alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofEndocardial Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, James W. Bullock, Chief Executive Officer andprincipal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   |   | /s/ James W. Bullock         |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   |   | James W. Bullock             |
|   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  and |
|   |   |   | Principal Financial  Officer |
|   |   |   | August 14, 2002              |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,  2003,  as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, G.
Larry Owens,  Chief Financial  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) 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.


                                    /s/ G. Larry Owens
                                 -------------------------------------
                                 G. Larry Owens
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 August 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. and will be retained by Smithway Motor
Xpress Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,799,442
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         436,105
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               350,574
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,632,440
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,068,066
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,137,890
<LOANS>                                    110,810,893
<ALLOWANCE>                                    753,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             149,541,670
<DEPOSITS>                                 115,345,118
<SHORT-TERM>                                10,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,324,938
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,250,356
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,121,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             149,541,670  
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,859,929
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,330,937 
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               148,632
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             8,339,498
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,140,012
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,593,645
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,745,853
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   15,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               6,418
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,352,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (294,292)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (284,292)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (207,292)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.45
<LOANS-NON>                                    752,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               748,547
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              753,547
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           753,547
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008305EN.01S00301.xml

| 28.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MARY KAY WEISS,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-CV-331-P

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The Court received notification that the Parties settled in the instant 

dispute. The Court therefore ORDERS that all deadlines are STAYED

until further ordered by the Court. The Parties shall file appropriate 

dismissal papers—either a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or an appropriate motion and 

corresponding proposed order—with the Clerk’s Office on or before 

November 10, 2022.

SO ORDERED on this 13th day of October 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00331-P Document 22 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 102
#### MANLEY v. STATE.

No. 22749.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1944.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us with no statement of facts and no hills of exceptions; the appellant also pleaded guilty, with no request for a suspended sentence. He received the lowest penalty. The indictment appears proper, and all proceedings regular.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
#### LENOX v. STATE.

No. 21642.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 11, 1941.

Reginald Bracewell, of Huntsville, for appellant.

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

BEAUCPIAMP, Judge.

Appellant was tried on a charge of maintaining a common nuisance and assessed ninety days in jail with a fine of $100.

 Appellant timely moved to quash the complaint and information on the ground that it failed to charge an offense against the law. It is alleged also that the charges are in the disjunctive in that it is alleged that appellant was keeping a place "* * * where intoxicating liquor, to wit, beer and whiskey was kept, possessed and sold or given away * * It further sets out that the complaint and information failed to negative the fact that appellant did not have a license to sell intoxicants. It charges the many items which the statute prohibits and we would be unable to know which offense the appellant would be called on to defend. A guilty man might be in position to choose the one, but our laws presume him to be innocent. The charge must be specific. We think the motion should have been granted. Carr v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 438, 104 S.W.2d 866; Commander v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 143 S.W.2d 953.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
#### MENCZER v. FORT WORTH NAT. BANK.

No. 14188.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

March 7, 1941.

M. Kleberg, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Geo. C. Kemble, of Fort Worth, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

Appellee, the Fort Worth National Bank, brought suit as trustee of the estate of M. R. Sanguinet, deceased, against appellant, S. A. Menczer, on a promissory note in the principal sum of $4,000, executed by appellant and made payable to-the order of M. R. Sanguinet.

The petition discloses that the plaintiff below sues in its representative capacity, for the use and benefit of the estate for which it is acting as Trustee; that San-guinet is dead; that he died testate; that his will was duly probated and that petitioner was nominated as Trustee of the deceased’s estate in the will; that after petitioner became such trustee, Menczer entered into an extension agreement with it, whereby the maturity date of the note was changed to April 10, 1938; that Menczer “has defaulted in the payment of said note, and has wholly failed and refused to pay' the same or any interest thereon”; and prayed for principal, interest and attorney’s fees.

Appellant answered by a general demurrer, general denial, and that the cause of action had “been adjusted and settled”.

