alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 3.33**

 

**ADDENDUM TO CALCITECH LTD. 5 % CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE DUE 28TH FEBRUARY 2005**

 

 
| *Section 2 Definitions:* | *Shall be extended by the following definition.* |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|

 

“Conversion Date means the day, notified by the company on at least sixty (60) days notice, on which an application by way of an equivalent to an Initial Public Offering to a reputable senior European or North American Stock Exchange or by 31st December, 2007, whichever maybe the earlier.”

 

*Section 3 Conversion:  Shall be amended as follows*

 

Whereas, under Section 3, subsection 3.1 of the above referenced Debenture, “the holder of this debenture has the right, but not the obligation to, upon thirty (30) days written notice, on the second (2) year anniversary of the Original Issuance Date, to convert the outstanding principal and any unpaid interest into shares of Common Stock.” This shall now be amended whereby “the holder of this debenture has the right, but not the obligation to, on thirty (30) days notice by the company, (i) on application for a listing by way of an Initial Public Offering on a reputable Senior European or North American Stock Exchange, or (ii) by 31st December, 2007 to convert the outstanding principal and any accrued interest into shares of Common Stock.”

 

Furthermore, under Section 3, subsection 3.2 Conversion price. Whereas, “Subject to adjustment pursuant to section 3.3 the Conversion Price shall be the greater of (i) seventy-five (75%) of the average closing offer price of a share of the Company’s Common Stock for the ten (10) days immediately prior to conversion and (ii) the price per share as of the Closing Date.” This shall now be amended whereby, “subject to adjustment pursuant to Section 3.3, the Conversion price of a share of the Company’s Common Stock shall be one United States Dollar and seventy five cents (USD1.75) on the conversion date.

 

It is agreed that all other terms and conditions of the 5% convertible debenture remain the same. This addendum is a part of the whole agreement of the above referenced debenture.

 

 
| By: | By: |
|-----|-----|

 
| For ................................. | For CalciTech Ltd. |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------|
| ...........................           | R.A. Leopard       |  
...........................

President & CEO  

 
 

 

 

 

 

  |
#### Estate of Dillard, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *Estate of Dillard v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 316.]

(No. 99-146

Submitted June 22, 1999

Decided September 8, 1999.)

*O’Meara Law Offices*and *Douglas J. O’Meara,*for appellant.

*Law Offices of Jan A. Saurman*and *John V. Rasmussen,*for appellees.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *Scottr-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.*(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. In this case, the decedent Dillard had clocked out after his shift ended and left the Canton Drop Forge plant where he worked. He was walking to his personal automobile that was parked in a lot across the street from the plant when he was struck and killed by an uninsured motorist.

*317The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company policy issued to the decedent’s employer, Canton Drop Forge, contained the identical definitions of “you” and “your” for purposes of UM/UIM coverage as did the policy in *Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.*(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116. The Stark County Court of Appeals held that Dillard was not an insured under the Liberty Mutual policy because he did not fit into any of the categories of “insured.” The court reasoned that “[i]t is undisputed that the term ‘You’, under the section defining who is an ‘insured’, in the policy issued by Liberty, refers to Canton Drop Forge. Second, we find the phrase ‘if you are an individual, any family member’ unambiguous. A plain reading of this provision establishes that the provision applies only when the insured is an individual.” The court noted a distinction in the definition between “you” and “an individual.”

The appellate court stated that since the term “you” refers to corporations, which are not individuals, the provision does not extend coverage to Dillard because the named insured was not an individual. Furthermore, at the time of the accident, Dillard was not operating a “covered auto.” Because Dillard did not fit any of the categories of “insured” under the policy issued by Liberty, the court concluded that he may not be afforded coverage for injuries sustained due to an uninsured motorist.

For the reasons more fully set forth in my dissenting opinion in *Scottr-Pontzer,*I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Exhibit 32.1

# Certification of CEO
Pursuant to18 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 Kemper Investors Life Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane C. Davis, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: |  | May
14, 2004
|----- |  | ------------
|     

|/s/                                   |  | Diane C. Davis
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|                                     
|Diane C. DavisChief Executive
Officer

---
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30075

Summary Calendar

 

MICHAEL FRANCOIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden,

Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(No. 99-CV-1929)

 

June 20, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Francois, Louisiana inmate #116645, appeals, pro se,

the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. For the several

issues presented, the district court granted a certificate of

appealability (COA) on whether Francois voluntarily waived the

right to testify at trial. Francois has not requested that we

broaden that COA. Thus, we do not consider the issues that

Francois has briefed but that are beyond the scope of the issue

upon which a COA was granted. See Ott v. Johnson, 192 F.3d 510,

512 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1099 (2000). 
2

Francois contends that he informed trial counsel that he

wished to testify but that counsel denied him the right to do so.

Francois contends also that the state habeas trial court did not

make the necessary inquiry to determine whether he voluntarily and

intelligently waived the right to testify.

Francois has not established that the state habeas court’s

decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts

in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding”.

Moore v. Johnson, 225 F.3d 495, 501 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1420 (2001). 

