alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



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 on Form 10-Q of Triad Hospitals, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Shelton, Chief Executive 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:



(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/ JAMES D. SHELTON   
|James D. Shelton       
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 6, 2005            



This certification
shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 18 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 18

 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation of the month 
           of November as ``National Military Family Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Inouye) submitted the following resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation of the month 
           of November as ``National Military Family Month''.

Whereas military families, through their sacrifices and their dedication to the 
        United States and its values, represent the bedrock upon which the 
        United States was founded and upon which the country continues to rely 
        in these perilous and challenging times: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) it is the sense of the Senate that the month of 
        November should be designated as ``National Military Family 
        Month''; and
            (2) the Senate encourages the people of the United States 
        to observe ``National Military Family Month'' with appropriate 
        ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
NUMBER 13-19-00261-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF S.T., A JUVENILE

On appeal from the County Court 

of Victoria County, Texas.

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Currently pending before the Court is appellant's motion for pro se access to the 

appellate record. Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief herein and appellant has 

been unable to examine the record so that he can file a pro se brief. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial court ensure that appellant and 

his mother have the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or before October 

15, 2019, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court notify this Court as to the date 

upon which the appellate record was made available to appellant and his mother. See 
2

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant and his mother shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate 

record was first made available to file a pro se brief with this Court. The State shall have 

twenty days thereafter to file its response, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

27th day of September, 2019.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6024** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ANTHONY ALSTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dist rict of North Carolina , at Greenville
. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. ( 4:01

- cr - 00001

- H

- 1; 4:09

- cv - 00173

- H )

Submitted : July 27, 2011 Decided: August 3, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published p er curiam opinion
. Anthony Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant Un ite d States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Alston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appeal ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record

an d conclude that Alston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion to remand for resentencing and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions a re adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### Gerald Betke, Appellant, v Archwood Estates, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 172]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated September 9, 1998, as denied his motion for a special trial preference and denied his amended motion for, *inter alia,*the same relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff’s motion for a special trial preference was properly denied since he failed to demonstrate that the interests of justice would be served by an early trial *(see,*CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; *Thompson v City of New York,*140 AD2d 232, 233). The plaintiff proffered insufficient proof of an injury that would worsen over time, that he was unable to work, was indigent, or had an obligation as a single parent to support a dependent *(see, Patterson v Anderson Ave. Assocs.,*242 AD2d 430; *Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assocs.,*213 AD2d 151; *Zangiacomi v Hood,*193 AD2d 188, 195; *Thompson v City of New York, supra).*

The court properly denied the relief sought in the plaintiffs amended motion since the amended motion was not served *329with supporting affidavits or documents *(see,*CPLR 2214 [b]; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac 2214.02). Moreover, the plaintiff offered no excuse for the failure to timely submit the supporting affidavit and documents *(see, Romeo v Ben-Soph Food Corp.,*146 AD2d 688, 690).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are not properly before us since they concern issues that were not decided in the order appealed from. Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### BEN GYADU *v.*HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.

(AC 19626)

Foti, Landau and Zarella, Js.

Submitted on briefs January 26

officially released February 15, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
(79 South. 878)

#### SHAW et al. v. CRADDOCK TERRY SHOE CO.

(5 Div. 284.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 14, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; Leon McCord, Judge.

J. B. Atkinson, of Clanton, for appellants. F. B. Collier, of Clanton, for appellee.

BROWN, P. J.

Affirmed on certificate.
[No. 27474-4-II.

Division Two.

October 18, 2002.]

#### Peter John, *Respondent,*v. Lower Columbia College, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 98-2-01344-4, Don L. McCulloch, J., entered May 25, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Bridgewater, JJ.
#### HOWE, et v SPITZER

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Medina Co

No 103.

Decided Oct. 13, 1930

C. W. Sickafoose and L. A. Pelton, both of Medina, for Howe, et.

Van Epp & Porter, Medina, for Spitzer.

PER CURIAM:

This is a suit upon a note and was tried by the court, a jury being waived. The defense interposed was that the note had been altered.

The court found that the alterations had been made with the consent of the makers. That was a disputed question 'of fact, and we do not find that the finding of the trial court upon that issue is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

So finding, the judgment should be affirmed, unless the defendants are right in the further contention which they make, to the effect that the alteration was not made according to the special erms of the consent but extended beyond it, and the *689rule is that the alteration of a negotiable instrument makes it void even though consent to an alteration be given if the alteration which is made is not strictly in accordance with the alteration to which consent was given.

The trouble with this contention is that the transaction in question did not constitute the alteration of a negotiable instrument. At the time the change was made there had been no delivery of the instrument so as to create an obligation on the part of the makers thereof; it was then no more than an offer to the Finance Company, and any change made in it was not an alteration of a negotiable instrument but a making of an original instrument, and the rule contended for has no application.

Funk, PJ, and Pardee, J, and Washburn, J, concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of public availability of FY 2010 Service Contract Inventories.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), Department of Energy is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2010 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2010. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at                         *http://www.whitehouse.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​omb/​procurement/​memo/​service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.*                         Department of Energy has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory at the following link:                         *http://www.management.energy.gov/​policy_​guidance/​competitive_​sourcing.htm.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Jeff Davis in the Strategic Programs Division at 202-287-1877 or                         *jeff.davis@hq.doe.gov.*

Dated: January 25, 2011.

David Boyd,

Deputy Director, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management.

[FR Doc. 2011-2028 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### § 780.208 Forest and Christmas tree activities.

Operations in a forest tree nursery such as seeding new beds and growing and transplanting forest seedlings are not farming operations. The planting, tending, and cutting of Christmas trees do not constitute farming operations. If such operations on forest products are within section 3(f), they must qualify under the second part of the definition dealing with incidental practices. (See § 780.201.)

[74 FR 26015, May 29, 2009]
(78 South. 419)

#### COLLIER v. STATE.

(6 Div. 299.) *

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

March 12, 1918.

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1918.)

1. Indictment and Information <©=>110(55) —Following Statutory Form — Vagrancy.

An indictment for vagrancy in the form prescribed by Code 1907, § 7161, form 112, is sufficient.-

2. Criminal Law <&wkey;678(l) — Election Between Offenses.

The indictment charging but one offense, the state cannot he required to elect, unless evidence of more than one offense is offered.

3. Vagrancy <&wkey;3 — Evidence — Admissible under Charge of Vagrancy.

Vagrancy being a state or condition continuing in its nature, the state may show one or all the facts constituting vagrancy, as defined by the statute.

4. Criminal Law <&wkey;1168(l) — Appeal — Harmless Error — Limiting Inquiry.

Defendant, prosecuted for vagrancy, cannot complain of the court’s action, of its own motion, not injuring him, limiting the scope of the inquiry.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

W. T. Collier was convicted of vagrancy, and appeals.

Affirmed.

M. Frank Cahalan, of Birmingham, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. ■ Gen., and David W. W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

*

Oertiorari denied 201 Ala. 698, 78 South. 988.

BROWN, P. J.

[1] The indictment consists of one count which follows the form prescribed by the statute, and as repeatedly held, is sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction, and is not subject to demurrer. Code 1907, § 7161, p. 679, form 112; Newsum v. State, 10 Ala. App. 124, 65 South. 87; Kimbell v. State, 165 Ala. 118, 51 South. 16.

[2-4] The indictment charging but one offense, the state could not he required to elect, unless evidence of more than one offense was offered. Joyner v. State, ante, p. 240, 77 South. 78 (expressly overruling Brooms v. State, 15 Ala. App. 118, 72 South. 691); Mason v. State, ante, p. 405, 78 South. 321. Vagrancy being a state or condition continuing in its nature, it was permissible for tbe prosecution to show one or all the facts constituting vagrancy as defined by tbe statute. Brannon v. State, ante, p. 259, 76 South. 991. And the defendant was not injured, and cannot complain that the court of its own motion limited the scope of the inquiry. Brannon v. State, 12 Ala. App. 189, 67 South. 634.

We find no error in the record.

Affirmed.
1 The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1313

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Israel John Patrick Davis, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 28, 2010 Filed: February 3, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Israel John Patrick Davis pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in viola tion of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. After granting the government’s s ubstantial-assistance motions under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), the district court 1 sentenced Davis below the mandatory term of life in prison to 204 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S.-2- 738 (1967), and has moved to withdraw. Ina pro se supplemental brief, Davis requests new counsel, and argue s that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the district court proceedings below and in this appeal.
Davis entered his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement that contains (1) a waiver of his right to appeal the district court’s entry of judgment, except for the right to appeal an upward departure, and (2) a waiver of his right to bring postconviction proceedings, except for a clai m of ineffective assistance of counsel. We will enforce the appeal waiv er in this appeal, because the record shows that Davis entered his plea voluntarily, with full knowledge of and consent to the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforceability of appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena , 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).
We reject as meritless Da vis’s argument that counsel was ineffective in this appeal, because he cannot demonstrate the requisite prejudice from counsel’s alleged deficiencies. See United States v. Davis , 508 F.3d 461, 463-64 (8th Cir. 2007) (defendant did not establish prej udice where counsel tendered Anders brief, because appellate court reviews reco rd and will order full briefi ng of any nonfrivolous issues). Davis’s claim that counsel rendered ine ffective assistance during the proceedings below should be raised (if at all) in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which Davis reserved the right to do. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 826- 27 (8th Cir. 2006).
Finally, having reviewed the recordindependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we deny Da vis’s request for new appellate counsel; we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw; and we dismiss this appeal.

______________________________
Exhibit 10.37

Oral Agreement to Extend Independent Contactor Agreement



On Jan 7, 2009, Goldrich Mining Company and Richard R. Walters orally agreed to extend Independent Contactor Agreement dated June 30, 2003 for a period of one year, retroactively to January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009.  The renewed agreement allows Mr. Walters to defer cash payment for fees and expenses until the Companys financial condition improves, or alternatively, receive some or all of his fees in the form of the Companys common stock.



The agreement was approved by resolution of the board of directors of Goldrich Mining Company dated Jan 7, 2009.





















1
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,863-01

EX PARTE MARCUS TERELL HOLLIMON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1159085-A IN THE 179 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk

of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

murder and sentenced to imprisonment for 48 years. 

On August 11, 2014, an order designating issues was signed by the trial court. The habeas

record has been properly forwarded to this Court by the district clerk pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P.

73.4(b)(5). However, the record has been forwarded without the trial court having resolved the

designated issue(s) in this case. We remand this application to the 179 District Court of Harris th

County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and enter findings of fact and
conclusions of law.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall be

forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must be

requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: June 26, 2019

Do not publish
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 2013 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 

1. Effective as of April 14, 2015, Section 3 (Shares of Common Stock Subject to the Plan) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following: 
 (a) Subject to the provisions of Section 11(a) relating to Capitalization Adjustments, the maximum number of shares of
Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan will not exceed 225,000 shares of Common Stock, plus the number of shares of Common Stock that are automatically added on January 1st of each year for a period of up to ten years, commencing on
January 1, 2014 and ending on (and including) January 1, 2023, in an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 10% of the total number of shares of Capital Stock outstanding on December 31st of the preceding calendar year, and
(ii) 100,000 shares of Common Stock. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board may act prior to the first day of any calendar year to provide that there will be no January 1st increase in the share reserve for such calendar year or that the
increase in the share reserve for such calendar year will be a lesser number of shares of Common Stock than would otherwise occur pursuant to the preceding sentence. 

(b) If any Purchase Right granted under the Plan terminates without having been exercised in full, the shares of Common Stock not purchased
under such Purchase Right will again become available for issuance under the Plan. 
 (c) The stock purchasable under the Plan will be
shares of authorized but unissued or reacquired Common Stock, including shares repurchased by the Company on the open market. 
 2. The foregoing amendment
was duly adopted and approved in accordance with Section 12(a) of the Plan.