The cause was tried to a jury, and the trial court peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff.

Defendant, Menczer, has appealed, and the eight assignments of error found in his brief are all bottomed upon the 'failure of the trial court to sustain his general demurrer.

The right of the plaintiff to sue as trustee of the estate of deceased cannot be successfully raised by a general demurrer, but must be raised, if at all, by a plea in abatement. Vol. 1, Tex.Jur., Sect. 96, page 132; Young et al. v. Meredith, 38 Tex.Civ.App. 59, 85 S.W. 32, writ refused; Callahan v. Hendrix, 79 Tex. 494, 15 S.W. 593; Vol. 14, Tex.Jur., Sect. 527, page 310; Henry v. Rust, Tex.Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 1084, writ dismissed.

There is no merit in the contention that the petition does not show ownership of the note sued upon. The petition as against the general demurrer is good. Citizens’ National Bank of Waco v. Billingsley et al., Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W. 648, writ refused; Malone v. Craig, 22 Tex. 609.

There is no merit in the contention that the petition does not allege non-performance and a demand for payment.

In the first place, we believe that the averments in the petition are quite sufficient.

There is no statement of facts before us and the petition shows that the suit was brought after the note became due and payable, and the petition specifically alleges that the note “provided for the *201waiver of presentment for payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice thereof”.

The appellant knew when his note was due and payable and his contract of extension of time of payment, made for his benefit, stipulates the date on which it matured, and he expressly waived the presentment of the note for payment.

’ We find no error and the judgment is affirmed.
Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

VS, § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-203-K (01)

§

CESAR D. MACIAS GONZALEZ §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry 

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation 

Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections 

thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it 

is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and 

Plea Agreement and the Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty. Sentence will be imposed 

in accordance with the Court’s scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Signed March 2nd, 2023.

_____________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00203-K Document 22 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 32
#### SIMPSON et ux. v. YARBOROUGH.

No. 14576.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Nov. 12, 1943.

Israel Smith, of Tyler, for appellants.

White & Yarborough, of Dallas, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion filed by appellants, Will Simpson and his wife Roberta Simpson, asking this court to certify to the Supreme Court the question of law involved about which Chief Justice McDonald dissented from the majority opinion. See Simpson et ux. v. Yarborough, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 630.

Appellee Yarborough sued in a district court of Henderson County to recover $747.18 principal and interest on two promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the appellants. Defense was made claiming the bar of four years limitation. Appellee recovered in the trial court. Appellants appealed to this court and by a majority opinion the judgment was affirmed. A dissenting opinion was filed, as indicated above. Based on the dissenting opinion and Rule 463, Texas Rules Civil Procedure, appellants have filed this motion.

Under the provisions of Section 1, Article 1728, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Texas Statutes, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for writ of error, lawfully presented, in the case.

In Duval v. Clark (State v. Danciger), 138 Tex. 186, 157 S.W.2d 626, certified questions of law were filed with the Supreme Court by a Court of Civil Appeals, and it was held that the question of law in those cases could lawfully reach the Supreme Court on application for writ of error. For that reason and under the option given the court under Rule 461, Rules Civil Procedure, the court declined to consider the certificate.

Under these authorities and the facts revealed by the record, we overrrule the motion to certify.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 271

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the termination of subsidies

for the export of durum wheat from the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 25, 1994

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. MEEHAN) submitted the

following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Agriculture

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the termination

of subsidies for the export of durum wheat from the

United States.

