alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

                          Certification of CEO and CFO
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Crystallex International
Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31,
2006, as filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gordon
Thompson, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and
Daniel E. Hamilton, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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
Registrant.


/S/ GORDON THOMPSON
-------------------
Name:    Gordon Thompson
Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
Date:    March 30, 2007


/S/ DANIEL E. HAMILTON
----------------------
Name:    Daniel E. Hamilton
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:    March 30, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 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 Registrant for purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6714
In Re: ELTRENTROSE F. LIVERMAN, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-922-2) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eltrentrose F. Liverman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Eltrentrose F. Liverman has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to rule on his successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). “[C]ourts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Ford Motor Co. , 751 F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir. 1984). In seeking mandamus relief, Liverman carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief sought and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We find that Liverman has failed to meet this burden and thus we deny the petition. We deny Liverman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>   1

                       IRVINE APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------

                                  Exhibit 23.2

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc. of our reports dated January 30, 1998
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and related financial
statement schedule of Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc., included in the
December 31, 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders of Irvine Apartment
Communities, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated January
30, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and related
financial statement schedule of Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc., in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the Irvine Apartment
Communities, Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan for Directors, in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc.
1993 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, and in the Registration
Statement (Form S-3) pertaining to the Irvine Apartment Communities, Inc.
registration of $350,000,000 of Debt Securities, Preferred Stock, Common Stock
and Warrants.


                                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP
                                             -----------------------------------


Newport Beach, California
March 27, 1998
**Exhibit 10.20.2**

 

**Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement Renewal and Extension Acknowledgment between Quaker City Bank and Elizabeth A. Conrado dated July 1, 2003.**

 

**QUAKER CITY BANK**

**CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT**

**RENEWAL AND EXTENSIONACKNOWLEDGMENT**

 

Name of Participant:    Elizabeth A. Conrado

 

The undersigned participant does hereby acknowledge that, at their regularly scheduledmeeting on June 19, 2003, the Board of Directors of Quaker City Bank acted to renew and extend the Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement with the undersigned participant to a full twenty-four (24) month term, until June 30, 2005. 

 

Datedthis            1st            dayof            July            ,A.D.,            2003            .
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                           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 Southeast Acquisitions II, L P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the period ending March 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissions on the date hereof I,
Richard W. Sorenson, the principal executive officer of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

         (1)      The report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) of 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
                  operation of the Partnership.



/s/ Richard W. Sorenson
----------------------------
Richard W. Sorenson

Richard W. Sorenson
Principal Executive Officer & Member
Southern Management Group, LLC
March 24, 2003
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 01026

- CV
ENSIGN SERVICES, LLC (F/K/A FE SERVICES, L.L.C.), FE SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC. AND J AMES STEWART , Appellant s

V.

MARC JAN LEVESCONTE , Appellee
Appeal from the 3 33rd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2009

- 04966 ).

After due consideration, the Court grants appellants Ensign Services, LLC (F/K/A FE Services, L.L.C.), FE Services H oldings, Inc. and James Stewart and appellee Marc
Jan Levesconte’s joint motion to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that the appellants, Ensign Services, LLC (F/K/A FE Services, L.L.C.), FE Services Holdin gs, Inc. and James Stewart, jointly and severally, pay one half of the appellate costs. The Court orders that the appellee, Marc Jan Levesconte, pay one half of the appellate costs.

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

Judgment rendered October 8 , 2015.Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices

Bland and Huddle.
[Exhibit 10.35]



Amendment to the Employment Agreement dated September 30, 1994 by and among Brookstone, Inc.,

Brookstone Company, Inc. and Michael F. Anthony.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:



Section 5. Severance. b shall be changed from 12 months after the termination of the Employment Period, to 24 months after the termination of the Employment Period,



All other provisions of the Agreement not expressly modified herein shall
remain unchanged.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this Amendment as of the date last written below.



BROOKSTONE, INC.By:Its:Date:BROOKSTONE COMPANY, INC.By:Its:Date:Michael F. Anthony

Date




17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
These numbers pertain 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                     1,172
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             60,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          61,891
<PP&E>                                 1,242,864
<DEPRECIATION>                            44,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,259,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     89,776
<BONDS>                                  474,609
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                     276
<OTHER-SE>                               695,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           1,259,800
<SALES>                                  157,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         160,570
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             78,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           1,247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        18,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           62,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       62,416
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              62,416
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               2.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                               2.31
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                                                                      (Pinedale)

                       SECOND AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT

          This Second Amendment to Loan Agreement is effective as of July 1,
2006, by and between DIVERSICARE PINEDALE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (together with its successors and assigns, the "Borrower"), and CAPMARK
FINANCE INC., a California corporation, formerly known as GMAC Commercial
Mortgage Corporation, a California corporation (together with its successors and
assigns, the "Lender").

                                    RECITALS:

          A. Borrower and the Lender entered that certain Loan Agreement dated
March 29, 2001, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Loan Agreement
dated April 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"). Unless otherwise defined in this Second
Amendment, capitalized terms shall have the meaning given to them in the
Agreement.

          B. The Borrower and the Lender desire to amend the Agreement and have
agreed to execute this Second Amendment to evidence such modification.

                                    AGREEMENT

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals, the Borrower
and the Lender hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

          1. Paragraph 1.1, "Maturity Date" is hereby amended by changing the
date to "September 1, 2006".

          Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms.

            [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


                                       1

<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and the Lender have caused this
Second Amendment to be properly executed by their respective duly authorized
officers as of the date first above written.

