alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Consortium Service
Management Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March
31,  2003  (the  "Report"), I, Gordon W. Allison, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certify  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 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); 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/  Gordon  W.  Allison
Dated:  May  14,  2003                   ------------------------
                                         Gordon  W.  Allison
                                         Chief  Financial  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-Q  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.

















                                                                    Exhibit 99.2
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
exv10wd






EXHIBIT 10(d)




SUMMARY OF BASE SALARY AND ANNUAL INCENTIVE

COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS




     2011 Base Salary. On February 15, 2011, the Compensation and Management Development Committee
(the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors of The Sherwin-Williams Company
(“Sherwin-Williams”) set the 2011 base salaries of the executive officers who were named in the
Summary Compensation Table of Sherwin-Williams’ 2010 Proxy Statement and who are expected to be
named in the Summary Compensation Table of Sherwin-Williams’ 2011 Proxy Statement (the “Named
Executive Officers”). The base salaries of the Named Executive Officers for 2011 are as follows:
C.M. Connor, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ($1,221,987); J.G. Morikis, President and Chief
Operating Officer ($779,220); S.P. Hennessy, Senior Vice President — Finance and Chief Financial
Officer ($587,704); S.J. Oberfeld, Senior Vice President — Corporate Planning and Development
($536,354); and T. W. Seitz, Senior Vice President — Strategic Excellence Initiatives ($495,482).



     Annual Incentive Compensation to Be Earned in 2011. The Compensation Committee also approved
the following minimum, target and maximum cash bonus award levels, as a percent of salary, for the
Named Executive Officers for 2011 under The Sherwin-Williams Company 2007 Executive Performance
Bonus Plan.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Incentive Award as a Percentage of Base Salary	 
	Named Executive Officer	 	Minimum	 	 	Target	 	 	Maximum	 
	C.M. Connor
	 	 	0	 	 	 	105	 	 	 	210	 
	J.G. Morikis
	 	 	0	 	 	 	75	 	 	 	150	 
	S.P. Hennessy
	 	 	0	 	 	 	75	 	 	 	150	 
	S.J. Oberfeld
	 	 	0	 	 	 	60	 	 	 	120	 
	T.W. Seitz
	 	 	0	 	 	 	60	 	 	 	120
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 15, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51383

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT G. HART,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH HAIRSTON; KARL THOMAS, Major; JIMMY D. CRAIG,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-01-CV-151

--------------------

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court has certified that the captioned appeal

has not been taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and FED. R. APP. P. 24(a), and that Texas prisoner

Robert G. Hart (# 769108) should not be allowed to proceed

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. Hart has filed a motion to

proceed IFP on appeal, a pleading which this court construes as a

motion challenging the district court’s certification decision. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
No. 03-51383

-2-

Hart avers that his case presents exceptional circumstances

because he is indigent, has no legal training, and is hindered

from investigating his case due to his incarceration in a maximum

security prison. Hart has raised legal points that are arguable

on their merits. Thus, Hart’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is

GRANTED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

However, the denial of Hart’s motion for appointment of

counsel is AFFIRMED as he has not shown exceptional circumstances

warranting the granting of such a motion. See Ulmer v.

Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

IFP GRANTED; AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2  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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Luxottica Group S.p.A. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Massimo Vian, Chief Executive Officer  Product and Operations of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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/ MASSIMO VIANMassimo VianChief Executive Officer   for Product and Operations  Dated: April 28, 2017  This written statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Salvatore CUOMO, Plaintiff, v. CITIES SERVICE OIL CO., Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Nov. 1, 1957.

*150David A. Goldner, New York City, Irving A. Thau, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Hill, Betts & Nash, New York City, for defendant.

LEVET, District Judge.

Motion to amend answer is denied.

The proposed Fifth Defense relating to the acceptance of a disability award, pursuant to the Workmen’s Com pensation Law of the State of New Jersey, is not a defense to this action since defendant is not an employer of plaintiff. See Title 34, N.J.S.A., Sec. 34:15-40.

 Neither is the proposed Sixth Defense, raising a two-year New Jersey statute of limitations, N.J.S.A. 34:15-41 a bar to this action. The statute of limitations of the forum governs. Since plaintiff is a resident of New York, Section 13 of the Civil Practice Act of the State of New York (the so-called “borrowing statute”) does not remit him to the New Jersey two-year statute. Hence, Section 49(b) of the Civil Practice Act, a three-year statute, controls here.

 Where proposed amendments to an answer definitely present no defense, allowance of such amendments is futile.

> “Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’ The word ‘freely’ was used with deliberate intention to obviate technical restrictions on amendment. Moore, Federal Practice, p. 806. But, this does not mean that leave to amend is to be granted without limit; otherwise, the right to amend would be absolute and not rest in the discretion of the court. * * *” Friedman v. Transamerica Corporation, D.C.D.Del.1946, 5 F.R.D. 115, 116.

It is a matter within the court's discretion to consider and pass upon the sufficiency of an amended pleading on motion to file. Peterson Steels, Inc., v. Seidmon, 7 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 193. The court has discretion to refuse an amendment to the answer which seeks to raise a defense which is clearly insufficient. Stephens v. Reed, 3 Cir., 1941, 121 F.2d 696; Snyder v. Dravo Corp., D.C.W.D. Penn.1947, 6 F.R.D. 546, 553.

So ordered.
**Exhibit 23.3****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**     Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNos.  333-110207, 333-146108 and33-81976 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement Nos. 333-143554 and 333-141919 on Form S-8 of ourreport dated February 15, 2008, relating to the financial statements of LDH Energy Mont BelvieuL.P. (formerly Mont Belvieu Storage Partners, L.P.), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPHouston, Texas
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,832
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          19,729
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    114,683
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          30,707
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            30,160
<LOANS>                                        194,494
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,628)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 373,430
<DEPOSITS>                                     227,918
<SHORT-TERM>                                    33,200
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,573
<LONG-TERM>                                     82,987
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,327
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 373,430
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,989
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,059
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   143
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,191
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,407
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,441
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,750
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       66
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,145
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,145
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       696
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.67
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,072
<LOANS-PAST>                                         5
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   384
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,570
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       11
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,628
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               914
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            714
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 13.2  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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Luxottica Group S.p.A. (the Company) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Enrico Cavatorta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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/ ENRICO CAVATORTAEnrico CavatortaChief Financial OfficerDated: April 28, 2011  This written statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2846 

To amend the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 

of 2007 to provide immunity for reporting and responding to suspicious 

transactions, activities, and occurrences that involve a vessel, facility, 

port, or waterway, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. RIGELL (for himself, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, and Mr. LONG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/ 

11 Commission Act of 2007 to provide immunity for 

reporting and responding to suspicious transactions, activities, and occurrences that involve a vessel, facility, 

port, or waterway, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Suspected Maritime 

5 Activities Reporting of Terrorism Immunity Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SMART Immunity Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2846 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING AND RESPONDING TO 

2 SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS, ETC. INVOLV3 ING A VESSEL, FACILITY, PORT, OR WATER4 WAY. 

5 Section 1206(d)(2) of the Implementing Rec6 ommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 

7 U.S.C. 1104(d)(2)) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘directed against a passenger 

9 transportation system’’ and inserting the following: 

10 ‘‘directed against— 

11 ‘‘(1) a passenger transportation system—’’; 

12 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and 

13 (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), and moving them 2 ems 

14 to the right; 

15 (3) by striking the period at the end and insert16 ing ‘‘; or’’; and 

17 (4) by adding at the end the following new sub18 paragraph: 

19 ‘‘(B) a vessel, facility (as that term is de20 fined in section 70101 of title 46, United States 

21 Code), port, or waterway, whether or not a pas22 senger is threatened, indicating that an indi23 vidual may be engaging, or preparing to en24 gage, in a violation of law relating to— 

25 ‘‘(i) a threat to a vessel, facility (as so 

26 defined), port, or waterway; or 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2846 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) an act of terrorism (as that term 