Whereas the United States has produced in excess of

11,613,000,000 bushels of wheat since 1989 and exported 6,151,000,000 bushels during this same period;

Whereas such wheat exports have been subsidized by the

Federal Government for a total payment in excess of

$4,838,410,152 since 1985;

Whereas, due to United States policies, only 250,000,000

bushels of the 484,000,000 bushels of durum wheat that

were produced between 1989 and 1994 were available for

purchase for the domestic pasta industry, which required
2

•HCON 271 IH

381,000,000 bushels to fulfill its production requirements;

Whereas these purchasers of durum wheat have been forced

to seek a supplemental supply of durum wheat from Canada due to severe shortages of this commodity in the

United States;

Whereas any limit on access to durum wheat will have a direct effect on the domestic pasta industry’s ability to

compete and maintain its employees;

Whereas the domestic pasta industry currently faces increased competition from imported pasta at prices below

United States cost of production;

Whereas despite the shortage of an adequate supply of durum

wheat to meet domestic pasta production needs, United

States taxpayers continue to subsidize the sale of exported wheat through the Export Enhancement Program;

and

Whereas some of the targeted export enhancement countries

that have purchased taxpayer subsidized durum wheat

are major exporters of finished pasta products to the

United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Sec3 retary of Agriculture should refuse to subsidize the export

4 of durum wheat under the Export Enhancement Program

5 or any other program under the jurisdiction of the Sec6 retary—

7 (1) in any calendar year succeeding a calendar

8 year in which the domestic harvest of quality durum
3

•HCON 271 IH

1 wheat is inadequate to meet the needs of pasta pro2 ducers in the United States; and

3 (2) in any calendar year in which there are in

4 effect any trade restrictions on the importation of

5 durum wheat into the United States, including

6 quotas, ad valorem tariffs, or tariff rate quotas.

Æ
Exhibit









Mark R. Jaggi


Dear Mark,


LifeVantage Corporation (the “Company”), is pleased to offer you a position as Chief Financial Officer reporting directly to our President and Chief Executive Officer. We trust that your knowledge, skills and experience will be among our most valuable assets.  


		
	•
	Salary:  Annual gross starting salary of $325,000 paid in installments by direct deposit.  


		
	•
	Performance Bonuses:  Subject to approval by the Board of Directors each fiscal year, participation in the Employee Bonus Plan at the Executive level with a target bonus of 50% of your annual base pay.


		
	•
	Equity:  Upon approval of the Board of Directors, and equity grant in the amount of 120,000 restricted stock units vesting over three years.  After the initial new hire grant, participation annually in the executive equity plan.


		
	•
	Benefits: Executive benefits as described in the attached Key Executive Benefits Agreement.






To accept this job offer:  Sign and date this job offer letter where indicated below.


If you accept this job offer, your hire date will be no later than August 17, 2015 as we would very much like you to be part of our year end close process and audit.


Please be aware that this offer of employment is contingent upon a drug screening and background check. LifeVantage is strongly committed to maintaining a drug-free workplace, and providing a safe and productive work environment for you.  To maintain this environment, LifeVantage requires all new employees to pass a drug-screening test as a condition of employment, the results of which remain confidential. Upon your acceptance, please contact me to set up a convenient time for your screening.  
   


	
		
	Sincerely,


/s/Michelle Oborn


Michelle Oborn
Vice President Human Resources
	Agreed to and accepted this 17th day of July, 2015.


/s/ Mark Jaggi


Mark Jaggi
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF COMPDENT
CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          26,624
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,716
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,272
<PP&E>                                           6,416
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,266
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101 
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,655
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,169
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  100,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (66)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,214
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,559
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,655
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,655
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .85
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6326

In Re: GREGORY LOUIS CHARLES, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-90-143-S) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: June 18, 1999Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Louis Charles, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gregory L. Charles filed this petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the district court to respond to hismotion to dismiss an indictment. The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by the petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Durham, 860 F.2d 135, 138(4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re Steelworkers of Am. , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). However, unreasonable delay is reviewable by mandamus. The district court has now entered an order denying Charles’ motion to dismiss the indictment. Therefore, the mandamus petition is moot. To the extent that Charles also seeks to challenge the district court’s order, his remedy is to file an appeal from that order.Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Charles’ petition for a writ of mandamus. 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. PETITION DENIED