                                        DIVERSICARE PINEDALE, LLC, a Delaware
                                        limited liability company

                                        By: Diversicare Leasing Corp., a
                                            Tennessee corporation

                                        Its: Sole Member


                                        By: /s/ Glynn Riddle
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Glynn Riddle,
                                            Chief Financial Officer


                                        CAPMARK FINANCE INC., a California
                                        corporation, formerly known as GMAC
                                        Commercial Mortgage Corporation, a
                                        California corporation


                                        By /s/ Laura Y. McDonald
                                           -------------------------------------
                                        Its: Senior Vice President


                                       2
942 A.2d 897

#### BOROUGH OF YOUNGWOOD, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA PREVAILING WAGE APPEALS BOARD, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 29, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of February, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and the Joint Petition for Expedited Decision on Review are GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

> 1. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in affirming the decision of the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Appeals Board, which held that [Petitioner’s] 2005 Street Resurfacing Projeet[,] which included milling and road resurfacing, constituted alteration and not maintenance, and was therefore subject to the payment of prevailing minimum wages under the Act?

> 2. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in finding that [Petitioner] was not justified in relying upon a memorandum of understanding, promulgated by and between two state agencies, namely the Department of Labor and Industry (“DLI”) and its Bureau of Labor Law Compliance (the “Bureau”) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”), and not withdrawn in writing until after the Project was completed, to determine that the 2005 Street Resurfacing Project was a maintenance project, and not a repair project?

> 8. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in determining that the partial milling and repaving of certain *267public streets, or sections thereof, is repair work, rather than maintenance work, and is therefore subject to prevailing wage requirements, even when the size, type and extent of the roadways was not altered thereby?

This matter shall be scheduled for argument at the April 14-18, 2008 Argument Session of this Court in Philadelphia, PA. The Prothonotary’s Office is directed to establish an expedited briefing schedule.
#### Steven D. PERCELLE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Alan ROSENTHAL, Dr.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-17170.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Steve D. Percelle, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Kay K. Yu, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*109MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Steven D. Percebe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Percebe did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to him while treating his neurological condition. *See id.*at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety, and a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

Percelle’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31.1

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Martha L. Long, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Investors IncomeProperties;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), for theregistrant and have: 

 

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reportingand the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordancewith generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
State $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 $8.00 Total

Alabama 14 1 1 16

Alaska 2 2

Arizona 46 33 1 1 81

Arkansas 24 4 1 13 19 2 3 66

California 794 5 70 14 168 42 1 18 1,112

Colorado 59 4 1 15 9 1 4 93

Connecticut 17 1 10 48 3 11 90

Delaware 15 1 4 20

Florida 57 2 3 19 5 1 87

Georgia 99 1 3 36 21 6 17 3 186

Hawaii 1 1

Idaho 255 2 7 5 34 41 5 10 1 360

Illinois 225 3 11 4 79 143 17 46 6 534

Indiana 273 7 8 3 57 78 4 16 8 454

Iowa 325 4 14 14 144 315 36 100 12 964

Kansas 96 2 2 5 28 45 1 14 3 196

Kentucky 165 1 7 4 80 86 7 41 3 394

Louisiana 41 2 1 10 14 3 7 1 79

Maine 99 3 2 3 10 62 4 6 189

Maryland 113 1 6 3 36 42 14 1 216

Massachusetts 19 1 3 9 34 12 33 1 112

Michigan 563 9 42 38 175 173 22 42 19 1,083

Minnesota 704 12 54 40 360 1,232 73 174 35 2,684

Mississippi 37 1 3 7 13 1 2 1 65

Missouri 123 3 16 10 98 228 31 103 13 625

Montana 28 6 8 8 1 51

Nebraska 72 4 4 30 38 3 3 2 156

Nevada 16 1 2 19

New Hampshire 13 12 24 5 15 69

New Jersey 17 1 6 15 3 1 2 45

New Mexico 73 6 1 51 3 1 135

New York 1,037 16 75 69 371 692 39 107 28 2,434

North Carolina 87 1 3 4 27 39 13 4 178

North Dakota 30 1 1 6 22 4 1 65

Ohio 607 2 31 22 131 170 15 54 4 1,036

Oklahoma 67 10 17 1 4 1 100

Oregon 111 1 5 3 10 20 1 8 159

Pennsylvania 902 12 84 53 380 570 33 111 20 2,165

Puerto Rico 32 2 3 4 1 42

Rhode Island 2 115 1 10

South Carolina 16 1 3 3 4 27

South Dakota 89 4 2 30 71 6 6 1 209

Tennessee 148 4 1 22 64 3 18 2 262

Texas 148 15 13 101 58 7 22 7 371

Utah 114 5 4 19 23 2 1 1 169

Vermont 207 1 15 7 83 203 18 54 588

Virginia 129 15 2 60 124 12 32 6 380

Washington 129 2 8 12 58 83 7 12 1 312

West Virginia 11 1 8 3 1 4 28

Wisconsin 2,635 47 198 147 973 1,544 118 294 69 6,025

Wyoming 21 1 4

Total 10,888 136 741 505 3,828 6,457 502 1,430 261 24,748

Table 2: Count of Dairy Operations by Coverage Level for 2015 Margin Protection Program (MPP)

January 12, 2023 *

*Note:  For coverage years 2014 and 2015, an automated system was not in place.  Data on this report reflects manual data that was compiled from FSA state

and county offices prior to implementation of the automated system in coverage year 2016.

Prepared by USDA/Farm Service Agency
JAMES PERRY TURNAGE, JR.

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4298

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Nassau County

. Robert M. Foster , Judge

.

James Perry Turnage, Jr.

, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermo tt, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.