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

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with theAnnual Report of Rentrak Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for thefiscal year ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul A. Rosenbaum,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

           (1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

           (2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| By:                       | /s/ Paul A. Rosenbaum |   |
|---------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| Paul A. Rosenbaum         |
| Chairman of the Board and |
| Chief Executive Officer   |
| Rentrak Corporation       |
| June 13, 2007             |

 

----
#### Marion Leon BEA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6448

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 7, 2017

Decided: September 19, 2017

Marion Leon Bea, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marion Leon Bea seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or *218judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

The district court characterized Bea’s petition as challenging his convictions and dismissed it without prejudice as successive and unauthorized. However, Bea’s petition challenged the execution of his sentence. We have independently reviewed the record and .conclude that an alternative procedural ground for dismissal renders this appeal futile. Specifically, Bea’s petition, which is based on events that occurred in 2004 and 2006, is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) (2012). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Bea leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Bea’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. *See Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 372 n.5 (4th Cir. 2004).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Price *v.*Hemingway.

Opinion delivered June 24, 1929.

*847*Peyton B. Moncrief, A. G. Meehan*and *John W. Moncrief,*for appellant.

*T. J. Moher*and *Carmichael*& *Hendrichs,*for appel-lee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellants concede the right of appellees, whose judgment survived against them, to revive the cause against the heirs of J. A. Price, deceased, and contend correctly that the court erred in setting aside the decree of foreclosure in making such order of revival. Sections 1062-65, 6311, C. & M. Digest ; *Thompson*v. *Lee,*174 Ark. 868, 296 S. W. 706; *Hill*v. *Brittain,*178 Ark. 784, 12 S. W. (2d) 869.

The decree erroneously vacated had been entered at a former term of the court against J. A. Price, foreclosing the lien against his lands only, and there was no giround alleged or existing for its vacation, but only proper allegations for the revival of the cause against his heirs, who succeeded to his interest, necessary to be *848had for execution of their judgment, which survived to appellees 'against said heirs. Section 6311, C. & M. Digest; *DeYampert*v. *Manley,*127 Ark. 153, 191 S. W. 905.

It was necessary that the parties in interest be before the court for execution of the decree, since the foreclosure could not be effected without a sale of the lands and confirmation thereof, and the action had to be revived in the name of the successors to the title to give them an opportunity to be heard relative thereto. The heirs only succeeded by inheritance to the rights of the decedent, J. A. Price, and the valid decree of foreclosure of the 'mortgage against these lands only survived to appellees. None of the parties, the heirs or the judgment creditors, had any right tó the vacation of the decree, and the court erred in making any such order.

The said decree vacating the judgment is reversed, and the cause will he remanded, with directions to proceed regularly to its execution and the foreclosure against the lands after proper revival of the cause has been completed. It is so ordered.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-3244

_____________________________

MICHAEL V. MONTIJO,

Petitioner,

v.

RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary, 

Florida Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

August 27, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Court denies the petition for writ of certiorari on the 

merits.

ROWE, KELSEY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Michael V. Montijo, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Order entered March 16, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-01597-CR
No. 05-14-01598-CR

STEVEN ALAN MORROW, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 063111, 064642



### ORDER Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Brown

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to issue the

mandates in these appeals INSTANTER

.

/David L. Bridges/

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 4.19
 REGEN BIOLOGICS, INC.
NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
          REGEN BIOLOGICS, INC.By:Title:OPTIONEE[Insert Name]




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
TO
REGEN BIOLOGICS, INC.
NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 Grant of Option
 Vesting and Expiration
  th th th
 Exercise Following Termination of Employment, Consulting or Director Relationship




---



##### 



Exercise




---



##### 



Nontransferability of Option
 Adjustments Upon Reorganization or Changes in Capitalization
 Acceleration of Exercisability




---



##### 



Change in Control
 Termination without Cause
 Miscellaneous
 Notices
 (i)
    
    if to the Corporation, at:
 
 (ii)
    
    if to Optionee, at the address set forth on the Cover Page,
  Compliance with Law and Regulations
 No Rights as Stockholder
 No Consulting, Employment or Director Relationship Rights
 Withholding




---



##### 



Reservation of Shares; Certain Costs
 Plan Governs
 Choice of Law
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q OF
RARE HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 29,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                           2,039
<SECURITIES>                                       609
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,805
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,137
<PP&E>                                         132,463<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,970
<BONDS>                                         27,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       100,314
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,937
<SALES>                                        127,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,619
<CGS>                                           46,835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,887
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,060
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,827
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,827
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
<FN>
<F1>ASSET VALUES REPRESENT NET AMOUNTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,011,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,267,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                318,269,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             373,956,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     57,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       209,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  93,201,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               373,956,000
<SALES>                                    202,131,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              186,521,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,664,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,228,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,436,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,436,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.11(c)


AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE
UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION
2013 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN




