alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Note dated July 20, 2005



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 NOTE 
  

			
	$18,000,000	  	July 20, 2005

  
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
GUILFORD PHARMACEUTICALS INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to the order of MGI PHARMA, INC. (the “Lender”) at its main office in Bloomington, Minnesota, or such other address as the Lender may
specify, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal amount of EIGHTEEN MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($18,000,000) or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of the Advances made by the Lender under the Credit Agreement, and
to pay interest (computed on the basis of actual days elapsed and a year of 360 days) in like funds on the unpaid principal amount hereof from time to time outstanding at the rates and times set forth in the Credit Agreement. 
  
 This note is the Note referred to in the Line of Credit Agreement dated as of
the date hereof (as the same may hereafter be from time to time amended, restated or otherwise modified, the “Credit Agreement”) by and between the Borrower and the Lender. This note is secured, it is subject to certain permissive
prepayments and its maturity is subject to acceleration, in each case upon the terms provided in said Credit Agreement. 
  
 In the event of default hereunder, the Borrower agrees to pay all costs and expenses of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. The
Borrower waives demand, presentment, notice of nonpayment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonor. 
  
 THE VALIDITY, CONSTRUCTION AND ENFORCEABILITY OF THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE INTERNAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE
CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES THEREOF. 
  

			
	GUILFORD PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Dean J. Mitchell

	 Title:
	 	 President and Chief Executive Officer
88 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

OHIO 

#17 #33 2.0% $992 #15 #13 #11

$11.6 B SPENT IN 1.7% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $8.2 B CONTRACT 62,016 NUMBER OF $3.4 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 3% Research and

Supplies and

 59%

Development: 12% 

Service: 27%

Equipment:

By Service 

Army

15%

Navy/Marines

16%

Air Force

Other Defense

20%

49%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Active Duty: 11% Reserve: 18%

National Civilian: 45% Guard: 26%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

31%

Navy/Marines

5%

Air Force

49%

Other Defense

15%

Top Defense Contractors 

General Electric

Battelle Memorial Institute

Federal Equipment Co.

CFM International

L3Harris Technologies

Riverside Research Institute

Hunter Defense Technologies

University of Dayton

Messer Construction Co.

Wornick

(M = millions, B = billions)

$2.0 B

$389.3 M

$374.1 M

$303.2 M

$211.9 M

$176.2 M

$170.9 M

$161.4 M

$145.0 M

$144.7 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$8.2

$6.5 $6.1

$4.9 $4.8 $4.5

FY13 FY14

$3.9 $3.9

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$3.4 BILLION 62,016

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Total

22,940

14,377

3,540

ND 

1,994

1,945

ND 

1,567

ND 

ND 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Greene 5,517 14,792 105

Franklin 374 7,076 3,911

Cuyahoga 218 2,651 427

Clark ND 333 1,659

Hamilton 123 275 568

Trumbull 35 66 384

Richland ND 278 1,537

Stark 34 27 668

Summit ND 172 477

Fulton ND 0 1,049

Reserve

2,526

3,016

244

ND 

1,028

1,460

0

838

824

0
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 89

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 OHIO

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

Hamilton

Greene

Montgomery

Franklin

Butler

Cuyahoga

Clermont

Summit

Miami

Licking

(M = millions, B = billions)

$2.7 B

$1.8 B

$904.5 M

$596.7 M

$530.0 M

$304.5 M

$213.3 M

$176.0 M

$112.9 M

$109.8 M

Greene

Franklin

Cuyahoga

Hamilton

Clark

Richland

Summit

Trumbull

Montgomery

Lucas

$1.9 B

$742.7 M

$210.3 M

$66.5 M

$63.8 M 

$48.1 M

$44.3 M 

$40.9 M

$36.9 M

$35.6 M

Cuyahoga

Franklin Licking

Montgomery

Summit

Greene Butler

Hamilton Clermont

Miami

Cuyahoga

Summit

Montgomery

Greene

Hamilton

Clark

Franklin

Lucas

Trumbull

Richland
NO. 12

- 15

- 00157

- CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE 159 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. 2013

- 0744

STANFORD JONES, JR. §

§ IN THE 12 TH COURT OF APPEALS

§ OF

vs. §

§

STATE OF TEXAS § TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Stanford Jones, Sr. , Appellant in the above styled and numbered

cause, and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellant's brief,

pursuant to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good

cause shows the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 217 th District Court of Angelina

County, Texas.

