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

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) of OPNET Technologies,
Inc. (the Company), I, Marc A. Cohen, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                     
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|Dated: February 5, 2009 |  | By: |  | /S/    MARC A.
COHEN                
|                        |  |     |  | Marc A. Cohen                       
|                        |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Richard Lee Percivill, Jr. , Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 0018 6

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 124th District Court of
Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 48,44 3

- B ). Memor andum Opinion delivered by

Chief Justice M orriss, Justice Burgess and
Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court ’s bill of costs and judgment

by deleting the time payment fee . As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Richard Lee Percivill, Jr. , has adequately indicated hi s

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefor e, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 23, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 532

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 1995

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To clarify the rules governing venue, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. VENUE.

4 Paragraph (3) of section 1391(a) of title 28, United

5 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘the defendants are’’

6 and inserting ‘‘any defendant is’’.

Passed the Senate March 30 (legislative day, March

27), 1995.

Attest: SHEILA P. BURKE,

Secretary.
FORM OF COMMON STOCK CERTIFICATE

                                  EXHIBIT 4.1

          Number                                              Shares
        /---------/                                         /--------/

                          Davison Arts Management, Inc.
                   AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 24,000,000 SHARES
                                PAR VALUE: $.001

THIS CERTIFIES THAT ____________________________________________ is the owner of
________________________________________________________________ full paid and
non-assessable Shares of above Corporation transferable only on the books of the
Corporation by the holder in hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney
upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

   In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the
Corporation

Dated:

--------------------------                       -----------------------------
      Secretary-Treasurer                                          President

                          Davison Arts Management, Inc.

                                   CORPORATE
                                      SEAL
                                     NEVADA

        The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of
this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations. Additional abbreviations may also
be used though not in the list.

  TEN COM - as tenants in common     unif gift min act-...Custodian......(Minor)
  TEN ENT - as tenants by the        under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act...(State)
            entireties
  JT TEN  - as joint tenants with right
            of survivorship and not as
            tenants in common

For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assign and transfer unto

     (Please insert Social Security or Other Identifying Number of Assignee)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
            (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------Shares
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitutes and
appoints
____________________________________________________________Attorney to transfer
the said shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises.

Dated _______________________
           In presence of
                                         --------------------------------------
NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as
written upon the face of the certificate in every particular without alteration
or enlargement or any change whatever.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.2    
    


 
 

XYRATEX LTD 2004
  DEPUTY CHAIRMAN'S STOCK OPTION PLAN    
    


1.     Purpose of This Plan  


        The purpose of this Xyratex Ltd 2004 Deputy Chairman's Stock Option Plan is to facilitate the assumption by Xyratex Ltd (the "Company") of an option
over 220,000 A preferred ordinary shares in the capital of Xyratex Group Limited ("XGL") granted to the Deputy Chairman of the Company and XGL. 


2.     Issuance of Common Shares on the Exercise of the Option  


        Subject to the scheme of arrangement established pursuant to Section 425 of the Companies Act 1985 of the United Kingdom implemented for the purpose of
inserting the Company as the holding company of XGL becoming effective, the Company may issue common stock in the capital of the Company ("Common Shares") on the exercise of the option granted by XGL
to Andrew Sukawaty evidenced by the Deed of Agreement dated March 31, 2004 and amended June 23, 2004 (the "Option" and the "Deed of Agreement", respectively) pursuant to the terms of the
letter dated March 31, 2004 from the Company to XGL referencing the Option (the "Assumption Letter"). 


3.     Terms of the Option  


        The number of Common Shares to be issued on the exercise of the Option, the price to be paid for the Common Shares, the vesting of the Option, the manner of
exercise, the expiration date of the Option and the other terms of the Option are all to be determined as provided in the Deed of Agreement and the Assumption Letter. The source of Common Shares
issued on the exercise of the Option shall be authorized but unissued Shares. 