2 is defined in section 3077 of title 18, 

3 United States Code) against a vessel, facil4 ity, port, or waterway.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors
and/or officers of TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC (the "Company"),
a Delaware limited liability company, acting in its capacity as general partner
of TEPPCO Partners, L.P., and TE Products Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership,
each a Delaware limited partnership (collectively, "Partnership"), does hereby
appoint CHARLES H. LEONARD, BARRY R. PEARL, and JAMES C. RUTH, and each of them,
his true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things, and
execute any and all instruments which, with the advise and consent of Counsel,
said attorney and agent may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Company
and Partnership to comply with the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and any
rules, regulations, and requirements thereof, to sign his name as a director
and/or officer of the Company to the Form 10-K Report for TEPPCO Partners, L.P.
and for TE Products Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership, each for the year
ended December 31, 2002, and to any instrument or document filed as a part of,
or in accordance with, each said Form 10-K or amendment thereto; and the
undersigned do hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney and agent shall
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents this
21th day of March, 2003.


 /s/ MARK A. BORER                              /s/ MICHAEL J. BRADLEY
------------------------------                 ------------------------------
Mark A. Borer                                  Michael J. Bradley
Director                                       Director

 /s/ MILTON CARROLL                             /s/ DERRILL CODY
------------------------------                 ------------------------------
Milton Carroll                                 Derrill Cody
Director                                       Director

 /s/ JOHN P. DESBARRES                          /s/ JIM W. MOGG
------------------------------                 ------------------------------
John P. DesBarres                              Jim W. Mogg
Director                                       Chairman

 /s/ BARRY R. PEARL                             /s/ WILLIAM W. SLAUGHTER
------------------------------                 ------------------------------
Barry R. Pearl                                 William W. Slaughter
Director                                       Director

 /s/ R.A. WALKER                                /s/ CHARLES H. LEONARD
------------------------------                 ------------------------------
R.A. Walker                                    Charles H. Leonard
Director                                       Senior Vice President and
                                               Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert L. MERRIFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 84-4746

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 1, 1985.

Robert L. Merrifield, pro se.

George Phillips, U.S. Atty., James B. Tucker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before RUBIN, RANDALL and TATE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This belated effort to appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence in a criminal case must be dismissed because it was filed too late. Robert L. Merrifield was convicted upon a guilty plea of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and interstate transportation in aid of racketeering. On September 22, 1983, he was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment on the first count and five years probation and a $10,000 fine on the second count. Merrifield filed a timely motion to reduce his sentence, and this was denied in a judgment docketed April 26, 1984. Mer-rifield filed a notice of appeal from the September, 1983, judgment on November 8, 1984, more than six months after the ruling on the motion to reduce and more than thirteen months after the entry of the judgment that he purports to appeal.

Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) provides that a notice of appeal in a criminal case “shall be filed in the district court within 10 days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed.R.App.P. 26(b) expressly prohibits the court from enlarging “the time for filing a notice of appeal, *437____” Because the notice of appeal was filed well beyond the ten-day period, and because a timely notice of appeal “is a ‘prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction’ ” by this court,1 the appeal must be dismissed as untimely.2 The fact that Merrifield has been proceeding *pro se*since his sentencing “does not exempt [him] from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law,” such as the requirement of timely filing.3

Even if we were to treat Merrifield’s appeal as an appeal from the denial of his motion to reduce sentence, it still would be untimely. “Such a motion is a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution____ Accordingly, the ten-day limitation of Fed. R.App.P. 4(b) governs.”4

For these reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED.

1

. *United States v. Burns,*668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir.1982).

2

. *See also, United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 288, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960); *United States v. Schuchardt,*685 F.2d 901, 902 (4th Cir.1982) (per curiam); *United States v. Stolarz,*547 F.2d 108, 109-10 (9th Cir.1976), *cert. denied,*434 U.S. 851, 98 S.Ct. 162, 54 L.Ed.2d 119 (1977); *see generally,*9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 204.16 and 226.02[2] (2d ed. 1985).

3

. *Birl v. Estelle,*660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (citing *Faretta v. California,*422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525 n. 46, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 n. 46 (1975)).

4

. *United States v. Guiterrez,*556 F.2d 1217 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam).