alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF THE CEO AND CFO 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 Auxilio, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Joseph
Flynn, Chief Executive Officer and Paul T. Anthony Principal 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 the Company.



Date:  September 2, 2005
                              By:           /s/ Joseph Flynn
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                   Joseph Flynn, Chief Executive Officer




                              By:           /s/ Paul T. Anthony
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                   Paul T. Anthony, Principal Financial Officer
#### ANGUS v. STATE.

No. 20140.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1939.

Chas. Owen, of El Paso, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The indictment under which appellant was tried charged the offense of robbery by assault, and contained an averment that he had been previously convicted in the State of Massachusetts of the offense of robbery. Because of repetition of offenses, the penalty assessed was confinement in the penitentiary for life.

Appellant introduced no witnesses and failed to take the stand in his own behalf. The only proof offered in support of the averment in the indictment that appellant had been previously convicted in Massachusetts was a judgment naming Joseph Angus as the convict. The judgment alone was not sufficient to establish the identity of appellant as the person named therein. 'The court submitted the question whether appellant had theretofore been previously convicted, as alleged in the indictment, and, in response to such instruction, the jury found that he had been convicted, and assessed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for life. In order to enhance the penalty, it was imperative that the state establish the identity of appellant as the person convicted under the indictment returned in the State of Massachusetts. Huston v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 71 S.W.2d 876; Walthall v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 26, 2 S.W.2d 442. This it failed to do.

The judgment is reversed and-the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been 'examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001011451
<NAME> MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          20,784
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,817
<PP&E>                                           1,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              167
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,713
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,658
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,215
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,906
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,498
<INCOME-TAX>                                       451
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,066
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,066
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1 CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION I, Yuri
Benenson, certify that: 1.
I have
  reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Trimol Group, Inc.2.
Based on my
  knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
  statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
  quarterly report;3.
Based on my knowledge,
  the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
  quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
  condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
  for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
The
  registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
  and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
  Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant, and we have:a)
designed
  such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
  relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
  known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
  in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
evaluated
  the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as
  of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report
  (the Evaluation Date); andc)
presented in
  this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
  disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
  Evaluation Date;5.
The
  registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
  most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee
  of registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function):a)
all
  significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
  which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
  summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
any fraud,
  whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
  a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and6.
The
  registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
  report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or
  in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
  to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
  with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  May 15, 2007
By /s/ Yuri
  BenensonChief
  Executive Officer 20
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 this Quarterly Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David I. Matson, 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 my knowledge:



Dated:
August 7, 2008

| |  |     |  |                                                          
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: |  | /s/DAVID I. MATSONDavid I. Matson Chief Financial
Officer

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)

I, David T. Hung, M.D., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Medivation, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated 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 small business
issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: November 14, 2007



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ David T. Hung, M.D.  
|Name: David T. Hung, M.D.
|Title: President and     
|Chief Executive Officer
#### Robert FRENCH v. STATE.

No. 19726.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1938.

Kennedy & Granberry, of Crockett, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing for the purpose of sale intoxicating liquor in Cherokee County, Texas, it being averred that said county was dry territory; punishment assessed was a fine of $150 and thirty days in jail.

The same question is presented here as in the case of Sam Watson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 122 S.W.2d 311 this day decided, with reference to the certificate of the county judge as to publication of the order declaring the result of the local option election in Cherokee County.

The same reasons which impelled a reversal in Watson’s Case demand the .same order here.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________

No. 98-60126

Summary Calendar

_______________________

JUATASSA SIMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:97-CV-94-B

_________________________________________________

November 6, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Juatassa Sims appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s

denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, contending that the

administrative law judge: (1) failed to afford proper weight to a psychologist’s

opinion that she was severely depressed; (2) improperly excluded certain of her
 

1Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1994). 

 

2Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1994). 

 

3Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1990).

2

impairments in assessing her residual function capacity; and (3) should have

ordered a consultative examination to assess her mental impairments. We affirm.

