alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.07

                                        
                              RED ROOF INNS, INC.
                                        
                             DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                      FOR
                         ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND
                               FORMS 3, 4, AND 5




The undersigned director of Red Roof Inns, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), hereby: (1) constitutes and appoints Francis W. Cash, David L. Rea,
and Alan L. Tallis, collectively and individually, as her agents and
attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and re-substitution, to (a)
sign and file Form 10-K for Red Roof Inns, Inc. on her behalf and in her name,
place, and stead in any and all capacities with respect to the registration
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), including pursuant to
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act; (b) sign and file any and all amendments,
including post-effective amendments, and exhibits to Form 10-K; (c) sign and
file any and all applications or other documents to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") covered by the Form 10-K; (d) sign
and file any or all Forms 3, 4, or 5 required to be filed by her with the
Commission under the Act, including pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Act; (e)
sign and file any and all amendments to Forms 3, 4, or 5; and (f) do and perform
any and all other acts and deeds whatsoever that may be necessary or required;
and (2) ratifies and approves any and all actions that may be taken pursuant
hereto by any of the above-named agents and attorneys-in-fact or their
substitutes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned director of the Company has hereunto set her
hand as of the 25th day of February, 1999.



                                                   /s/ Owen D. Thomas
                                                   ------------------
                                                   Owen D. Thomas
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. (the"Company") for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), Doug W.Naidus, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

|                          |  |                          |  |                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------------------------|--|--------------------------|--|-------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|                     |  | By:                      |  |     /s/DOUG W. NAIDUS |
|      |  |      |  | Doug W.Naidus                             |
|      |  |      |  | Chief ExecutiveOfficer                    |
|      |  |      |  | November 15,2004                          |
|                          |

This certification accompanies theReport pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff uponrequest.

----
#### John RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION; Richard Carney; Larry Mahon; Angel Acevedo; Carlos Hernandez; John Fallowfield; Doug Demming; Tom Mahr, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16232.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2002.

Filed June 10, 2003.

Amended Aug. 14, 2003.

Stuart B. Esner (briefed) and Andrew N. Chang (argued), Esner & Chang, Los *768Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Kathy M. Banke, Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Oakland, California, for the defendants-appellees.

Before BALDOCK,* KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.

ORDER

Appellees’ Request for Modification of Opinion filed on June 18, 2003, is GRANTED.

The Opinion filed on June 10, 2003, is amended as follows:

At page 7885, first full paragraph, fine 9, delete the following sentence:' “Of course, upon remand the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law defamation claim. *See Big Bear Lodging Ass’n v. Snow Summit, Inc.,*182 F.3d 1096, 1106 n. 9 (9th Cir.1999).”
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4580 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify authorities relating to 

the collective bargaining of employees in the Veterans Health Administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2014 

Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. HONDA, Mr. WALZ, and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify authorities 

relating to the collective bargaining of employees in the 

Veterans Health Administration. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Clinical 

5 Care Workforce for Our Vets Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4580 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON COLLECTIVE 

2 BARGAINING OF EMPLOYEES OF THE VET3 ERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. 

4 Section 7422 of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d); and 

7 (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub8 section (b). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE v. MAZUR and Mazur

332P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2018

Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Mazur, Michael Stanley.

Matt Sawchak, Solicitor General, Ryan Park, Deputy Solicitor General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Kathleen M. Joyce, Attorney at Law, Brockton, MA, Aaron Thomas Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Mazur, Anne-Marie.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Michelle Liguori, Solicitor General Fellow.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of October 2018 by Defendant (Anne-Marie Mazur) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of October 2018."
# Official Journal C 44/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 44 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5027 February 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 44

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5027 February 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2007/C 044/01 | Special Report No 11/2006 on the Community transit system, together with the Commission's replies | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Auditors

2007/C 044/01

Special Report No 11/2006 on the Community transit system, together with the Commission's replies

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 10.64

 

2011 Plan — REVISED (4/2013)

US employees

 

Stock Option Award Certificate

 

	
(NON-QUALIFIED   STOCK OPTION)
    	
 
    	

    
	
 
    	
 
    	
ID: XXXXXXXX
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Connaught House
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
1 Burlington Road
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Dublin 4, Ireland
    


 

	
«FIRST_NAME» «MIDDLE_NAME» «LAST_NAME»
    	
Option   Number:
    	
«NUM»
    
	
«ADDRESS_LINE_1»
    	
Plan:  «PLAN_NAME»
    	
 
    
	
«ADDRESS_LINE_2»
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
«ADDRESS_LINE_3»
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
«CITY», «STATE»   «ZIP_CODE»
    	
ID:
    	
«ID»
    


 

Effective «GRANT_DATE», you have been granted a Non-Qualified Stock Option to buy «SHARES_GRANTED» shares of Alkermes plc. (the “Company”) common stock at «OPTION_PRICE» per share.

 

The total option price of the shares granted is «TOTAL_OPTION_PRICE».

 

The right to acquire the shares subject to the Non-Qualified Stock Option will become fully vested on the dates shown below. The Non-Qualified Stock Option shall expire on the earlier to occur of: the 10th anniversary of the date of grant or three months after termination of your service relationship with the Company (unless otherwise provided below).  .

 

	
Shares
    	
 
    	
Vest Date
    
	
«SHARES_PERIOD_1»
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
«SHARES_PERIOD_2»
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
«SHARES_PERIOD_3»
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
«SHARES_PERIOD_4»
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

In the event of the termination of your employment with the Company (but not the termination of a non-employment relationship with the Company) by reason of death or permanent disability, the  Non-Qualified Stock Option shall vest and be exercisable in full on such termination of employment and the period during which the Non-Qualified Stock Option (to the extent that it is exercisable on the date of termination of employment) may be exercised shall be three (3) years following the date of termination of employment by reason of death or permanent disability, but not beyond the original term of the Option. For the purpose of the terms of this Non-Qualified Stock Option, you will be deemed to be employed by the Company so long as you remain employed by a company which continues to be a subsidiary of the Company.

 

The foregoing Non-Qualified Stock Option has been granted under and is governed by the terms and conditions of this Certificate and the Alkermes plc 2011 Stock Option and Incentive Plan.

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Alkermes plc.
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Date
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 15, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00273-CV

IN RE C. H. AND L. H., Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-33397

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 15, 2024, relators C. H. and L. H. filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this Court to compel the Honorable Sandra 
2

Peake, presiding judge of the 257th District Court of Harris County, to vacate the 

trial court’s March 18, 2024 order denying relators’ motion to transfer venue.

Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 454 

To designate the medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs located 

at 3900 Woodland Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. FATTAH (for himself, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, and Ms. SCHWARTZ) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs located at 3900 Woodland Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Corporal Michael J. 

Crescenz Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CORPORAL MICHAEL J. CRESCENZ DEPART4 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CEN5 TER. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The medical center of the De7 partment of Veterans Affairs located at 3900 Woodland 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 454 IH

1 Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shall be known and 

2 designated as the ‘‘Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Depart3 ment of Veterans Affairs Medical Center’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to the medical center referred to in subsection (a) 

7 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Michael 

8 J. Crescenz Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Cen9 ter’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-12-0000799 

09-OCT-2012 

01:37 PM 

NO. SCPW-12-0000799
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

TED SAKAI, INTERIM DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE

OF HAWAI'I; SHARI KIMOTO; and JEANETTE BALTERO, Respondents. 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.,


with Acoba, J. dissenting)
 

Upon consideration of Michael C. Tierney’s September 

19, 2012 petition for a writ of mandamus and the document 

submitted in support thereof and attached thereto, it appears 

that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable 

right to return to Hawai'i to serve the remainder of his 

sentence. See Malahoff v. Saito, 111 Hawai'i 168, 191, 140 P.3d 

401, 424 (2006) (the term “shall” in a statute may be construed 

as directory rather than mandatory); Jack Endo Elec., Inc. v. 

