alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Ivany Mining,
      Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2007, we certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to
      our knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Ivany Mining, Inc. for the year ended
              June
              30, 2007 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
              ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects, the
              financial condition and results of operations of Ivany Mining,
              Inc.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                Derek IvanyName:
            Derek
                IvanyTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer and DirectorDate:
            September
                28, 2007




By:
            /s/
                Victor CantoreName:
            Victor
                CantoreTitle:
            Chief
                Financial Officer and DirectorDate:
            September
                28, 2007
EXHIBIT 8.1

           Significant Subsidiaries of 02 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

0//2//Micro, Inc., a California corporation

0//2//Micro Electronics, Inc., a Taiwan company

0//2//Micro International Japan Limited, a Japanese company

0//2//Micro PTE Limited-Singapore, a Singapore company

Aotu Micro (Wuhan) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company

0//2//Micro (Beijing) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company

0//2//Micro (China) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company

0//2//Micro (Chengdu) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company
#### PERNAY STEGALL v. CATAWBA OIL COMPANY OF N. C.; SHELL OIL COMPANY and ROY BROOME.

(Filed 20 November 1963.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Johnston, J.,*May 1963 Mixed Session oí UNION.

Civil laotioin to recover dama-gee for the 'destruction by fire of furniture ini a bouse (allegedly caused by plaintiff is son Coy Lee Stegall pouring a mixture of gasoline and kerosene or a mixture of kerosene and another highly explosive 'substance on a live fire in a wood stove, which resulted in an explosion, heard upon asperate demurrers filed to the amended complaint by defendants Catawba Oil Company of North Carolina and Shell Oil Company.

From a judgment sustaining the separate demurrer of each oil company, plaintiff appeals.

*J. Max Thomas 'for plaintiff appellant.*

*Smith & Griffin by C. Frank Griffin and Richardson & Dawkins by O.. L. Richardson for defendant appellees Catawba Oil Company of N. C. and Shell Oil Company.*

PARKER, J.

The amended complaint here is identical with the amended complaint in- the -case of Sheila Mangum Stegall, Administra-trix oif -the Estate .of Coy Lee Stegall, against the same defendants here, the opinion in which is filed this day ante 459, with the single exception that in the case of Sheila Mangum Stegall, Administratrix of the Estate of Coy Lee Stegall, there are allegations as to- the bums and death of Coy Lee Stegall, her qualification iais administratrix of his estate, and- la prayer for -recovery of damages for hiiis death, and that there there 'are allegations1 as to the destruction by fire of plaintiff’s furniture and of the house, and a prayer for recovery of damages for the destruction of his furniture. In each case it is tire same explosion, and allegedly caused the same way.

The separate demurrer oif each -oil company here iis identical with the separate demurrer of each -oil company -in the case of Slheila Man-gum Stegall, Administratrix of the Estate of Coy Lee Stegall, and the judgment here is identical with -the judgment entered in that -case. The briefs in both cases are identical, with the exception that -in the case of Sheila Miamgum Stegall, Administratrix of the Estate of Coy Lee Stegall, the joint brief of tire defendant oil companies contends that on the face of the amended complaint itself contributory negligence o-n the part of plaintiff’s intestate Coy Lee Stegall is is© patent and un*469questionable as to bar recovery by plaintiff. In addition, .counsel in iboith oases are the same.

The judgment ibelow áe affirmed upon authority oí the case of Sheila Miangum Stegall, Administratrix of *Coy Lee Stegall v. Catawba Oil Company of N. C., Shell Oil Company and Roy Broome, ante,*459. This is without prejudice .to. plaintiff is right to move in the court below for leave to .amend ibis amended complaint under the provisions of G.S. 1-131.

Affirmed.
#### HOSPITAL v. HOOTS

No. 137 PC.

Case below: 40 N.C. App. 595.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 July 1979.
#### STATE v. LONNIE CORNELIUS.

(Filed 13 October, 1965.)

Criminal Law § 107—

An inadvertence in stating the contentions of the parties or in recapitulating' the evidence must be called to the trial court’s attention in time for correction.

Appeal by defendant from *Fountain, J.,*May Criminal Session 1964 OÍ MECKLENBURG.

The defendant was tried and convicted upon a bill of indictment charging that with intent to kill, the defendant did assault one Willie Roy McNeill with a deadly weapon, to wit, a shot gun, inflicting serious injuries not resulting in death.

The defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. The defendant was given a sentence of eighteen months in jail, to be assigned to work under the supervision of the State Prison Department.

Defendant, through his counsel, gave notice of appeal, but his counsel, through no fault of the defendant, failed to perfect the appeal. We allowed *certiorari*on 6 April 1965 and set the case in its regular order for the Fall Term 1965.

*Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Ralph Moody, Staff Attorney Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.*

*Charles V. Bell for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The appellant has only one assignment of error and it purports to be based on a portion of the charge to which no exception was taken as required by the Rules of this Court. Even so, the portion of the charge complained of is set out under the assignment of error and consists in its entirety of a contention of the State.

