellants, v Marsha A. Nowak et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 808]

Memorandum: Plaintiffs, as limited by their brief, appeal from an order denying their motion for a protective order with respect to defendants’ demand for a second physical examina*1341tion of Eileen Sanly (plaintiff) and that part of their motion for a protective order with respect to defendants’ demand for a second deposition of plaintiff. Both of defendants’ demands for such discovery were made more than one year after the note of issue was filed. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from. “It is well established that, ‘absent special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances spelled out factually, the motion court lacks discretion to permit further discovery after the note of issue and statement of readiness have been filed’ ” *(Marks v Morrison,*275 AD2d 1027 [2000]; *see*22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; *Di Matteo v Grey,*280 AD2d 929, 930 [2001]), and defendants failed to establish that any such circumstances developed after the filing of the note of issue and statement of readiness *(see Lopez v Barrett T.B. Inc.,*38 AD3d 1308, 1310 [2007]; *Fuzak v Donohue,*23 AD3d 1022 [2005]; *Di Matteo,*280 AD2d at 930). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



We have issued our report dated April 25, 1997 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Greenbriar Corporation on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1996.  We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
Greenbriar Corporation on Form S-3 (File No. 33-64840) and Form S-8 (File No.
33-65856).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
----------------------
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Dallas, Texas
April 25, 1997
EX-10.5






Exhibit 10.5



Note: Certain information has been omitted from this exhibit and filed separately with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment in accordance
with Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The locations of these
omissions are indicated in the exhibit by the following markings: [**].




Pall Corporation

2200 Northern Blvd

East Hills, NY 11548




Attn: Mary Ann Bartlett




Dear Ms. Bartlett:



I am the holder of an option, granted on March 19, 2001 pursuant to the Company’s 1998 Stock Option
Plan, to purchase 9052 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $22.09.



Please take notice that I hereby exercise my option to purchase 9052 of such shares. I enclose my
check in the amount of $68,568.90 as partial payment of the shares hereby, which amount is computed
as follows:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Number of shares
	 	 	9052	 
	Option price per share
	 	$	22.09	 
	Total purchase price
	 	$	199,958.68	 
	Market value at close of previous day 5/25/05
	 	$	29.03	 
	Total Market Value
	 	$	262,779.55	 
	Good faith loan value
	 	$	131,389.78	 
	(not to exceed 50% of the market value)
	 	 	 	 
	Balanced paid herewith
	 	 	68,568.90	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Donald Stevens
 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ DONALD STEVENS
 	 
	 	Employee Signature 	 
	 	
ADDRESS [**] 	 



Social Security# [**]
|    |                        |
|----|------------------------|
| 3. | Payments to Executive. |

----

----

----

|    |                                           |
|----|-------------------------------------------|
| 4. | Release and Waiver of Claims by Executive |

----

|    |                           |
|----|---------------------------|
| 5. | Release of Unknown Claims |

|    |                                             |
|----|---------------------------------------------|
| 6. | Release and Waiver of Claims by the Company |

|    |                           |
|----|---------------------------|
| 7. | Executive Acknowledgments |

----

|    |                                                      |
|----|------------------------------------------------------|
| 8. | Effect of This Agreement on the Employment Agreement |

|    |                     |
|----|---------------------|
| 9. | Covenant Not to Sue |

|     |                       |
|-----|-----------------------|
| 10. | Company Non-Admission |

|     |                                                                                              |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 11. | Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure of Company Information; Nonsolicitation; Nondisparagement |

----

----

|     |                  |
|-----|------------------|
| 12. | Company Remedies |

|     |                                |
|-----|--------------------------------|
| 13. | Entire Agreement; Severability |

|     |                  |
|-----|------------------|
| 14. | Protected Rights |

|     |                                      |
|-----|--------------------------------------|
| 15. | Arbitration, Choice of Law and Venue |

|     |                                                 |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------|
| 16. | Amendment; Other Terms; No Waiver; Section 409A |

----

----

|     |                 |
|-----|-----------------|
| 18. | Second Release. |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of IntegraMed America, Inc. (the
     "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
     with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), I, Jay Higham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
     pursuant to 18 U.S.C. /s/ 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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/Jay Higham
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Jay Higham
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    November 14, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.0

                            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 Slippery Rock Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
William C. Sonntag, Chief Executive Officer, and Mark A. Volponi, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ William C. Sonntag                         /s/ Mark A. Volponi
----------------------------                   -----------------------------

Chief Executive Officer                        Chief Financial Officer



August 7, 2002
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8
Nos. 333-67527, 333-51607, 333-20673, 333-01789, 333-53802, 333-53804, 333-117249, and
333-130246) of Zale Corporation of our reports dated October 12, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Zale Corporation included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended July 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Zale Corporation filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Dallas,
Texas
October 12, 2010

---



QuickLinks
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3436 

To prevent proposed regulations relating to restrictions on liquidation of 

an interest with respect to estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer 

taxes from taking effect. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. FLAKE, and Mr. MORAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prevent proposed regulations relating to restrictions on 

liquidation of an interest with respect to estate, gift, 

and generation-skipping transfer taxes from taking effect. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Family Farms 

5 and Businesses Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3436 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROPOSED REGULATIONS RELATING TO RESTRIC2 TIONS ON LIQUIDATION OF AN INTEREST 

3 WITH RESPECT TO ESTATE, GIFT, AND GEN4 ERATION-SKIPPING TRANSFER TAXES PRE5 VENTED FROM TAKING EFFECT. 

6 The proposed regulations under section 2704 of the 

7 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 relating to restrictions on 

8 liquidation of an interest with respect to estate, gift, and 

9 generation-skipping transfer taxes, published on August 4, 

10 2016, in the Federal Register (81 Fed. Reg. 51413) shall 

11 have no force or effect. No Federal funds may be used 

12 to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce such pro13 posed regulations or any substantially similar regulations. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS