alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, each hereby
certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose 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 their 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.

                                              By: /s/ Harold K. Fletcher
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Harold K. Fletcher
                                                  Chairman and President

                                                  /s/ Joseph P. Macaluso
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Joseph P. Macaluso
                                                  Principal Accounting Officer

                                                  August 18, 2005

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp and will be retained by
Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### POWDRILL v. STATE.

No. 26884.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1954.

Power, McDonald & Mell, Warren McDonald and Milton Greer Mell, Tyler, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s. Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful sale of beer in a dry area, and her punishment was assessed at thirty days in jail and a fine of $100.

The state introduced proof that Smith County was a dry area.

J. P. Hadnot, Inspector for the Liquor Control Board, testified that on May 23, 1953, in Smith County, he bought four cans of beer from the appellant for which he paid her fifty cents per can; that he transferred some of the beer to a bottle which he at the time labeled showing “where it was picked up and what it was and from whom it was taken,” and no further identification of the notations on the label was made by the witness Hadnot. He further testified that the labeled notations were made out of the presence of the appellant, and that on May 23, he delivered said bottle to I. V. Sims, an Inspector for the Liquor Control Board.

I. V. Sims testified that he was not present at the time of the alleged sale; and that J. P. Hadnot, on May 23, delivered to him a bottle which-had remained in his possession since that time and which bore a label that had written on it the following:

> “Purchased from Mary. Alice Powdrill, purchased by J. P. Hadnot, price 50¢, Address: 222 Medlin Alley, Tyler, Smith County, May 21st, 1953, 6 P. M.”

which was read to the jury by the witness Sims during his testimony, and the bottle and label were introduced in evidence.

*880Appellant testified that she delivered beer to J. P. Hadnot at her father’s request but did not sell it to him.

Appellant contends that the court erred in permitting the notations written on the label to be read to the jury and in admitting the bottle in evidence with the label thereon over her objection that the same were hearsay.

The notations on the label of the bottle concerning the purchase of the beer were hearsay. The same being evidentiary of and bearing on the controverted issue as to the alleged sale, it was error to admit the same in evidence. Parker v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 567, 106 S.W.2d 313; Austin v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 360, 261 S.W. 1035. In Ellison v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 227 S.W.2d 817, we held that if such notations were used only as a means of identification of the person from whom the liquor had been taken, and the date thereof, then no error was shown. We further said that if such notations became evidentiary of certain sales, then they should not be admitted.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### SANDERS v. STATE.

No. 22483.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 14, 1943.

Jno. B. McNamara, of Waco, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty, appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary, and his punishment assessed by the jury at two years confinement in the State penitentiary.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The indictment appears regular.

No error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

                         Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp


          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 Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp
(the "Company"),  on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,  each hereby
certify,  pursuant to and solely for the purpose 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 their 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.

                                         By:  /s/ Harold K. Fletcher
                                              ------------------------------
                                                  Harold K. Fletcher
                                                  Chairman and President

                                              /s/ Joseph P. Macaluso
                                              ------------------------------
                                                  Joseph P. Macaluso
                                                  Principal Accounting Officer

                                              February 13, 2006

       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
  has been provided to Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp and will be retained by
       Tel-Instrument Electronics Corp and furnished to the Securities and
                 Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       18
#### PROSCH v. STATE.

No. 26085.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1952.

W. E. Martin and James J. Shown, Houston, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder without malice; the punishment, two years.

The witness Steel testified that on the night in question he was a passenger in an automobile driven by a Mr. Manshack; and, as they were proceeding northward op Curry Road in Houston, an automobile entered Curry Road from their left, without stopping at a stop sign, ran in front of them, causing their automobile to collide therewith, and that Mr. Manshack died as the result of the collision.

Numerous police officers, who arrived upon the scene of the wreck, testified that appellant was intoxicated. A written confession of appellant was introduced in evidence, in which he admitted that he had drunk six or eight bottles of beer and two or three drinks of gin prior to the accident and admitted that he was the driver of the automobile involved in the collision.

Appellant claims a fatal variance between the allegations in the indictment and the proof. The indictment charged-appellant with having caused the death of Manshack “by then and there driving his said automobile into and causing it to collide with and strike another automobile” in *433which Manshack was riding. The proof, as stated, was that appellant drove across in front of the automobile in which the deceased was riding and that the collision resulted therefrom.

We feel that the evidence established that appellant caused his automobile to' collide with the automobile in which the deceased was riding. It is evident that it was appellant’s act that brought about the collision. This contention is overruled.

