alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

*            *I, Vincent C. Smith, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Quest Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quest Software, Inc. 

|  
By:

/s/    VINCENT C. SMITH

 
 
 
Name: 

**Vincent C. Smith**

 
Title: 

**Chief Executive Officer** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 10.5


 



		
10868 189th Street


Council Bluffs, IA 51503



Phone: 712-366-0392



Fax: 712-366-0394


Email: SIRE@SIREethanol.com






 










December 5, 2014







Bunge North America, Inc.


11720 Borman Drive


St. Louis, Missouri  63146


Attn: Vice President –Grain







RE:            SIRE – Bunge Agreements







Ladies and Gentlemen:







Today Bunge North America, Inc. (“Bunge”) and Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, Inc. (“SIRE”) are amending and restating a number of agreements.  As part of these transactions, Bunge and SIRE agree that the following two agreements are terminated effective December 31, 2014:







Corn Oil Agency Agreement dated November 12, 2010; and







Risk Management Services Agreement dated December 15, 2008.







In addition, Bunge is the holder of a certain Subordinated Term Loan Note dated as of June 23, 2014 in an original principal amount of $19,517,136.99 (“Note”).  Bunge has the right pursuant to the Note to convert the Note into units of membership interest in SIRE.  Bunge agrees that it waives it right to convert the Note into units.







SIRE thanks Bunge very much for the long relationship and the continued partnership with SIRE.







If you are in agreement with the matters set forth in this letter, please execute this letter in the space provided below.


 









Bunge North America, Inc.


December 5, 2014


Page 2




	 	
Very truly yours,  

	
	 	 	 	 	
	 	
SOUTHWEST IOWA RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC

	
	 	 	 	 	
	 	 	
By:

	
/s/ Brian T. Cahill

	
	 	 	 	
Name:  Brian T. Cahill

	
	 	 	 	
Title:  CEO and General Manager

	








	
ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

	 
	 		 
	
BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.

	 
	 		 
	
By: 

	/s/ John P. Gilsinn	 
	 		 
	
Name:   John P. Gilsinn

	 
	 		 
	
Title:     Vice President
#### Juanita Quintana, Respondent, v TCR, Tennis Club of Riverdale, Inc., Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 68]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J), entered March 20, 2013, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s sole argument on this appeal is that it is entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff failed or is unable to identify the precise cause of her slip and fall on a step in the women’s locker room at defendant’s facility. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden to establish entitlement to summary judgment on that ground. In any event, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether slipping on water caused her fall. Among other record evidence, when pressed by defendant’s counsel at *456her deposition, plaintiff expressly testified that she “slipped in water” on the step and saw water in the vicinity of the step after her fall, and in an affidavit stated that she had mentioned to defendant’s employees on several occasions prior to her accident that the locker room floor was slippery when wet.

Our decision in *Zanki v Cahill*(2 AD3d 197 [1st Dept 2003], *affd 2*NY3d 783 [2004]), relied upon by defendant, is distinguishable. In *Zanki,*the plaintiff testified that she never observed “ ‘anything on the stairs’ either before *or after*her accident .... The sole basis [she] offer[ed] for the inference that a dangerous [wet] condition existed on the stairwell . . . [was] her testimony that her sleeve (not any part of the stairwell itself) was wet ... at the end of her fall. . . . [She] offer[ed] nothing more than ‘speculation or guesswork’ to support her contention that the alleged recurring condition existed on the stairwell at the time of her accident, and also caused her accident” (2 AD3d at 198-199 [emphasis added and citations omitted]).

