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



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 Town Sports International, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Richard Pyle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:  (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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company. /s/ Richard PyleTown Sports International, Inc.
Chief Executive Officer
August 16, 2004
Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1


November 30, 2009


Paul L. Howes 

Newpark Resources, Inc. 

President &


Chief Executive Officer 

2700 Research Forest Drive, Suite 100 

The Woodlands, TX 77381


Re: Extension of salary reduction


Dear Paul:


This letter sets forth the terms of our agreement
relating to the extension of the 10% reduction of your annualized Base Salary and the corresponding adjustment to
your incentive compensation under the EICP as set forth in the Amendment to the Employment Agreement, dated
April 20, 2009 (the “Amendment”), between you and Newpark Resources, Inc.
(“Company”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings ascribed to them in the
Amendment and the Employment Agreement, dated December 31, 2008, between you and the Company (the
“Employment Agreement”). The terms of our agreement with regard to the extension are as follows:


1. The 10% reduction to your annualized Base
Salary as set forth in the Amendment will continue in effect through March 31, 2010.


2. Beginning April 1, 2010, your annualized
Base Salary will be Four Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($486,000.00).


3. Your Base Salary for purposes of calculating
payments under the EICP will likewise be adjusted through March 31, 2010 to reflect this 10% reduction in your
annualized Base Salary.


4. If your employment is terminated prior to
March 31, 2010 pursuant to Section 2.3 of the Employment Agreement, your payment provided for in
Section 2.3(b)(i) and the calculation of the “Performance Target” set forth in Section 2.3(b)(ii)
will be based upon your $486,000.00 annualized Base Salary and not on your Base Salary at the time of termination
of $437,400.00.


5. If your employment is terminated prior to
March 31, 2010 pursuant to Section 2.7 of the Employment Agreement, your payment provided for in
Section 2.7(a)(i) and the calculation of the “Performance Target” set forth in Section 2.7(a)(ii)
will be based upon your $486,000.00 annualized Base Salary and not on your Base Salary at the time of termination
of $437,400.00.





1









 





6. This 10% reduction in your annualized Base
Salary and the corresponding adjustment to your incentive compensation under the EICP do not constitute
“Good Reason” for termination by you, as defined in Section 2.3, 2.7 and 3.10(b) of the
Employment Agreement, or a termination by the Company. Except for the foregoing modifications, the Amendment and
the Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


Sincerely,


Newpark Resources, Inc.


By:
/s/ Mark J. Airola                                                     

Name:
Mark J. Airola

Title: Vice President, General Counsel and

          Chief Administrative Officer




Agreed to and Accepted
this 1st day of
December, 2009.


/s/ Paul L. Howes                                          


Paul L. Howes



-2-





2
#### Bethy Janette BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. REAGAN COUNTY; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES-Adult Protective Services; MHMR Services for the Concho Valley; Big Spring State Hospital, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-10240

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 14, 2011.

Bethy Janette Burton, San Angelo, TX, pro se.

*235Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bethy Burton appeals the district court’s order denying her three motions and dismissing her case with prejudice because her claims were frivolous. Burton’s complaint, premised upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988, alleged that during and before 2004, the defendants violated her constitutional rights, as well as state and federal law. The violations alleged by Burton include that she was subject to “a plurality of United States Bill of Rights Violations,” church/state violations, bias crime, forced exile, animal cruelty, and cruel and unusual punishment.

The district court found that Burton’s allegations were “wholly frivolous in both law and fact[,]” as they were “either not actionable under any set of facts or not actionable in a federal court of limited jurisdiction.” Burton’s claims, the district court added, were also time-barred by Texas state law. The district court accordingly denied Burton’s motions to proceed *informa pauperis*(IFP), for appointment of counsel, and for service of process by U.S. Marshal, and dismissed her case with prejudice.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a complaint as frivolous. *Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153,*23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir.1994). An IFP proceeding may be dismissed if the complaint “lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” *Id.) see*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court has broad discretion in making its determination that a complaint is frivolous. *Macias,*23 F.3d at 97.

Burton argues “[t]he Complaint pleadings were not malicious or frivolous[, neither were any delusions presented to the Court.” Burton further argues that “[t]he facts are not ‘fantastic’ ... and the ‘legal theory’ is relevant.” Burton fails, however, to explain *why*her complaint is not deficient. Instead, her appellate briefs are conclusory, confirming that her claims are frivolous. *See Pedraza v. Meyer,*919 F.2d 317, 318 n. 1 (5th Cir.1990).

Largely for the reasons articulated by the district court, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny Burton’s motions and dismiss her case with prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      45,909,710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,804,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,485,522
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,420,111
<PP&E>                                       1,556,398
<DEPRECIATION>                               (671,449)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,305,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,877,860
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,890
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,296,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,427,200
<SALES>                                      2,037,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,037,251
<CGS>                                          875,822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,791,841
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,630,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,099,656)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)


</TABLE>
ex109.htm






Exhibit 10.9


Schedule of Board Fees












The Compensation Committee and Board of Directors of Lakeland Financial Corporation adopted the following fee schedule effective January 1, 2015:


 



	
Annual Director Retainer:

	  	
$

	
25,000

	  	  
	
Annual Audit Committee Chairman Retainer:

	  	
$

	
35,000

	  	  
	
Annual Lead Director and Governance Committee Chairman Retainer:

	  	
$

	
35,000

	  	  
	
Annual Compensation Committee Chairman Retainer:

	  	
$

	
30,000

	  	  
	
Annual Corporate Risk Committee Chairman Retainer

	  	
$

	
30,000

	  	  
	
Board Meeting Fee:

	  	
$

	
1,000

	  	
per meeting


	
Committee Meeting Fee:

	  	
$

	
1,000

	  	
per meeting


	
Annual stock grant:

	  	  	
1,250

	  	
shares
KPMG

 

 

KPMG LLP

Suite 2300

401 South Tryon Street

Three First Union Center

Charlotte, NC 28202-1911

Independent Accountants' Report

 

The Board of Directors

Wachovia Bank National Association:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report, that the Commercial Real Estate Servicing Division of Wachovia Bank National Association (the Bank) complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's (MBA's) Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers, except for minimum servicing standards V.4. and VI.I., which the MBA has interpreted as being inapplicable to the servicing of commercial and multifamily loans, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003. Management is responsible for the Bank's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Bank's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American   Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence   about the Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing standards specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank has complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003 is fairly stated, in all material       respects.

KPMG LLP

March 10, 2004

KPMG LLP, KPMG LLP, a US limeted liability partnership, is

A member of KPMG International, a Swiss association
EXHIBIT
32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James Hennen, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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.

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ James
 Hennen                    
| | James Hennen                         
| | Senior Vice
 President of Finance and
| | Chief
 Financial Officer             
| | October 22, 2010                     

---
#### Sharlene McKenzie, as Executrix of Oscar McKenzie, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, v Onondaga County et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 857]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John C. Cherundolo, A.J.), entered July 5, 2011. The order, among other things, granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the second through seventh causes of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs *(see Roulan v County of Onondaga,*90 AD3d 1617 [2011]; *Cagnina v Onondaga County,*90 AD3d 1626 [2011]; *Matter of Parry v County of Onondaga,*51 AD3d 1385 [2008]). Present — Smith, J.P., Bindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Masika Ray

- Brown, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00037

- CV v.
Longview Independent School District, Appellee Appeal from the 124th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2012

- 90

- B ). Opin ion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the summary judgment of

the court below

. We affirm the summary judgment of the trial court

. We further order that the appellant, Masika Ray

- Brown, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDE RED SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Humberto Rodriguez, Jr. 1017893 

The Hughes Unit 

Rt. 2 Box 4400 

Ga.tesville, TX 76597 

Clerk Of Court 

TX Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308 

Austin, Tx 78711 

Dear Clerk: 

1-11-15 

IN RE: WR-81,853-01 

I am writin~ to inquire as to the amount of money I owe you ~or copies, if any. 

Your notice to me dated 12-10-14, stated I needed to send you 10 copies of the 

motion dealing with an §11.07 proceeding, and my return letter dated 12-16-14 

explained that I am an inmate and unable to make copies. I asked to be billed 

so that my family might pay for copies you supplied. 

Please let me know if I owe you a fee, and if my motion has been presented 

to the Court for their consideration. 

Thank you for your help. 

Sincerely; 

RECCE~VED ~N 00URr OF CRIMINAl APPEALS 

JAN 14 2015 

Humberto Rodriguez Abel Acosia, Clerk
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. Campbell, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Regal Entertainment Group;

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.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



|Date: March 26, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/MICHAEL L. CAMPBELLMichael L. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2
                                  ------------

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Henry P. Herms,  the Vice  President - Finance  and Chief  Financial  Officer of
CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended July 31,
          2005 (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/ Henry P. Herms
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Henry P. Herms
                                         Vice President - Finance and
September 9, 2005                        Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 11.1 ---  Statement Re:  Computation of Net Loss Per Common Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Three months ended                    Six months ended
                                                   --------------------------------    ---------------------------------
                                                        1997             1996                1997             1996
                                                   ---------------  ---------------    ----------------  ---------------
<S>                                                     <C>              <C>                 <C>              <C>       
Average shares outstanding                              11,169,950       10,951,784          11,164,754       10,932,458

Net loss attributable to common stockholders          (27,057,396)       (7,120,575)       (54,701,447)     (14,751,394)

Net loss per common share                                  ($2.42)          ($0.65)             ($4.90)          ($1.35)
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vertnell Sarrazini, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 869]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered March 1, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of two counts of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defendant moved to withdraw his plea, he did so on different grounds from those raised on appeal. Therefore, defendant did not preserve his present arguments that he misunderstood the terms of the plea and that he should have been granted more time to consider it *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.

As an alternative holding, we also reject these claims on the merits. The record establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary *(see generally People v Fiumefreddo,*82 *460NY2d 536, 543 [1993]). During the allocution, the court clearly stated the promised sentence, and defendant acknowledged that he understood. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that defendant had a sufficient opportunity to consult with counsel and consider the offer. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Teshara Leann SYKES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7659.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 16, 2009.

Teshara Leann Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Teshara Leann Sykes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sykes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 1, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-00442-CV

AMERICA FIRST LLOYD’S INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

V.

HARTFORD LLOYD’S INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1-10-1272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Lang

We REINSTATE this appeal. 

Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant 

informs the Court that the parties have settled their differences. Accordingly, we grant 

appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

120442F.P05

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
–2–
1200442.R.docx –3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

AMERICA FIRST LLOYD’S INSURANCE 

COMPANY, Appellant

No. 05-12-00442-CV V.

HARTFORD LLOYD’S INSURANCE 

COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District 

Court, Rockwall County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. 1-10-1272.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices 

Myers and Evans, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of the appeal.

Judgment entered this 1st day of May, 2013.

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
#### LORETTA MATTHEWS, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. ANNA FINNEGAN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Jay J. Toplitt*for the petitioner.

May 16, 1960.

Denied.