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



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gregory E. A. Morrison, President and Chief Executive Officer of Platinum Underwriters Holdings,
Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd. Date: May 3, 2005
    
    /s/ Gregory E. A. MorrisonBy: Gregory E. A. MorrisonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT**

**TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER**

**THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

I, Gina Consylman, certify that:

 

1.                   I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017; and

 

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.

 

Dated: April 27, 2018

 
| By:    | /s/ Gina Consylman      |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Gina Consylman          |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6407]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than April 6, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offerbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. David Rossiter, Hartington, Nebraska, individually and as 
trustee of the Mary E. Rossiter Trust, and Carol F. Rossiter, Macon, 
Georgia, individually and as trustee of the Mary E. Rossiter Trust, and 
the Margaret R. Rossiter Trust; to retain control of Cedar Bancorp, 
Inc., parent of Bank of Hartington, both in Hartington, Nebraska, 
through the acquisition of voting shares. Also, Donald W. Rossiter, 
Carol F. Rossiter, Phyllis Schrempp, J. Scott Schrempp, Christine 
Rossiter, and Leon Schrempp, a group acting in concert, to retain 
control of Cedar Bancorp, Inc. parent of bank of Hartington, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 19, 
2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-6407 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
EXHIBIT 10.6

SECOND AMENDMENT TO INFONXX, INC.

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

1996 STOCK PLAN

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made on the 29th day of August, 2006, by INFONXX, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).

INTRODUCTION

The Company maintains the INFONXX, INC. Second Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan was originally adopted by the Board on February 1, 1996, and was last amended and restated by the Board effective May 10, 2001, as described in paragraph 15 of the Plan. The Company now wishes to clarify that the period within which incentive stock options may be granted under the Plan runs for ten (10) years from May 10, 2001, the date the last amendment and restatement of the Plan was adopted by the Board.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Company does hereby amend Section 6 of the Plan to read as follows:

“6. Duration of the Plan. The Plan shall remain in effect until terminated by the Board under the terms of the Plan, provided that in no event may Incentive Stock Options be granted under the Plan later than ten (10) years from May 10, 2001, the date the Plan, as amended and restated, was adopted by the Board.”

Except as specifically amended hereby, the remaining provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to the adoption of this Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on the date first above written. 

 


	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                        INFONXX, INC.
 
	
                          
 	
                         
 	
                        

                        By: 
 	
                        
                        /s/ Scott DeNardo  
 
	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                        
 Title: 
 	
                        

                        Assistant Secretary  
 




 


	
                        
 ATTEST:
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                          
 
	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 





	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                         
 
	
                        By: 
 	
                        
                        /s/ Michelle Maurer  
 	
                         
 	
                         
 	
                          
 
	
                        
 Title: 
 	
                        

                        Legal Assistant
| (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 theCompany. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        |   |                                                                          |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                                                          |   |
| Date: December 1,      2008 | By:    | /s/ Charles A.      Fust                                                 |   |
|                        |   | Charles A.    Fust                                                            |   |
|                        |   | President and Chief Executive      Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                        |   |                                                                          |   |
Mark BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106346

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: November 20, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 27, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied March 5, 2019

David A. Kelly, 114 SW Third St., Lee's Summit, MO 64063, For Movant/Appellant.

Evan J. Buchheim, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Defendant/Respondent.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Mark Brooks ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his motion to re-open his PCR proceedings. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion to re-open the PCR proceedings, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
Order filed October 25, 2016. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00508-CV

____________

BLU SHIELDS CONSTRUCTION, LLC AND ARNOLD “BLU” SHIELDS, 

Appellants

V.

SCOTT CONKLING, MELISSA CONKLING, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 56th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15-CV-0112

ORDER

Appellant, Arnold “Blu” Shields, is prosecuting this appeal pro se. Shields 

filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Blu Shields Construction, LLC as its “managing 

member.” Though generally a corporation may be represented in litigation only by 

a licensed attorney, a non-attorney may perfect appeal on behalf of a corporation.

Kunstoplast of Am. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 

1996). Nonetheless, Arnold “Blu” Shields may not represent Blu Shields 
Construction, LLC in this appeal. See Amron Props., LLC v. McGown Oil Co., No. 

14-03-01432-CV, 2004 WL 438783, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 

11, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.). On July 20, 2016, this court notified all parties that 

Blu Shields Construction, LLC was subject to dismissal from this appeal unless the 

corporation filed a response through an attorney on or before August 1, 2016. On 

August 16, 2016, this court granted the corporation’s motion to extend time to obtain 

counsel to October 17, 2016.

See id. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to Blu Shields Construction 

only. The appeal will proceed with Arnold “Blu” Shields as the sole appellant.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Christopher.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, James G. Petcoff, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Pointe Holdings Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;     b) Intentionally omitted.     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Dated: August 11, 2006              /s/ James G. Petcoff   James G. Petcoff   Chief Executive Officer
Billie Jolee GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81443

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: March 5, 2019

Susan Hogan, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Justin Moody, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, P.J., Victor C. Howard, and Thomas H. Newton, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Ms. Billie Jolee Gray appeals the Livingston County Circuit Court judgment denying her amended Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JONATHAN BORRERO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-2254

[February 29, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-

008338CF10A.

Richard L. Rosenbaum of Law Offices of Richard Rosenbaum, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Mark J. STICKLER, Respondent, v. Rachelle R. STICKLER, Appellant.

