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

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-QSB (continued)

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                            Rule 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Central
Bank Corporation (the "Corporation") that the Quarterly Report of the
Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Corporation as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial
statements included in such report.

Dated: November 12, 2003            By: /S/ DAVID A. WIDLAK
                                        --------------------
                                    David A. Widlak;
                                    Chairman of the Board and CEO
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated:  November 12, 2003           By: /S/ RAY T. COLONIUS
                                        --------------------
                                    Ray T. Colonius;
                                    Treasurer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

                                       30
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23

– 28 7 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONTANA, et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Defendants and Appellants. On appeal from the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County Cause No. ADV 2023

– 2 99 , the Honorable Mike Menahan, Presiding

**ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION** Upon consideration of

Appellants ’ unopposed mo tion for an e xtension of time, Appellant s are granted an extension of tim e to and including March 13, 2024 within which to prepare, serve, and file their reply brief in the above
- entitled matter. No further extensions will be granted. **ELECTRONICALLY DATED AND SIGNED BELOW**

Electronically signed by: Dirk Sandefur Justice, Montana Supreme Court February 9 2024

02/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0287
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1358

EDWARD C. DEDRICK,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOHN BERRY, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; 

JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the U.S. Army,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:07-cv-00429-WDQ)

Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward C. Dedrick, Appellant Pro Se. Neil R. White, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward C. Dedrick appeals the district court’s order 

denying his summary judgment motion and granting Defendants’ 

cross-motion for summary judgment on Dedrick’s action seeking 

review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s order denying his 

claim for disability retirement benefits under the Civil Service 

Reform Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. (West 2007 & Supp. 2011). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Dedrick

v. Berry, No. 1:07-cv-00429-WDQ (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2011). 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 21-0143

Jill Marie Lotter,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

State of Montana,

Respondent and Appellee.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is 

given an extension of time until October 8, 2021 to prepare, file and serve the 

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 9 2021

09/09/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0143
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2645 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the minimum 

loss ratio required of Medigap policies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2011 

Mr. STARK (for himself, Mr. WAXMAN, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 

and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase 

the minimum loss ratio required of Medigap policies. 

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 ‘‘Medigap Medical Loss 

5 Ratio Improvement Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2645 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN REQUIRED MEDIGAP LOSS RATIO. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1882(r)(1)(A) of the So3 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(r)(1)(A)) is amend4 ed— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘75 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘85 

6 percent’’; and 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘65 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘80 

8 percent’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 subsection (a) shall apply to policies for policy years begin11 ning on or after January 1, 2014. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001014372
<NAME> WAXMAN USA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             547
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,230)
<INVENTORY>                                     24,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,392
<PP&E>                                          15,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,362)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,756
<BONDS>                                         37,123
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,679
<SALES>                                         28,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,157
<CGS>                                           18,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   960
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,005
<INCOME-TAX>                                       815
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,128
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    115
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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 UltraGuard Water Systems Corp..
  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report")
  I, John R Gaetz, Vice President and Chief Financial 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 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 result of operations
        of the Company.

|Date: May 18, 2005 |                                           
|------------------ | ------------------------------------------
|                   |                                           
|                   | /s/ John R Gaetz                          
|                   | John R Gaetz                              
|                   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---
#### Joseph ROSENBERG, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 07-1630.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 25, 2008.

Robert M. Miller, Wunderlich & Associ-' ates, High Ridge, MO, for Appellant.

Richard Vannoy III, Attorney General’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, HANSEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Rosenberg, employed by the Missouri Department of Corrections (the Department) in a supervisory position as a Correctional Officer III, appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment to the Department in this Title VII retaliation action. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Rosenberg claimed that the Department suspended and transferred him to another facility in retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices. The undisputed facts indicate that Rosenberg escorted two female coworkers to Superintendent Don Roper’s office so that they could report their claims of sexual harassment by a male supervisor *933and that he sat silently through the meeting. He had no other involvement in the claims.

Having conducted a *de novo*review of the record, *see Hughes v. Stottlemyre,*506 F.3d 675, 678 (8th Cir.2007) (standard of review), we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Rosenberg failed to establish a *prima facie*case of retaliation under the opposition clause of § 2000e-3(a), *see Brower v. Runyon,*178 F.3d 1002, 1005 n. 3 (8th Cir.1999) (indicating that the opposition clause of § 2000e-3(a) would require a good faith belief by the plaintiff that the employer had actually engaged in a discriminatory practice); *Evans v. Kansas City, Mo. Sch. Dist.,*65 F.3d 98, 100 (8th Cir.1995) (“[Protected opposition [requires] a plaintiff [to] show a good faith reasonable belief that his employer engaged in a discriminatory employment practice.”), *cert. denied,*517 U.S. 1104, 116 S.Ct. 1319, 134 L.Ed.2d 472 (1996). The record includes no indication that Rosenberg believed the substance of the complaints and discloses that his only involvement was to escort the women to the office and to sit quietly during the meeting. We decline to address arguments Rosenberg raises for the first time on appeal regarding the participation clause. *See Stone v. Harry,*364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004); *Berg v. Norand Corp.,*169 F.3d 1140, 1145 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 872, 120 S.Ct. 174, 145 L.Ed.2d 147 (1999).

Because an extended opinion would have no precedential value and no error of law appears, we affirm the well-reasoned judgment of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00643-CV

JOSEPH GLASS AND HILDEGARD GLASS, Appellants

V.

MILES GILBERT D/B/A MG SHEET METAL WORKS, Appellee

Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 

1013437).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on May 28, 

2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the portion of the 

trial court’s judgment that granted summary judgment on the breach of contract and 

unjust enrichment claims. Accordingly, the Court reverses this portion of the trial 

court’s judgment.

The Court further holds that there was no reversible error in the remaining 

portions of the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the remaining 

portions of the trial court’s judgment.

The Court further remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The Court orders that appellate costs are assessed against each party incurring 

same. 

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered June 25, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown. Opinion delivered by Justice 

Bland.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 2, 2011

y0126 

# Order

February 2, 2011

141079(45)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141079 COA: 285662 Manistee CC: 07-003778-FC ANDREW BRIAN MORRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s July 26, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

Z AHRA 

### , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITS FORM
10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,533,029
<SECURITIES>                                 5,984,370
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,748,174
<PP&E>                                         268,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                 131,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,564,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          426,233
<BONDS>                                      2,300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,142
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,784,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,564,946
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               247,670
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  586,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,103,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,103,904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,103,904)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.1

    


    Description
of CEO Relocation Assistance Arrangement

    


    The
following is a description of Beacon Roofing Supply's relocation arrangement
with Paul Isabella, President & Chief Executive Office (CEO). The CEO
relocation arrangement provides for reimbursement of Mr. Isabella’s moving
expenses and reasonable and customary real estate transaction costs in
connection with his anticipated relocation to Herndon, VA from Houston,
TX.  In the meantime, Beacon Roofing Supply is providing an apartment
for Mr. Isabella in Herndon pending his relocation and covering his related
housing costs and commuting airfare costs from Houston, along with associated
gross-up income tax reimbursements.
#### Patricia Pasqua, Respondent, v Handels-En Productiemaatschappij De Schouw, B.V., Also Known as Handels-En Productiemaatschappij “De Schouw” B.V, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Submitted February 4, 2008;

decided March 18, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
Exhibit 32.2

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Philip L.
Jones, as Chief Operating Officer of Profile Technologies, Inc., hereby certify
that the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Profile
Technologies, Inc.


                                              /s/ Philip L. Jones
                                              -------------------
                                              Philip L. Jones,
                                              Chief Operating Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**TYREE CANTY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 44 EM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 6th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for** 

**Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **Pending Appointment of Counsel is** GRANTED

**.**

**Counsel has filed a motion for appointment of a new a ttorney in the common pleas** 

**court.** See Commonwealth v. Canty **, CP-51-CR-0003406-2009 (motion filed**

**3/23/2016). The 30-day filing period for an allocat ur petition shall commence upon** 

**disposition of that motion.**

**The Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to serve this order on the presiding common**

**pleas court judge and the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of** 

**Philadelphia County.**
FILE0 COURT OF'APPEALS DIY I STATE OF WASHINGTON 

### 2018SEP J7 AM 8:59

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON GILDARDO CRISOSTOMO VARGAS, ) an incapacitated person, by and ) DIVISION ONE through WILLIAM DUSSAULT,his ) Litigation Guardian ad Litem; LUCINA ) No. 76893-0-1 FLORES,an individual; and LUCINA ) FLORES as Guardian ad Litem for ) PATRICIA CRISOSTOMO FLORES, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION and ROSARIO CRISOSTOMO ) FLORES,minor children, ) ) Respondents, )

) v. ) ) RALPH'S CONCRETE PUMPING, ) INC., a Washington corporation, ) ) Petitioner, )

) INLAND WASHINGTON,LLC,a ) Washington limited liability company; ) INLAND GROUP P.S., LLC,a ) Washington limited liability company; ) and MILES SAND & GRAVEL ) COMPANY d/b/a CONCRETE ) NOR'WEST,a Washington ) corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) FILED: September 17, 2018

) DWYER,J.—A petition for discretionary review was filed by Ralph's Concrete Pumping, Inc. Although no issue presented for review warranted discretionary review,

our commissioner granted discretionary review because such review was granted in a companion case, No.76717-8-1.No. 76893-0-1/2

We have deemed review in No. 76717-8-Ito be improvidently granted and have dismissed that case. Accordingly,we deem review in this matter to be improvidently granted and also dismiss. This matter is remanded to the superior courtfor further proceedings, as if review had never been granted by this court in the first instance. Dismissed.

2
#### Roosevelt and another *against*Soulden and Smith. The Same *against*Vansantvoord.

In *bailable*process, the plaintiff cannot Sndantler¡h decia'reagatnst onfy.°f them

WRITS of *capias ad resp.,*containing clauses of *aa etiam,*. . . J . were issued, at the suit of the plamtms,in which the abovenamed defendants, and *Jonathan Turck*and *Abraham Turck,*were named defendants. The defendants, *Soulden, Smith,*and *Vantsantvoord,*put in special bail, and employed an attorney, who gave notice thereof to the plaintiffs’ attorney, who filed declarations against the defendants, *Soulden*and *Smith,*and the defendant *Vansantvoord,*separately, without naming the other defendants.

A motion was now made to set aside the declarations and all subsequent proceedings, for irregularity.

*Talcot,*for the defendants.

*P. A. Jay,*for the plaintiffs.

*Per Curiam.*

Where the writ does not require special bail, several persons may be named as defendants, and the plaintiff may declare, and proceed against any one of them, separately. The Court so decided in *Montgomery*v. Has*brouck, (3 Johns. Rep.*538.) Such, also, is the *English*practice, (1 *Tidds Pr.*80. 4 *Term Rep.*696, 697. note. 1 *Bos. Pull,*50. 5 *Bos. & Pull.*82. 5 *Term Rep.*722.) But in this case, the writs contained clauses of *ac etiam,*and the defendants were held to bail. The declarations and sub*45sequent proceedings must, therefore, be set aside, for irregularity, with costs. *(Rogers*v. *Rogers,*4 *Johns. Rep.*485.)

Motion granted.
### PD-0251-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 3/5/2015 11:45:43 AM Accepted 3/6/2015 3:11:20 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK