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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21

                     REAFFIRMATION OF LIMITED FRAUD GUARANTY

February 18, 2004

Textron Financial Corporation
1180 Welsh Road, Suite 280
North Wales, PA 19454

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I acknowledge that I executed a Limited Fraud Guaranty for obligations of the
I-SECTOR CORPORATION, STRATASOFT, INC, INTERNETWORK EXPERTS, INC., ISECOLDSUB,
INC., and VALERENT INC. to Textron Financial Corporation ("TEXTRON), dated
January 30, 2004.

In consideration for TEXTRON approving a continuation in the credit facility of
$15,000,000 and intending to be legally bound, I hereby reaffirm my joint and
several, direct and indirect Limited Fraud Guaranty to TEXTRON for all
obligations of the I-SECTOR CORPORATION, STRATASOFT, INC, INTERNETWORK EXPERTS,
INC., ISECOLDSUB, INC., and VALERENT INC. to TEXTRON.

This letter does not reduce or limit in any way my obligations to TEXTRON under
our Limited Fraud Guaranty and this letter does not change any other terms or
conditions of the said Limited Fraud Guaranty.

This letter shall be governed by the laws of the State of Rhode Island. Any
dispute between the parties concerning the terms or provisions of this
Reaffirmation of Individual Guaranty shall be brought in the jurisdiction of the
courts of the State of Rhode Island in the event of any such dispute.

I waive a trial by jury in any action concerning this Reaffirmation of Limited
Fraud Guaranty or the subject matter thereof.


/s/ James H. Long                            /s/ Patricia L. Winstead
-----------------------------------          -----------------------------------
                                             Attest

-----------------------------------          -----------------------------------
                                             Attest
Marshall WHITLEY, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 12-8396.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
In re Danny Lee RITCHIE, petitioner.

No. 12-9578.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.9(c) 
 2003 10-K 
  
 Second
amendment to employment agreement 
  
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT
(“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 19th day of August, 2003, by and between BANK MUTUAL, a
federal savings bank (hereinafter referred to as “Bank Mutual”), and Rick B. Colberg (hereinafter referred to as “Executive”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Executive and First Northern Savings Bank, a federal savings bank (hereinafter referred to as “First Northern”), previously entered
into an Employment Agreement dated as of November 1, 2000 (the “Agreement”), providing for an initial three year term with annual extensions of the term upon agreement of the Executive and by affirmative action taken by the Board of
Directors; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Agreement was amended in
contemplation of First Northern’s merger into Bank Mutual (the “First Amendment”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Bank Mutual has assumed the obligations of First Northern under the Agreement as a result of First Northern’s merger into Bank Mutual; and

  
 WHEREAS, Bank Mutual and the Executive wish to further amend
the Agreement to permit annual extensions as of January 1 instead of November 1; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration which is hereby acknowledged by Executive and Bank Mutual, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
  
 1. Section 1.1 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: 
  
 “Employer shall employ Executive for an initial period of three (3) years commencing on November 1, 2000 (the
“Effective Date”). Effective as of the end of the initial three year term, the term shall be extended to December 31, 2004. Effective as of the end of the extended term and on each anniversary thereafter, the employment term may be
extended for an additional one year term upon agreement of Executive and by affirmative action taken by Employer’s Board of Directors not less than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the current term of employment. Executive’s
employment under this Agreement may otherwise be terminated only as contemplated by Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of this Agreement.” 
  
 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, except as modified by the First Amendment and this Second Amendment, are agreed by the parties to be
in full force and effect and binding on their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
Billy Coy COCHRAN, petitioner, v. Jeffrey BEARD, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 12-9161.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Leroy Alvin McKENZIE, petitioner, v. Lieutenant RAINES, et al.

No. 12-8933.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 20801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10456]



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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 26, 1995.