We have repeatedly held that an inadvertence in stating contentions or in recapitulating the evidence must be called to the attention of the court in time for correction. After verdict, the objection comes too late. *S. v. Case,*253 N.C. 130, 116 S.E. 2d 429; *S. v. Holder,*252 N.C. 121, 113 S.E. 2d 15; *S. v. Adams,*245 N.C. 344, 95 S.E. 2d 902.

There is no contention that the State’s evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict.

In our opinion, the defendant has had a fair trial, free from any prejudicial error, and the verdict and judgment entered below will not be disturbed.

No error.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RODERICK D GOSTON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00039-MP-AK

JOHN BOSTICK, TONY JONES, MOSES ROCHELLE,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Motion for Reconsideration by Roderick D. Goston,

Doc. 13. On March 10th, 2010, Mr. Goston sued the defendants, alleging illegality in a search

and seizure performed in January of 2005. This Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, Doc.

10, explaining both that Mr. Goston had failed to state a claim by not explaining at all why he

believed the search and seizure to be illegal, and that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of

limitations. 

“Petitioner concedes that the Court is correct on both points reguarding [sic] petitioner

lacked what was illegal about the search, and the statute of 4 year limitation.” Doc. 13. Mr.

Goston argues, however, that he can prove that he first learned of Defendant’s Bostick’s

improper activity within the four-year statute of limitations (the circumstances of Mr. Bostick’s

resignation from the Gainesville Police Department having been published in newspapers in

2008), and that he would like to prove that Defendant Bostick’s improper activity relates to and

supports his claim of a violation of his civil rights. This Court, however, cannot speculate as to

whether a complaint may have stated a claim or defeated a statute of limitations bar had it been
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00039-MP-AK

written differently or included more or different allegations. 

If the violation of Mr. Gaston’s civil rights occurred in 2005 as he alleged, his cause of

action accrued then and his claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Mr. Goston essentially

admits that he has no theory of how Mr. Bostick’s improper activity while a member of the

Gainesville Police Department related to the search and seizure he challenges in this lawsuit. 

This Court will not grant a toll of the statue of limitations so that a plaintiff may embark on a

fishing expedition to connect a defendant’s seemingly unrelated wrongdoing to an insufficiently

specifically described allegation of a civil rights violation. Accordingly, the Motion for

Reconsideration, Doc. 13, is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.1
April 13, 2020


Adam P. Symson 
312 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202


Re: Reduction in Base Salary 


Dear Adam,


As agreed, in light of the business uncertainty created by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), your annual base salary for 2020 is reduced as follows: (i) effective as of March 9, 2020, such salary is reduced from $1,200,000 to $1,000,000 and (ii) effective as of April 6, 2020, such salary is reduced from $1,000,000 to $850,000 ( together, the "Reduction").


The Reduction will remain in effect through December 31, 2020. Your salary will return to
$1,200,000 on January 1, 2021, unless you and the independent members of the Board of Directors agree to further amendments to your employment agreement.


By signing below, you acknowledge and consent to this Reduction, and further acknowledge and agree that you shall not have, and hereby waive, any right to resign for "Good Reason" (or any term of similar meaning) solely in connection with the Reduction, under any and all employment, compensation, and benefits agreements, programs, policies, and arrangements of the Company and its affiliates, including, without limitation, your employment agreement with the Company dated as of January 1, 2020.


We appreciate your continued support and dedication in helping the Company navigate the business and uncertainty created by COVID-19.


Sincerely,


	
		
	THE E. W. SCRIPPS COMPANY
 
/s/ Richard A. Boehne                               
Richard A. Boehne, Chairman of the Board
	 

	Agreed and accepted
 
/s/ Adam P. Symson                                 
Adam P. Symson
	April 13, 2020                    
Date
Exhibit
4.6


 


CANCER
CAPITAL CORP.


DESCRIPTION
OF SECURITIES


 


Authorized Capital
Stock


The Company is authorized to issue
20,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $.001. All shares of common stock have equal rights and privileges with respect to
voting, liquidation and dividend rights. Each share of common stock entitles the holder thereof (i) to one non-cumulative vote
for each share held of record on all matters submitted to a vote of the stockholders, (ii) to participate equally and to receive
any and all such dividends as may be declared by the Board of Directors out of funds legally available; and (iii) to participate
pro rata in any distribution of assets available for distribution upon liquidation of the Company. Our stockholders have no preemptive
rights to acquire additional shares of common stock or any other securities.


 


Voting Rights


 


A majority of our outstanding shares,
represented by person or by proxy, shall constitute a quorum at each meeting of the shareholders. If a quorum exists, action on
a matter, other than the election of directors, is approved if the votes cast favoring the action exceed the votes cast opposing
the action.


 


Directors are elected by a plurality
of the votes cast by the shares entitled to vote in the election at a meeting at which a quorum is present.


 


Change of Control Limitations


 


Our Articles of Incorporation provide
that no sale, conveyance, transfer, exchange or other disposition of all or substantially all of the property and assets of the
Company shall be made unless approved by the vote or written consent of the stockholders entitled to exercise two-thirds (2/3)
of the voting power of the Company.


