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




 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      of Title 18 Of The United States Code
                      -------------------------------------

I, Jonathan P. Ward, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The
ServiceMaster Company, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster Company.




                                /s/ Jonathan P. Ward
                                --------------------
                                Jonathan P. Ward
                                Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                March 15, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The ServiceMaster Company and will be retained by The ServiceMaster
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID FLORES, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. DAVID B. LONG, Respondent - Appellee. No. 11-55235 D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00097-JVS-FFM
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 4, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 to review the denial of David Flores’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas pe tition. We review the district court’s denial of the habeas petition de novo, Maciel v. Cate , 731 F.3d 928, 932 (9th Cir. 2013), and affirm. 

# FILED
MAR 17 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.1. To the extent Flores invites us to second-guess the California Court of Appeal’s interpretation of California law, we decline the invitation, because “it is not the province of a federal habeas cour t to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” Estelle v. McGuire , 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). The California Court of Appeal’s decision affirm ing the trial court’s refusal to give the jury the duress instruction was not unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The record supports the California Court of A ppeal’s factual determination that there was no evidence Flores committed the crimes under duress. Omission of a duress instruction could therefore not have “so in fected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” Cupp v. Naughten , 414 U.S. 141, 147 (1973). 2. Flores’s argument that the trial court misapplied California rules of evidence when it admitted a hearsay statemen t “fall[s] outside the scope of federal habeas relief, which is designed only to remedy violations of federal law.” Winzer v. Hall , 494 F.3d 1192, 1198 (9th Cir. 2007). Admission of the non-testimonial statement did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004). 3. Flores is not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance claim, because “there is [a] reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland ’s deferential standard.” Harrington v. Richter , 131 S. Ct. 770, 788 (2011). The decision to call
-2-Marcos Campos or William Simon as witne sses could have hurt Flores’s defense and therefore falls within the “wide latit ude counsel must have in making tactical decisions.” Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984). And, even assuming trial counsel was deficient for failing to call Benjamin Flores, Flores failed to show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694. Flores also faults trial counsel fo r failing to call expert witnesses and speculates that they would have suppor ted his defense. “Such speculation, however, is insufficient to establish prejudice.” Wildman v. Johnson , 261 F.3d 832, 839 (9th Cir. 2001). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-3-
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Ed H. Bowman, Jr., certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of *SOURCECORP*, Incorporated;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  November 13, 2003 | By:    |    /s/ Ed H. Bowman, Jr.     |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Ed H. Bowman, Jr.                      |
|                          |   | Chief Executive Officer and  President |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28119]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel Aging Oxidative Stress and Cell Death.
    Date: November 8, 2000.
    Time: 6:00 PM to 11:00 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Courtyard by Marriott Medical Center, 8585 Marriott, San 
Antonio, TX 78229.
    Contact Person: Ramesh Vemuri, PhD, Office of Scientific Review, 
National Institute on Aging, The Bethesda Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C12, Bethesda, MD 20892, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 496-9666.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 24, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-28119 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of *SOURCECORP*, Incorporated, a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in theForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 10, 2006 | /s/ ED H. BOWMAN,  JR.              |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------|
|               | Ed H. Bowman, Jr.                   |
|               | *President and Chief Executive  Officer* |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code).

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 18, 2018

No. 04-18-00404-CR

Maxwell Lynn JORDAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR1752

Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 

U.S. 738 (1967). This court previously issued an order setting a deadline for appellant to file a 

pro se brief if appellant desired to file such a brief. On October 15, 2018, appellant filed a motion 

requesting access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 320–21 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014). Appellant’s motion to access the record is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that 

the district clerk of Bexar County shall prepare and send a full and complete duplicate copy of 

the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record for cause number 2015CR1752 to: Maxwell Jordan 

TDCJ# 02202071, c/o Garza East Unit, 4304 Hwy. 202, Beeville, Texas 78102. It is FURTHER 

ORDERED that the district clerk file written notice in this court no later than ten days from the 

date of this order confirming the date the record was sent to appellant.

If, after reviewing the record, appellant desires to file a pro se appellate brief, he must do 

so within thirty days from the date this court receives written notice that the record was sent to 

appellant by the district clerk. Appellant is advised that as a pro se litigant representing himself 

on appeal, he will be “held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with 

applicable laws and rules of procedure.” Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 52–53 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied).

If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than 

thirty days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.
_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                               REMEDY CORPORATION
 
                           COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME
                     PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                          SEPTEMBER 30,          SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                        ------------------    --------------------
                                                         1997       1996        1997        1996
                                                        -------    -------    --------    --------
<S>                                                     <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>
Primary
  Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding......................................   27,789     26,497      27,363      26,224
  Incremental common shares attributable to shares
     issuable under employee stock plans..............    2,712      3,345       2,994       3,630
                                                         ------     ------     -------     -------
          Total shares................................   30,501     29,842      30,357      29,854
                                                         ======     ======     =======     =======
Net income:
  Amount..............................................   $8,113     $4,393     $19,061     $10,040
                                                         ======     ======     =======     =======
  Per share...........................................    $0.27      $0.15       $0.63       $0.34
                                                         ======     ======     =======     =======
Fully diluted
  Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding......................................   27,789     26,497      27,363      26,224
  Incremental common shares attributable to shares
     issuable under employee stock plans..............    2,712      3,753       3,054       3,837
                                                         ------     ------     -------     -------
          Total shares................................   30,501     30,250      30,417      30,061
                                                         ======     ======     =======     =======
Net income:
  Amount..............................................   $8,113     $4,393     $19,061     $10,040
                                                         ======     ======     =======     =======
  Per share...........................................    $0.27      $0.15       $0.63       $0.33
                                                         ======     ======     =======     =======
</TABLE>
No. 72-1263.

#### Wilk et al. *v.*Yellow Freight System, Inc., et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### RUSSELL v. STATE.

No. 25151.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The transcript filed with this Court contains no notice of appeal, without which this Court has no jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6495

ALLAN L. GANT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JANET RENO, U. S. Attorney General; CATHERINE

HAWKS, Regional Director, Bureau of Prisons;

WILLIAM J. THOMPSON, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute-Morgantown; VICTOR SIHA,

M.D., Medical Director; BLANCO, Physicians Assistant; TAYLOR, Physicians Assistant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-29-1)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allan L. Gant, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Michael Flatley, Assistant

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court’s order denying

relief on his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gant

v. Reno, No. CA-97-29-1 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 30, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
  pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

I, Drew A. Moyer, Chief Financial Officer of Technitrol, Inc., certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended April 1, 2005
      (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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)   information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Technitrol, Inc.

Dated: May 4, 2005
       -----------

                                        /s/ Drew A. Moyer
                                        -----------------
                                        Drew A. Moyer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will be
retained by Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of
the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant


1.    Internet Security Systems, Inc. (Georgia)
2.    ISS Group, Inc. (Delaware)
3.    Internet Security Systems Ltd. (United Kingdom)
4.    ISS Investment Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
5.    Internet Security Systems NV (Belgium)
6.    Internet Security Systems KK (Japan)
7.    Internet Security Systems Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
8.    Internet Security Systems Gmbh (Germany)
9.    ISSX Internet Security Systems AG (Switzerland)
10.   Internet Security Systems Iberia Sl (Spain)
11.   Internet Security Systems Nordic AB (Sweden)
12.   Internet Security Systems Sarl (France)
13.   Internet Security Systems Srl (Italy)
14.   Internet Security Systems Ltda. (Brazil)
15.   Internet Security Systems (Latin America), Inc. (Florida)
16.   Internet Security Systems; S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico)
17.   ISS Internet Security Solutions Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
18.   Network ICE Corporation (California)
19.   TriSecurity Holdings Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
20.   TriSecurity Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
21.   vCIS, Inc. (California)
22.   vCIS, Pty. Ltd (Australia)
23.   Internet Security Systems BV (Netherlands)
24.   ISS Middle East, LLC (Egypt)
25.   Cobion AG
26.   Cobion Corp. (Massachusetts)
27.   Internet Security Systems (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (China)
exv10w12



 








Exhibit 10.12




American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc.

Non-employee Director Compensation Summary



In July 2004, the Board of Directors of American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. approved the
following compensation schedule for independent directors:




Annual Retainer



We pay our independent directors an annual retainer for serving on the Board and Committees as
follows:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Board member
	 	$	25,000	 
	Audit Committee chair
	 	$	10,000	 
	Audit Committee member
	 	$	7,500	 
	Compensation Committee chair
	 	$	5,000	 
	Compensation Committee member
	 	$	2,500	 
	Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee member
	 	$	2,500	 






Stock Options




     Our current compensation program also provides for the grant of stock options to our
independent directors. In May 2005, we granted each of our independent directors an option to
purchase 20,000 shares of our common stock in order to account for the Company’s two-for-one stock
split that was effected on March 21, 2005. Each independent director who is reelected as a
director at our 2006 annual meeting of stockholders or continues to serve as a director after such
meeting will be granted an option to purchase 10,000 shares of our common stock. The options have
an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the shares on the date of grant. The options
vest over a three-year period from the date of grant, as long as the non-employee director
continues to serve on the board, and become immediately exercisable in full upon a change in
control. The options expire seven years from the date of grant.



     Expenses



     In addition, we reimburse our non-employee directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in connection with attending regularly scheduled meetings.