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

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Tektronix, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
H. Wills, President and 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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.

Dated: October 4, 2002


/s/ RICHARD H. WILLS
-------------------------------------
Richard H. Wills
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### MOONEYHAM v. STATE.

No. 26218.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

*385George- P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of driving an automobile upon a public high-. way while intoxicated, and his punishment • was assessed at a fine of $100.00.

The record contains no notice of appeal, in the absence of which we are without jurisdiction to enter any order except a dismissal of the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### MARTIN v. TANNER.

No. 12385.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 25, 1952.

Victor B. Rogers, Fredericksburg, for appellant.

Petsch & Petsch, Fredericksburg, for ap-pellee.

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice.

J. O. Tanner sued Lela B. Martin, individually and as independent executrix of the last will and testament of Tom Martin, deceased, seeking to recover the sum of $711.53 for services allegedly rendered to her and her deceased husband.

Lela B. Martin hied an answer and cross-action in which she admitted an indebtedness of $100.98, but denied any further liability. -In her cross-action she alleged that Tanner had failed to deliver her share of the 1949 crop, consisting of 39 sacks of speltz and 110 sacks of maize, and that he had appropriated this grain to his own use. She also asked for exemplary damages for this alleged conversion.

The trial was to a jury on special issues. The jury found, in effect, that Lela B. Martin was indebted to Tanner for services rendered in the sum of $579.55, against which she should be allowed the value of her one-third share of the 1949 crop, $379. The jury also found in favor of Lela B. Martin in the sum of $500 as exemplary damages, but, upon motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, this recovery was refused and judgment entered in favor of Tanner against Lela B. Martin in the total sum of $300.55. Lela B. Martin has prosecuted this appeal.

Appellant presents but one point on this appeal, which is that the court erred in disregarding the jury’s finding to the effect that Lela B. Martin was entitled to recover the sum of $500 as exemplary damages. The evidence shows that Tanner harvested the entire crop in 1949 and hauled it to his own barn, which was five or six miles from the field, when he was supposed to have left Mrs. Martin’s one-third in her barn, which' was only a few hundred yards from the field. Tanner at first separated the one-third of the grain belonging to Mrs. Martin from the two-thirds belonging to him. He later used at least a portion of the grain belonging to Mrs. Martin to feed his hogs. He sold the hogs when they were ready for market and put the money in his own pocket.

We see in these facts nothing more than a breach of contract or a conversion of grain belonging to Mrs. Martin by Tanner. This suit might be regarded as a suit for accounting between Tanner and Mrs. Martin. According to the verdict of the jury and the finding of the court there was a balance due Tanner of $300.55 Under such circumstances we are unable to find that there was evidence of such malice on the part of Tanner as to support an award of exemplary damages agMnst him in favor of *322Mrs. Martin, and the trial judge did not err in refusing to render judgment for exemplary damages. 13 Tex.Jur. 245, Damages, § 135.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.4

Certification Pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

This certification is provided pursuant to ss.  906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 of HorizonOffshore, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report).

I, David W. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or    15(d) of the Securities 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.

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ David W. Sharp                                 

  
David W. Sharp

Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer

March 15, 2004 |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.B


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2003, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the "Company") as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Greg G. Gruber, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                                /s/ Greg G. Gruber
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Greg G. Gruber
                                           Senior Vice President, Chief
                                           Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)

                                           August 13, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 5859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2704]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Computer Software Available for License

AGENCY:  Office of General Counsel, Department of Energy.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The U.S. Department of Energy announces that the following 
computer software is available for license: EC-WEB and EC/EDI Gateway 
small purchase software.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Michael P. Hoffman, Office of the 
Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual 
Property, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20585; Telephone (202) 586-2802.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The above-captioned computer software was 
prepared by a DOE contractor. It is used to assist the Department in 
making small purchases. The software is currently in need of revision, 
and the Department is looking for one or more private-sector parties 
who will revise and maintain the software at their own expense. A 
royalty free, worldwide, non-exclusive, or if deemed necessary, 
exclusive copyright license will be given as the incentive. The 
Government will retain an unlimited, royalty free, non-exclusive 
license in the original version of the software, and will receive a 
Government-wide, non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty free license to 
reproduce, distribute and modify the revised version prepared by the 
selected exclusive copyright licensee. The selected private-sector 
party or parties will have the right to market the software to non-
Government parties. Parties will be given 45 calendar days from the 
date of this Notice to contact the Department. After the period for 
response has elapsed, respondents will be sent a series of questions on 
their plans for revising and maintaining the software, and under what 
terms they would make it available to the Government. DOE will then 
decide which party or parties to select.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1, 2000.
Paul A. Gottlieb,
Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual 
Property.
[FR Doc. 00-2704 Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Exhibit 10.2
 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO
SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTE
  WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 Capitalized Terms.
 Maturity.
 Miscellaneous.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 SUNAIR
SOUTHEAST PEST HOLDINGS, INC.
 By:
    
    /s/ Jack I. RuffJack I. Ruff, President
 SELLERS REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF CHARLES P.
STEINMETZ, THE CHARLES P. STEINMETZ IRREVOCABLE
TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF MATTHEW A. STEINMETZ, DATED
APRIL 22, 2002 , THE CHARLES P. STEINMETZ IRREVOCABLE
TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOUIS STEINMETZ, DATED
APRIL 22, 2002 AND GREGORY A. CLENDENIN, AS TRUSTEE
OF THE GREGORY A. CLENDENIN TRUST, DATED SEPTEMBER
11,1997, AS AMENDED
 By:
    
    /s/ Charles P. SteinmetzCharles P. Steinmetz
 2
#### PUCKETT v. STATE.

No. 24464.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1949.

Allen, Locke & Kouri, Wichita Falls, John Story, Vernon, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for murder. Pending the appeal and on April 2, 1949, the appellant died, as shown by affidavit of the sheriff and the concurrence of the district attorney.

Upon the showing of death thus presented, the appeal is abated.
#### DEEN v. BIRDVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

No. 2392—7780.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Jan. 28, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1942.

Houtchens & Houtchens and J. Harold Craik, all of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error.

W. L. Coley and Robert Sansom, both of Fort Worth, for defendant in error.

HICKMAN, Commissioner.

In the trial court plaintiff in error, R. A. Deen, recovered judgment against defendant in error, Birdville Independent School District, for damages for the breach of a teacher’s contract, which judgment was reversed and the cause remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals. 141 S.W.2d 680.

The record discloses that the called meeting of the Board of Trustees, attended by four of its seven members, at which it is claimed by Deen that he was employed, was held on April 7, 1936. Some question arose as to the sufficiency of the notice given of that meeting to make the contract valid, and another meeting was called for April 13, 1936, for the purpose of ratifying and confirming the contract theretofore made. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the meeting of April 13th was not lawfully called. It further held that the plaintiff’s pleadings were not sufficient to disclose that he relied “for the validity of his contract upon any valid called meeting of the trustees had and held on April 7th.”

The application for writ of error was granted upon an assignment challenging that holding. The assignment' is sustained. The petition firmly grounded plain*112tiff’s cause of action upon' the contract of April 7th. Of course, as stated in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, if the contract of April 7th was made under circumstances binding upon the parties, no ratification meeting was necessary to effect such purpose, but the fact that plaintiff alleged that such subsequent meeting was held should not, in our opinion, be construed as an abandonment of his allegations of the validity of the former meeting.

But we are unable to reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. Among other holdings made by that court was a holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of the jury that the meeting held on April 13th was held and conducted in the usual way and manner in the transaction of the affairs of the district. A like holding was made with reference to the finding of the jury that the meeting of April 7th was held and conducted in the usual and customary way and manner in the transaction of the affairs of the district. We are without jurisdiction to disturb those holdings. They are holdings on questions of fact, as to which the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals is final. Electric Express & Baggage Co. v. Ablon, 110 Tex. 235, 218 S.W. 1030; Hall Music Co. v. Robinson, 117 Tex. 261, 1 S.W.2d 857.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, which reverses the judgment of the trial court and remands the cause for a new trial, is affirmed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                         357,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,213,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                   130,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,447,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,569,916
<PP&E>                                       6,338,944
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,652,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,917,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,792,641
<BONDS>                                        937,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,321
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,532,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,917,135
<SALES>                                      2,613,416
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,613,416
<CGS>                                        1,545,890
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  802,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (12,364)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                243,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                    82,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            161,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,641)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   158,386
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THIS REPORT ON FORM 10KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          13,829
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,878
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,420
<PP&E>                                       1,496,292
<DEPRECIATION>                                 215,857
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,444,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,478,569
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,821
<OTHER-SE>                                    (398,979)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,444,855
<SALES>                                        171,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,678
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,288,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (59,452)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,176,050)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,176,050)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,176,050)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.05)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

Information Concerning Executive Compensation

     It has been the policy of Citizens  Communications  Company (the "Company")
since the current  management  took over in late 2004 to  emphasize  performance
based  compensation  through the payment of bonuses  based upon  achievement  of
Company and individual performance goals.