Moreover, defendant failed to establish a lack of constructive notice of the condition. The moving papers contain no indication of when the area was last inspected prior to the accident *(see Lorenzo v Plitt Theatres,*267 AD2d 54, 56 [1st Dept 1999]; *Yioves v T.J. Maxx, Inc.,*29 AD3d 572 [2d Dept 2006]; *compare Green v Gracie Muse Rest. Corp.,*105 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, ManzanetDaniels and Kapnick, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          28,487
<SECURITIES>                                     7,582
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,988
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,710
<PP&E>                                           9,180
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,864
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,786
<SALES>                                        110,684
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,684
<CGS>                                           58,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,331
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,731
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,731
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.81
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Robert B. Barnhill, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of TESSCO Technologies Incorporated (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




1.  The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended April 1, 2012 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




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










Date:
May 31, 2012
By:
/s/ Robert B. Barnhill, Jr.Robert B. Barnhill, Jr.








The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
**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 Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Edward H. Dickinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





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








/s/
                Edward H. DickinsonEdward
                H. Dickinson, Chief Financial
                Officer


May
      10,
      2006
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 Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Fallini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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




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










/s/  John FalliniJohn Fallini, Chief Financial Officer

August 6, 2010
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2853 

AN ACT 

To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the 

United States of America for use by the Federal Government. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2853 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘All-American Flag 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASE OF DOMESTICALLY 

5 MADE UNITED STATES FLAGS FOR USE BY 

6 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

7 Only such flags of the United States of America, re8 gardless of size, that are 100 percent manufactured in the 

9 United States, from articles, materials, or supplies 100 

10 percent of which are grown, produced, or manufactured 

11 in the United States, may be acquired for use by the Fed12 eral Government. 

13 SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO USE WORKERS AUTHORIZED TO 

14 WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. 

15 In carrying out section 2, the Federal Government 

16 may purchase flags only from a manufacturer that cer17 tifies that— 

18 (1) the manufacturer does not employ aliens 

19 who are not authorized to be employed in the United 

20 States; and 

21 (2) the manufacturer participates in the E22 Verify Program under section 401 of the Illegal Im23 migration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

24 of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note). 
3 

•HR 2853 EH

1 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 Section 2 shall apply to purchases of flags made on 

3 or after 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

4 Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 30 

(legislative day September 29), 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2853 

AN ACT 

To require the purchase of domestically made flags 

Federal Government. of the United States of America for use by the
Exhibit 4.9


 


PROMISSORY NOTE THIRD EXTENSION
AGREEMENT


 


	$90,000.00 	March 15,
    2018




 


This
Promissory Note Extension Agreement, hereinafter referred to as “Extension Agreement,” entered into this Fifteenth
day of March, 2018, by and between DERMAdoctor, LLC, a Missouri corporation (“Maker”), and Papillon Partners, Inc.,
a Missouri corporation, or its successors or assigns (“Holder”),


 


WHEREAS,
Maker and Holder have entered into a Promissory Note dated July 17, 2017 for the amount of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000),
hereinafter referred to as the “Note”. The Note is due and payable on a date that is Ninety (90) days from the original
date of the Note.


 


WHEREAS,
Maker and Holder have entered into an Extension Agreement dated October 9, 2017 for the amount of Nine Thousand
Dollars ($90,000), hereinafter referred to as the “Note”. The Note is due and payable on a day that is one
hundred eighty (180) days from the original date of the Note.


 


WHEREAS,
Maker and Holder have entered into a second Extension Agreement dated January 13, 2018 for the amount of Ninety Thousand Dollars
($90,000), hereinafter referred to as the “Note”. The Note is due and payable on a date that is two hundred forty-one
(241) days from the original date of the Note.


 


WHEREAS,
Maker and Holder desire to enter into this Third Extension Agreement in order to extend the date when all the outstanding principal
and accrued and unpaid interest is due and payable to three hundred and one (301) days from the original date of the Note.


 


NOW,
THERE ORE, it is duly agreed by both Maker and Holder to extend the due date of the Note to May 14, 2018.


 


All
other provision of the original Note shall prevail unless otherwise written.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Maker and Holder have duly executed this Extension Agreement, extending the due date of the Note
as of the day and year first written above.