WD 81529

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: February 19, 2019

Daniel Schramm, Chesterfield, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Michael Hanna, Raytown, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, P.J., Victor C. Howard, and Thomas H. Newton, JJ.

*699**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Ms. Rachelle R. Stickler appeals the dissolution judgment entered by the Jackson County Circuit Court making child-custody and property-distribution awards to her and her ex-husband Mr. Mark J. Stickler. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesA. Tassone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

•                                     The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and

•                                     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | November  9, 2007 | By:    | /s/  James A. Tassone                      |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |              |   | James  A. Tassone, Chief Financial Officer |

 

*Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. and willbe retained by Uni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not bedeemed  filed by the Company for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.*

 

----
Silberstein Ungar, PLLC CPAs and Business Advisors


Phone (248) 203-0080


Fax (248) 281-0940


30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 2175


Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4586


www.sucpas.com








March 31, 2011








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





Board of Directors


OptimizeRx Corporation


Rochester, MI





To Whom It May Concern:





Silberstein Ungar, PLLC hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K, Annual Report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, filed by OptimizeRx Corporation of our report dated March 30, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of OptimizeRx Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, as of and for the years ending December 31, 2010 and 2009.





Sincerely,





/s/ Silberstein Ungar, PLLC





Silberstein Ungar, PLLC





Bingham Farms, MI
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

LISA ELAINE IRWIN CRUZ 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0358-96-1 PER CURIAM 

 DECEMBER 10, 1996 

ALLEN KEITH CRUZ 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Thomas S. Shadrick, Judge 

 (Andrew R. Sebok, on brief), for appellant. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Lisa E. Cruz (wife) appeals the decision of the circuit 

court denying her motion seeking a third paternity blood test at 

a new laboratory. Upon reviewing the record and wife's opening 

brief, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. 

 Rule 5A:27. 

 While wife seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, she 

also contends that there is no written statement of facts 

sufficient to provide a basis to determine the issues on appeal 

because the trial court failed to satisfy the requirements of 

Rule 5A:8. Contrary to wife's assertion, the record contains 

"Respondent's Statement of Facts as Corrected by the Court," 

signed by the trial judge. This written statement is sufficient 

to satisfy the requirements of Rule 5A:8 and provides sufficient 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

factual bases to address wife's substantive issue. 

 The record demonstrates that an initial paternity blood test 

conducted by a laboratory indicated that Allen Keith Cruz 

(husband) was not the father of wife's child. Following an 

evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered a second blood test 

to be performed by the same laboratory. The second test also 

indicated that husband was not the father. 

 At the evidentiary hearing, wife admitted having 

unprotected intercourse with husband and protected intercourse 

with another man, John Anthony Maldonado. Maldonado also 

testified and admitted having intercourse with wife, although he 

could not recall whether it was protected. Maldonado later told 

wife he had tested positive for HIV. Wife twice tested negative 

for HIV. 

 Wife's claimed basis for seeking a third paternity test at a 

different laboratory was that there was no man other than husband 

who had an opportunity to impregnate her. That basis was not 

supported by the evidence. Therefore, the trial court did not 

err in denying wife's motion. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
#### Bertha L. McManus *v.*State Compensation Commissioner *et al.*

(No. 7596)

Submitted April 11, 1933.

Decided April 18, 1933.

*Salisbury & Lopinsky,*for appellant.

*Homer A. Holt,*Attorney General, and *R. Dennis Steed,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Hatcher, Judge:

W. PI. McManus died as the result of an injury received in the course of his employment by Anchor Coal Company. Compensation was denied his nominal wife, his two children by her and a step-child, on the ground that his marriage was void.

The undisputed facts are that W. H. McManus and Bertha L. Turnbull went through a regular form of marriage in the *567State of Ohio on September 29, 1923. That was just three clays after she had obtained an absolute divorce from her former husband. William Turnbull, in Kanawha County, West Virginia. The divorce decree contained the statutory inhibition against re-marriage for a period of six months. Two children, Milton and William, now aged nine and seven, respectively, were born of the second union. Ida May, a child of the former marriage, aged thirteen, lived with them.

Under Code 1931, 48-2-22, and *Hall*v. Baylous, 109 W. Va. 1, 153 S. E. 293, the marriage herein was void *ab initio*and the ruling of the commissioner as to Mrs. McManus is sustained. Code 1931, 42-1-7, however, provides: “The issue of marriages deemed null in law * * * shall nevertheless be legitimate.” Therefore Milton and William are the legitimate children of the deceased and are entitled to compensation, and the ruling of the commissioner as to them is erroneous. Proof should be taken as to whether Ida May was *wholly dependent*upon the deceased. If so, she also is entitled to compensation.

The ruling of the commissioner is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case remanded.

*Reversed in part; affirmed in part; remanded.*

Maxwell, Peesident,

dissenting in part.

I do not subscribe to the doctrine of *Hall*v. Baylous, 109 W. Va. 1, 153 S. E. 293, nor to its application herein.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Dave Anderson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Basanite, Inc.; and



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.



|      |               |                                
|----- | ------------- | -------------------------------
|     
|      |               |                                
|Date: | April 9, 2019 |                                
|      |               |                                
|      |               | /s/ Dave Anderson              
|      |               | Dave Anderson                  
|      |               | Interim Chief Executive Officer
|      |               | (Principal Executive Officer)