PLACE: Room 600, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following:

    1. Joy Technologies, Docket No. WEST 93-129. (Continuation of 
discussion of issues that include whether a vendor of mining 
equipment may be cited as an independent contractor-operator based 
on the actions of its service representative.)
    No earlier announcement of the meeting was possible. Any person 
attending the open portion of this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(e).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 653-5629/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Dated: April 21, 1995.
Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 95-10456 Filed 4-25-95; 11:41 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20810 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN DAVID BOYD, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-88-CR-14-03

- - - - - - - - - - October 29, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John David Boyd appeals, #46448-079, the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for modification of his sentence. We have reviewed the record, appellant’s brief, and the district court's opinion, and we find no abuse of discretion. United States v. Pardue , 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons given by the district court. United States v. Boyd , No. H-88-14- 03 (Aug. 16, 1995).No. - 2 - AFFIRMED.
Jose BORRERO, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 12-9065.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County-Criminal Term denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-20810

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN DAVID BOYD,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-88-CR-14-03

- - - - - - - - - -

October 29, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John David Boyd appeals, #46448-079, the denial of his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for modification of his sentence. We

have reviewed the record, appellant’s brief, and the district

court's opinion, and we find no abuse of discretion. United

States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,

115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

given by the district court. United States v. Boyd, No. H-88-14-

03 (Aug. 16, 1995).
No.

- 2 -

AFFIRMED.
Kenny THROWER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6916.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DONNA GAIL KERSEY

 Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

§

No. 08-20-00037-CR

Appeal from the

207

th District Court

of Comal County, Texas

(TC# CR2018-325)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until September 2, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. Susan Schoon, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 2, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1

st day of September 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

               ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
    FOR THE QUARTERS AND NINE MONTHS ENDED JULY 26, 1998 AND AUGUST 1, 1999

                                  (Unaudited)
                     (In Thousands, Except per Share Date)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Quarter Ended                        Nine Months Ended
                                                        -----------------------------------    ----------------------------------
                                                             July 26,           August 1,           July 26,          August 1,
                                                               1998                1999               1998               1999
                                                        ---------------     ---------------    ---------------    ---------------
<S>                                                        <C>                 <C>                <C>                <C>
Shares:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding                   6,728               6,944              6,707              6,937

     Net common shares issuable on exercise of
        stock options                                                --                 291                129                125
                                                        ---------------     ---------------    ---------------    ---------------

Weighted average common and common equivalent
   shares outstanding                                             6,728               7,235              6,836              7,062
                                                        ===============     ===============    ===============    ===============

Net income (loss)                                                 ($453)             $1,202             $  453             $2,567
                                                        ===============     ===============    ===============    ===============

Basic and diluted net income (loss) per common and
 common equivalent share
   Basic                                                         ($0.07)             $ 0.17             $ 0.07             $ 0.37
                                                        ===============     ===============    ===============    ===============
   Diluted                                                       ($0.07)             $ 0.17             $ 0.07             $ 0.36
                                                        ===============     ===============    ===============    ===============
</TABLE>

                                       1
Angelia E.M. ROCKMORE, petitioner, v. HARRISBURG PROPERTY SERVICE, et al.

No. 12-9064.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Kalle Delmar WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and Sassaley Yvonne Bennett, Appellees.

No. 1D18-4804

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Charles Claude RAMSEY, petitioner, v. Kimberly H. RUNION, Director, Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation.

No. 12-8548.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1400 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1400

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming 
          laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

  Mr. Keller introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming 
          laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against 
Lasers Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIMING A LASER POINTER AT AN AIRCRAFT.

    (a) Offense.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
    ``Whoever knowingly aims a laser pointer at an aircraft in the 
special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight 
path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
not more than 5 years, or both.''.
    (b) Amendment to Table of Sections.--The table of sections at the 
beginning of chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new item:

``39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2
 TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Textron Financial CorporationDate: April 30, 2010
    /s/ Thomas J. CullenThomas J. CullenExecutive Vice President and Chief
        Financial Officer 25
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JONATHAN FERGUSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:13CV417-JVB-JEM

)

CIVIL CITY OF SOUTH BEND, )

INDIANA; PETE BUTTIGIEG, )

MAYOR; CHARLES HURLEY, )

Interim Chief of Police of the )

SOUTH BEND POLICE )

DEPARTMENT; PATROLMAN ERIC )

MENTZ; PFC MICHAEL STUK; )

AND OFFICER AARON KNEPPER, )

)

Defendants. )

STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff and Defendants, by counsel, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this

action with prejudice pursuant to F.R.C.P 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own

costs and attorney fees.

/s/ Johnny W. Ulmer

Johnny W. Ulmer

Ulmer Law Offices, Inc.

P.O. Box 866

Bristol, IN 46507

Richard E. Bryant

1333 West Lusher Ave.

Elkhart, IN 46517

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Peter J. Agostino 

Peter J. Agostino (#10765-71)

Stephanie L. Nemeth (#25721-71)

Anderson Agostino & Keller, P.C.

131 South Taylor Street

South Bend, IN 46601

Attorneys for Defendants

USDC IN/ND case 3:13-cv-00417-JVB-JEM document 54 filed 05/31/16 page 1 of 1
JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1, petitioner, v. ELIZABETH E. By and Through Her Parents, ROXANNE B. and David E.

No. 12-1175.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Jwuan L. MORELAND, Antrio B. Hammond, Wesley S. Hammond, Susie A. Smith, Herbert D. Phipps, David J. Pitts, Bradley S. Shelton, Michael D. Weir, and Timothy Bailey, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9716.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 127 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 127

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
         for the unveiling of a statue of Martha Hughes Cannon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 3, 2024

 Ms. Maloy (for herself, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Moore of Utah, and Mr. Owens) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
         for the unveiling of a statue of Martha Hughes Cannon.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR THE UNVEILING OF MARTHA HUGHES 
              CANNON STATUE.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used for an event on December 11, 2024, to unveil a 
statue of Martha Hughes Cannon.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS, appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General.

No. 12-1028.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2013.

On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for further consideration in light of *Shelby County v. Holder,* --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2612, --- L.Ed. ---- (2013).
Joseph WHITING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7021.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Michael D. HOOVER, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-8993.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, denied.
Efrahim YILMAZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9835.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jason Weber, Chief Executive Officer of Alianza Minerals Ltd. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 14, 2018





/s/  Jason Weber

Jason Weber,

President and Chief Executive Officer
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 31, 2017

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-2312

Lower Tribunal No. 16-2434

________________



### Ishsha Shalem

, Petitioner,

vs.



### Daniel Junior, etc., et al.

, Respondents.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction

– Habeas Corpus.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Natasha Baker-Bradley, Assistant

Public Defender

, for petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant

Attorney General

, for respondent State of Florida.

Before SUAREZ, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

This matter first came before this Court upon Petitioner Ishsha Shalem’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming her pretrial detention without bond is

unlawful. A review of the record shows that the Petitioner was ordered detained

without any condition for pretrial release pending trial. The record and transcriptsfrom the hearings showed that the requirements of section 907.041, Florida

Statutes (2017) and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3.132 were not

followed and that the trial court had failed to make the proper findings before

ordering pretrial detention. We granted the petition and ordered the trial court to

hold a hearing no later than Monday, October 30, 2017 and to comply with the

requirements of section 907.041, Florida Statutes (2017) and Florida Rules of

Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3.132 in determining the appropriate conditions for

either release or pretrial detention.

The matter is back before us on the Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Habeas

Corpus. A review of the transcript from the hearing on Monday, October 30, 2017

shows that the trial court failed to delineate the findings and reasons for pretrial

detention. As such, we send this matter back

– once more

– for a hearing to be

held before noon Wednesday, November 1, 2017, and for the trial court to

specifically set forth its findings, in accordance with the Rules of Criminal

Procedure and section 907.041, for either pretrial release or detention. The

Petitioner shall remain in custody pending the determination of pretrial release or

detention.

We also find that in the interest of pursuing fairness, further proceedings in

this case should be held before a different judge.

2