alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTONIO JOHNSON, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 137 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

and the Motion for Judgment of Default are DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the quarterly report
of SES Solar Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the six-month period
ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Christiane Erne, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted 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 results of operations of the
Company.





Date: August 14,
      2009
                By:
                /s/ CHRISTIANE
      ERNEChristiane
    ErneChief Executive
      Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT  3-D

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                            OF COLUMBIA ENERGY GROUP

         Columbia Energy Group (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware,

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST: That the Board of Directors of said corporation, at a meeting
duly held, adopted a resolution proposing and declaring advisable the following
amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation:

         RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Corporation hereby finds
it advisable that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation
be amended to delete in its entirety the first paragraph of Article IV and to
insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph:

                  The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
                  Corporation shall have authority to issue is Two hundred forty
                  million (240,000,000), of which Forty million (40,000,000)
                  shares, of the par value of One cent ($.01) each, are to be of
                  a class designated Preferred Stock and Two hundred million
                  (200,000,000) shares, of the par value of One cent ($.01)
                  each, are to be of a class designated Common Stock.

         SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of
Directors, an annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly
called and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number
of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

         THIRD:  That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance
with the applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by Carolyn McKinney Afshar, its Secretary, this 1st day of June, 1999.

                                                 //s//Carolyn McKinney Afshar

                                                 By: Secretary
#### UNIVERSITY PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, INC., Appellant, v. Grady R. MATHERS, Appellee.

No. O-68.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 27, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May. 11, 1971.

H. O. Pemberton, of Keen, O’Kelley & Spitz, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Truett & Watkins, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment based upon a jury verdict awarding appellee damages for personal injuries suffered when an explosion and flash fire occurred on premises owned by appellant but leased to appellee’s employer.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and complains that the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction requested by it.

This case has been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court hereby appealed is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.85

                                  ***REPAID***

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$1,000,000                                                Palo Alto, California
                                                                  July 22, 1996


         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Reid W. Dennis ("Borrower"),
promises to pay to Collagen Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Lender"), or
order, at 2500 Faber Place, Palo Alto, CA 94303, or at such other place as
Lender may from time to time designate in writing, the sum of one million
dollars ($1,000,000).

         Interest will be accrued on the outstanding principal balance on a
daily basis at the rate of 8.25% per annum based on a 365-day year. The
outstanding balance of principal and accrued interest of this Note shall be due
and payable on September 29, 1996, at which time all accrued interest shall be
compounded and thereafter all accrued interest shall be compounded annually on
each anniversary of the date hereof until the outstanding balance of this Note
is paid in full.

         If Borrower's relationship with the Lender terminates for any reason,
the then outstanding principal balance of this Note, and interest accrued
thereon shall become due and payable immediately. Repayment of this Note shall
be unsecured but the holder hereof shall have full recourse against Borrower.

         Amounts due under this Note shall be payable in lawful money of the
United States of America and in immediately available funds. All payments under
this Note shall be applied first to any accrued and unpaid interest and then to
principal. Borrower shall have the right to pay, without penalty or premium, all
or any portion of the outstanding principal amount of this Note at any time.

         Borrower waives presentment, protest and demand, and notice of protest,
demand, dishonor and nonpayment of this Note and diligence in taking any action
to collect any amounts owing under this Note by proceeding against any of the
rights securing the payment of this Note. If action is instituted on this Note,
Borrower agrees to pay such reasonable sum as attorney's fees as the court may
fix and award in such action.

         This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of California.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has executed this Note as of the date
first written above.
                                          /s/ Reid W. Dennis
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Reid W. Dennis
/s/ William G. Davis
__________________________________
Acknowledged and accepted by:
William G. Davis
Chairman, Human Resource Committee
of the Board of Directors
Exhibit 32.1


Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)


The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of WashingtonFirst Bankshares Inc., respectively, certify that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WashingtonFirst Bankshares Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), and no purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.


