alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 13.02**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the “Company”)on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EricMerrigan, Chief Financial Officer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)            the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(ii)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/Eric Merrigan

Name:Eric Merrigan

Title:Chief Financial Officer

 

November23, 2007

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited and will be retained by ChemGenexPharmaceutical Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Ex parte BERNI.

No. 24818.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 26, 1950.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1950.

*380Ronald Smallwood, San Antonio, J. Douglas McGuire, San Antonio, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Relator applied to the Hon. W. W. Mc-Crory, Judge of the Criminal District Court of Bexar County, for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was illegally restrained and confined in the county jail by the sheriff of said county.

Upon a hearing, Relator’s prayer for release was denied, and he was ordered remanded for delivery to the duly authorized agents of the State of New York.

Relator excepted and gave notice of appeal to this court, and his bail was fixed at $2500, in default of which it was ordered that he remain in custody.

Relator’s pleadings disclose that at the time of such hearing, no warrant of extradition had been issued by the Governor of Texas, nor had any request for such extradition been made of the Governor of Texas by the Governor of New York, for Relator or any other person named Andrew Berni.

Further pleadings filed herein reveal that shortly after the hearing referred to, an order of extradition signed by the Governor of Texas and the application therefor issued by the Governor of New York was presented to District Judge McCrory, and Relator’s attorneys were advised that a further hearing had been set and they were requested to be present.

At the time set for such further hearing upon such changed condition the attorneys failed to appear, but Relator personally stated that he desired to waive extradition, and no longer wished to be represented by counsel, but was anxious to return to New York and answer the charges there pending against him.

Thereupon the judge ordered Relator to be turned over to the agents of the State of New York.

It now further appears that Relator has been returned by such agents to New York. Relator’s attorneys concede that this court no longer is vested with jurisdiction of the habeas corpus proceedings.

The matter having become moot, the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

On Relator’s Motion for Rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

As stated in the original opinion, the record affirmatively reflects that, subsequent to the notice of appeal in this case and upon a further hearing under changed conditions, relator, in person, waived extradition and agreed to return to the demanding state.

Under such record we are unable to agree with relator’s counsel that the trial judge and state’s counsel caused relator to be removed to the demanding state pending his appeal from the judgment of the trial court ordering him delivered for extradition to the demanding state.

It follows, therefore, that no action is necessary or required to preserve the jurisdiction of this court over the appeal, in the first instance.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                             5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
       
<S>                                                 <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           33,783
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   240,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2,825
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                425,458
<PP&E>                                          339,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                  186,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  795,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           349,680
<BONDS>                                          22,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         17,731
<OTHER-SE>                                      337,633
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    795,782
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                961,404
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   897,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 47,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,086
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  16,842 <F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6,410
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              10,432
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     10,432
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.81
<FN>
<F1>Includes Interest Income of $2,208 not reflected on this tag list.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

July 29, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 0 0402

- CV
IN THE ESTATE OF MARIA L. RAYNES, DECEASED,
From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013PC0369 Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On July 26, 201 9 , Shannon K. Dunn, counsel for Appell ant /Cross

- Appellee Leah Raynes
, and Renée Yanta
, the proposed substitut e as counsel of record , jointly filed a n unopposed motion to substitute counsel

. The motion state s that Appellant/Cross

- Appellee Leah Raynes has received a copy of the motion and has consented to the substitution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5(b).
The motion to substitute Ren é e Yanta as counsel o f record an d allow Shannon K. Dunn to withdraw is GRANTED.
We DIRECT t he clerk of this court to update this court’s records accordingly

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of July, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court
Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal Page | 1

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,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00487-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00488-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00489-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00490-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00491-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00492-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00493-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00494-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00495-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00496-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00497-ADA

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF 

ATTORNEYS FROM CASE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC (“WSOU”), James L. Etheridge, Ryan S. 

Loveless, Travis L. Richins, Brett A. Mangrum, Jeffrey Huang, and Brian M. Koide, and their firm 

Etheridge Law Group, PPLC, hereby move to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff.

The lawyers with Kasowitz Benson Torres, LLP and Steckler Wayne Cochran Cherry will 

remain as counsel for Plaintiff.

