alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler

BILL OF COSTS

Court of Appeals No. 12-14-00346-CV

Trial Court No. 13-CV-32,414

William Robert Parker

Vs.

Robert Pigg and John Preston Manuell Jr.

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Indigent

Filing

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

$20.00

$25.00

$100.00

$50.00

Dismissed, not paid

Dismissed, not paid

Dismissed, not paid

Dismissed, not paid

TOTAL: $195.00

I, Cathy S. Lusk, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler,

Texas, certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY

HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 17th day of February 2015, A.D.

CATHY LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
<PAGE>



Exhibit 10.6

  SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. LOAN
   AGREEMENT, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND 10% CONVERTIBLE, SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

      THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS,
INC. LOAN AGREEMENT, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND 10% CONVERTIBLE, SECURED PROMISSORY
NOTE (the "Second Amendment") is made and entered into as of July 26, 2005, by
and among NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Maker")
and Toucan Capital Fund II, L.P. (the "Holder"). This Second Amendment amends
the Note (as defined below).

                                    RECITALS

A. Section 17.6 of that certain Amended and Restated Northwest Biotherapeutics,
Inc. Loan Agreement, Security Agreement and 10% Convertible, Secured Promissory
Note, in the principal amount of $50,000.00 amended and restated as of July 30,
2004 and originally issued on March 1, 2004, by and between the Maker and the
Holder in the form attached to this Second Amendment as Exhibit A and as amended
by that First Amendment To Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. Loan Agreement,
Security Agreement and 10% Convertible, Secured Promissory Note in the form
attached to this Second Amendment as Exhibit B (as so amended the "Note"),
states that any provision of such note may be amended or waived in writing by
the Holder and the Maker; and

B. The Maker and the Holder wish to amend the Note as provided below.

                                    AGREEMENT

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

                                        1

<PAGE>


1. Section 1 of the Note is hereby amended to provide that the Maturity Date is
November 1, 2005.

2. All other terms and conditions of the Note shall be unaffected hereby and
remain in full force and effect.

3. This Second Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the laws of
the state of Delaware without giving effect to principles of conflicts of laws
of the State of Delaware or any other state.

                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

                                        2

<PAGE>



      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this SECOND AMENDMENT
TO AMENDED AND RESTATED NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. LOAN AGREEMENT, SECURITY
AGREEMENT AND 10% CONVERTIBLE, SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE as of the date first
above written.

MAKER:

NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation

By:_________________________________
Name:_______________________________
Title:______________________________

HOLDER:

Toucan Capital Fund II, L.P.

By:________________________________
   Linda Powers, Managing Director

                                        3
**Exhibit 6.1 **

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

** **In connection with the annual report on Form 40-F of Virginia Mines Inc. for the year ended February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby 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 annual report 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. 

Date: May 29, 2008 

*/s/ André Gaumond*  André Gaumond President and Chief Executive Officer 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

$9,000.00 U.S. Currency, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00041

- CV v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.
CV39845 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court ’ s opinion of this date, we find error in the judgment of the court

below. West was entitled to relief. We reverse the judgment of forfeiture and dismiss the action

against West for lack of personal jurisdiction.

We further order that the appellee, The State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED OCTOBER 30, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 31.4 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

I, Stephen R. Lieberman, certify that: 

1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Navigant Consulting, Inc., the registrant; and 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

 

 

|                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |
|                                                 |
| /s/    STEPHEN R. LIEBERMAN      |
| Stephen R. Lieberman                                 |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

April 30, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         215,567
<SECURITIES>                                     4,925
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,722
<INVENTORY>                                    169,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               605,406
<PP&E>                                         201,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,080,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          202,166
<BONDS>                                         68,189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           987
<OTHER-SE>                                     761,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,080,657
<SALES>                                        770,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               770,188
<CGS>                                          229,028
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  577,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (8,716)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,091
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                194,655
<INCOME-TAX>                                    70,937
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            122,786
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   122,786
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25


</TABLE>
#### Victoria Smedley, as Mother and Guardian of Jessica Smedley-McClay, an Infant, Appellant, v Darrel Ellinwood, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[799 NYS2d 682]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered August 19, 2004 in Ulster County, which granted defendant Darrel Ellinwood’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.

In December 2002, plaintiff’s daughter suffered personal injuries when she was bitten by a pit bull owned by defendant Norleen Lamberty. Defendant Darrel Ellinwood is the owner and landlord of the premises where Lamberty resided at the time. Following the incident, plaintiff commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that Lamberty and Ellinwood had either actual or constructive notice of the dog’s vicious propensities. Ellinwood successfully moved for summary judgment, prompting this appeal.