     On February 22, 2006, the Company's  Compensation Committee in consultation
with Mrs. Maggie  Wilderotter,  Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer,  approved
cash bonuses for 2005 for each of the Company's current  executive  officers who
were included as named executive  officers in the Company's 2005 proxy statement
and for Peter B. Hayes,  who is anticipated to be a named  executive  officer in
the Company's 2006 proxy statement and also approved restricted stock grants for
each  of  those  executive  officers.   On  February  22,  2006,  the  Company's
Compensation  Committee  approved a cash bonus for 2005 and a  restricted  stock
grant for Mrs. Wilderotter.  Mrs.  Wilderotter's  compensation was reviewed with
the non-management directors of the Company's Board of Directors.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                             <C>                         <C>                       <C>
Name                                2006 Salary               2005 Bonus Amount ($)      Restricted Stock
                                       ($)(1)                                                 Grant (#)
------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------
Maggie Wilderotter, Chairman          $750,000                    $840,000                   160,000
and Chief Executive Officer

------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------
Jerry Elliott, President and          $530,000                    $550,000                   75,000
Acting Chief Financial Officer

------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------
John H. Casey, III, Executive         $410,000                    $400,000                   40,000
Vice President

------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------
Daniel J. McCarthy, Executive         $280,000                    $208,750                   30,000
Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer

------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------
Peter B. Hayes, Executive             $283,250                    $190,000                   32,000
Vice President, Sales,
Marketing and Business
Development

</TABLE>


     1.   Includes  increases  for each of the executive  officers  named in the
          table.
#### STEPHENS v. STATE.

No. 23047.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 3, 1945.

Howard Dailey, of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens-, State’s Atty., of Austin* for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

We adopt the brief of the State’s Attorney before this court as our opinion herein:

“This is an appeal from the Distict Court of Ellis County, Texas, from an order of the Honorable A. R. Stout, Judge of said Court, refusing to grant appellant a trial or hearing on the question of his sanity or insanity upon the petition, application and request of the Honorable Howard Dailey, to which is attached the affidavit of Essie Clinkscales, Lola Clinkscales and Pearl Stephens, wherein it is stated or alleged that the said J. B. Stephens is now insane; .that he has become insane since his conviction for the offense of murder, the jury having assessed the death penalty in the Distict Court of Ellis County, Texas, and from which judgment of conviction appellant appealed to the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals. [182 S.W.2d 707.]

“Article 921, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the 42nd Legislature, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 921, provides in substance that if, after conviction, a person becomes insane and su'ch fact be made known to the judge of the court in which the conviction occurred a jury shall be impanelled as in ordinary cases to try the question of insanity; and Article 922, Code of Criminal Procedure, defines 'Information to the Judge of the Court,’ as provided in Article 921, above referred to, stating that such information shall consist of the affidavit of (1) the superintendent of some State institution for the treatment of the insane, or (2) the affidavit of not less than two licensed and regularly practicing physicians of the State of Texas, or (3) the affidavit of the prison physician or warden of the penal institution wherein the defendant is imprisoned, or (4) the county health officer of the county where the defendant was finally convicted, which affidavit, if made, shall state that, after a personal examination of the defendant, it is the opinion of the affiant that defendant is insane; and said affidavit shall, in addition thereto, set forth the reasons and the cause or causes which have justified the opinion.

Obviously, appellant’s petition and affidavits do not comply with the requirements as set out in Article 922, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the judge of the District Court of Ellis County did not err in refusing to hear evidence on said application. See Ex parte Maple, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 135, 33 S.W.2d 739; Ex parte McKenzie, 116 Tex. Cr.R. 144, 28 S.W.2d 133.”

Wherefore this cause is dismissed.