 


	 	MAKER:
    
	 	 
	 	DERMAdoctor,
    LLC 
	 	 	 
	 	By:
    	/s/
    Jeff Kunin
	 	Name:
    	Jeff
    Kunin
	 	Title:
    	CEO
	 	 	 
	 	HOLDER:
	 	 
	 	Papillon
    Partners, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By:
    	/s/
    Audrey Kunin
	 	Name:
    	Audrey
    Kunin
	 	Title:
    	President
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


December 9, 2014


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Adelante REIT Growth & Income
Trust, Series 5


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Adelante REIT Growth & Income Trust, Series 5 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on December 8, 2014, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in
the Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-199603) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                              


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
Exhibit 32.2

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended December 31, 2008 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Dina L. Masi, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Integrated BioPharma, Inc.certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to her 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. |
|--|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of 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, as amended.                 A signed original of this written statement 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.                          Dated:     February 20, 2009                    By:/s/ Dina L. Masi                                                             Dina L. Masi

                                                                     Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President
#### Smith, trustee, *vs.*Frost.

A bill of exceptions recited the trial of a case, the making of a motion for new trial, and the grounds thereof, but did not state what was done with the motion. It concluded as follows:

“And now the counsel for the plaintiff, on this, the 20th day of September, in the year 1884, it being within-days from the ádjournment of said term of said court, and assigns error upon all the grounds of said motion, and tenders this, his bill of exceptions’’ :

*Held,*that the writ of error must be dismissed for want of a proper assignment of error in a final judgment of the court below.

Writ of'error dismissed.

March 11, 1885.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                         119,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,032,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                    85,370
<INVENTORY>                                  3,421,531
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,807,095
<PP&E>                                       1,193,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                 588,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,571,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,679,090
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,688,343
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,737,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,571,481
<SALES>                                     11,735,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,735,872
<CGS>                                        6,577,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,577,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               831,968
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                51,161
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,407
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                696,341
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            696,341
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   696,341
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 13, 2021

NO. 03-21-00326-CV

R. P. and M. J., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the decree of termination signed by the trial court on June 24, 2021. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the trial court’s decree of termination. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial

court’s decree of termination. Because appellants are indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
#### In the Matter of Morgan H. Administration for Children’s Services, Petitioner; Tamirra H., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Mia P. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Tamirra H., Respondent. Antonio P., Nonparty Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Antonio P., Appellant, v Tamirra H. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Tamirra H., Petitioner, v Antonio P. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding Nos. 4 and 5.)

[987 NYS2d 860]

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Olshansky, J.), dated January 3, 2013, as denied his motion for temporary custody of the subject child, Mia, in proceeding No. 2, placed that child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the next permanency hearing, and, in proceeding No. 3, adjourned the petition for final custody and awarded him only supervised visitation with the child Mia.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as placed the child Mia in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the next permanency hearing is dismissed as academic, without costs of disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the child Mia in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York until the next permanency hearing must be dismissed as academic, as the period of placement has already expired *(see Matter of Alexandria M. [Mattie M.],*108 AD3d 548, 548-549 [2013]; *Matter of Najad D. [Kiswana M.],*99 AD3d 707, 708 [2012]; *Matter of Niviya K. [Alfonzo M.],*89 AD3d 1027 [2011]).

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding him only supervised visitation with the child Mia. “The determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to Family Court’s sound discretion . . . and its findings, to which deference is to be accorded, will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound basis in the record” *(Matter of Lorraine D. v Widmack C.,*79 AD3d 745, 745-746 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *Matter of Smith v Roberts,*67 AD3d 688, 689 *998[2009] ). Here, the court’s determination that supervised visitation would be in the child’s best interests has a sound basis in the record *(Matter of Lorraine D. v Widmack C.,*79 AD3d 745 [2010]; *Matter of Smith v Roberts,*67 AD3d at 689).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.E, Chambers, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.