Date
of adoption of this Plan by the Board: April 15, 2004 


Date
of approval of this Plan by the shareholders: April 22, 2004 


The
Plan was amended by the Board on June 23, 2004 and such amendment was approved by the shareholders on June 24, 2004. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.2


XYRATEX LTD 2004 DEPUTY CHAIRMAN'S STOCK OPTION PLAN
Docket No: FAA-2015-8430 Dir iD: 2015-NM-093-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6/12/15

Regional Airline Association 6/12/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 6/12/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 6/12/15
#### William M. MANCIL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37838.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1965.

Joe H. Tonahill, Joe Bob Golden, Jasper, for appellant.

Floyd W. Addington, Dist. Atty., Jasper, Bill A. Martin, County Atty., Newton, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, 30 years.

Our prior opinion affirming the conviction is withdrawn.

The State’s eye witness Hall on direct examination in describing the shooting testified as follows: “The oldest little boy got ahold of the gun and he (appellant) was wrestling to get the gun away from him. That’s the truth about it. And somehow or other when he taken the gun away from him, from the boy, well, he’s (appellant) one legged, he staggered and must have hung it against the back of the seat, the hammer (of the pistol).” At this juncture, the jury was retired and thereafter the State did not question Hall again about how the shooting had occurred in the presence of the jury. On cross examination in the absence of the jury, Hall stated repeatedly that the shooting was accidental and described fully his reasons for so believing.

The State thereafter did not disprove the accidental nature of the shooting.

In Stewart v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 194, 70 S.W.2d 714, the State’s witness on direct examination testified that he had been shot by the accused accidentally; on cross examination he described fully facts which would demonstrate that it was in fact accidental. This Court, in reversing the conviction because of the insufficiency of the evidence said, “The testimony of the injured party for whom the state vouched was directly to the point that he received his injuries from the accidental discharge of the gun.” Stewart is here controlling and calls for a reversal of this conviction.

The disposition of this cause renders it unnecessary for this Court to decide whether a number of inconsistent statements made by appellant and witness Hall, *all*of which were exculpatory, were sufficient to support a conviction.

Because the State’s witness testified that the shooting was accidental and the State did not thereafter disprove such fact, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction and calls for a reversal of this conviction.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted; the judgment of affirmance is set aside and the cause is reversed and remanded.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
  Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-QSB

(Mark One)[X]
      QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) 
          OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


For the quarterly period ended May 15, 2003

OR

[ ]
      TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 
          15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
          For the transition period from 
          to


Commission file number 000-29905

BURNAM MANAGEMENT INC
  (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

|Delaware                        | 98-0220849         
|------------------------------- | -------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of | (I.R.S. Employer   
|incorporation or organization)  | Identification No.)

9175 Mainwaring Rd. Sidney, British Columbia V8L 1J9 Canada
  (Address of principal executive offices (zip code))

250-656-4490
  (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) filed all
  reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
  Act of 1934 during the last 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
  was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
  requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes   X       No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
  classes of common equity, as of the latest practicable date.

|Class                           | Outstanding at May 15, 2003
|------------------------------- | ---------------------------
|                                |                            
|Common Stock, par value $0.0001 | 5,000,000                  

SIGNATURES

| | Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
      registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
      undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | BURNAM MANAGEMENT INC
      By: /s/ Rick Plotnikoff 
                Rick Plotnikoff, President
      Dated: May 15, 2003.
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T TEO D O RA RU FIN O TO RRES, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 72184 A ge nc yN o. A 074- 819- 783 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , M U R G U IA , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T e odor aRuf

i no T orr e s , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n. W e have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 

# FI LED

OC T 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 72184 2 In her openi ng bri ef

, Rufi no T orre s f

ai l s t o add re ss , and there fore has w a iv e d , an yc h a lle n g e to th e B I A ’s d is p o s itiv e d e te rm in a tio n th a t h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n w a s u n tim e ly . See R i zk v. H older , 629 F . 3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 ( 9th C i r . 2011) (apet i t i on erw ai ves an i ss ue by fa i l i ng t o rai se i ti n the op eni ng bri ef ). I n l i ghtof

ourdi s pos i t i on, w e ne e d notr e a c h Ruf i no T orr e s ’ r e m a i ni ng co n t en t i o n s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       OF
                           FIRSTCITY LIQUIDATING TRUST

In connection with the Annual Report of FirstCity Liquidating Trust (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert W. Brown, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as
of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

To the best of my knowledge:

         (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: March 18, 2004                                /s/ Robert W. Brown
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Robert W. Brown
                                                    Principal Executive Officer

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.
#### Dennis E. WATSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 35250.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1963.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., and Paul Filer, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

McDonald, judge.

Appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of robbery by assault. Punishment was assessed at ninety-nine years in the penitentiary.

The record reflects that the indictment jointly charged the appellant and Dewey H. Rash with the offense of robbery by firearms but that prior to proceeding to trial a severance was granted and, upon motion by the state, the allegation of exhibiting a firearm, to-wit, a pistol, was abandoned and the offense was reduced to robbery by assault.

Appellant, in person, waived confrontation by the witnesses and agreed that the state might introduce evidence contained in the official files of the district attorney’s office, and stipulated that such evidence was true.

Accordingly, it was stipulated that “if Mr. Buford Roye were here, that he would testify” that on May 17, 1961, a white male walked into his U Tote ’M store located at 3240 Richmond Avenue in Houston, Harris County, Texas, and asked for a package of cigarettes; that as he dropped the cigarettes on the counter the person picked them up and stepped around the counter, holding in his hand a blue steel revolver, and stated: “ ‘All right. Let’s have the money, this is a stick up.’ ”; that at this time another white person entered the store carrying a pistol and they both forced the manager and the customer to lie down on the floor; that $282 in currency was removed from the cash register and approximately. $16 was removed from the billfold of the store manager.

As State’s Exhibit No. 1, the signed, written confession of the appellant was introduced in evidence and in the statement the appellant admitted committing the robbery at the U Tote ’M store in question.

*935The record contains no formal nor informal bills of exception, and no brief has been filed in appellant’s behalf.

Tested in the light of Noble v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 336 S.W.2d 170, and King v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 341 S.W.2d 654, the evidence is sufficient to satisfy Art. 12, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., requiring the state to introduce evidence in the record showing the guilt of the defendant who waives a jury and pleads guilty to a felony less than capital.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00177

- CV

CARLTON E. CORBIN

v. HOWARD M. REINER

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2 of Montgomery County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 17

- 30439

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 7 , 2019
#### In Matter of Bowytz; Bowytz, Appellant, *v.*Tax Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

(No. 27384

Decided April 12, 1939.)

*Mr. Ralph B. Cohen*and *Mr. David M. Spriggs,*for appellant.

*Mr. Herbert S. Duffy*and *Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorneys general, *Mr. E. G. Schuessler, Mr. William*
      *279
      *J. Ford*and *Mr. Hugh Alexander,*prosecuting attorney, for appellees.

By the Court.

In November, 1986, Section 12 of Article XII of the Constitution of Ohio was adopted and reads as follows:

> “On and after November 11, 1936, no excise tax shall be *levied or collected*upon the sale or purchase of food for human consumption off the premises where sold.” (Italics ours.)

Counsel for appellant contend that the words “levied or collected” are used in the disjunctive, that the word “collected” refers to taxes which had accrued at the time the amendment became effective, and that after November 11, 1936, no excise tax could be collected upon such sales of food.

The Court of Appeals held, first, that the obligation sought to be enforced is not a tax but is a liability placed by statute (Section 5546-9a, General Code) upon a collector either 'for failure to collect from the customer taxpayer or to account to the state for the tax collection, and, second, that the amendment should be construed to have a prospective operation and therefore not apply to obligations for taxes levied, due and payable prior to November 11, 1936.

We agree with the Court of Appeals in the conclusion last stated that, in the absence of a clear intention to the contrary, the amendment should be construed to operate prospectively, and not retrospectively. It is therefore not necessary to pass upon the question as to whether this is a proceeding to enforce a liability, as stated.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.