 We lack jurisdiction to review Sims’s second and third contentions because they

were not raised before the Appeals Council.1 The first contention is without merit

because the ALJ is entitled and expected to determine the credibility of medical

experts and to weigh their opinions accordingly.2 Concluding that the findings of

the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence, the judgment appealed is

AFFIRMED.3
EX-10.5









Exhibit 10.5




September 17, 2008




Mr. K. Earl Durden

Managing Member

Durden Enterprises, LLC

2605 Thomas Drive, Suite 150

Panama City, Florida 32408




Dear Earl:




     In connection with the purchase by Durden Enterprises, LLC (“Purchaser”) of $10,000,000 in
aggregate principal amount of Superior Bank 9.5% Subordinated Notes due September 15, 2018 and the
issuance to Purchaser of a warrant to purchase 1,000,000 shares of common stock of Superior
Bancorp, I hereby confirm that Purchaser has the option to purchase up to an additional $10,000,000
in Superior Bank subordinated debt and receive additional warrants for Superior Bancorp common
stock. The terms and conditions of future debt and warrants shall be substantially as set forth
in the present documents with such adjustments as are necessary to reflect the market conditions at
the time the additional debt and warrants are issued. The right to exercise any warrants issued in
connection with the Purchaser’s purchase of additional subordinated debt pursuant to this letter
agreement will expire not later than September 15, 2018.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 

	 	/s/ C. Stanley Bailey
 

C. Stanley Bailey
	 	 
	 

	 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### McFADDIN v. STATE.

No. 14718.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1932.

F. G. Yaughn, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is keeping a gambling house, as denounced in article 625, Penal Code; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

A state ranger testified that he went to appellant’s house in the month of October, 1930, and found several games of chance in progress. He said that in one room he found a table upon which the parties were betting and wagering in a game called blackjack, and in another room a game of dice was in progress. These games were being participated in by a number of people, it appearing that they were playing against the banker. On December 21st of the same year, the ranger again visited appellant’s house, and found games of the same character in progress. Appellant was present and sat immediately behind the banker of the game of dice. Appellant rented and had the care,'control, and possession of the premises at the time of his arrest.

The fact that appellant was keeping a place for gambling, as denounced by the statute, was shown by direct testimony. Hence appellant’s objection to the charge of the court for its failure to submit an instruction covering the law of circumstantial evidence was properly overruled.

Appellant objected to the charge of the court for its failure to define the word “resort,” and in response to the objection the court undertook to define such word. Appellant then objected to the definition on the ground that it was on the weight of the evidence. We deem it unnecessary to discuss the charge. That the place where the gambling was being carried on was resorted to on several occasions by numerous participants in the game was undisputed. Hence, if the court’s charge was inaccurate, it could not, in our opinion, have resulted in injury to appellant. The testimony showing guilt was overwhelming. Appellant offered no testimony.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing -opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
Comments on Draf t General Permit Jimmy Bush

to: Jack Faulk 01/25/2010 06:08 PM Show Details

Jack,

Attached are some comments we had on the draft general permit document. We really found the meeting in Dallas last week to be very fruitful a nd productive. Much of the discussion covered some of the same questions we had, so we refrained from re-plowing that ground. Maybe the comments we are sending will be of some value going forward.

Thanks for the opportunity to partic ipate and we were glad you were able to have the meeting in our State.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Jimmy Bush Assistant Commissioner for Pesticides Texas Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 12847 Austin, TX 78711 (512) 463-7504 Fax (888)216-9834 j immy.bush@TexasAgriculture.gov Page 1 of 1

5/13/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web4428.htm
#### Vogt, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellant.

(No. 28455

Decided May 7, 1941.)

*234
      *Mr. B. Wm. HeidJcamp*and *Mr. Joseph I. Williams,*for appellee.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, *Mr. E. P. FelJcer*and *Mr. Thomas F. Joseph,*for appellant.

By the Court.

The single question presented by the defendant for the consideration of this court is: “Does a petition which recites merely that an employee died from a coronary occlusion suffered while engaged in the performance of his regular duties consisting of heavy work, state a cause of action against the Industrial Commission of Ohio?”

This court is not asked to announce a new rule of law but rather to reapply a frequently stated principle to the facts alleged in this plaintiff’s petition as above summarized.

The defendant relies upon the pronouncement in the case of *Goodman*v. *Industrial Commission,*135 Ohio St., 81, 19 N. E. (2d), 508, in which it was observed that this court has consistently defined the term “injury,” as used in the Constitution and statutes of Ohio, to be physical or traumatic in origin and cause, and resulting from a sudden happening at a particular *235time. In that case the deceased suffered an acute dilatation of the heart while in the performance of 'his customary duties as a baker. Death resulted the same day. The claim was disallowed by the Industrial Commission and the courts.