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. Stanford Jones,

Sr. , and numbered 2013

- 0744 . Appellant was convicted of Arson

.

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of Twenty ( 20 ) years in Texas

Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division on May 14, 2015

.

5. Notice of appeal was given on June 10, 2015

.

6. The clerk's record was filed on July 10, 20 15 ; the reporter's record was

filed on June 29, 2015

.

7. The appellate brief was presently due on August 12, 2015

.

8. Appellant requests an extension of time of thirty (30) days from the ACCEPTED

12-15-00157-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

8/12/2015 2:51:29 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERKcurrent due date.

9. No extensions to file the brief ha ve been rec eived in this cause.

10. Defendant is currently incarcerated.

11. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested

extension:

Counsel currently has ten separate brief s due in the 12 th Court of Appeals and

the 9 th Court of Appeals

, which include four due in to the this court in the month of

August

. Due to the time required to review records of each appeal, counsel is

requesting an extension of thirty days.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Appellant prays that this

Court grant this M otion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other

and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted:

/s/John D. Reeves

____________________ John D. Reeves

Attorney at Law

1007 Grant

Lufkin, Texas 75901

Phone (936) 632

- 160

Fax: (936) 632

- 1640

tessabellus@yahoo.com

SBOT # 16723000

Counsel for AppellantCERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. 10.1 (5), certify that I, the undersigned conferred

with opposing counsel who is not opposed to an extension.

/s/John D. Reeves

___________________________ John D. Reeves

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s

Motion to Extend Time to file Appel lant’s Brief on this 12 th day of August , 2015

forwarded to State’s Attorney, April Ayers

- Perez, Angelina County, by electronic

service at aprerez@angelinacounty.net.

/s/John D. Reeves

__________________________ John D. Reeves

Attorney f or Appellant,

Stanford Jones, Sr.
Exhibit 32   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 Network Dealer Services Holding Corp. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Joshua A. Griffin, President, and Paul D. Stevens, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Treasurer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:May 18, 2011By:/s/Joshua A. GriffinJoshua A. Griffin, President  and Director  Date:May 18, 2011By:/s/Paul D. StevensPaul D. Stevens Chief Financial Officer, Vice President,  Treasurer and Director    1
52 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

Humana $5.2 B

Lockheed Martin $567.2 M

Raytheon $558.5 M

Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass JV $262.7 M

Boeing $144.4 M

BAE Systems $105.8 M

UPS $85.2 M

Southeastern Kentucky Rehabilitation Industries Inc. $61.0 M

SourceAmerica $46.0 M

SAIC $43.1 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

KENTUCKY

#14 #9 2.2% $2,455 #13 #17 #14

$11.0 B SPENT 

IN STATE

5.2% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $8.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

54,837 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$2.8 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$2.8 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

54,837

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Christian 26,498 2,629 31 177 29,335

Hardin 5,459 4,459 129 2,588 12,635

Jefferson 132 1,178 1,849 632 3,791

Madison ND 989 675 24

Franklin 20 289 1,040 ND

Fayette 71 105 234 561 971

Boone ND 21 562 ND

Campbell ND 24 ND 389

Muhlenberg ND 70 241 ND

McCracken ND 13 92 181

Service: 85%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 14%

Construction: 1%

Research and Development: 0%

Active Duty: 59%

Civilian: 19%

National 

Guard: 14%

Reserve: 9%

14%

8%

2%

76%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

94%

1%

3%

2%

$5.3 $5.6 $5.6 $5.9 $5.4 $5.1 $5.9

$8.2

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 53

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Boone

Kenton Carter

Jefferson

Fayette

Hardin Menifee

Madison

Laurel

Christian

FISCAL YEAR 2018 KENTUCKY

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Jefferson

Fayette

Hardin

Christian

Madison

Laurel

Boone

Menifee

Kenton

Carter

(M = millions, B = billions)

$6.1 B

$667.4 M

$445.5 M

$410.9 M

$289.3 M

$61.2 M

$42.9 M

$42.3 M

$18.5 M

$14.5 M

Christian

Hardin

Jefferson

Madison

Franklin

Fayette

Boone

Muhlenberg

Campbell

McCracken

$1.7 B

$727.1 M

$161.1 M

$71.4 M

$55.1 M

$29.2 M

$8.3 M

$8.0 M

$5.8 M

$5.5 M

Boone

Campbell

Franklin

Hardin

McCracken Muhlenberg

Christian

Madison

Jefferson

Fayette
IDAHO 

ηκς

ΨϬ͘ϳ^WEd/E

STATE 

#47 

Ϭ͘ΘйK&^dd'W

Ϭ͘ϭй

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

Ψϯεκ

PER RESIDENT 

#47 

ΨϬ͘ϯKEdZd

SPENDING 

#44 

ϭϬ͕ϳρςEhDZK&

PERSONNEL 

#43 

ΨϬ͘κWZ^KEE>

SPENDING 

 DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͗ ςй ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚ

^ƵƉƉůŝĞƐ ĂŶĚ

ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͗ϯεй

By Service 

Army 

13% 

Navy/Marines 

10% 

Air Force 

Other Defense 

ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ρй

^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͗ ρϭй

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕LJdLJƉĞ

Reserve͗ϭϬй

National 

Guard: 42% 

Active Duty: 33% 

Civilian: 15% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕By Service 

Army 

44% 

Navy/Marines 

4% 

Air Force 

52% 

Other Defense 

0% 

Top Defense Contractors ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ƌĂĚ,ĂůůΘƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ Ψρϭ͘ςD

dĂŶĂĚŐƵƐŝdžŽƌƉ͘;dͿ ΨκϬ͘ΘD

:͘͘ƵŶŶŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ΨϮϯ͘ΘD

W<>^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ Ψϭκ͘ϳD

ZK^ƉĞĐŝĂůƟĞƐ Ψϭϭ͘κD

:ŽŚŶƐŽŶŽŶƚƌŽůƐ ΨΘ͘ϯD

>ŝŐŚƞŽƌĐĞh^ Ψϳ͘ϬD

'ĞŶĞƌĂůLJŶĂŵŝĐƐ Ψς͘ϯD

DŝůƉŽǁĞƌ Ψρ͘εD

KƵnjŝŶŬŝĞEĂƟǀĞŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶ Ψρ͘ςD

Contract Awards Performed ;LJ&ŝƐĐĂůzĞĂƌ͕ďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨϬ͘κ

40% 

37% 

&zϭϯ

ΨϬ͘ϯ

ΨϬ͘Ϯ ΨϬ͘Ϯ ΨϬ͘Ϯ ΨϬ͘Ϯ

&zϭϮ &zϭκ &zϭρ

ΨϬ͘ϭ ΨϬ͘ϭ

&zϭς &zϭϳ &zϭΘ &zϭε

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

ΨκϮΘ͘ρD/>>/KE ϭϬ͕ϳρς

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ

ϳϬϭ

ϮΘ

ϭςκ

ϭϬρ

Ϭ

Θϳ

Ϭ

Ϭ

Ϭ

Ϭ

dŽƚĂů

κ͕ρϬϮ

κ͕ϭϮϮ

E

ϯϮΘ

E

E

ϭϮΘ

E

ϭϬϳ

E

dŽƉĞĨĞŶƐĞWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞů>ŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ

ŽƵŶƚLJ ĐƟǀĞ

ƵƚLJ

ŝǀŝůŝĂŶ EĂƟŽŶĂů

'ƵĂƌĚ

ĚĂ ΘϬ εκϯ Ϯ͕ϳϳΘ

ůŵŽƌĞ ϯ͕ϯΘϳ κϳρ ϮϯϮ

ĂŶŶŽĐŬ E ϭϭ ϭρϳ

<ŽŽƚĞŶĂŝ Ϭ ϳκ ϭκε

ĂŶLJŽŶ E E Ϯϯρ

dǁŝŶ&ĂůůƐ E E Θϳ

ŽŶŶĞǀŝůůĞ ϮϮ ϭϯ εϯ

:ĞƌŽŵĞ Ϭ E ϭϮϮ

ĂƐƐŝĂ Ϭ Ϭ ϭϬϳ

EĞnjWĞƌĐĞ E E εϯ

κϮ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ>ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 I S CAL YEAR 2 0 1 8 IDAHO 

FISCAL YEAR 2019 

ŽŶŶĞƌ

>ĂƚĂŚ

dǁŝŶ&ĂůůƐ

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

<ŽŽƚĞŶĂŝ

ůĞĂƌǁĂƚĞƌ

/ĚĂŚŽ

ůŵŽƌĞ

ůĂŝŶĞ

ĂŶLJŽŶ

ĚĂ ŽŶŶĞǀŝůůĞ

ŝŶŐŚĂŵ

ĂŶŶŽĐŬ

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS ;<сƚŚŽƵƐĂŶĚƐ͕DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ůŵŽƌĞ

ŽŶŶĞǀŝůůĞ

ĚĂ

<ŽŽƚĞŶĂŝ

ŝŶŐŚĂŵ

ůĞĂƌǁĂƚĞƌ

ĂŶLJŽŶ

ĂŶŶŽĐŬ

ůĂŝŶĞ

/ĚĂŚŽ

;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨϭϮϬ͘εD

ΨρΘ͘ϭD

Ψρϭ͘ϮD

ΨϭϮ͘ΘD

ΨϭϮ͘ρD

Ψϳ͘ϬD

Ψρ͘εD

Ψϭ͘ΘD

Ψϭ͘ρD

Ψεκε͘ϭ<

ůŵŽƌĞ

ĚĂ

<ŽŽƚĞŶĂŝ

ĂŶŶŽĐŬ

ĂŶLJŽŶ

ůĞĂƌǁĂƚĞƌ

ŽŶŶĞǀŝůůĞ

dǁŝŶ&ĂůůƐ

ŽŶŶĞƌ

>ĂƚĂŚ

ΨϮϮϮ͘εD

ΨϭκΘ͘ϮD

ΨϭϬ͘ϮD

Ψϳ͘ϭD

Ψρ͘κD

Ψρ͘ϯD

Ψκ͘ςD

Ψκ͘ϬD

Ψϯ͘ϭD

Ψϯ͘ϬD

&ĐƚŝǀĞ &'ƵĂƌĚ &ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ ƌŵLJĐƚŝǀĞ ƌŵLJ'ƵĂƌĚ ƌŵLJZĞƐĞƌǀĞ DĐƚŝǀĞ EĂǀLJĐƚŝǀĞ t,^

<ŽŽƚĞŶĂŝ

ůĞĂƌǁĂƚĞƌ

ůŵŽƌĞ

ĂŶLJŽŶ

ĚĂ ŽŶŶĞǀŝůůĞ

ĂŶŶŽĐŬ

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ >ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε κϯ
# L_2016096EN.01003701.xml

| 12.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 96/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 96/37

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2016/563

of 15 March 2016

on the acceptance of Turkey's contribution to the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (EUAM Ukraine/2/2016)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2014/486/CFSP of 22 July 2014 on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Decision 2014/486/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) to take relevant decisions on the acceptance of contributions to EUAM Ukraine by third States. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Decision 2014/486/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) to take relevant decisions on the acceptance of contributions to EUAM Ukraine by third States.

| (2) | The Civilian Operations Commander recommended that the PSC accept the proposed contribution from Turkey to EUAM Ukraine and to consider the contribution as significant. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Civilian Operations Commander recommended that the PSC accept the proposed contribution from Turkey to EUAM Ukraine and to consider the contribution as significant.

| (3) | Turkey should be exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUAM Ukraine, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Turkey should be exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUAM Ukraine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Third States' contributions

1.   The contribution from Turkey to EUAM Ukraine is accepted and considered to be significant.

2.   Turkey is exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUAM Ukraine.

Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

It shall apply from 3 November 2015.

Done at Brussels, 15 March 2016.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

W. STEVENS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, p. 42.

1

---
Exhibit 23.2

SARAH LOBOSKY

Harry B. Sands, Lobosky & Co. 
P.O. Box N-624 
Nassau, The Bahamas



February 27, 2009

Steiner Leisure Limited 
Suite 104A 
Saffrey Square
P.O. Box N-9306
Nassau, The Bahamas 
Ladies/Gentlemen: 
Re: Annual Report on Form 10-K 
We hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Steiner Leisure Limited for the year ended December 31, 2008, under "Item 1A  -  Risk Factors - We are not a United States Company and, as a Result, there are Special Risks."

Yours faithfully,

/s/ Sarah Lobosky

HARRY B. SANDS LOBOSKY AND COMPANY
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
      REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350(AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002)





I,
William S. Creekmuir, as Chief Financial Officer of Simmons Company (the
“Company”), 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) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 28,
2009 (the “Report”), being filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
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:  June
30, 2009    /s/ William S.
Creekmuir


Name: William
S. Creekmuir


Title: Chief Financial
Officer











A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Simmons Company and will be retained by Simmons Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NUMBER 13-18-00025-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE PABLO RAY BENITEZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1

On January 11, 2018, Pablo Ray Benitez, proceeding pro se, filed a pre-trial writ 

of habeas corpus in this Court requesting that we order him to be released from wrongful 

imprisonment. Relator contends that he was denied due process of law because he was 

incarcerated for failing to appear at a court hearing despite having failed to receive notice 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. 

R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

of the hearing. Relator further contends that he has received ineffective assistance of 

counsel. We dismiss this original proceeding for want of jurisdiction. 

Article V, section 6, of the Texas Constitution provides that courts of appeals “shall 

have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be 

prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6. Pursuant to this constitutional directive, the 

Legislature established the authority of a court of appeals to issue writs in section 22.221 

of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West, Westlaw through 

2017 1st C.S.). Under section 22.221, our original jurisdiction to entertain applications 

for writ of habeas corpus extends solely to the actions of judges in civil cases. See id. § 

22.221(d); Lewis v. State, 191 S.W.3d 225, 229 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, pet ref'd); 

In re Shaw, 175 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding); 

Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet ref'd); Ex parte 

Hearon, 3 S.W.3d 650, 650 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding). This Court has 

no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See id. § 22.221(d); Ex 

parte Price, 228 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding); Chavez v. 

State, 132 S.W.3d 509, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Watson, 96 

S.W.3d at 500; Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no 

pet). In such cases, our jurisdiction is appellate only. See Dodson, 988 S.W.2d at 835; 

see also In re Hall, No. 03-17-00778-CV, 2017 WL 5985541, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin 

Nov. 30, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, is of the opinion that relator has not established this Court’s jurisdiction over the 
3

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for want 

of jurisdiction. 

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

11th day of January, 2018.
#### Anthony Maietta et al., Appellants, v Paul H. Penzer et al., Defendants, and Raymond Reich, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 411]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated August 2, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant Raymond Reich to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him as time-barred, and denied their cross motion to consolidate this action with an action entitled *Maietta v Reich,*pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under index No. 1601/02, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated September 2, 2004, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Raymond Reich.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions on appeal, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Raymond Reich as time-barred *(see Marchand v Capone,*223 AD2d 686 [1996]; CPLR 208).

Whether an action was timely commenced as against Reich in Nassau County for the same relief cannot be determined from the instant record. Further, because it may entail both factual and discretionary determinations, it is an issue best resolved by the Nassau County courts. Thus, the plaintiffs’ cross motion to consolidate this action with the Nassau County action was properly denied.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Ritter and Rivera, JJ., concur.
STATE v. MITCHELL.

No. COA05-260.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 20, 2005.

Certification Date January 9, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (03CRS61810, 03CRS61811)

Case without published opinion. No prejudicial error.