alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.1.11



                                                     February 14, 2006


Asia Automotive Acquisition Corporation
401 South Old Woodward, Suite 450
Birmingham, Michigan 48009

Rodman & Renshaw, LLC
1270 Avenue of the Americas, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10020

                  Re:      Initial Public Offering

Gentlemen:

                  The undersigned stockholder of Asia Automotive Acquisition
Corporation ("Company"), in consideration of Rodman & Renshaw, LLC ("Rodman &
Renshaw") entering into a letter of intent ("Letter of Intent") to underwrite an
initial public offering of the securities of the Company ("IPO") and embarking
on the IPO process, hereby agrees as follows (certain capitalized terms used
herein are defined in paragraph 4 hereof):

                  1. If the Company solicits approval of its stockholders of a
Business Combination, the undersigned will vote all Insider Shares owned by it
in accordance with the majority of the votes cast by the holders of the IPO
Shares.

                  2. In the event that the Company fails to consummate a
Business Combination within 18 months from the effective date ("Effective Date")
of the registration statement relating to the IPO (or 24 months under the
circumstances described in the prospectus relating to the IPO), the undersigned
will vote all Insider Shares owned by it in favor of the Company's decision to
liquidate. The undersigned hereby waives any and all right, title, interest or
claim of any kind in or to any distribution of the Trust Fund (as defined in the
Letter of Intent) and any remaining net assets of the Company as a result of
such liquidation with respect to his Insider Shares ("Claim") and hereby waives
any Claim the undersigned may have in the future as a result of, or arising out
of, any contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse
against the Trust Fund for any reason whatsoever.
<PAGE>

                  3. The undersigned will escrow his Insider Shares for the two
year period commencing on the Effective Date subject to the terms of a Stock
Escrow Agreement which the Company will enter into with the undersigned and an
escrow agent acceptable to the Company.

                  4. As used herein, (i) a "Business Combination" shall mean an
acquisition by merger, capital stock exchange, asset or stock acquisition,
reorganization or otherwise, of an operating business selected by the Company;
(ii) "Insiders" shall mean all officers, directors and stockholders of the
Company immediately prior to the IPO; (iii) "Insider Shares" shall mean all of
the shares of Common Stock of the Company owned by an Insider prior to the IPO;
and (iv) "IPO Shares" shall mean the shares of Common Stock issued in the
Company's IPO.



                                                     /s/ Mitchell Metzman
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Mitchell Metzman
Shawn J. LAUTERBACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

November 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
**Exhibit
          32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
          PURSUANT TO 18**
 **U.S.C.
          SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
          ACT**
 **OF
          2002**
 
 In
          connection with the Quarterly Report of Smart Online, Inc. (the "Company")
          on
          Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
          and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
          Nicholas Sinigaglia, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
          Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
          as
          adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
          knowledge, 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.
 
 **/s/
          Nicholas Sinigaglia**
 Nicholas
          Sinigaglia
 Principal
          Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
 November
          14, 2006
 
 A
          signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
          provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
          to the
          Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
S. G. mother of K. H., minor child,

 Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

 Appellee.

_______________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

CASE NO. 1D15-3430

Opinion filed November 2, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

David M. Gooding, Judge.

Robert W. Keep, Jr., Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, 

Region One, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, and Tricia L. Meisner, Managing Attorney, 

Children’s Legal Services, Jacksonville; Stephanie C. Zimmerman, Statewide 

Appeals Director, Children’s Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.

David P. Krupski, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford.

PER CURIAM.

S.G. appeals an order adjudicating her child dependent and requiring her to 

comply with a case plan. At the arraignment hearing, the lower tribunal entered a 

consent by default for the mother, finding she was properly noticed of the 
2

arraignment hearing but failed to appear. On appeal, S.G. argues the lower tribunal 

denied her due process when it ordered her to comply with a case plan at the 

arraignment hearing without providing notice that adjudication or disposition of 

the petition would occur. We accept the Department of Children and Families’ 

concession of error on this point, and reverse and remand for further proceedings 

consistent with Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. See J.H. v. Dep’t of Children & 

Families, 890 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Dep’t of Children & 

Families v. T.S., 154 So. 3d 1223, 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“An arraignment 

provides the opportunity ‘for the parent or legal custodian to admit, deny, or 

consent to findings of dependency alleged in the petition.’ § 39.506(1)-(2), Fla. 

Stat. (2014). Depending on the parents’ response, a disposition hearing will be 

held within fifteen or thirty days of the arraignment hearing. Id.”). Because this 

issue is dispositive, we do not address the second issue S.G. raises on appeal.

BENTON, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of IBX Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Evan Brovenick, 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.


         Dated:  September 22, 2004     /s/ Evan Brovenick
                                        -----------------------
                                        Evan Brovenick
                                        Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

NEWS RELEASE
COMPUWARE CORPORATION                                           [C0MPUWARE LOGO]
----------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Headquarters
One Campus Martius o Detroit, MICHIGAN 48226
(313) 227-7300


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 17, 2006

             COMPUWARE ANNOUNCES $125 MILLION STOCK REPURCHASE PLAN

         BOARD AND MANAGEMENT CONFIDENCE IN FUTURE GROWTH SPURS BUYBACK


DETROIT--April 17, 2006--Compuware Corporation (NASDAQ: CPWR) today announced
that the company's Board of Directors has authorized the repurchase of up to
$125 million of the company's Common Stock. The company will purchase Compuware
stock on the open market from time-to-time based upon market and business
conditions.


"Compuware's Board of Directors and executive management team have great
confidence in the company's growth potential for the current fiscal year and
beyond," said Compuware Chairman and CEO Peter Karmanos, Jr. "With many of the
company's key organizational changes completed, Compuware has a tremendous
opportunity to generate sales momentum across our business in FY '07. We will
continue to evaluate a variety of cash-management strategies for investing in
the company's growth and delivering value to shareholders."


COMPUWARE CORPORATION

Compuware Corporation (NASDAQ: CPWR) maximizes the value IT brings to the
business by helping CIOs more effectively manage the business of IT. Compuware
solutions accelerate the development, improve the quality and enhance the
performance of critical business systems while enabling CIOs to align and govern
the entire IT portfolio, increasing efficiency, cost control and employee
productivity throughout the IT organization. Founded in 1973, Compuware serves
the world's leading IT organizations, including more than 90 percent of the
Fortune 100 companies. Learn more about Compuware at http://www.compuware.com.

                                      ###


PRESS CONTACT

Lisa Elkin, Vice President, Communications and Investor Relations,
+1-313-227-7345

Certain statements in this release that are not historical facts, including
those regarding the Company's future plans, objectives and expected performance,
are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the federal securities
laws. These forward-looking statements represent our outlook only as of the date
of this release. While we believe any forward-looking statements we have made
are reasonable, actual results could differ materially since the statements are
based on our current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties.
These risks and uncertainties are discussed in the Company's reports filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Readers are cautioned to consider these
factors when relying on such forward-looking information. The Company does not
undertake, and expressly disclaims any obligation, to update or alter its
forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events
or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 743 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 743

    To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
   business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2013

 Mr. DeFazio (for himself and Ms. Slaughter) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
   business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health Insurance Industry Fair 
Competition Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTORING THE APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR 
              INSURERS.