Appellant’s two bills of exception present situations which, if true, might require a reversal of the cause. Neither bill was approved by the trial judge. He prepared and filed his own bills. There are no bystanders’ bills in the record. The court’s bills reflect no reversible error.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2785]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP85-60-013]


Overthrust Pipeline Company; Notice of Report of Refunds

February 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on January 27, 2000, Overthrust Pipeline Company 
tendered for filing a refund report. Overthrust states that the report 
documents refunds of amounts pertaining to and detailing the Deferred 
Income Tax (DIT) refund payments for the year 1999.
    Overthrust states that it is filing the refund report pursuant to a 
Commission order dated May 21, 1991, ``Order Approving Settlement with 
Modifications'' in Docket Nos. RP85-60-000 and -002. Overthrust 
explains the Article V of the settlement, as modified, requires 
Overthrust to file an annual report 60 days after making the actual DIT 
refunds.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before February 9, 2000. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-2785 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Order entered October 15 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01089

- CV

IN RE SANDRA CRENSHA W, Relator

O riginal Proceeding from Dallas County, Texas



### O RDER

Bef ore Justices Whitehill, Partida

- Kipness and Pedersen, III

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this proceeding for want of

jurisdiction.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         371,237
<SECURITIES>                                   984,243
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,073,993
<ALLOWANCES>                                   402,000
<INVENTORY>                                    470,733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,956,406
<PP&E>                                         503,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                 648,766
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,459,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,029,077
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,635
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,243,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,310,346
<SALES>                                      2,362,951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,362,951
<CGS>                                        1,053,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,053,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,253,995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,007
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             47,007
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        


</TABLE>
EX-10.19



 







EXHIBIT 10.19




SUMMARY OF BANK ONE CORPORATION

DIRECTOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN



Effective January 1, 2001




1. Amendment and Restatement. The First Chicago NBD Corporation Plan for Deferring the Payment of
Director’s Fees is renamed as the Bank One Corporation Director Deferred Compensation Plan and has
been amended and restated effective January 1, 2001.



2. Predecessor Plans. All deferred compensation programs for directors established by Bank One’s
predecessors are merged into the Director Deferred Compensation Plan effective December 31, 2000 or
such later date as is administratively feasible.



3. Investments. Directors may elect phantom investments that mirror the investment choices
available under the Savings and Investment Plan (excluding the Bank One common stock fund), which
elections may be changed on a daily basis (i.e., to the same extent as investments in the SIP).



4. Distributions. Distributions under the Plan will commence as soon as administratively
practicable following the close of the calendar year in which the director retires. Directors may
elect to receive deferred amounts in a lump sum or in annual installments over a period of up to 15
years, and payments may be accelerated in the discretion of the Plan administrator.



5. Beneficiaries. Beneficiaries will receive payment of all deferred amounts in a lump sum as soon
as practicable following the director’s death.



6. Plan Administrator. The Plan Administrator will be the Organization, Compensation and Nominating
Committee of the Board of Directors.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHILES OFFSHORE LLC CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,515
<PP&E>                                         111,787
<DEPRECIATION>                                      62
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,838
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,433
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,387
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    173
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

l0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

139077

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139077 COA: 282548 Cass CC: 07-010088-FH JAMES GREGORY OWENS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### GENTRY v. STATE.

No. 26035.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with having sold whisky in a dry area on April 6, 1952, to one Lester Gray, and also with having sold whisky to the same witness on April 7, 1952.

The testimony shows that such sales were made by the appellant at such time and place. We find no denial thereof in the record except the appellant’s plea of not guilty.

*459The court charged the jury on each of said two sales and the verdict of the jury found the defendant guilty in both counts and assessed his punishment in each count at a fine of $250 and confinement in jail for three months.

There are three bills of exception in the record. Bill No. 1 complains because the witness, Lester Gray, the purchaser of said liquor, in attempting to fix the hour in which said purchases were made, testified that it was on the second trip out to the appellant’s filling station; that he remembered that Mr. Andrew Caddell went with him on the second occasion, and that, “Yes, he (Mr. Caddell) and I decided to go out there Monday evening after we got off the grand jury.” The court allowed this matter to stand over the appellant’s objection, and we confess our inability to find any error shown in the bill because of the witness being allowed- to thus testify. No reason is given why the same was injurious to the appellant. Moreover, we find that the court’s qualification of the bill shows that the answer of the witness Gray was called for by the testimony. No reason appearing as to its erroneous nature, we see no merit in such bill.

Bill No. 2 relates to the introduction of the bottles of whisky purchased from the appellant by Mr. Gray and Mr. Caddell, which seem to have been fully identified as the same bottles that were presented in court on the trial hereof.

Bill No. 3 relates to appellant’s objection to Paragraph 2 of the court’s charge “as commenting on the weight of the evidence and invades the province of the jury to pass on fact questions.’1’ We gather from the court’s qualification that the objection related to the dry status of Hockley County at the time that these purchases were alleged to have been made. We find in answer thereto that appellant, in open court and together with the State, entered into a stipulation “that Hockley County was a dry area on or about the 6th day of April, 1952, and on or about the 7th day of April, 1952, the dates on which the offenses were alleged to have occurred, and was a dry area at the time of the trial as defined by the Texas Liquor Control Act [Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666-1 et seq.].” Paragraph 2 of the court’s charge merely carried out the stipulation agreed to in open court by both -parties.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is -affirmed.
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **ESSEX
        PORTFOLIO, L.P.**
 **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**
 
 
 Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b)
        of
        Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Keith R. Guericke,
        hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form
        10-K
        for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K”) of Essex Portfolio, L.P.
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained
        in
        the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of Essex Portfolio, L.P. at the dates of and for
        the
        periods presented.
  
 Date:
                  March 1, 2007
              /s/
                  Keith R. GuerickeKeith
                  R. GuerickeChief
                  Executive Officer and President,Director
                  and Vice Chairman of the Board,Essex
                  Property Trust, Inc., general partner of Essex Portfolio,
                  L.P.