 


Other Securities


As of the date of this
filing, we do not have any debt securities, warrants or options outstanding.


Transfer Agent


 


Our transfer agent is Standard Registrar
& Stock Transfer Co., Inc. located in Salt Lake City, Utah.
#### COOKE v. MOTOR LINES

No. 44.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 342.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 March 1972. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 7 March 1972.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the
Chief Executive Officer of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a) The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b) Information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2011 |  |  |  | /S/    WILLIAM L. HUNTER                       
|                     |  |  |  | William L. Hunter, M.D. Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31


                                  CERTIFICATION


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Lincoln International
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
     information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
     prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

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

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


                                              /s/ _________________________
                                              Name:  Thurman L. Sisney
                                              Title:  President & Treasurer

Date:  May 27, 2004
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cr-00005-MP-AK

RICHARD MITER,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Anderson Hatfield.

By Richard Miter, Doc. 24. Mr. Miter has requested that his present attorney be replaced. This

Court will hold a hearing on the request, Thursday, April 22, at 1:30 p.m. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of April, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5734-5735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-530]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Schedule of Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee 
Meetings

AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of upcoming scheduled meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a schedule of upcoming meetings for the 
Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee.

DATES: The meetings are scheduled for: February 7, 2007, April 3, 2007, 
June 6, 2007, August 7, 2007, October 3, 2007 and December 4, 2007.
    Time: All scheduled meetings will begin at 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: All scheduled meetings will be held at Sylvan Lake Park, 845 
Lake Markham Rd, Sanford, FL 32771. Sylvan Lake Park is located off 
Interstate 4 at Exit 51 (SR 46). Take SR 46 West to Lake Markham Rd. 
Turn left on Lake Markham Rd. and continue one mile to Sylvan Lake Park 
on the left. Call (407) 322-6567 or visit http://www.seminolecountyfl.gov/11s/parks/parkInfo.asp?id=20 for additional 
information on this facility.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Fosburgh, Rivers Program 
Manager, Northeast Region, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, tel. 
(617) 223-5191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The scheduled meetings will be open to the 
public. Each scheduled meeting will result in decisions and steps that 
advance the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee towards 
its objective of developing a comprehensive General Management Plan for 
the Wekiva Wild and Scenic River. Any member of the public may file 
with the Committee a written statement concerning any issues relating 
to the development of the General Management Plan for the Wekiva Wild 
and Scenic River. The statement should be addressed to the Wekiva River 
System Advisory Management Committee, National Park Service, 15 State 
Street, Boston, MA 02109.
    The Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee was 
established by Public Law 106-299 to assist in the development of the 
comprehensive management plan for the Wekiva River System and provide 
advice to the Secretary in carrying out management responsibilities of 
the Secretary under the Wild and Scenic River Act (16 U.S.C. 1274). 
Efforts have been made locally to ensure that the interested public is 
aware of the meeting dates. However, due to unanticipated technical 
problems, the National Park Service was unable to publish this Federal 
Register notice more than 15 days in advance of the February 7 meeting. 
Rescheduling the meeting would create an unnecessary burden for members 
of the public who have already arranged their schedules around that 
date.


[[Page 5735]]


    Dated: January 30, 2007.
Bernard C. Fagan,
Acting Chief, NPS Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-530 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-M
FILED

May 29, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

NATIONAL HEALTHCARE, L.P., )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

) Davidson Chancery

VS. ) No. 97-469-I

)

SPARTA MEDICAL INVESTORS ) Appeal No.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and ) 01A01-9712-CH-00718

THE TENNESSEE HEALTH )

FACILITIES COMMISSION, )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the results of the court’s opinion.

The Tennessee Health Facilities Commission employs a procedurally unique

three-step procedure. The first step consists of the Commission’s preliminary

decision on an application for a CON. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-108 (1996). If

one of the affected parties contests the Commission’s preliminary decision, the

second step consists of a contested case hearing in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 68-11-109 (1996). Administrative law judges usually preside at these hearings and

then issue an initial decision. The third step is the Commission’s consideration of the

administrative law judge’s initial decision and its issuance of a final decision. 

The Tennessee Health PlanningandResource Development Act of 1987, Tenn.

Code Ann. §§ 68-11-101, -125 (1996 & Supp. 1997), contains no provision explicitly

preventing the Commission from granting a final CON on terms and conditions that

are different from the terms and conditions of the CON preliminarily granted under

Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-11-108. When a petition for a contested case hearing in

accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-109 is filed, the hearing must relate to the

original application for a certificate of need filed with the Commission. The record

contains no convincing evidence that the consideration of the various permutations

of Sparta Medical Investors, L.P.’s application for a CON undermined National
-2-

Health Care, L.P.’s ability to present proof opposing the approval of a second nursing

home in Sparta.

Following my own independent review of the administrative record, I find that

there is substantial and material evidence supporting the Commission’s approval of

a 100-bed non-skilled nursing home with twenty skilled beds and including an

Alzheimers unit and its conclusion that this facility was economically feasible to

build and operate.

_______________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE