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

The undersigned  hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive  Officer of
Belmar Capital Fund LLC (the "Fund"), that:

     (a)  the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10-K for the year ended December
          31,  2002 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
          Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (b)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  the  results  of
          operations of the Fund for such period.


Dated:  March 26, 2003



                                         /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                         -----------------------
                                         Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                         Chief Executive Officer
The indictment shows appellant’s name as Daniel Villa. During a pretrial hearing 1

appellant informed the court his true name is Danny Villa and the trial judge stated the style

of the case would be in the corrected name. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.08

(Vernon 1989). 

NO. 07-06-0270-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JULY 19, 2007

______________________________

DANNY VILLA, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 137 DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; TH

NO. 2006-412699; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL, HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Danny Villa appeals his convictions for the felony offense of driving while 1

intoxicated and punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at life imprisonment.

We abate and remand this cause to the trial court for appointment of new counsel.
2

Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which she

represents she has searched the record and, in her professional opinion, under the

controlling authorities and facts of the case there is no reversible error or legitimate

grounds for appeal. Counsel has informed appellant by letter of his right to review the trial

record and to file a pro se response. Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645

(Tex.App.–Waco 1994, pet. ref'd). By letter this court also notified appellant of his

opportunity to submit a response to the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by his

counsel. Appellant has filed a pro se response raising four issues he believes show the

appeal has merit. The State has filed a brief addressing the issues in appellant’s

response.

Having reviewed the record and attempted to address the matters discussed in

appointed counsel’s Anders brief, appellant’s pro se response and the State’s brief, we find

that we cannot do so without addressing the merits of those matters. Accordingly, we must

conclude that arguable grounds for appeal exist. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (discussing choices available to court of appeals faced with

Anders brief and pro se response). 

To ensure appellant’s right to counsel, we grant appellant’s present counsel’s

motion to withdraw, abate the appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court for

appointment of new counsel. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827; Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We direct the trial court to appoint new counsel
3

to represent appellant on appeal. The trial court shall furnish the name, address,

telephone number, and state bar number of new counsel to the clerk of this court

immediately after the appointment is ordered. Appellant’s brief shall be due forty-five days

from the date of the trial court’s appointment of new counsel. All other appellate deadlines

shall be in accord with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Letter Agreement, executed December 23, 2003



 Exhibit 10.27 
  
 BSB Bancorp, Inc. 
  
 Randy J. Wiley 
 BSB Bank & Trust Company 
 58-68 Exchange Street 
 Binghamton, New York 
  
 Dear Randy: 
  
 This letter agreement is to confirm the additional agreements, arrangements and understandings relating to the payments that
you will become entitled to receive in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) by and between Partners Trust Financial Group, Inc., SBU Bank, Wicked Acquisition
Corporation, Partners Trust, MHC and BSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), dated December 23, 2003. The agreements, arrangement and understandings contained herein amend the Change of Control Severance Agreement between you, the Company and
BSB Bank & Trust Company, dated as of May 14, 2001 (the “COC Agreement”) and the Target Benefit Supplemental Retirement Benefit Agreement between BSB Bank & Trust Company and the Executive, dated as of October 30, 2003 (the
“SERP”). The commitments set forth in this letter agreement are subject to (i) the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and (ii) the limitations imposed on the Company pursuant to Section 4.01 of the
Disclosure Schedule to the Merger Agreement. To the extent the payments under Sections 1 and 2 of this letter agreement, when combined with the other payments to employees of the Company as permitted by Section 4.01 of the Disclosure Schedule,
exceed the limitation set forth in such Schedule, the payments under Sections 1 and 2 hereof shall be subject to reduction on a pro-rata basis. All terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning given to them in the Merger Agreement.

  
 1. COC Agreement Payment. Immediately
prior to the Closing Date, the Company shall make a lump sum cash payment to you equal to $619,493 in full satisfaction of the severance obligations under the COC Agreement. 
  
 2. SERP Payment. Immediately prior to the Closing Date, the Company shall make a lump sum cash
payment to the Executive in an amount equal to $604,933 in full satisfaction of the obligations under the SERP. 
  
 3. Section 280G Gross-Up Payment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the provisions of Section 6
(“Section 280G Gross-Up Payment”) of the COC Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, as if restated herein in its entirety, in the event that any payments or distributions to you or for your benefit, whether paid or payable
hereunder or otherwise, are determined (in accordance with the terms of such Section 6) to be subject to the excise tax imposed by Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The provisions of this Section 3 shall survive the
termination of the COC agreement. 
  
 Please sign below to
indicate your acknowledgment and acceptance of the agreements set forth herein. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Howard W. Sharp


	 Name: Howard W. Sharp

	 Title: Chief Executive Officer



  

			
	 Acknowledged and Accepted:

	
	 Randy J. Wiley

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Randy J. Wiley
### §§101 to 113. Repealed. Oct. 11, 1951, ch. 495, §5, 65 Stat. 407

Section 101, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 326, provided suggestion for ascertainment of risk of collision.

Section 102, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 326, related to sailing vessels approaching one another.

Section 103, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 326, related to steam vessels meeting end on.

Section 104, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 327, related to steam vessels crossing.

Section 105, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 327, related to steam and sailing vessels meeting.

Section 106, acts Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 327; May 28, 1894, ch. 83, 28 Stat. 83, provided that vessel having the right-of-way keep course.

Section 107, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 327, related to crossing ahead of vessel having right-of-way.

Section 108, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 327, related to duty of steam vessel to slacken speed.

Section 109, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 327, provided that overtaking vessel keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel, defined "overtaken vessel".

Section 110, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 327, related to steam vessel in narrow channel.

Section 111, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 327, related to right of way of fishing vessels or boats, and obstruction of fairways.

Section 112, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 327, related to special circumstances requiring departure from rules.

Section 113, act Aug. 19, 1890, ch. 802, §1, 26 Stat. 328, related to sound signals of steam vessel indicating course.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 1954, see note set out under sections 61 to 63 of this title.
Exhibit 32

The following certification accompanies and is furnished in connection with Firstwave Technologies, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004 and is not considered as
filed as provided in SEC Release Nos 33-8212, 34-47551 and IC-25967.

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

The undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Firstwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2004 (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.                                                                                                          

|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Richard T. Brock   
|                         |  | Richard T. Brock       
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                         |  |                        
|Dated: November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Judith A. Vitale   
|                         |  | Judith A. Vitale       
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Firstwave Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Firstwave Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### §89a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 89a was editorially reclassified as section 4559 of this title.
### §418. Provisions for protection of New York Harbor unaffected

Nothing contained in sections 401, 403, 404, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411 to 416, and 502 of this title shall be construed as repealing, modifying, or in any manner affecting the provisions of subchapter III of this chapter.

(Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 425, §20(a), formerly §20, 30 Stat. 1154; Feb. 20, 1900, ch. 23, §3, 31 Stat. 32; June 13, 1902, ch. 1079, §12, 32 Stat. 375; renumbered §20(a), Pub. L. 99–662, title IX, §939(b), Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4199.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subchapter III (§441 et seq.) of this chapter, referred to in text, was in the original a reference to the Act of June 29, 1888, as amended by section 3 of the river and harbor Act of August 18, 1894.

#### Codification

Section is from part of section 20(a) of act Mar. 3, 1899, popularly known as the "Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899". See Codification and Amendment notes set out under section 415 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel Guttin, Appellant.

*1024Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.13


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

2003
INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN

OF REALTY
INCOME CORPORATION


 


This Second Amendment
(“Amendment”) to The 2003 Incentive Award Plan of Realty Income Corporation
(the “Plan”) is made as of February 17, 2004 by Realty Income Corporation,
a Maryland corporation (the “Company”).


 


W I T N E S S E TH


 


WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors approved the Plan on March 12, 2003 and the Stockholders have
approved the Plan on May 6, 2003; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors approved amending Section 5.1 of the Plan on May 6, 2003; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has
determined that it is appropriate and in the best interests of the Company to
amend the Plan as set forth herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
recitals, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth herein:


 


1.                                       Capitalized
terms used herein which are not otherwise defined herein but are defined in the
Plan shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Plan.


 


2.                                       Section
11.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“11.2       Amendment, Suspension or Termination
of the Plan.  Except as otherwise
provided in this Section 11.2, the Plan may be wholly or partially amended or otherwise modified, suspended or terminated at any time
or from time to time by the Administrator (including, but not limited to, an
amendment to the number of shares that may be subject to future awards of
Restricted Stock pursuant to Section 7.3).  However, without approval of the Company’s stockholders given
within 12 months before or after the action by the Administrator, no action of
the Administrator may, except as provided in Section 11.3, increase the limits
imposed in Section 2.1 on the maximum number of shares which may be issued
under the Plan.  No amendment,
suspension or termination of the Plan shall, without the consent of the Holder,
alter or impair any rights or obligations under any Award theretofore granted
or awarded, unless the Award itself otherwise expressly so provides.  No Awards may be granted or awarded during
any period of suspension or after termination of the Plan, and in no event may
any Award be granted under the Plan after the first to occur of the following
events:


 


(a)                                  The expiration of 10 years from the date the
Plan is adopted by the Board; or


 


(b)                                 The
expiration of 10 years from the date the Plan is approved by the Company’s stockholders under Section 11.4.”
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

THOMAS GREGORY SMITH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30039

D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00224-JCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Thomas Gregory Smith appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon

revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

FILED

NOV 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30039

Smith contends that the district court erred by basing his sentence on the

violent nature of his revocation offense and criminal history, rather than on his

breach of trust. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the

violent nature of Smith’s conduct in connection with the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)

sentencing factors. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.

2007) (conduct underlying the revocation may be considered by the district court

in weighing the severity of the violator’s breach of trust). In light of the totality of

the circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors, the 24-month

consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 

 

 **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING **** 

 The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of 

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice 

Thomas J. Moyer. 

 Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's 

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. 

Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative 

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. 

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. 

 NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the 

full texts of the opinions after they have been released 

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised 

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West 

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. 

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume 

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound 

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. 

 

Smith, Appellant, v. Jordan, d.b.a. Lima Properties, Inc., et 

al., Appellees. 

[Cite as Smith v. Jordan (1994), Ohio St.3d .] 

Landlords and tenants--Landlord owes same duties to persons 

 lawfully upon leased premises as he owes to the 

 tenant--Application of R.C. 5321.04 to invited guests. 

(No. 94-2027--Submitted December 28, 1994--Decided December 30, 

1994.) 

 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. 

1-94-27. 

 

 Susan M. Lutz, for appellant. 

 Cory, Meredith, Witter, Roush & Cheney Co., L.P.A., and 

Donald J. Witter, for appellee Craig A. Jordan. 

 Ulmer & Berne, Richard D. Sweebe and Roberto H. Rodriguez, 

Jr., for appellee Miner O. Dickason. 

 

 The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the 

cause is remanded to the court of appeals to consider Shump v. 

First Continental-Robinwood Assoc. (1994), Ohio St.3d , 

N.E.2d . 

 Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. 

Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00128 -CV In re Bruce Wayne Houser ORIG IN A L PR OC E E D IN GFR OM T R A V IS C OU N T Y ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus a nd motion for e merg ency

relief are denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and He nson Filed: June 15, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,594
<SECURITIES>                                    11,096
<RECEIVABLES>                                      412
<ALLOWANCES>                                        51
<INVENTORY>                                        151
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,569
<PP&E>                                           1,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                     705
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,681
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,452
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,747)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,393
<SALES>                                            424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   424
<CGS>                                              752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      752
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,894
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-04-052 September 28, 2004

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC CITES OCONEE NUCLEAR PLANT FOR INSPECTION FINDING

OF LOW TO MODERATE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that Duke Energy’s fire response

procedures at the Oconee nuclear power plant, located near Seneca, S.C., were not consistent with the

plant’s licensing basis for manning of the Standby Shutdown Facility. 

The Standby Shutdown Facility provides alternative controls for some of the plant’s systems

should those functions be lost in the main control room. The NRC found that in some scenarios there

may be a delay in the transfer of control to the alternate facility and resulting problems meeting NRC

fire protection regulations.

The NRC evaluates commercial nuclear power plants with a color-coded process which

classifies inspection findings as either green, white, yellow or red, in order of increasing safety

significance. The NRC staff’s preliminary assessment concluded that the Oconee finding was greater

than green, or greater than very low safety significance, because it could affect fire protection defense

in depth. After a September 13th meeting with Duke Energy in Atlanta and further review, the NRC

staff classified the finding as white (low to moderate safety significance) and issued a violation. The

inspection finding does not represent a current safety concern because Duke has modified plant

procedures to address the issue. 

 

Additional details are available from the NRC Region II public affairs office or through the

agency’s document management system at www.nrc.gov./reading-rm/adams.html . Help in using that

system is available through the NRC Public Document Room at 301-415-4737 or 1-800-397-4209.

###