This withdrawal will not cause a continuance or delay and will not prejudice WSOU or any 

other party to this action.

Defense counsel is not opposed to this motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests 

the Court enter an order reflecting this withdrawal and that all necessary changes be made to the 

Court’s records and ECF.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 187 Filed 04/04/22 Page 1 of 2
Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal Page | 2

DATED: April 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/James L. Etheridge

James L. Etheridge

Texas State Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas State Bar No. 24036997

Travis L. Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas State Bar No. 24065671

Jeffrey Huang

Brian M. Koide

Nathan K. Cummings 

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

JeffH@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brian@EtheridgeLaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on January 20, 2022, I, James Etheridge, conferred with Defendant

regarding Etheridge Law Group’s withdrawal from the case. Defendants are unopposed to this 

motion.

/s/ James L. Etheridge

James L. Etheridge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 4, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing using the Court’s 

Case Management and Electronic Case Filing system, which will send notification of such filing 

to counsel of record as registered in the Court’s system. 

/s/ James L. Etheridge

James L. Etheridge

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 187 Filed 04/04/22 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.1








Certifications
of Chief Executive Officer





I,
Jake Wei, Chief Executive Officer of Greater China Media and Entertainment
Corp., certify  pursuant  to 18
U.S.C.  Section  1350 as enacted by Section  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended September
30, 2008 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and





(2)
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Greater China
Media and Entertainment Corp.






Greater
      China Media and Entertainment Corp.January
      13, 2009By:
              /s/ Jake
      WeiJake
      WeiChief
      Executive Officer





A
signed  original of this
written  statement  required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version
of this written  statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Greater China Media and Entertainment Corp. and will
be  retained  by  Greater China Media and
Entertainment Corp.  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-703

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 11/5/2012

Sample Number: 124461-001 Date Collected: 10/15/2012 09:10 Date Received: 10/15/2012

1st Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Arsenic, As 23.9 ug/L 0.1 0.03 DPC 10/22/2012 14:47 EPA 200.8

Beryllium, Be < 0.1 ug/L U 0.5 0.1 DAM 10/26/2012 17:20 EPA 200.7

Selenium, Se 511 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 10/22/2012 14:47 EPA 200.8

Aluminum, Al 0.0476 mg/L 0.001 0.0003 DPC 10/22/2012 14:47 EPA 200.8

Boron, B 278 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 10/26/2012 17:20 EPA 200.7

Iron, Fe 0.431 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 10/26/2012 17:20 EPA 200.7

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 5.37 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 10/19/2012 EPA 351.2

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2 as N 17.6 mg/L 6 1 TDF 10/26/2012 13:39 EPA 300.1

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.21 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 10/19/2012 EPA 365.4

Residue, Filterable, TDS 14900 mg/L 20 6 MSO 10/18/2012 SM20 2540C

Sulfate, SO4 6080 mg/L 50 20 CRJ 10/26/2012 EPA 300.1

Sample Number: 124461-002 Date Collected: 10/15/2012 09:10 Date Received: 10/15/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Arsenic, As 2.25 ug/L 0.1 0.03 DPC 10/22/2012 14:52 EPA 200.8

Beryllium, Be < 0.1 ug/L U 0.5 0.1 DAM 10/26/2012 17:27 EPA 200.7

Selenium, Se 0.9 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 10/22/2012 14:52 EPA 200.8

Aluminum, Al 3.20 mg/L 0.001 0.0003 DPC 10/22/2012 14:52 EPA 200.8

Boron, B 278 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 10/26/2012 17:27 EPA 200.7

Iron, Fe 2.06 mg/L 0.01 0.002 DAM 10/26/2012 17:27 EPA 200.7

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN as N 3.28 mg/L 0.5 0.1 DMM 10/19/2012 EPA 351.2