October 23, 2014/s/ Shaza L. AndersenDateShaza L. AndersenPresident & Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)October 23, 2014/s/ Matthew R. JohnsonDateMatthew R. JohnsonExecutive Vice President &Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09
- 1 2
- 00 483
- CR



### ________________ IN RE BEULAH LEE JOHNSON

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Beulah Lee Johnson filed a petition for writ of mandamus

. We may grant mandamus relief only if the relator demonstrates that the act sought to be compell ed is purely ministerial, and that the relator has no other adequate legal remedy. See State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist. , 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Although this Court provided Johnson an opportunity to amend her petition, she
did not. Johnson has not shown that s he is entitled to relief by writ of mandamus. See id

. W e deny the petition

. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM
O pinion Delivered November 28, 2012 Do N ot P ublish
Before Gaultney, Kreger , and Horton, JJ.
#### MORSE TAXI COMPANY and its workmen’s compensation servicing agent, Employers Service Corporation, Petitioners, v. Jack TUBER and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 44280.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 27, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1324

MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NESSCAP, INC. and NESSCAP CO., LTD.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

in case no. 06-CV-2311, Judge John A. Houston.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The court having received no response to its March 19, 2009 order,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion to vacate the preliminary injunction is denied and the case is

remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California so

that the district court may consider whether to vacate the preliminary injunction, due to

settlement.

FOR THE COURT

Jan Horbaly	

FILED Clerk	U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	David C. Doyle, Esq.

George W. Neuner, Esq.

s8

APR 2 3 2009

JHN riütibilut

CLERK

APR 2 3 2009

Date

/s/ Jan Horbalv
#### James Clemens, Jr., Appellant, *vs.*Thomas A. Dryden, *et*al., Respondents.

Willi vs. Dryden, ante, p. 319 affirmed.

*Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.*

*W. B. Thompson and Cline, Jamison Sf Bay,*for Appellants.

*Dryden fy Dryden*for Eespondents.

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is not distinguishable from the case of Willi vs. Dryden, *et al.,*decided at the present term. In conformity with the principles there laid down, the judgment mnst be-re ■ versed and the cause remanded.

The other judges concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60492-60493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29547]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-8-006]


Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

November 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 29, 1997, Granite State Gas 
Transmission, Inc. (Granite State), tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff 
sheets to become effective November 1, 1997:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 21
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 22
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 23

    According to Granite State the above revised tariff sheets state 
changes in its Base Tariff rates for firm and interruptible 
transportation services agreed to in an uncontested settlement in 
Docket No. RP97-8-000 approved by the Commission in a Letter Order 
issued October 20, 1997.
    Granite State further states that copies of its filing have been 
served on its firm and interruptible customers, on the regulatory 
agencies of the states of Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire and 
the intervenors in the proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211. All such 
protests should be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to

[[Page 60493]]

the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29547 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
smsi-ex101_6.htm



Exhibit 10.1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE 

(STEVEN L. ELFMAN AND MONIQUE P. ELFMAN, JT/WROS)

 

This SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made as of January 30, 2018, by and between Smith Micro Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and STEVEN L. ELFMAN AND MONIQUE P. ELFMAN, JT/WROS (“Holder”), and amends that certain Secured Promissory Note, dated June 23, 2017, issued by the Company to Holder in the principal amount of $1,000,000, as amended by that certain Amendment to Secured Promissory Note dated August 18, 2017 (the “Note”).  Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the meanings given to such terms in the Note. 

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the Maturity Date of the Note as set forth herein. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

Section 1.  Amendment to Note.  Effective as of the date hereof, the Maturity Date of the Note is hereby extended to February 11, 2018. 

 

Section 2.  Effect of Amendment.  Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, no other changes or modifications to the Note are intended or implied by this Amendment.  To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Note, the terms of this Amendment shall control.  

 

Section 3.  Miscellaneous.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and any of the parties to this Amendment may execute this Amendment by signing any such counterpart.  Facsimile and electronically copied signatures on this Amendment shall be deemed the equivalent of original signatures.  This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.  

 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

 



Exhibit 10.1

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective authorized representatives as of the date first written above.

 

COMPANY: 

SMITH MICRO SOFTWARE, INC.

 

By: /s/ Timothy C. Huffmyer

Name: Timothy C. Huffmyer

Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

HOLDER:

 

 

/s/ Steven L. Elfman

Steven L. Elfman

 

 

/s/ Monique P. Elfman

Monique P. Elfman
#### Harvey DANIELS v. JUDGES OF the CIRCUIT COURT OF the 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

No. 38432.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29539]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4680-000]


Starghill Energy Corp.; Notice of Filing

November 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 14, 1997, Starghill Energy Corp., 
tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before November 14, 1997. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29539 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
DWS Conservative Allocation VIP
DWS Moderate Allocation VIP
DWS Growth Allocation VIP



Supplement to the  currently  effective  Statements  of  Additional  Information
("SAI") for the above-listed portfolios.