A landlord may be liable for the attack by a dog kept by a tenant if the landlord has actual or constructive knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities and maintains sufficient control over the premises to require the animal to be removed or confined *(see Strunk v Zoltanski,*62 NY2d 572, 575 [1984]; *Mulhern v Chai Mgt.,*309 AD2d 995, 996 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 508 [2004]). In support of his motion for summary judgment, Ellinwood submitted proof establishing, inter alia, that he rarely came to the residence, did not know that this particular dog was present at the premises and, additionally, had no knowledge of this dog’s vicious propensities. Lamberty’s deposition corroborated Ellinwood’s statements. In response, plaintiff maintains that Ellinwood should have had notice of the dog’s propensities inasmuch as Lamberty’s neighbors had such knowledge. Furthermore, plaintiff asserts that the fact that Lamberty placed a “Beware of Dog” sign in her window should have been sufficient to constitute constructive notice to Ellinwood.

The fact that others may have been on notice of the dog’s allegedly vicious nature does not establish that Ellinwood, who, at most, visited the premises once a year and received no complaints from the neighbors, was similarly on notice *(cf. Woodman v Rosier,*1 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2003]; *Brundrige v*
      *677
      *Howes,*259 AD2d 895, 896 [1999]; *Dixon v Frazini,*188 AD2d 1054 [1992]). Additionally, the presence of a “Beware of Dog” sign, standing alone, is insufficient to impute notice of a dog’s viciousness *(see Shaw v Burgess,*303 AD2d 857, 858-859 [2003]; *Shannon v Schultz,*259 AD2d 937, 938 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 816 [1999]). Given the absence in this record of actual or constructive notice, any issue as to the scope of Ellinwood’s control over the premises is academic. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted Ellinwood’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.

Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
WEEKS v. TOWN OF NAGS HEAD.

No. COA05-798.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Dare (04CVS492).

Case without published opinion. Dismissed.
# C_2018039EN.01003801.xml

| 2.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/38

---

Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 311 of 19 September 2017
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 311 of 19 September 2017

(2018/C 39/12)

On page 7, table ‘Revenue’, for the row relating to Chapter 1 2 — European Union Special funding for specific projects:

| — | in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: the amount ‘340 000’ must be inserted, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: the amount ‘340 000’ must be inserted,

| — | in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’.

On page 7, table ‘Revenue’, for the row relating to Title 1 — Total:

| — | in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: the amount ‘340 000’ must be inserted, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: the amount ‘340 000’ must be inserted,

| — | in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 135 600’, read ‘15 475 600’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 135 600’, read ‘15 475 600’.

On page 7, table ‘Revenue’, for the row relating to Grand total:

| — | in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: instead of ‘1 467,82’ read ‘341 467,82’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: instead of ‘1 467,82’ read ‘341 467,82’,

| — | in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 808 631,84’ read ‘16 148 631,84’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 808 631,84’ read ‘16 148 631,84’.

On page 8, table ‘Expenditure’, for the row relating to Chapter 4 1 — Projects:

| — | in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: the amount ‘340 000’ must be inserted, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: the amount ‘340 000’ must be inserted,

| — | in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’.

On page 8, table ‘Expenditure’, for the row relating to Title 4 – Total:

| — | in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: the amount ‘340 000’ must be inserted, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: the amount ‘340 000’ must be inserted,

| — | in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’.

On page 8, table ‘Expenditure’: for the row relating to Grand total:

| — | in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: instead of ‘1 467,82’ read ‘341 467,82’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Amending budget No 1’: instead of ‘1 467,82’ read ‘341 467,82’,

| — | in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 808 631,84’ read ‘16 148 631,84’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 808 631,84’ read ‘16 148 631,84’.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 16, 2015

No. 04-14-00246-CR

Destyn David FREDERICK,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-09-00041-CRL

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a motion for leave to withdraw from 

representing appellant in this appeal, stating this court’s opinion has issued, and he submitted a 

letter to the appellant in compliance with TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4, 

appellant’s attorney is required to file a copy of the letter in this court; however, this court has 

not received a copy of the letter. The motion for leave to withdraw is HELD IN ABEYANCE 

pending this court’s receipt of a copy of the TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 letter.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of September, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk
80 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by Territory, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

Honeywell $888.5 M

Fluor Corp. $275.1 M

Mahaffey Tent & Awning Co., Inc. $168.5 M

TRIAD National Security, LLC $152.7 M

Cotton Commercial USA, Inc. $146.9 M

Applied Research Associates $137.8 M

Southwest Range Services $63.3 M

Booz Allen Hamilton $45.6 M

Arctic Slope Regional Corp. $45.5 M

Hensel Phelps Construction $39.2 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

NEW MEXICO

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.5 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

24,575

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Bernalillo 3,358 3,160 1,313 657 8,488

Curry 5,060 476 54 32 5,622

Otero 4,516 908 57 87 5,568

Doña Ana 267 1,727 444 122 2,560

Santa Fe 14 228 550 174 966

Sandoval 0 32 569 0 601

Chaves ND 14 163 ND ND

San Juan ND ND 162 0 ND

Valencia 0 ND 158 0 ND

Rio Arriba 0 12 39 0 51

Construction: 1%

Research and

Development: 14%

Service: 80%

Supplies and

Equipment: 5%

Civilian: 27% Active Duty: 54%

National 

Guard: 15%

Reserve: 4%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

11%

5%

69%

16%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

24%

2%

72%

2%

$2.0 $1.9 $2.2 $2.5

$4.5

$1.9

$1.3

$3.0

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

#29 #11 0.8% $2,173 #29 #28 #31 #28

$4.6 B SPENT 

IN STATE

3.8% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$3.0 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

24,575 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.5 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$91.3 M GRANT 

SPENDING
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022 81

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

NEW MEXICO FISCAL YEAR 2018

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

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Bernalillo

Otero

Doña Ana

Los Alamos

Curry

Santa Fe

Mora

Socorro

Mckinley

Sandoval

(M = millions)

$1.5 B

$846.9 M

$249.5 M

$154.8 M

$118.8 M

$36.5 M

$16.6 M

$15.4 M

$14.1 M

$4.6 M

Bernalillo

Curry

Otero

Doña Ana

Santa Fe

Sandoval

Chaves

Socorro

San Juan

Valencia

$577.1 M

$348.7 M

$343.5 M

$181.3 M

$51.7 M

$16.2 M

$5.0 M

$3.8 M

$3.8 M

$3.5 M

McKinley Sandoval

Socorro

Otero

Doña Ana

Santa Fe

Los Alamos

Bernalillo

Curry

Mora

Curry

Valencia

Sandoval Santa Fe

Bernalillo

Socorro

Otero

Doña Ana

San Juan

Chaves
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 2, 2017

d0530

Order 

Clerk

June 2, 2017

155638

In re R. E. McLAUGHLIN, Minor. SC: 155638

COA: 332170

Oakland CC Family Division:

2015-833596-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2017

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of In re Hill, Minors (Docket No. 155152) is pending on appeal before this Court 

and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
# C_2004273EN.01001002.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 May 2004 in the case of Centro Equestro da Leziria Grande LDA against Bundesamt für Finanzen

(Case C-345/04)

(2004/C 273/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court (Germany)) of 26 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 12 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Centro Equestro da Leziria Grande LDA against Bundesamt für Finanzen (Federal Tax Office) on the following question:

Is it contrary to Article 59 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities if a person with restricted tax liability in Germany who is a national of a Member State may claim repayment of tax deducted at source on his income in Germany only when the operating expenses that have a direct economic connection to that income are higher than half of the income?

---
<PAGE>

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 Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Marvin, 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, 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 result of operations of the
        Company.

/S/ JAMES MARVIN
-----------------------
James Marvin
Chief Financial Officer
November 8, 2004
STATE v. HENDRICKSON

No. COA04-142

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Wake (02CRS58208).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error at trial, remanded for resentencing.
Exhibit 10.5


 


NAME OF EMPLOYEE


ADDRESS OF EMPLOYEE


 


 


8 June 2005


 


Dear Colleague


 


SHARE
OPTIONS STATEMENT


 


This statement details your lastminute.com
plc (“lastminute.com”) shares under option and should be read in conjunction
with the accompanying letters (“the Letters”) regarding the Recommended
Acquisition of lastminute.com by Travelocity Europe Limited, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sabre, Inc., the terms and conditions enclosed with the
Letters and the Scheme Document.


 


Statement
re Share Options


 


	
  Option
  Scheme

  Name

  	
   

  	
  Option Grant

  Date

  	
   

  	
  Option price

  (pence)

  	
   

  	
  Number of lastminute.com shares

  under option

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


Please read the Letters carefully as your
option(s) will in due course lapse unless you take steps to exercise it/them.


 


If you have any queries please contact the
Company Secretarial Department on + 44 (0)20 7866 4455.


 


 


	
  Yours sincerely

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ Simon Watkins

  	
   

  
	
  Simon
  Watkins

  
	
  Company Secretary

  



 


1
STATE v. Kenneth Wayne WILLIAMS.

No. 105P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2006.

Scott T. Stroud, Assistant Attorney General, Howard S. Boney, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of March 2006 by Defendant to Stay the Mandate:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2006."