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

EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Le@P Technology, Inc. (the “Registrant”), on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 and 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 Registrant.





Date:  March 29, 2010
/s/ Timothy LincolnTimothy LincolnActing Principal Executive Officer





Date:  March 29, 2010
/s/ Mary ThomasMary ThomasActing Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350,
 AND
        EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)
 
 In
        connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Express Scripts,
        Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005, I, George Paz,
        President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
        of my
        knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) 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.
 
 
 
 BY: /s/
        George
        Paz
 George
        Paz
 President
        and
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 Express
        Scripts, Inc.
 
 Date:  July
        27,
        2005
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Express Scripts, Inc. and will be retained by Express Scripts, Inc. and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00524

- CR

Angela URRABAZO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR3361

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED, and appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

SIGNED June 3, 2015.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
#### ELLIS v. BROWNING S. S. CO.

No. 2215.

United States District Court W. D. New York.

Feb. 27, 1951.

*298Smith, Miller, Murphy & Roberts, Buffalo, N. Y., for Robert T. McLaughlin and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (James R. Ulah, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel).

Richards & Coffey, Buffalo, N. Y., for respondent (Fenton F. Harrison, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel).

BURKE, District Judge.

This is a suit in admiralty to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained on October 21, 1947, on the Steamer Fred L. Hewitt. The libellant demanded a jury trial under the provisions of Section 1873 of Title 28, U.S.C.A. That does n®t change it from a suit in admiralty. The respondent has issued a subpoena duces tecum directed to Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (not a party) to produce at an examination before trial of the said insurance company, through its claims manager, its employers’ compensation file concerning injuries sustained by the libellant in the accident pertinent to this suit, together with all records, statements of witnesses, photographs, and other data. This is a motion by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company to quash the subpoena.

There was no authority for issuing the subpoena. The respondent has proceeded under the provisions of Rule 45(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. That rule does not apply because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings in admiralty. Rule 81(a)(1). In admiralty only parties are amenable to orders in discovery proceedings, and then only on motion of a party showing good cause with notice to all other parties. Admiralty Rule 32, 28 U.S.C.A. The respondent has suggested .that this Court has the power to order discovery by one not a party under Admiralty Rule 44. The latitude allowed the District Courts under Rule 44 to regulate their practice is limited by the proviso in the rule that it shall not be inconsistent with the Admiralty Rules. However desirable it may seem that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should apply to proceedings in admiralty, it is beyond the function of the District Courts to accomplish the change. Cargo Carriers, Inc. v. Tug Prescott.1

Motion granted. The subpoena is quashed. It is hereby so ordered.

1

. No opinion for publication
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,982,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  529,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    117,199
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,874,506
<PP&E>                                       2,956,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,163,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          760,827
<BONDS>                                        213,814
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,888
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,986,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,163,783
<SALES>                                      1,034,488
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,114,371
<CGS>                                          626,607
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  626,607
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               443,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,886
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,250
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,205
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
<FN>
Accounts receivable are net of allowance of $144,000 at March 31, 1997.



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 21**

**NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC.**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

**NTS, TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, ACALIFORNIA CORP.(FORMERLY NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS,A  CALIFORNIACORP.)**

**ACTONENVIRONMENTAL TESTING CORPORATION, A MASSACHUSETTS CORP**.

**APPROVEDENGINEERING TESTING LABORATORIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP**.

**ETCR INC., A  CALIFORNIA CORP.**

**XXCAL, INC., A  CALIFORNIA CORP.**

**NATIONALQUALITY ASSURANCE**, INC., A  MASSACHUSETTSCORP. (50% OWNED)

**NTS EUROPE, GMBH**

**AETL TESTING, INC**. DBA NTS CALGARY

----
ID 

Union Calendar No. 194 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 501 

[Report No. 114–255] 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2015 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 501 RH

A BILL 

To make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights 

settlement in the State of New Mexico, and for other 

purposes. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 501 RH

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 ‘‘New Mexico Navajo 

5 Water Settlement Technical Corrections Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NAVAJO WATER SETTLEMENT. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 10302 of the Omnibus 

8 Public Land Management Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 407 

9 note; Public Law 111–11) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Arrellano’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘Arellano’’; and 

12 (2) in paragraph (27), by striking ‘‘75–185’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘75–184’’. 

14 (b) DELIVERY AND USE OF NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER

15 SUPPLY PROJECT WATER.—Section 10603(c)(2)(A) of 

16 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub17 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1385) is amended— 

18 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘Article III(c)’’ 

19 and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’; and 

20 (2) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ‘‘Article III(c)’’ 

21 and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’. 

22 (c) PROJECT CONTRACTS.—Section 10604(f)(1) of 

23 the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub24 lic Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1391) is amended by inserting 

25 ‘‘Project’’ before ‘‘water’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 501 RH

1 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

2 10609 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

3 2009 (Public Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1395) is amended— 

4 (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), 

5 by striking ‘‘construction or rehabilitation’’ each 

6 place it appears and inserting ‘‘planning, design, 

7 construction, rehabilitation,’’; 

8 (2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ‘‘2 percent’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘4 percent’’; and 

10 (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ‘‘4 percent’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘2 percent’’. 

12 (e) AGREEMENT.—Section 10701(e) of the Omnibus 

13 Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111– 

14 11; 123 Stat. 1400) is amended in paragraphs (2)(A), 

15 (2)(B), and (3)(A) by striking ‘‘and Contract’’ each place 

16 it appears. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 194 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 501 

[Report No. 114–255] 

A BILL 

To make technical corrections to the Navajo water 

and for other purposes. rights settlement in the State of New Mexico, 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JOHN
NUVEEN COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,881
<SECURITIES>                                    64,905
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               239,428
<PP&E>                                          47,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                (30,835)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 585,974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           45,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           387
<OTHER-SE>                                     365,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   585,974
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,587
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,329
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,223
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,106
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,106
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


Thomas Group, Inc.


5221 N. O’Connor
Boulevard, Suite 500


Irving, Texas 75039-3714


 


PRIVATE &
CONFIDENTIAL


 


March 3, 2009


 


Mr. Michael E. McGrath


One Hanover Place


16633 Dallas Parkway


Suite 280


Dallas, Texas  75001


 


Re:  Amendment to Terms and Conditions of
Employment


 


Dear Mr. McGrath:


 


This letter will evidence
the terms and conditions relating to an amendment of the letter agreement
entered into by Thomas Group, Inc. and you dated February 19, 2008
(the “Employment Letter”).


 


Amendments to  Employment Letter


 


The Employment Letter is
hereby amended so that Section 1(c) of the Employment Letter shall
read in its entirety as follows:


 


(c)           Time Commitment.  You shall devote at least 33% of
your business time and energy to your duties as Executive Chairman during the
period beginning on the Effective Date and ending on the second anniversary of
the Effective Date (the “Initial Period”). 
During successive annual periods, you shall devote at least 25% of your
business time and energy to your duties as Executive Chairman.


 


The Employment Letter is
hereby amended so that Section 1(d) of the Employment Letter shall
read in its entirety as follows:


 


(d)           Compensation.  Your
base salary for the Initial Period shall be $330,000 annually and your base
salary for successive annual periods shall be $250,000.  Your base salary shall be payable in
accordance with the Company’s standard payroll policies and subject to standard
withholdings and deductions.


 


Ratification


 


Except as amended or
modified by this letter, the Employment Letter is hereby ratified by each of
the parties hereto and shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with
its terms.


 


Counterparts


 


This letter may be executed
in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but
all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.


 

















 


If you agree that the
foregoing terms and conditions accurately evidence our agreement, please sign
and return this letter.


 


Very truly yours,


 


THOMAS GROUP, INC.


 


 


	
  By

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Earle Steinberg

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Earle Steinberg

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  President and Chief
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Michael E. McGrath

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Michael E. McGrath

  



 


2
Submitted. May 2,

remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed June 11, 2008

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*JOHNNY LEE SNYDER, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Union County Circuit Court

F13304, M13322

A133136 (Control), A133137

186 P3d 324

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Legal Services Division, and Louis R. Miles, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Sally L. Avera, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*441PER CURIAM

In these consolidated cases, defendant entered conditional guilty pleas to three counts of second-degree theft and a single count of first-degree burglary. On appeal, he challenges only the trial court’s imposition of compensatory fines payable to each of the three named victims, contending that the record does not support findings that they suffered economic damages as required by ORS 137.101 and ORS 137.103. The state concedes the error and, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the state and remand for resentencing.

At sentencing on defendant’s convictions, the parties agreed that all the stolen property was recovered by police and returned to the victims. Nonetheless, the trial court ordered compensatory fines on the ground that the victims suffered “psychological damage” from having had their homes invaded. Although we agree that such damage may have resulted from the crimes committed in this case, the statutes require that economic damages be suffered before compensatory fines may be imposed. *See State v. Donahue,*165 Or App 143, 145, 995 P2d 1202 (2000) (“[A] compensatory fine may be awarded only if the trial court finds that the victim has suffered pecuniary loss as a result of the defendant’s criminal activities.”). As the state concedes, “[g]iven the record in this case, the prerequisites to imposition of a compensatory fine set forth in *[Donahue]*are not met as the pecuniary damage component is unsatisfied.”

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of Zale Corporation, certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2011, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Zale Corporation at the dates and for the
periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other
purpose.

Date: September 20, 2011

By:

/s/ MATTHEW W. APPEL Matthew W. Appel Chief Administrative Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer of the registrant)


---



QuickLinks
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 

**- 1224** 

MICHELE P. PARKS
,

P laintiff

- Appell ant
,

v.

PETSMART
,

Defendant

- Appell ee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III
, Chief District Judge. ( 5 : 13

- cv

- 0 0777

- D )

Submitted : June 26 , 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mich ele P. Parks , Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Frederick Dimmick, ALLEN KOPET & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Michele P. Parks appeals the district court ’ s order

dismissing her complaint . We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Parks v. PetSmart , No. 5:13

- cv

00777

- D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2014) . We dispense with oral

argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before th is court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          57,545
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,322,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (574,733)
<INVENTORY>                                    703,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,840,462
<PP&E>                                      13,265,883
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,943,723)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,434,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,577,747
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        313
<COMMON>                                         6,727
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,356,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,434,020
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,877,420
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,521,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (129,495)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,868,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,382,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,382,777)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.68)


</TABLE>
#### NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. KING et al.

No. 3014.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

July 29, 1944.

Wm. H. Eckert and Smith, Buchanan & Ingersoll, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Griggs, Moreland & Blair, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Smith, Best & Horn, of Greens-burg, Pa., for-defendants.

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

This is an action in which the plaintiff seeks the cancellation and rescission of certain insurance policies issued by the plaintiff upon the life of one Charles F. King on the grounds that King’s answers in the applications for these policies were fraudulent.

We do not know of any practice which would require the plaintiff to file a more particular complaint, but the defendants may, under Rule 12(e) of the Rules-of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, move for a more definite statement, or a bill of particulars in which they shall point out the defects of the complaint, and the details desired.

 We have examined the complaint in this case, and we think it sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 12(e). In this case, the plaintiff has alleged the time *11place and content of the false representations involved in the applications for the insurance policies involved. The plaintiff sets forth the false representations involved as to the insured’s health, and specifications as to the questions asked in the applications. If other information is desired, the defendants may obtain it under Rule 33 providing for interrogatories. The rule to show cause granted in this case will be discharged.