In the instant case a careful study of the allegations in the plaintiff’s petition discloses nothing to indicate that the deceased was not merely performing his usual duties in the usual manner without traumatic injury of any nature arising therefrom.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals clearly must be reversed and that of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
#### Roy CHUMBLEY v. STATE.

No. 20485.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 3, 1939.

Ed Hoover, Jr., of Canadian, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge..

The same facts are herein alleged as were' presented in our No. 20484, Manuel Herring, 130 S.W.2d 294, opinion this day handed down, and the same proceedings were had herein as set forth in our No. 20484, and for the same reasons as therein set forth this cause is dismissed.
1/4/13 page of 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-13-0073 Reviewer: Tobias/SS 

 

 

Results Table: Dose, Concentration, and Days Exceeded Results Summary 

Exposure Scenario1 Water Landfill Stack Air Fugitive Air 

Drinking Water Fish Ingestion 

ADR LADD ADR LADD 7Q104 

CC = 1 

PDM 

Days 

Exceede

d 

LADD ADR LADD ADR LADD 

Release 

activity(ies)2; 

exposure 

calculation(s)3 

mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day μg/l # Days mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day 

max acute eco --- --- --- --- 2.45E+00 --- --- --- --- --- --- 

1 Exposure scenario titles consist of release activity followed by exposure calculation abbreviation. 

2 Release activities are from engineering report's Manufacturing (Mfg), Processing (Proc) and Use release 

activity labels. 

 Multiple release activities are combined in one exposure scenario if their releases occur at same location. 

3 Exposure calculations are Acute Dose Rate (ADR), Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD), and 

Probabilistic Dilution 

 Model (PDM). There may be one, two, or all three exposure calculations per exposure scenario. 

 CC is the aquatic concentration of concern. 

4 This column displays concentration values for the 7Q10 streamflow, which is defined as the average daily 

streamflow 

 of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow within a ten year period. 

Fate test recommendations?: (default is NA)
1/4/13 page of 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-13-0073 Assessor: Tobias/SS 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES 

 Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites: 

 Release Activity: Max ADR 

 Release Description: WATER LANDFILL 

Non-sludge/Sludge 

STACK FUGITIVE 

Total Releases: 

 (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

 

 Non-sludge/Sludge 

Release Days/yr: 

Per Site Release: 

 (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) 

Remarks: 
1/4/13 page of 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-13-0073 

SIC-CODE BASED HUMAN AND AQUATIC EXPOSURES TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES 

SCENARIO #: 1 Number of Sites: RELEASE ACTIVITY: Max 

ADR 

SIC-CODE DESCRIPTION: POTW's (All facilities) 

SIC-CODE (S): 4952 EXPOSED POPULATION: Adult 

WWT 

REMOVAL 

(%) 

RELEASE 

DAYS 

PRETREATMENT 

RELEASE 

(kg/site/day) 

POSTTREATMENT 

RELEASE 

(kg/site/day) 

DWT 

(%) BCF 

(L/kg) 

 0.00 0.00 

AQUATIC EXPOSURE ESTIMATES - SURFACE WATER 

PLANT 

TYPE 

% ILE 

FACILITY 

STREAM FLOW (MLD) STREAM CONC. (μg/l) 

Harmonic 

Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10 

Harmonic 

Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10 

ALL 50 125.56 44.02 26.80 22.53 2.07E-02 5.91E-02 9.70E-02 0.12 

ALL 10 11.11 1.94 1.06 0.96 0.23 1.34 2.45 2.71 

DRINKING WATER AND FISH INGESTION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES 

Exposure Units 

Drinking Water Results Drinking 

Water Units Fish Ingestion Results 

Fish 

Ingestion 

Units 

50% 10% 50% 10% 

Cancer 

LADDpot 4.42E-10 5.00E-09 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day 

LADCpot 2.27E-08 2.56E-07 mg/L 0.00 0.00 mg/kg 

Acute 

ADRpot 4.94E-06 1.12E-04 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day 

SIC Code Comments: