alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

             CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         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 ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
10-Q  for  the  period  ending  April 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief
Executive  Officer  of  the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that,

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

2)   the  information  in  the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
     the  financial  condition  and  result  of  operations  of  the  Company.

By /s/ Arthur L. Smith
Arthur L. Smith
President and
Chief Executive Officer
June 14, 2004


<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jost Fischer, 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.



|                 |  |  |  |                        
|---------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|February 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ JOST FISCHER       
|                 |  |  |  | Jost Fischer           
|                 |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Sirona
Dental Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0232. SICAY-PERROW, KNIGHTEN & BOHAN, P.C. v. CARLA S.

JOHNSON.

The plaintiff, Carla S. Johnson, obtained a default judgment against the

defendant, Sicay-Perrow, Knighten & Bohan, P.C., and the trial court awarded

$789,000 in liquidated damages. The defendantsubsequently sought to set aside the

default judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d). The trial court denied the motion,

and the defendant filed this appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

An appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment under

OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) must be made by application for discretionary review. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Jim Ellis Atlanta, Inc. v. Adamson, 283 Ga. App. 116, 116

(640 SE2d 688) (2006). The defendant’s failure to file a discretionary application

thus deprives this Court of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 29, 2018

08/29/2018
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09 - 21 - 000 85 - CV

__________________ IN RE BARSH AUTO, LLC

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 2 84 th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19 - 0 9 - 12264 - CV

__________________________________________________________________ ORDER Barsh Auto, LLC , Relator, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator is an intervenor in Trial Cause Number 19

- 0 9

- 12264

- CV, Charles Rutland, et al. v. Britton Grissom

. Relator seeks a writ compellin g the Honorable Kristin Bays , Judge of the 2 84 th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, to vacate a February 5 , 202 1 order granting the D efendant’s M otion to E xclude U ndisclosed E vidence of D amages . See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221.2 Additionally, Re lator asks the Court to stay an impending hearing in the trial court that has been scheduled on the D efendant’s M otion to D ismiss for W ant of P rosecution before ruling on Relator’s petition

. The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to prevent undue prejudice. We ORDER the hearing in Trial Cause Number 19

- 09

- 12264

- CV on the Defendant’s M otion to D ismiss Relator’s claims for want of prosecution STAYED pending the outcome of this Court’s rul ing on Relator’s petition seeking a writ to require the trial court to withdraw the ruling it made granting Defendant’s Motion to Exclude. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). No bond is required of Relator as a condition for the relief we have granted by this Or der. We note, however, that Relator’s p etition refers to motions and to a hearing not yet filed as an appendix in this Court . It appears this information should be included in Relator’s appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 52 .3 (k). The Court directs Relator to f ile a supplemental appendix , which includes sworn cop ies of the docket sheet and all document s it refers to in its Petition that it claims are material to its argument claiming this Court should grant relief from the trial court’s order. Relator’s appendix should include an authenticated transcript of the testimony it claims is relevant to the claims in its petition, including any documents the parties offered in to evidence during the hearing on the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7.3 Relator’s supplemental appendix is due May 3, 2021. The response of the Real Part y in Interest, Britton Grissom, is due ten days after Relator files a supplemental appendix. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED. ORDER ENTERED April 22 , 2021. PER CURIAM
Before Kreger , Horton and Johnson, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2402 

To specify the priority of the obligations of the United States Government 

if the debt ceiling is reached. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2011 

Mr. WEBSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To specify the priority of the obligations of the United States 

Government if the debt ceiling is reached. 

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 ‘‘Prioritize Spending 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRIORITY OF PAYMENTS IF THE DEBT CEILING IS 

7 REACHED. 

8 In the event that the debt of the United States Gov9 ernment, as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United 

10 States Code, reaches the statutory limit, amounts necVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:43 Jul 01, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2402.IH H2402

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2402 IH

1 essary for obligations incurred by the Government of the 

2 United States shall be made available to the following obli3 gations before all other obligations and shall be made 

4 available as prioritized in the following order (with items 

5 listed in descending order of prioritization): 

6 (1) Amounts necessary to carry out the author7 ity of the Department of the Treasury provided in 

8 section 3123 of title 31, United States Code, to pay 

9 with legal tender the principal and interest on debt 

10 held by the public. 

11 (2) Such amounts as the Secretary of Defense 

12 (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case 

13 of the Coast Guard) determines to be necessary to 

14 continue to provide pay and allowances (without 

15 interruption) to members of the Army, Navy, Air 

16 Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including 

17 reserve components thereof, who perform active serv18 ice. 

19 (3) Such amounts as the President certifies to 

20 the Congress are necessary to carry out vital na21 tional security priorities. 

22 (4) Amounts necessary to carry out the author23 ity of the Commissioner of Social Security to pay 

24 monthly old-age, survivors’, and disability insurance 

25 benefits under title II of the Social Security Act. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2402 IH

1 (5) Amounts necessary to make payments 

2 under the Medicare program under title XVIII of 

3 the Social Security Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50779

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR FERNANDO RUBIO, also known as Omar G. Rubio,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CR-375-3

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Edgar Fernando Rubio appeals the 95-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1000

kilograms or more of marijuana. On appeal, Rubio asserts that the district court

erred by failing to grant him a two-level sentencing reduction based upon his

minor role in the offense. However, as the Government contends, the instant

appeal is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in Rubio’s plea agreement,

which was knowing, voluntary, and enforceable. See United States v. Robinson,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 8, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-50779 Document: 00511166829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2010
No. 09-50779

187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93

(5th Cir. 1994); FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(N).

In his opening brief, Rubio contends that the Government waived

enforcement of the waiver provision by failing to invoke it at the time he filed his

notice of appeal. He is incorrect. See United States v. Acquaye, 452 F.3d 380,

382 (5th Cir. 2006). Rubio preserves for possible Supreme Court review his

contention that waivers of the right to appeal a sentence are not knowing and

voluntary because they are entered before the defendant knows the rights he is

sacrificing. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992) (a

waiver provision is entered knowingly and voluntarily so long as the defendant

knew he had a right to appeal his sentence and gave up that right voluntarily).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-50779 Document: 00511166829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2010
Interim Decision #1193U

MATTER OF PIEDRA
In Adjustment of Status Proceedings

A-11884060-1 A-12831083

Decided by Regional Commissioner Arne 19, 1968

A native and citizen of Cuba who was last inspected and admitted to the united States on January 1, 1959 is ineligible for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident under section 1 of the Act of November 2, 1966, as the statute requires inspection and admission or parole subsequent to January 1, 1959.

DISCUSSION: These cases relating to a man and wife and their16-year-old son come forward by certification from the District Director, San Juan, Puerto Rico, who denied the applications on the basis that the applicants have not been inspected and admitted orparoled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959, as contemplated by the statute. The applicants are all natives and citizens of Cuba born in Havana. They last entered the United States on January 1, 1959 at which timethey were inspected and admitted into the United States as nonimmigrant visitors for one month. They were granted extensions of their temporary stay to the end of 1959. They failed to depart and all were granted an indefinite period of time within which to depart voluntarily from the United States. The pertinent part of the Act of November 2, 1966 states that : The status of any alien who is a native or citizen of Cuba and who has beeninspected and admitted or paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959 . . . may be adjusted . . . to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence ... (italic supplied). The sole question here is whether the applicants have in fact been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959. It is clear that the granting of extensions of stay
to

### them subsequentto January 1, 1N9 did not constitute the inspection and admission or parole into the United States contemplated by the statute, nor did the later grant of indefinite voluntary departure.

788

### The exact wording of the Act is specific, clear and unambiguous in requiring the alien to have "been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1, 1959." The meaning of the word "subsequent" is equally clear both in common usage and atlaw. Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth edition, and Webster's International Dictionary, unabridged, 2nd. edition, both define the word "subsequent" as meaning "following in time; coming or being later than something else." The applicants' arrival, inspection and 

### admission all on January 1, 

### 1959 cannot be construed as having occurred subsequent to January 1, 1959. They are, therefore, not eligible for adjustment of status and there is no alternative but to deny their applications. ORDER: The 

### decisions of the District Director, San Juan, Puerto Rico, are affirmed and the applications 

### are denied.

789
Summary of the Compensation of the Non-Employee Members of the Board



 Exhibit 10(c) 
 PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION 
 SUMMARY OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE
NON-EMPLOYEE MEMBERS 
 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Adopted August 11, 2010, effective October 1, 2010 

 

					
	 Annual retainer for Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee Chair:
	  	$	127,500	  
	 Annual retainer for Audit Committee Chair:
	  	$	117,500	  
	 Annual retainer for Human Resources and Compensation Committee Chair:
	  	$	112,500	  
	 Annual retainer for Finance Committee Chair:
	  	$	110,000	  
	 Annual retainer for non-chair committee members:
	  	$	102,500	  

 Meeting fees of $1,500 for attending
each Board of Directors or Committee meeting that exceeds the number of regularly-scheduled meetings of the Board or the relevant Committee in a fiscal year by more than two. 
 Annual restricted stock grant
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Sparber, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Lingle, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Thomas, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Rodriguez, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Ware, Appellant.

Submitted February 11, 2008;

decided February 14, 2008

Motion by Legal Aid Society of New York City for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeals herein granted. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
exhibit101.htm














 


Exhibit 10.1






 


SECOND AMENDMENT


TO


ADM SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN


(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)







The ADM Supplemental Retirement Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) is hereby amended effective January 1, 2009, in the following respects:







I.







Section 10.3 is amended to read as follows:








	
  

	
10.3

	
Right of Setoff.  ADM reserves the right to withhold and setoff from any payments to a Participant or Beneficiary under the Plan any amount owed to ADM or an Affiliate by the Participant, whether such obligation is matured or unmatured and however arising, at the time of (and with priority over) any such distribution or payment to the extent that the retention or exercise of such right does not have adverse tax consequences to the Participant or Beneficiary under Code § 409A (for clarity, this right of setoff is against amounts then due and payable under the Plan and is not intended to accelerate payment of any amount).  ADM further reserves the right to withhold and setoff from the Participant’s accrued Supplemental Pension (even if a payment is not then due and payable) any amount owed to ADM or an Affiliate by the Participant, as satisfaction of such obligation of the Participant, where such obligation is incurred in the ordinary course of the service relationship between the Participant and ADM or an Affiliate, the entire amount of reduction in any of ADM’s taxable years that does not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), and the reduction is made at the same time and in the same amount as the obligation otherwise would have been due and collected from the Participant.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Matter of the Marriage of Eugene Howell Sauls and Josephine Marie Worley

No. 06

- 20

- 00103

- CV Appeal from the 296th District Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 29 6

- 52296

- 202 0 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note tha t the appellant , Joseph ine Marie Worley, has adequately indicated her
inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Cle rk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations.”

# DATES:

OFAC's actions described in this notice took place on February 16, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site at                     *http://www.treasury.gov/​ofac.*

## Notice of OFAC Actions

On February 16, 2017, OFAC removed from the SDN List the persons listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13581.

### Individuals

1. SNYMAN, Estelle, Shannon Airport House, Shannon, County Clare, Ireland; DOB 01 Nov 1964 to 30 Nov 1964 (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: PACNET HOLDINGS LIMITED; Linked To: PACNET GROUP).

2. WEEKES, Brian, Attyterilla, Ballygriffey Road, Ruan, County Clare, Ireland; DOB 18 Feb 1963 (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: PACNET EUROPE; Linked To: PACNET GROUP).

Dated: February 16, 2017.

Andrea Gacki,

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

[FR Doc. 2017-19634 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135452 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135452 COA: 280583 Wayne CC: 06-008243 DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 29, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

l0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1



    Deloitte & Touche LLP
    333 Clay Street,
    Suite 2300
    Houston, Texas 77002

    May 12, 2004

    Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
    333 Clay Street, Suite 3600
    Houston, Texas 77002

    We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
    American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim
    financial information of Sterling Chemicals, Inc. and subsidiaries (the
    "Company") for the quarters ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in
    our report dated May 12, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we
    expressed no opinion on that information.

    We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
    Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, is
    incorporated by reference in the Company's Registration Statement No.
    333-105794 on Form S-8.

    We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
    under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
    Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
    prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and
    11 of that Act.


    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

    Houston, Texas