WHEREAS, United States Cellular Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) has adopted and maintains the United States Cellular Corporation 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of certain employees;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the Plan as it shall deem advisable, subject to any requirement of shareholder approval as specified in the Plan, including under applicable law or the principal national stock exchange on which the Common Shares of the Company (the “Common Shares”) are then traded;
WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to broaden the circumstances under which employees of the Company who are not officers may pay for the Common Shares to be purchased pursuant to the exercise of a stock option by authorizing the Company to withhold Common Shares which would otherwise be delivered in connection with such exercise; and
WHEREAS, such amendment is not subject to any required shareholder approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective as of November 29, 2018, the first sentence of Section 4.1(d)(1) of the Plan hereby is amended as follows:
Purchase Price Payment by Non-Officers.  Effective for exercises of Stock Options occurring on or after November 29, 2018 (including exercises with respect to Stock Options granted prior to November 29, 2018, notwithstanding any provision within the agreement evidencing such Stock Option to the contrary), the holder of a Stock Option awarded to an employee who is not an Officer may pay for the shares of Common Stock to be purchased pursuant to the exercise of such Stock Option (i) in cash, (ii) by the delivery (either actual delivery or by attestation procedures established by the Company) of previously-owned whole shares of Common Stock having an aggregate Fair Market Value, determined as of the date of exercise, equal to the aggregate purchase price payable by reason of such exercise, (iii) by authorizing the Company to withhold whole shares of Common Stock which would otherwise be delivered having an aggregate Fair Market Value, determined as of the date of exercise, equal to the aggregate purchase price payable by reason of such exercise, (iv) to the extent legally permissible, in cash by a broker-dealer acceptable to the Company to whom the option holder has submitted an irrevocable notice of exercise or (v) by a combination of (i), (ii) and (iii).  
* * * * * *


1







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment Number Two as of this 29th day of November, 2018.


	
			
	UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	/s/ Kenneth R. Meyers

	 
	 
	Kenneth R. Meyers

	 
	 
	 

	Its:
	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer


















































































SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO
UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION
2013 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


2
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofAcrodyne Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period endingMarch 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the Report), I, Richard Murray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Acrodyne Communications, Inc. andwill be retained by Acrodyne Communications, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 
| /s/ Richard W. Murray   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Richard W. Murray       |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| May 15, 2003            |   |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6023 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the retroactive payment 

of benefits for veterans with covered mental health conditions based 

on military sexual trauma, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 24, 2023 

Mr. CARBAJAL (for himself and Mr. BACON) introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

retroactive payment of benefits for veterans with covered 

mental health conditions based on military sexual trauma, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veteran Restitution 

5 and Justice Act of 2023’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6023 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS RETRO2 ACTIVE BENEFITS PAYMENTS FOR VETERANS 

3 WITH COVERED HEALTH CONDITIONS BASED 

4 ON MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 51 of 

6 title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new section: 

8 ‘‘§ 5114. Claims involving military sexual trauma: ret9 roactive benefits payments 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary approves a 

11 claim for compensation for a covered health condition 

12 based on military sexual trauma experienced by a veteran 

13 during active military, naval, or air service, notwith14 standing sections 5110 and 5111 of this title— 

15 ‘‘(1) the effective date of the award of the claim 

16 shall be the date of the day after the date on which 

17 the veteran is discharged from such service; and 

18 ‘‘(2) payment of monetary benefits based on 

19 such award shall be made beginning on such date 

20 and shall be payable retroactively. 

21 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

22 ‘‘(1) The term ‘military sexual trauma’ has the 

23 meaning given such term in section 1166(c)(2) of 

24 this title. 

25 ‘‘(2) The term ‘covered health condition’ 

26 means— 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6023 IH

1 ‘‘(A) a covered mental health condition, as 

2 such term is defined in section 1166(c)(1) of 

3 this title; or 

4 ‘‘(B) any physical injury or disease result5 ing in disability that was incurred as a result 

6 of, or aggravated by, military sexual trauma.’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—The table of sections 

8 at the beginning of chapter 51 of such title is amended 

9 by inserting after the item relating to section 5113 the 

10 following new item: 

‘‘5114. Claims involving military sexual trauma: retroactive benefits payments.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT 9/29/96 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS
FOR THE THREE QUARTERS ENDED 9/29/96 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH 10Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED 9/29/96.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                         257,721
<SECURITIES>                                   807,606
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,879,786 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,307,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,073,053
<PP&E>                                     113,658,071 <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             137,754,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,217,205
<BONDS>                                      1,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   100,121,171
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,673,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               137,754,273
<SALES>                                    158,264,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           158,493,815
<CGS>                                       60,003,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               60,003,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            78,154,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,548,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,334,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,765,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,765,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<FN>
<F1> ASSET VALUES REPRESENT NET AMOUNTS.
</FN>
        








</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Bismark Kwaku TORKORNOO, Petitioner.

No. 17-1760

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 23, 2017

Decided: October 31, 2017

Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*277Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo petitions for a -writ of mandamus seeking an order vacating two of the district court’s orders and disqualifying the district court judge from his case. He has also filed a separate motion to disqualify the district court judge. We conclude that Torkornoo is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

In seeking to vacate the district court’s orders, Torkornoo is attempting to use mandamus as a substitute for appeal. As to his arguments and motion regarding the district court’s disqualification, Torkornoo has failed to identify any action by the district court warranting disqualification. Torkornoo’s disagreements with the district court’s rulings are insufficient to demonstrate bias. *See Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).

Accordingly, we deny Torkornoo’s second amended petition for writ of mandamus and amended motion to' disqualify the district judge. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*