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

 

**First National Lincoln Corporation Declares Dividend**

 

DAMARISCOTTA, Maine – (BUSINESS WIRE) – June 21, 2007 – The Board of Directors of First National Lincoln Corporation (NASDAQ: FNLC), today declared a quarterly dividend of 17.0 cents per share. This second-quarter dividend, which is payable July 31, 2007, to shareholders of record as of July 9, 2007, represents an increase of 13.3% or 2.0 cents per share over the second-quarter dividend declared in 2006 of 15.0 cents per share.

“The Company has raised its regular cash dividend for 14 consecutive years and for 47 consecutive quarters,” noted Daniel R. Daigneault, FNLC’s President & Chief Executive Officer. “The quarterly dividend of 17.0 cents per share translates into an annual dividend of 68.0 cents per share, and based on the June 20 closing price of $16.05 per share, this results in a very attractive current annual dividend yield of 4.24%.

“The recent steepening of the yield curve, although small, is good for the banking industry,” President Daigneault went on. “At the same time, we continue to focus on cost control, especially in a year where earnings growth is a significant challenge. I am pleased that we are able to continue to increase our quarterly dividend payout, which, as I have noted before, is important to the majority of our shareholders.”

First National Lincoln Corporation, headquartered in Damariscotta, Maine, is the bank holding company for The First, N.A. The First is an independent community bank serving Midcoast and Downeast Maine with fourteen offices in Lincoln, Knox, Hancock and Washington Counties that provide consumer and commercial banking products and services. It also provides investment advisory and trust services though First Advisors, a division of the Bank.

Forward-looking and cautionary statements: except for the historical information and discussions contained herein, statements contained in this release may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation 

Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, as discussed in the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

For additional information contact F. Stephen Ward, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, at 207.563.3272.
Exhibit 32.1:  Section 906 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ServisFirst Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") certifies that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date:  March 8, 2011
By
/s/THOMAS A BROUGHTON IIIPresident and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             886
<SECURITIES>                                    27,492
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (543)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,695
<PP&E>                                           4,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,252
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,522
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,418
<SALES>                                         38,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,499
<CGS>                                           17,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,690
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (626)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,435
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,935
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,935
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
Rockingham,

May 5, 1914.

#### Nellie F. Brown *v.*Henry E. Randall *& a.*

Assumpsit, against Henry E. Randall, Eugene F. Hobson, and four others, to recover damages for breach of contract. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the April term '1912, of the superior court by *Pike,*J., on the exception of each defendant to the denial of his motion for the direction of a verdict in his favor.

*Eastman, Scammon & Gardner,*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph P. Carney*and *Herbert N. Blake*(both of Vermont) and *Ernest L. Guptill,*for the defendants.

*Per Curiam.*

There is no evidence that Eugene F. Hobson ever promised the plaintiff anything. It can be found that the other defendants promised her that if she would put her machinery into the proposed business her husband should manage it, that after she had performed her part of the agreement they assumed the management, and that in consequence of this she lost her machinery; in other words', it can be found that she lost her machinery in consequence of the defendants’ breach of contract. As to Eugene F. Hobson, the exception is sustained and the verdict is set aside. As to the other defendants the order is,

*Exception overruled.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,241,404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,685,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,932,382
<PP&E>                                         407,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,172,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,577,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     34,588
<COMMON>                                        55,151
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,172,978
<SALES>                                      2,207,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,207,013
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,562,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (438,639)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (438,639)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (495,039)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        



</TABLE>
From: c.flint@morrisbb.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:29:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

clyde&grace flint

Hendersonville, NC 28792
**Exhibit
      32**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Robinson Financial
      Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2008
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this
      Certification (the “Report”), we, Rick L. Catt, Chief Executive Officer and
      Jamie E. McReynolds, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to section 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 result of operations of the
                Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or another document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required
      by
      Section 906, has been provided to First Robinson Financial Corporation and
      will
      be retained by First Robinson Financial Corporation and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





By:
                /s/ Rick L. Catt
            
            By:
                /s/ Jamie E. McReynoldsName:
                Rick L. Catt
            
            Name:
                Jamie E. McReynoldsChief
                Executive Officer
            
            Chief
                Financial OfficerNovember
                14, 2008
            
            November
                14, 2008
Case No. 13,489.

#### STORAGE CO. v. The THOMAS.

[Case reported under above title in 9 Phila. 364; 29 Leg. Int. 116; 4 Chi. Leg. News, 218,— same as Case No. 3,769.]
Case No. 8,151.

#### In re LAWSON.

[2 N. B. R. 396 (Quarto, 125).] 1

District Court, D. Maryland.

Dec., 1868.

Bankruptcy — Charge of Fraud — Right to Triad of Issue by Jury.

Creditors are entitled to a jury trial where the allegations are that the bankrupt, being insolvent and in contemplation of bankruptcy, had made a fraudulent preference, without having previously specially prayed for such trial.

[Cited in Morgan v. Thornhill. 11 Wall. (78 U. S.) 77: Re Holst, 11 Fed. 857.]

[Cited in Redick v. Woolworth, 17 Neb. 260, 22 N. W. 693.]

This case, tried on December 4th, 186S, was the first that has arisen in the Maryland district upon specifications of the creditors against the discharge of the bankrupt [James H. Lawson].

The first point argued and decided by THE COURT was, that the creditors were entitled to a trial by jury upon these allegations, without having previously specially prayed a jury *89trial. The allegations were, that the bankrupt “being insolvent,” and in contemplation of becoming bankrupt, “had made a fraudulent preference” within the prohibition of section 35 [of the act of 1807 (14 Stat. 534)], and payment for “the purpose of preferring a certain creditor.” The specifications set forth the facts and circumstances at large, so that no point was made as to their sufficiency. The prayers on behalf of the creditors involved the proposition that the words “in contemplation of becoming bankrupt,” did not require evidence of actual intent to take the benefit of the bankrupt act, but that that provision of the act was responded to by showing that the bankrupt, at the time of the alleged payment, knew the condition of his affairs to be such that he would be unable to pay his debts, and would be compelled to wind up his business.

[NOTE. It was previously decided in this case that the attorney for the creditors is eligible as assignee (Case No. 8,150). and that the bankrupt is not entitled to any exemption of money in the hands of assignee (Case No. 8.149).]

Albert Ritchie, for creditors.

"William Pell Giles, Jr., for bankrupt

The verdict of the jury was “for the creditors — allegations sustained,” the effect of which is, that the assignee still continues to settle and distribute the estate, but the bankrupt is •denied his discharge.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         722,983
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             8,170,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,620,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         39,830
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,519,801
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,527,823
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            394,624
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,932
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,587,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              12,519,801
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                89,473
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 902
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 902
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           88,571
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                236,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (147,911)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (147,911)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (147,911)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund VI,  L.P.,  Series 6 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarters  ended
September 30, 2007 and June 30, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I,
Wilfred  N.  Cooper,  Jr.,  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  WNC &
Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

1.        The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that  such  provisions  require  the  audit  report  of Local  Limited
          Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of
          the Public Company  Accounting  Oversight Board for the  Partnership's
          annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative
          report  covering each of the quarters ended  September 30 and June 30,
          2007; and

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




/s/Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 15, 2008
From: Hendor2075@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:41:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Henry Dokter

Highland, IN 46322
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Arthur Billy COLEMAN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6854.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 2005.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Arthur Billy Coleman, Appellant pro se. Hollis Raphael Weisman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*132Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Arthur B. Coleman, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent *“a*substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coleman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Coleman’s motion to expedite the appeal as moot. We 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.

*DISMISSED*