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000889299
<NAME> DAN SKIN, INC.
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         663,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,448,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,087,000
<INVENTORY>                                 24,159,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,026,000
<PP&E>                                      10,747,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,366,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,888,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,791,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 15,210,000
<COMMON>                                       739,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,075,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,888,000
<SALES>                                     87,970,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            87,970,000
<CGS>                                       65,289,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,289,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            37,107,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,462,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (19,888,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (19,908,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (19,908,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.89)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certifications
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
with Respect to the North Valley Bancorp Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 
for the Quarter ended June 30, 2008

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), each of the undersigned
officers of North Valley Bancorp, a California corporation (the Company),
does hereby certify that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The
  Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008
  (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | 2. | Information
  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
  financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                       

|                       |                                                               
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August
11, 2008 | /s/ Michael
  J. Cushman                                      
|                       |                                                               
|                       | Michael J.
  Cushman                                          
|                       | President
  and Chief Executive Officer                       
|                       | (Principal
  Executive Officer)                               
|                       |                                                               
|Dated: August
11, 2008 | /s/ Kevin R.
  Watson                                         
|                       |                                                               
|                       | Kevin R.
  Watson                                             
|                       | Executive
  Vice President & Chief Financial Officer          
|                       | (Principal
  Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer)

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to North Valley Bancorp and will be retained by North Valley Bancorp
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
REF' :tp.:.A522352 

·w..Hll•Y 

-.... , 

f'lll DIRttSA 

llt52SZ 

T01 SUSLO 

&.-CS. FOR AUSTt~ fR01tl CORRY. 

~ 

·~ 2t OCTOIER 11&1 

D£com1 PJM/UQC 

PRIOR In 

YOUR U£SSAQE Lfl·1~57. OPINION Of UNITED STATES f«UBERS COU81N£1> 

WORtctNQ GROUP THAT GCHQ MESSAQ£ 14t528l TO TllTUAN DOES NOT 

COfiTAIN SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR UNITED KIHGDOM POSITION IN 

~IEW Of UNITED STATE.S POSITIOti EXPEHLSSED IN S OtTOBER MEUORAHlllM 

FROM UNITED STATES TO 1 ILTMAN. fOftE!Al ACTION av DORKING GROUP 

llELAYED AS RESULT or SPECULATION THAT YOUR CONCURRENCE SUPPORTED 

BY REASONING Of FACTS NOT PfiES£NTED GCHQ MSG. RE~UEST YOU ADVISE 

IV OPERATIONAL IW EDI ATE M£SSAGE1 VHTHOUT FUftTH£A HtfERENC£ TO 

UNITED KINGDOM, ANY ADDrTIONAL REASONS FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS 

ttt LW-tf57. PARTICULARLY INTERESTED th WHAT HAPPEN~ If' PARODI 

NOMINEE UNSUITABLE, AND t~ CLAR If ICATIOfJ OF SECOtiD SENTENCE PARJGRAPH 51 Of' OCHQ t4t528Z. URGENCY RESULTS FROM DESIR£ TO HO&.ll 

MEETING WCDl'•ESDAV PRIOR TO TILTMAHS DEPARTURE. 

•• AUITIN/SUSLO/COllU 

u.s. , •• , .. , 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-03-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,668
<SECURITIES>                                    17,815
<RECEIVABLES>                                  186,343
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                    131,912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,525,823
<PP&E>                                       1,297,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                 744,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,089,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,723,337
<BONDS>                                        510,006
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,733,416
<OTHER-SE>                                   (143,603)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,089,740
<SALES>                                      3,136,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,136,818
<CGS>                                        2,186,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,186,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,504,757
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             128,527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (670,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (670,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (670,827)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
Section 906 Certification by Chief Executive Officer of Quarterly Report

                            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 Zarlink  Semiconductor  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  December 24, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kirk K. Mandy,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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.

              Date:   February 2, 2005

                                           /s/ KIRK K. MANDY
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Kirk K. Mandy
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **1392**

DORA TOOLE ROUNDTREE , Plaintiff

– Appell ant ,

v. MARY WEBB; PAMELA GLOVER; JENNIFER HOLSTON , Defendant s – Appell ees .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the D istrict of Sou th Carolina , at Aiken

. Margaret B. Seymour , District Judge. ( 1 : 0 9

- c v - 0 3147

- MBS )

Submitted : A ugust 19 , 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010

Before MOTZ , GREGORY, and AGEE , Circuit Judge s .

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dora Toole Roundtree , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dora Toole Roundtree appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint, and the district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b)(1)(B) ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2010 ). The magistrate judge re commended th at relief be denied and advised Roundtree that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistra te judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Roundtree has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. W e 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 12

                          Fleming Companies, Inc.
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     28 Weeks Ended
                                                 July 8,         July 10,
(In thousands of dollars)                         2000             1999
<S>                                             <C>              <C>
Earnings:
 Pretax loss                                    $(65,199)        $(31,159)
 Fixed charges, net                              105,805          105,374

      Total earnings                            $ 40,606         $ 74,215

Fixed charges:
 Interest expense                               $ 91,548         $ 90,253
 Portion of rental charges
   deemed to be interest                          13,981           14,876
 Capitalized interest                                185              178

      Total fixed charges                       $105,714         $105,307

Deficiency                                      $ 65,108         $ 31,092

Ratio of earnings
  to fixed charges                                   .38              .70
</TABLE>

"Earnings" consists of income before income taxes and fixed
charges excluding capitalized interest.  Capitalized
interest amortized during the respective periods is added
back to earnings.

"Fixed charges, net" consists of interest expense, an
estimated amount of rental expense which is deemed to be
representative of the interest factor and amortization of
capitalized interest.

The pro forma ratio of earnings to fixed charges is omitted,
as it is not applicable.

Under the company's long-term debt agreements, "earnings"
and "fixed charges" are defined differently and amounts and
ratios differ accordingly.