Lear Siegler, Inc., 59 Haw. 612, 617, 585 P.2d 1265, 1269 (1978) 

(same). Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to mandamus 

relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 

338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that 

will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and 
indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to
 

redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested
 

action). Accordingly, 


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
 

mandamus is denied.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 9, 2012. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

DISSENT BY ACOBA, J.
 

I dissent to the denial of Petitioner Michael C.
 

Tierney’s petition for a writ of mandamus (Petition). I would
 

require Respondents Ted Sakai, Director of the Department of
 

Public Safety (DPS), Shari Kimoto, the mainland branch manager
 

for DPS, and Jeanette Baltero, the contract monitor for DPS to
 

file an answer to the Petition.
 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
 

-2­
# C_2011072EN.01003402.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — Strack v Commission

(Case F-132/07) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Articles 17, 17a and 19 of the Staff Regulations - Application for authorisation to disclose documents - Application for authorisation to publish a text - Application for authorisation to use findings before national judicial authorities - Admissibility)

2011/C 72/54

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Annulment of several Commission decisions rejecting the applicant's request for authorisation to publish certain documents and to bring a complaint against (ex-) Commissioners and Commission agents — Claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Mr Strack to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Strack to pay the costs in their entirety.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008, p. 44.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2




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





I, Gary Bishop, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Environmental Control Corp. for the period ended September 30, 2010 (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 Environmental Control Corp.






Dated: November 15, 2010


/s/ Gary Bishop


Gary Bishop
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
 Environmental Control Corp.


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 Environmental Control Corp. and will be retained by Environmental Control Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 The Honorable Raymond C. Clevenger, III, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1186

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Brandon Lamarr Smith-Cushingberry, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 14, 2010 Filed: June 22, 2010

___________ Before BYE, CLEVENGER, 1 and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Brandon L. Smith-Cushingberry appeals his sentence reduction granted by the district court 2pursuant to the government’s motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) to reduce his sentence based on his assistance with multiple investigations. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.-2- Smith-Cushingberry pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to sixty months imprisonment followed by five years supervisedrelease, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine in vi olation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Smith-Cushingberry cooperated with the government and pr ovided information which led to the prosecution of two individuals. Thereafter, the government filed a motion to reduce Smith-Cushingberry’s sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b). The government provided detailed information involving the natu re of assistance provided by SmithCushingberry. Following a hearing, the di strict court reduced Smith-Cushingberry’s sentence to forty months imprisonment followe d by five years supervised release. On appeal, Smith-Cushingberry argues the sent ence is unreasonable because the district court did not give enough weight to his assistance and cooperation.
This court is without jurisdiction to review Rule 35(b) sentence reductions unless one of four criteria are met under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). United States v. Haskins , 479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (holding that jurisdiction over appeal of a Rule 35(b) sentence reduction is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)). These four criteria are:(1) the sentence was imposedin violation of the law, (2) the sentence was imposed using an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines, (3) the sentence is greater than the applicable guidelines range, or (4) the sentence is imposed for an offense without a sentencing guide line and is plainly unreasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1)-(4). This court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the district court’s ruling on the Rule 35(b) motion because Smith-Cushingberry’s claim does not satisfy any of the criteria of § 3742(a). See United States v. Williams , 590 F.3d 579, 581 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Because [defendant’s] claims do not satisfy any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we conclude that th ey are unreviewable by this court.”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the quarterly report of Atlantic Coast Federal Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jon C. Parker, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: November 14, 2005   /s/ Jon C. Parker, Sr.   Jon C. Parker, Sr.  Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**





**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**





**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of theglobe.com, inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Egan,
      Chief
      Executive Officer of 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
      the best of my knowledge and belief:




(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.




*Date:March
      30, 2007*


*/s/
                Michael S.
                Egan**Michael
                S. Egan**Chief
                Executive Officer*