Nitrate-Nitrite, NO3-NO2 as N < 1 mg/L U 6 1 TDF 10/26/2012 13:59 EPA 300.1

Phosphorus, Total, P 0.08 mg/L 0.05 0.01 DMM 10/19/2012 EPA 365.4

Residue, Filterable, TDS 14300 mg/L 20 6 MSO 10/18/2012 SM20 2540C

Sulfate, SO4 6150 mg/L 50 20 CRJ 10/26/2012 EPA 300.1

Mountaineer Plant, 124461 Page 1 of 2
Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 11/5/2012

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 124461 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 11

                        STERLING BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three Months Ended                 Nine Months Ended
                                             September 30,                      September 30,
                                     ----------------------------      ----------------------------
                                        2004              2003             2004             2003
                                     -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
<S>                                  <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Net income                           $ 6,737,934      $ 6,114,713      $19,918,042      $17,821,138
Less: preferred dividends                     --           31,127               --           94,271
                                     -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
Net income available for common
  shareholders and adjusted for
  diluted computation                $ 6,737,934      $ 6,083,586      $19,918,042      $17,726,867
                                     ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Weighted average common
  shares outstanding                  15,175,955       14,908,734       15,217,170       14,867,562
Add dilutive effect of:
    Stock options                        690,942          650,972          704,123          635,014
    Convertible preferred stock               --          227,137           44,866          229,301
                                     -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
Adjusted for assumed diluted
  computation                         15,866,897       15,786,843       15,966,159       15,731,877
                                     ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Basic earnings per share             $      0.44      $      0.41      $      1.31      $      1.19
                                     ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
Diluted earnings per share           $      0.43      $      0.39      $      1.25      $      1.13
                                     ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
</TABLE>


                                       71
#### Lawrence Development Corporation, Plaintiff, v Jobin Waterproofing, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant and third-party plaintiff, Jobin Waterproofing, was hired by plaintiff, itself a subcontractor, to furnish and install sealant between the granite panels of the plaza surrounding the headquarters building for Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company in New York City. Prior to its performance, Jobin sought a change in the type of sealant specified in the contract, suggesting that the specified sealant was inappropriate for the work. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the architectural firm that prepared the contract specifications, insisted upon the sealant called for by the specifications, and Jobin was directed to perform its contract. The general contractor thereafter rejected Jobin’s sealant work, and Jobin refused to repair or replace its work, as required by its contract. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the cost of replacement of the sealant. Jobin instituted a third-party action against several third-party defendants, seeking contribution and indemnity if held liable to plaintiff. The only issue before us is whether Supreme Court erred in granting the architect’s motion to dismiss the amended third-party complaint. We conclude that dismissal was proper.

*989The law is well settled that the remedy of contribution is not available to a defendant whose potential liability to the plaintiff is for economic loss resulting from an alleged breach of contract relating to a construction project (see, *Board of Educ. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley,*71 NY2d 21, 28-29; *City of Rochester v Holmsten Ice Rinks,*155 AD2d 939, 940). Also, because plaintiff seeks to hold defendant liable for its active negligence and breach of contract, defendant has no cause of action against the architect based upon the theory of implied indemnity *(see, Board of Educ. v Sargent, Webster, Crenshaw & Folley, supra,*at 27; *City of Rochester v Holmsten Ice Rinks, supra,*at 940). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Queens County, Katz, J.—dismiss amended third-party complaint.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Exhibit 99.5



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Richard Daddario, Chief Financial Officer of MONY Holdings, LLC, hereby certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief that this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MONY Holdings, LLC.



Date: May 15, 2003



/s/    Richard Daddario

---

Richard Daddario

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer
Take notice that on January 20, 2000, Duke Energy Hidalgo, L.P. filed an amendment to their application for exempt wholesale generator status filed on December 30, 1999.

                    Any person desiring to be heard concerning the amended application for exempt wholesale generator status should file a motion to intervene or comments 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 385.214). The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the amended application. All such motions and comments should be filed on or before February 11, 2000, and must be served on the applicant. Any person                     Start Printed Page 5863                    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 or on the internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance).                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2657 Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 1

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 10/02/20 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit 1, Page 1

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 10/02/20 Page 2 of 4
Exhibit 1, Page 2

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 10/02/20 Page 3 of 4
Exhibit 1, Page 3

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 29-4 Filed 10/02/20 Page 4 of 4