    (a) Amendment to McCarran-Ferguson Act.--Section 3 of the Act of 
March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1013), commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall modify, impair, or 
supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws with respect to 
the business of health insurance. For purposes of the preceding 
sentence, the term `antitrust laws' has the meaning given it in 
subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, except that 
such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the 
extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition.''.
    (b) Related Provision.--For purposes of section 5 of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section applies 
to unfair methods of competition, section 3(c) of the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act shall apply with respect to the business of health insurance 
without regard to whether such business is carried on for profit, 
notwithstanding the definition of ``Corporation'' contained in section 
4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
                                 <all>
```
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 415



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV No. CR-14-866

GERALD JERMAINE ALLEN APPELLANT V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered June 17, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-13-467] HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JUDGE REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge A Crittenden County jury found appellant Gerald Allen guilty of aggravated assault, and he was sentenced as a habitual offender to nine years’ imprisonment. 1 Allen’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to Anders v. California 2 and Rule 4- 3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Our clerk provided Allen with a copy of counsel’s brief and motion, and notified Allen of his right to file pro se points for reversal. Allen has not submitted any points for reversal. We order rebriefing and deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1 Appellant was also charged with arson, but that charge resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury.

2 386 U.S. 738 (1967).Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 415

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 3 sets forth the requirements for the contents of appellate briefs. Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) requires that “[n]o more than one page of transcript shall be abstracted without giving a record page reference.” Appellant’s abstract violates this rule in several instances, abstracting as many as five pages before giving a range of record pages. Our rules require that the statement of the case “must include supporting page references to the abstract or addendum or both.” 4Here, appellant has failed to cite to the abstract or addendum in the statement of the case. According to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(7), references in the argument “shall be followed by a reference to the page number of the abstract or addendum at which such material may be found.” Appellant makes arguments in his brief without providing a reference to the page number at which the material may be found. Therefore, appellant needs to correct this omission. Other deficiencies include: (1) appellant’s reference to a revocation proceeding in the argument heading, when this was a jury trial, not a revocation; (2) appellant’s failure to note the basis of the directed-verdict motions made during the proceeding; and (3) appellant’s failure to address at least one adverse ruling. Due to these deficiencies, we order rebriefing and deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. Counsel has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to submit a substituted abstract, brief,

3 (2014).
4 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6). -2-Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 415

and addendum that complies with our rules. 5 We remind counsel that the examples we have noted are not to be taken as an exhaustive list of deficiencies. Counsel should carefully review the rules to ensure that no other deficiencies exist. Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied. G LADWIN , C.J., and V IRDEN , J., agree. S. Butler Bernard, Jr. , for appellant. No response.

5 See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). -3-
##### 



Exhibit 99
(d)
 
 CONTACT:
 Delphi Corporation Files Voluntary Chapter 11 Business
Reorganization Cases to Execute Transformation Plan
And Address Legacy Issues and High-Cost Structure in the U.S.
 Non-U.S. Subsidiaries Are Not Included in U.S. Filing and
Are Not Subject to Court Supervision or Chapter 11 Process
 Existing Global Management Team
to Continue to Operate U.S. Businesses as Debtors-in-Possession
and Non-U.S. Subsidiaries in the Ordinary Course of Business
 Global Operations and Shipments to Customers
Expected to Continue Without Interruption
 Aggregate USD $4.5 Billion Financing Includes Commitment for
USD $2 Billion in Debtor-in-Possession Financing and
Adequate Protection Package for USD $2.5 Billion Prepetition Facilities
 DIP Financing and Cash on Hand of USD $1.6 Billion
Available to Support Delphis Worldwide Operations
 TROY, Mich.  October 8, 2005
 1




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



now
   3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



5
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 6, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00605

- CV

IN RE SAKS & COMPANY LLC d/b/a Saks Fifth Avenue Off 5th and Dennis Joseph

Belmonte

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

On September 6, 2019

, relator s filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion for

emergency relief pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. This court

believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further

c onsideration. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may

file response s to the petition in this court no later than Septe mber 16 , 2019

. Any response

must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relator s ’ req uest for a stay is GRANTED. The trial court’s A ugu st 29, 2019 “ Order

Denying Defendants ’ Motions to Quash ” is STAYED pending final resolution of the petition

for writ of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED on September 6, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CI22528 , styled Danielle Stefani Arellano Castro v. Saks &

Company LLC d/b/a S aks Fifth Avenue Off 5th and Dennis Joseph Belmonte , pending in the 224th Judicial Distr i ct

Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
Stephanie HUGHES v. David S. SMITH, et al.

NO. 2018-CC-0692

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 2018

Denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 103895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30091]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 994 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-744, K2025-743.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-30091 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Harry L. You, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2004 of BearingPoint, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my
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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee 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 internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                                                                 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 10, 2006 |  | /s/    HARRY L.
YOU                                             
|                     |  | Harry L. You Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Barry Howard MACWILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2323

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Loudle JACKSON, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Indenture Trustee of the Aames Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-1, Appellee.

No. 4D18-39

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

November 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.