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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.07


                                    [LOGO]

                              AT HOME CORPORATION
                          2000 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
                         NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION GRANT
                         ----------------------------

                                   Grant No:

Congratulations! You have been awarded a nonqualified stock option to purchase
At Home Corporation Series A Common Stock, as described below:

Participant:

Social Security Number:

Participant's Address:

Total Option Shares:      Exercise Price Per Share:

Date of Grant:            Expiration Date:



                                            Full
                    Shares     Vesting    Vest Date
                    ------     -------    ---------
Vesting Schedule:


Additional terms and conditions governing this grant are set forth in the Stock
Option Grant Terms And Conditions and in the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan. Both of
these documents are available on the Intranet or by contacting the Stock
Administration Department of Excite@Home, 450 Broadway Street, Redwood City, CA
94063.
No. 96-5864.

#### Vann *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 03, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18A0761. KENDRICK DAYE v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On December 06, 2017, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than December 15, 2017. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a). Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995): This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from that order.Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 03, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant.
## ITOE N •W; 1 Februar y24 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Ra

yLaHoo d Secretar y Unite d State s Departmen to fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E Washington , D.C
. 

### 2059 0 Subject : Haned a Combinatio n Service s Allocatio n Proceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea rSecretar yLaHood : A s a dedicate d trave l partne ro fAmerica n Airlines , I a m writin g i n suppor to fAmerican' s applicatio n t o provid e ne wservic e fro m Ne wYork' s Joh n F
. Kenned yInternationa l Airpor tan d Los Angele s Internationa l Airpor tt o Toky o Internationa l Airpor ta t Haneda
. I recogniz e an d applau d yo u an d th e Obam a administratio n fo ryou rsucces s las t Decembe ri n reachin g a landmar k Ope n Skie s agreemen twit h Japan , whic h open s u p Haned a t o servic e b yU.S
. airlines
. I encourag e you rselectio n o fAmerica n Airline s t o provid e nonsto p servic e fro m Ne w Yor k an d Los Angele s t o Haned a i n orde rt o provid e a n essentia l connectio n betwee n thre e o fth e world' s financia l an d commerc e centers
. Recen tevents , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n o fJapa n Airlines ' onewori d Allianc e membership , hav e underscore d American' s stron g commitmen tt o th e trans-Pacifi c market
. America n i s likewis e committe d t o Ne wYor k an d Los Angle s - bot h vita l foca l point s o fbusiness , trade , entertainment , technolog yan d educatio n - providin g unsurpasse d ai rservic e sinc e th e mid-1900 s Bot h th e Ne wYor k

an d Los Angele s metr o area s wil l gai n significan teconomi cbenefit s fro m thes e propose d ne wflights , a s wil l American' s customer s an d employees
. However , w e nee d you rhel p t o mak e th e JFK/Haned a connectio n a reality
. Therefore , I strongl yurg e yo u t o sayye s t o America n Airline s an d it s reques tfo rslot s t o fl yfro m Kenned yt o Haneda ! Sincerely , ITOE N ( Nort h America ) INC
. Presiden t& CE O Yosuk e Honj o www.itoen.co m

IT O E N (NORT H AMERICA ) INC
. 4 5 MAI N STREET
. SUIT E 3 A BROOKLYN , N Y1120 1 TE L 71 8 25 0 400 0 TA X 71 8 24 6 .'3S S

ITOE N (USA ) INC
. 12 5 PUUHAL E ROA D HONOLULU , H I 9681 9 Tt L 80 8 8/1 7 447 7 FA X 80 8 84 1 438 4

IT O E N Ne wYOR K 82 2 MADISO N AVENU E N r wYORK , N Y1002. 1 TF. L 21 2 57 0 220 0 FA X21 2 57 0 450 0 TE ASTOR E T6 L 21 2 98 8 711 1 K A I RCSTAURAN T TII L21 2 99 B 727 7
33721.

#### FLOYD v. THURMAN et al.

Jordan, Justice.

Ivey Floyd appeals from the verdict and judgment in favor of Betty and Norman Thurman, and Boyce Thurman, as vouchee, in Floyd’s action for injunction and damages based on alleged continuing trespass on land.

1. The real issue between the parties was the location of the boundary line between their properties. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict in favor of the appellees.

2. The jury’s verdict was as follows: "We the jury find in favor of the defendants.” The judgment described the boundary line between the properties according to an attached plat, and incorporated the plat in the judgment by reference.

The appellant contends that the verdict was too vague and uncertain on which to grant a judgment; that the judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that a verdict should be found describing the boundary line; that the verdict and judgment are void because the jury failed to make a factual finding as to where the disputed boundary line was located; and that the judgment is void because it set out a description of the boundary line and thus did not follow the verdict of the jury.

The form of the verdict to be submitted to the jury was agreed on by the parties in a pre-trial order, and the appellant cannot object to the form of the verdict, the failure of the jury to describe the boundary line, or the failure of the judge to instruct them to find the boundary *429line. Furthermore, in view of the pleadings and the issues made by the evidence, this verdict was not uncertain. *Taylor v. Brown,*165 Ga. 698 (141 SE 898) (1927); *Carithers v. Carithers,*202 Ga 596 (2) (43 SE2d 503) (1947).

Argued September 20, 1978

Decided October 25, 1978.

*Kunes & Kunes, G. Gerald Kunes,*for appellant.

*Sumner & Mitchell, Robert Sumner, Douglas W. Mitchell, III,*for appellees.

The survey used by the judge in describing the boundary line in the judgment was that relied on by the appellees on the trial, and the finding by the jury in their favor was a finding that this was the correct line. The judge was authorized in the judgment to delineate the boundary line between the parties according to that plat. *Gray v. Junction City Mfg. Co.,*195 Ga. 33 (3) (22 SE2d 847) (1942); *Carter v. Parson,*230 Ga. 177 (4) (196 SE2d 19) (1973).

3. The appellant contends that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the law of trespass. The judge charged that if they found in the appellant’s favor, they should determine whether he was entitled to recover damages for any trespass. The appellant made no exception to the judge’s charge. He cannot complain of the failure to give further instructions on trespass, as such failure was not harmful as a matter of law to the appellant. Code Ann. § 70-207 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1072, 1078).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(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, I, Scott C. Mahan, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BSQUARE
Corporation.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 17, 2011

/s/ Scott C. MahanScott C. Mahan
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0448. ROYAL PHILLIPS, et al. v. PHILLIP PHILLIPS, et al.

The trial court entered a default judgment against Royal Phillips and the Estate

of Maxine Phillips (the “Phillips Defendants”), and after a trial on damages, it

entered its verdict and judgment against them. The Phillips Defendants filed a pro

se motion to vacate the judgment then hired counsel, who filed a motion for new trial. 

The trial court denied both motions in separate orders entered on March 6, 2015. 

According to the Phillips Defendants, they did not receive either of the orders and did

not learn of them until April 14, 2015, after the period for filing a notice of appeal

had expired. The Phillips Defendants then filed motions to vacate both orders under

OCGA § 9-11-60 (g), arguing that they did not receive proper notice of the rulings. 

The trial court denied both motions,

1

and the Phillips Defendants filed a timely

application for discretionary review.

 The Phillips Defendants apparently followed the discretionary appeal

procedures because an order denying a motion to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60

(d) may only be reviewed through discretionary application. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)

(8). But “[m]otions to set aside brought on the grounds that the court failed to notify

the losing party of its decision are cognizable as motions to correct a clerical error

pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (g) and are properly the subject of a direct appeal.” 

Downs v. C. D. C. Federal Credit Union, 224 Ga. App. 869 (1) (481 SE2d 903)

1 The trial court’s order shows that it was signed on May 14, 2015, but it has

no stamped “filed” date. Presuming that it was entered on the day it was signed, this

application is timely.

July 07, 2015
(1997). The Phillips Defendants, therefore, were not required to file an application

for discretionary appeal. See Leventhal v. Moseley, 264 Ga. 891, 892 (453 SE2d 455)

(1995).

ThisCourt will grant an otherwise timely discretionary application if the lower

court’s order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this

application is hereby GRANTED. The Phillips Defendants shall have ten days from

the date of this order to file a notice of appeal with the trial court. See OCGA § 5-6-

35 (g). If, however, the Phillips Defendants have already filed a notice of appeal,

they need not file a second notice. The clerk of the trial court is directed to include

a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/07/2015
132 STAT. 1532 PUBLIC LAW 115–204—JULY 23, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 951: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–172 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): June 12, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): June 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–204 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified 

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 

otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

project numbered 12642, the Commission may, at the request of 

the licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the Commission’s procedures under that 

section, extend the time period during which the licensee is required 

to commence the construction of the project for up to 3 consecutive 

2-year periods from the date of the expiration of the extension 

originally issued by the Commission. 

(b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the period 

required for commencement of construction of the project described 

in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Commission may reinstate the license effective 

as of the date of its expiration and the first extension authorized 

under subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of such expiration. 

Approved July 23, 2018. 

Effective dates. 

Time period. 

July 23, 2018 

[H.R. 951] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1389 

To exempt any road, highway, or bridge damaged by a natural disaster, 

including a flood, from duplicative environmental document reviews if 

the road, highway, or bridge is reconstructed in the same location. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 20 (legislative day, JULY 19), 2011 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To exempt any road, highway, or bridge damaged by a natural disaster, including a flood, from duplicative environmental document reviews if the road, highway, or bridge 

is reconstructed in the same location. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION. 

4 The reconstruction process of any road, highway, or 

5 bridge that is in operation or under construction when 

6 damaged by a natural disaster, including a flood, and re7 constructed in the same location shall be exempt from any 

8 environmental review under— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1389 IS

1 (1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 

2 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); 

3 (2) sections 402 and 404 of the Federal Water 

4 Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342, 1344); 

5 (3) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); 

7 (4) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 

8 703 et seq.); 

9 (5) the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 

10 1271 et seq.); 

11 (6) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

12 U.S.C. 661 et seq.); 

13 (7) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

14 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), except when the reconstruction 

15 occurs in designated critical habitat for threatened 

16 and endangered species; 

17 (8) Executive Order 11990 (42 U.S.C. 4321 

18 note; relating to the protection of wetlands); and 

19 (9) any Federal law (including regulations) re20 quiring no net loss of wetlands. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MBT Financial Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  May 8, 2009
    /s/ H. Douglas ChaffinH. Douglas ChaffinPresident and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 13.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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 Annual Report of Desert Sun Mining Corporation, a company organized under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Stan Bharti, President/CEO/Director of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.



/s/ Stan Bharti____________________

Stan Bharti, President/CEO/Director





Date: March 12, 2004
Before the First Division,

August 31, 1939

No. 42030.

#### Protest 971832-G of Wm. Filenes Sons Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

From the record it was found that the manikins in question are actually composed of papier máché. The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1403 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit
13.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


RULE
13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT


AND
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Fundtech Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form
20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Reuven Ben Menachem,
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.





Date:
October 22, 2010





/s/
      Reuven Ben MenachemReuven
      Ben MenachemChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech
Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          15,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,784
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     54,408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,984
<PP&E>                                         336,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,044
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 574,858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,260
<BONDS>                                        295,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,301
<OTHER-SE>                                     135,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   574,858
<SALES>                                        440,501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               440,501
<CGS>                                          361,951
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  361,951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,819
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,087
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,032
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,704
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,704
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
        

</TABLE>
No. 74-424.

No. 74-5337.

#### Bowman Transportation, Inc. *v.*Franks et al., Martin-Mendoza *v.*Immigration and Naturalization Service,

419 U. S. 1050; and

419 U. S. 1113. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.