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




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the annual report of NuRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Harin Padma−Nathan, 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:
December 29, 2009


/s/ Harin Padma−NathanName:
              Harin
      Padma−NathanTitle:
              President
      & Chief Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)
Exhibit13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Randgold Resources Limited(the "Company") on Form 20-F/A for the yearended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Roger A. Williams, Finance Director of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

|  |           |                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (4)  | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (5)  | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company. |

/s/ Roger A. Williams Roger A. WilliamsFinance Director September 23,2005

----
Exhibit 10.1


 


PETVIVO HOLDINGS, INC. 2020 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


FORM OF RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT


 


This Agreement between PetVivo
Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and ______ (“Participant”) shall be effective as of the date of grant. The Company
and Participant agree as follows:


 


1.Grant of Restricted Stock.
Participant is hereby granted Restricted Stock of the Company pursuant to the PetVivo Holdings, Inc. 2020 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).
This Agreement is subject to and shall be construed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Plan, as now or hereinafter in
effect and any subsequent amendments. Any terms
which are used in this Agreement without being defined and which are defined in the Plan shall have the meaning specified in the Plan.


 


2.Date of Grant. The date
of the grant of the Restricted Stock is September 9, 2021.


 


3.Number of Shares.
The number of shares of Restricted Stock granted is __________ (_______).


 


4.Vesting. The Restricted
Stock granted hereby shall vest according to the following schedule:


 


	Date:	Number of Vested Shares
	March 31, 2022	 
	March 31, 2023	 
	March 31, 2024	 


 


In order to be vested in shares
of Restricted Stock in accordance with the schedule, Participant must have been continuously serving as an employee from the date of grant
until the vesting date.


 


5.Acceleration of Exercisability.
Upon a Change in Control of the Company, all Restricted Shares under this Agreement shall immediately be 100% vested without regard to
the vesting restrictions contained in this Agreement. In addition, if the Participant is terminated without cause, any Restricted Stock
that would have vested on or before the first anniversary of such termination had the Participant remain employed
shall be accelerated and deemed to have vested as of the termination date.


 


6.Legends. Certificates
representing vested shares may contain such legends and transfer restrictions as the Company is required to make to be in compliance with
federal and state securities laws at the time of issuance.


 


7.Receipt of Plan. By entering
into this Agreement, Participant acknowledges (i) that he or she has received and read a copy of the Plan and (ii) that this Agreement
is subject to and shall be construed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Plan, as now or hereinafter in effect. By entering
into this Agreement, Participant further acknowledges that all grants under the Plan are determined by the Committee in its sole discretion
and that nothing contained in the Plan or in any grant under the Plan shall confer a right or entitlement to receive any further grants
in the future.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


  



    	 	 	 



    	 



    





 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by a duly authorized officer
of the Company and Participant have executed this Agreement, effective as of the date of grant.


 


	 	PETVIVO HOLDINGS, INC.:
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	           
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 
	 	Date:	 
	 	 	 
	 	PARTICIPANT:
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Date:	 
	 	Address:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000092195
<NAME> SOUTHERN INDIANA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      691,838
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,540
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          97,312
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        51,192
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 845,882
<COMMON>                                        78,258
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            229,644
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 307,902
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     19,514
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           238,990
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       15,686
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   61,872
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 201,918
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  845,882
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      267,490
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            22,375
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     192,881
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     215,256
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         52,234
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,479
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  54,713
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        15,521
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,192
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        823
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   38,369
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        22,414
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       13,509
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          68,850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION; ZTE (USA), INC.; 

AND ZTE (TX), INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00494-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE 

BRIEF DEADLINES TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) 

files this unopposed motion to extend the deadline to file a response to Motions to Dismiss8 filed 

by defendants ZTE Corporation; ZTE (USA), Inc.; and ZTE (TX), Inc. (“Defendants”), and would 

show as follows: 

1. On October 9, 2020, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, respectively, at Dkt. 

Nos. 23, 24, 25 (corrected by Dkt. 26). 

2. Pursuant to the Local Rules, WSOU’s deadline to file responses to the Motions is 

October 24, 2020. WSOU requests a three-week extension of its deadlines to November 6, 2020. 

3. This is the first extension WSOU has requested. The requested extension should 

cause no delay in the schedule.

4. WSOU has consulted with counsel for Defendants, and Defendants have indicated 

that they do not oppose this extension request. 

8 The motions were additionally styled with an alternative relief to transfer. For simplification, the 

motions will be styled herein as Motions to Dismiss. 

Case 6:20-cv-00494-ADA Document 27 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, WSOU respectfully requests that the deadline to file a respond to 

Defendant’s Motions, Dkt. Nos. 23, 24, 25 (corrected by Dkt. 26) be extended to November 6, 

2020. 

Dated: October 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

 James L. Etheridge

 Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeff Huang

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR WSOU

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served this October 13, 2020, with a copy of this document via email.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00494-ADA Document 27 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2
#### NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Troy T. DESKINS, Trading and Doing Business as Belfry Coal Company, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 23, 1954.

Baird & Hays, Pikeville, for appellant.

Francis M. Burke, Pikeville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on motion that an appeal be granted under KRS 21.080. The Norfolk & Western Railway Company asserts that the chancellor misconstrued the provisions of a siding contract, and, consequently, improperly allowed Troy T. Deskins, doing business as Belfry Coal Company, to recover as a refund money advanced by him under the terms of the contract. The contract is not as clear as it might be, but we conclude, after due consideration, that the interpretation placed upon it by the chancellor is proper.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Randgold Resources Limited(the "Company") on Form 20-F/A for the yearended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, D. Mark Bristow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

|           |                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                  |
|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany. |

/s/ D. Mark Bristow D.Mark Bristow Chief Executive Officer October 19,2005

----
Exhibit
14.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 pertaining to the Randgold Resources
Limited Share Option Scheme of our report dated June 28, 2005 (except
for Note 5 which is as of September 22, 2005) relating to the financial
statements of Randgold Resources Limited and its subsidiaries and joint
venture which appears in this Form 20-F/A.

/s/
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chartered AccountantsLondon United Kingdom
October 27, 2005

---
#### WARE v. FARMER et al.

No. 15032.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

March 18, 1949.

Rehearing Denied April 15, 1949.

Ed C. Stearns, of Dallas, for appellant.

■ Andress & Ramsey and Wm. Andress, Jr., all of Dallas, for appellees.

SPEER, Justice.

This case arose in Justice Court, was tried and appealed to the County Court, it *159was there tried to the court without a jury and judgment was entered on the unpaid balance of -a note for $70.00 in favor 'of plaintiff, V. L. W-are, against defendants, A. A. Farmer and W. E. Farmer, with foreclosure of a chattel mortgage lien on personal property of the value of $175.-00. Plaintiff appealed to the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals and by an order equalizing dockets the Supreme Court has transferred this appeal to us.

The trial court denied plaintiff a recovery of a $25.00 attorney’s fee and his only complaint here is of that denial.

We (have carefully reviewed this whole record and find that no reversible error is presented. It therefore becomes our duty to affirm the judgment o'f the trial court. In such circumstances we refrain from writing an opinion on the point of assigned error, under provisions of old Articles 1873 and 1874, R.C.S. and as re-enacted by Rules 453 and 454, Texas Rule® of Civil Procedure; each of which has many times been construed by our courts, in such case as Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294. Under authority of that case and -the many decisions oif several of our Courts of Civil Appeals following it, found in Shepard’s Citations, when a case is affirmed by a Court of Civil Appeals, and because of the nature of the case the judgment is final and may not be reviewed by the Supreme Court on application for writ of error, the Court of Civil Appeals is not required to write an opinion in the case. We, too-, think such a rule is a wholesome one, unless the principle involved “be deemed of such special importance or difficulty as to demand a discussion in a written opinion.” The reiteration of settled principles of law -adds nothing to our jurisprudence. It adds volume to the number of published opinions increasing the burdens of the student of ithe law- in his diligent search ito keep abreast with current court decisions, and slowly but surely -adds to the number of books he is compelled to buy.

From this date on, it will be the policy o'f this court when conditions arise such as we have in the instant case, and we conclude the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed 'and such judgment cannot reach the Supreme Court on application for writ of error, and no new questions 'are involved, we will refrain from writing opinions giving our reasons for such affirmances. The judgment of the trial court in this case is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6122

JAMES DALLAS TOLBERT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE DEEDS,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 97-6774

JAMES DALLAS TOLBERT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE DEEDS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-116-R)
2

Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Dallas Tolbert, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Even if we were to construe Tolbert's notice of appeal as a

motion for production filed in this Court, we note that the record

on appeal transmitted to this court appears to contain all the

materials encompassed by Tolbert's request.

3

PER CURIAM:

James Dallas Tolbert seeks to appeal, in No. 97-6122, the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Tolbert v. Deeds,

No. CA-96-116-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 23, 1996).

Turning to Tolbert's appeal in No. 97-6774, we note that this

is an appeal from a post-judgment motion for the provision of

records and transcripts to aid in preparation of the appeal in No.

97-6122. Because Tolbert appeals directly from the magistrate

judge's order, we find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to

consider the appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal as well.* 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
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Western District of Texas

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT

Plaintiff

 v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC, EMC 

CORPORATION, AND VMWARE, INC. 6:20-CV-00486-ADA WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A BRAZOS LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT 12/17/2021 /s/ John W. Downing John W. Downing (CA Bar No. 252850)

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200

Redwood Shores, California 94065

jdowning@kasowitz.com (650) 453-5170 (650) 453-5171

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 134 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 1
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00396

- CR

John Rafael Arguello
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 258th District Court of San Jacinto County , Texas Trial Cause No. 11,717

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by

this Court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 28, 20 18
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00384-CR

Juan SANCHEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR11560

Honorable Jennifer Peña, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 31, 2024.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
##### 



EXHIBIT 1.3 (FORM No. 7a PAGE) FORM NO. 7a            Registration No. 31325
BERMUDA
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT OF
MEMORANDUM OF INCREASE OF SHARE CAPITAL
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a Memorandum of Increase of Share Capital
of
Viatel Holding (Bermuda) Limited
was delivered to the Registrar of Companies on the 25th day of April, 2002 in
accordance with section 45(3) of the Companies Act 1981 (the Act).
Given under my hand and the Seal of the Registrar of Companies this 2nd day of
May, 2002.
for Acting Registrar of Companies
Capital prior to increase: US$12,000.00
Amount of increase: US$988,000.00
Present Capital: US$1,000,000.00
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and to which this certification is furnished as an exhibit, I, Robert E. Lowder, the principal executive officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) 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: February 13, 2006



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/    ROBERT E.
LOWDER                 
|Robert E. Lowder Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and will be retained by The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC 

 

v. Case No.: 6:20-cv-00489-ADA 

 

ZTE CORPORATION ET AL 

ORDER 

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day, there was presented to the Court the Motion for Admission 

Pro Hac Vice filed by Jayita Guhaniyogi (“Applicant”), counsel for , and the Court, having reviewed 

the motion, enters the following order: 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED, and Applicant 

may appear on behalf of in the above case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant, if he/she has not already done so, shall immediately 

tender the amount of $100.00, made payable to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, in compliance with Local 

Court Rule AT-1(f)(2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the corresponding Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice was 

e-filed, the attorney who filed the Motion on behalf of the Applicant is directed to notify the Applicant 

of this order. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Applicant, pursuant to the Administrative Policies and 

Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal cases in the Western District of Texas, shall 

register as a filing user within 10 days of the date of this Order, if he/she has not previously done so on 

a prior case in this District. 

SIGNED this the 28th day of December, 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00489-ADA Document 147 Filed 12/28/21 Page 1 of 1