The following information  supplements  information contained in "The Underlying
DWS Funds" section of the portfolios' SAI:

DWS RREEF  Global  Infrastructure  Fund.  The fund seeks total  return from both
capital appreciation and current income through investment in a global portfolio
of securities of infrastructure-related  companies.  Under normal circumstances,
the fund  invests  at least 80% of its net  assets in the  securities  of US and
non-US  infrastructure-related  companies. The fund considers a company to be an
infrastructure-related  company  if at  least  50% of its  non-cash  assets  are
infrastructure  assets or 50% of its gross  income or net profits  are  derived,
directly or indirectly, from the ownership, management, construction, operation,
utilization or financing of infrastructure  assets. Under normal  circumstances,
the fund  invests  principally  in equity  securities,  though  the fun may also
invest in fixed-income  securities  without  limitation.  The fund may invest in
common  and  preferred  stock  (including  convertible  securities),  rights  or
warrants  to  purchase   common  stock,   debt  securities  and  listed  limited
partnership  interests.  Under normal circumstances,  the majority of the fund's
assets are invested in securities of issuers organized or located outside the US
or doing a substantial amount of business outside the US. The fund allocates its
assets  among  various  regions and  countries,  including  exposure to emerging
market countries.

The above fund is also added to the list of  Underlying  DWS Funds  contained in
the SAI for DWS Conservative Allocation VIP, DWS Moderate Allocation VIP and DWS
Growth Allocation VIP.



The following information  supplements  information contained in the "Investment
Policies and Techniques of the Underlying DWS Funds" section of the  portfolios'
SAIs:

Non-diversification.  DWS RREEF Global  Infrastructure  Fund is  classified as a
non-diversified  management  investment  company under the 1940 Act, which means
that the fund is not  limited  by the 1940 Act in the  proportion  of its assets
that it may invest in the  obligations of a single  issuer.  The investment of a
large  percentage  of the fund's  assets in the  securities of a small number of
issuers  may cause  the  fund's  share  price to  fluctuate  more than that of a
diversified fund.



               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference



September 29, 2008
Exhibit (n)

**DWS ADVISOR FUNDS**

**AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**MULTI-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PLAN**

 

WHEREAS, DWS Advisor Funds adopting this Amended and Restated Multi-Distribution System Plan (the “Fund,” and each underlying portfolio of the Fund, a “Series”) is an open-end investment management company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”);

 

WHEREAS, Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. (“DIMA”) serves as investment adviser and DWS Investments Distributors, Inc. (“DIDI”) serves as principal underwriter for the Fund;

 

WHEREAS, the Fund has established an Amended and Restated Multi-Distribution System enabling each Series, as more fully reflected in its prospectuses, to offer investors the option of purchasing shares of the Series with one or more of the following classes of shares: (a) with a front-end sales load (which may vary among Series) and Rule 12b-1 Plan providing for a service fee (“Class A shares”); (b) without a front-end sales load, but subject to a contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”) (which may vary among Series) and a Rule 12b-1 plan providing for a distribution fee and a service fee (“Class B shares”); (c) without a front-end sales load, but subject to a CDSC (which may vary among Series) and a Rule 12b-1 Plan providing for a distribution fee and a service fee (“Class C shares”); (d) solely to participants in certain retirement plans,without a front-end load or a CDSC, but subject to a Rule 12b-1 Plan providing for a distribution fee and a service fee (“Class R shares”); (e) solely to certain investors, without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, a distribution fee or a service fee (“Class S shares”); (f) solely to eligible institutions and other eligible investors, without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, or a Rule 12b-1 plan providing for a distribution fee or service fee, but for certain funds with a service plan providing for a service fee (“Institutional Class shares”);****(g) solely to certain investors with financial advisors, without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, a distribution fee or a service fee (“Investment Class shares”); (h) solely to certain investors without a front-end sales load or a contingent deferred sales charge or a distribution fee but with a service plan (“Premier Shares”); and (i) solely to certaininvestors, without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, or a service fee, but subject to a Rule 12b-1 Plan that provides for a distribution fee (“Tax-Exempt New York Money Market Fund class shares”);

 

WHEREAS, a Fund or a Series may offer or issue some or all of the classes listed above; 

 

WHEREAS, Rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act permits open-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of voting stock representing interests in the same portfolio notwithstanding Sections 18(f)(1) and 18(i) under the 1940 Act if, among other things, such investment companies adopt a written plan setting forth the separate arrangement and expense allocation of each class and any related conversion features or exchange privileges;

 

----