alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-4384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DOUGLAS L. GOSNELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-382-A, CR-94-434-A) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 28, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas L. Gosnell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert William Wiechering, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting in partand denying in part his petition to modify the terms of his supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583 (e)(1) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gosnell , Nos. CR-94-382-A; CR-94-434-A (E.D. Va. May 6, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Marcel M. Holzer, Plaintiff, *v.*Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft and Others, Defendants.*

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

February 3, 1936.

*Wachtell, Manheim & Grouf,*for the plaintiff.

*Topken & Farley*for the defendants Schenker & Co., G. m. b. H., appearing specially, and for the purpose of this motion only.

*

 Affd., 247 App Div. 786. See 159 Misc. 830; 160 id. 597-.

McLaughlin (Charles B.), J.

Motion to vacate attachment. Cross-motion to cure a jeofaile if such exists is granted. Since *People ex rel. Durham Realty Co.*v. *Cantor*(234 N. Y. 507), the court can cure any defect in aid of justice. All technicalities are swept aside.

The facts involve interlocking corporations in Germany. From the original affidavit alone it appears that the parent company through its officers had such a control over its subsidiaries that the corporate existence of the subsidiaries was wholly disregarded and employment contracts with the subsidiaries were dictated by the parent and ratified with abject obedience by the subsidiaries. Those who had the power to hire likewise exercised, assumed or usurped the power to discharge. That was likewise ratified with abject subservience by the subsidiary. The curing affidavit is not much more than a brief on the facts making clear the above.

The motion to vacate is denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 19

- 00335

- CV

Abdolrahim SHARIFAN

, Appellant

v.

Suzette SHARIFAN

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI04490

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: Sep tember 11, 2019

DI SMISSED

Appellant, Abdolrahim Sharifan, filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that he does not wish

to pursue his appeal. The motion states that the parties have conferred and that appellee, Suzette

Sharifan , does not oppose the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a). Therefore, we grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1 (a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against the

party who incurred them

.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         HALL, KINION & ASSOCIATES, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

HALL KINION AND ASSOCIATES, UK LIMITED, a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Registrant organized under the laws of the United Kingdom.

GROUP-IPEX, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant, organized under
the laws of the State of California.

TKO, Personnel, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant, organized
under the laws of the State of California.

Interactive Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Registrant, organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Huntington Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant,
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

TKI Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the registrant.
Organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

IC Planet Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant,
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Hall Kinion International, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Registrant,
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
##### 



Exhibit 10.58
 Form of  Emdeon Corporation  Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement
 Optionee:Grant Date:Grant Number:Shares Granted:Stock Option Price:
 Committee 2000 Long-Term
Incentive Plan Plan
          IF YOU DO NOT EXERCISE THE VESTED PORTION OF THIS OPTION ON OR BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE, THIS OPTION WILL EXPIRE WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION BEING PAID THEREFORE.




---



##### 



EMDEON CORPORATION
    
    Agreed and Accepted:By:
    
    
    
    Optionee:Title:
    
    
    
    Print Name:Address:
 2




---



##### 



(ANNEX A TO EMDEON CORPORATIONS
NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT)
  Confidentiality
 Trade Secret and Proprietary Information
 Duty of Confidentiality
 Company Property
 Unfair Competition
 Investors, Other Third-Parties, and Goodwill




---



##### 



Intellectual Property and Inventions
 Covenant Not to Compete with the Company
  
  Non-Solicitation of Employees, Customers
  2




---



##### 



Injunctive Remedies
 Severability Provision
 Non-Waiver
 Waiver of Jury Trial TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, I HEREBY KNOWINGLY,
VOLUNTARILY, AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN CONNECTION WITH ANY LITIGATION
ARISING OUT OF, UNDER, IN CONNECTION WITH, OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT. THIS INCLUDES,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY LITIGATION CONCERNING ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT, COURSE OF DEALING, STATEMENT
(WHETHER VERBAL OR WRITTEN), OR ACTION OF THE COMPANY OR ME, OR ANY EXERCISE BY THE COMPANY OR ME
OF OUR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR IN ANY WAY RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT. I FURTHER
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAIVER IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT FOR THE COMPANY TO ISSUE AND ACCEPT THIS
AGREEMENT.
 3
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of XETA Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2008, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Greg D. Forrest,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:

 
| (1)    |   | The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                 |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (2)    |   | The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 
|   |                     |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | /s/  Greg D. Forrest     |
|   | Greg  D. Forrest         |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | September 10,  2008 |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Tower Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeff B. Shank, ChiefExecutive 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:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Jeff B. Shank       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | November 7, 2007        |

 

1

----
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q,
filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of NBC Capital Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Lewis F. Mallory, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.Name:

Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.Title:

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

May 5, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NBC Capital Corporation and will be retained by NBC Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2075 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2075

To expand Federal employee commuting options and to reduce the traffic 
congestion resulting from current Federal employee commuting patterns, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 22, 2000

  Mr. Robb (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Warner) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To expand Federal employee commuting options and to reduce the traffic 
congestion resulting from current Federal employee commuting patterns, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IN NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION.

    The Executive Draft on Federal Transportation in the National 
Capital Region which has been submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget by the Secretary of Transportation shall take effect on the date 
of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to Congress a report on the 
implementation of Executive Draft referred to in section 1.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,707
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,326
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     58,270
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,848
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,704
<LOANS>                                        280,739
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,848
<DEPOSITS>                                     341,835
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,220
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,222
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 381,848
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,705
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,055
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   228
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,988
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,370
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,450
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,538
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      399
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   8
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,352
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,352
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,007
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.69
<LOANS-NON>                                        410
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,078
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   961
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,773
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      144
<RECOVERIES>                                        38
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,066
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,066
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### The National Commercial Bank of Albany, Respondent, v. Henry Bronk, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Betts, J., not sitting.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00117-CV

Atlin Construction, LLC and Robert McMaster, Appellants

v.

WW Contractors, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN401806, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants Atlin Construction, LLC, and Robert McMaster inform this Court that

they and appellee WW Contractors, Inc., agree that this appeal should be mediated. Appellants have

filed an unopposed motion to abate to suspend the running of appellate deadlines while the parties

mediate.

We abate this appeal until June 6, 2005. The parties are directed to inform the Court

of the status of the appeal by that date. Barring further order of the Court, the appeal will be

reinstated on June 6.

 

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Filed: April 14, 2005
#### The Travelers Insurance Machine Co. v. The Travelers Insurance Co.

(Decided April 18, 1911.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Chancery Branch, Second Division).

D. R. CASTLEMAN, W. B. THOMAS and KRIYOR *&*CASTLE-MAN for appellants.

TRABUE, DOOLA'N & COX and WILLIAM -BOSWORTH for appellee.

Response to petition eos Reheahing by

Judge Lassing.

• In the petition for rehearing our attention is called to the fact that in the opinion herein the appellee is designated as “The Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut.” While the company is of Hartford, Connecticut, its corporate name is “The Travelers Insurance Company,” and the words “of Hartford, Connecticut,” are stricken from the opinion wherever they appear as a part of appellee’s corporate name. This mistake likewise leads to the incorporation of the following paragraph in the opinion:

> “When appellee adopted the name ‘Travelers Insurance Company, ’ it must have had the idea that this was a generic term, for its title is ‘The Travelers Insurance Company of Plartford, Connecticut.’ If it did not recognize travelers insurance as a distinct branch or class of business in the insurance world, the necessity for the addition of.the words ‘of Hartford, Connecticut’, is wanting ; for its title, ‘ Travelers Insurance Company, ’ without the use of these words, would have been amply protected if the word ‘travelers,’ as used, was not a generic term. While the addition of the words ‘of Hartford, Connecticut,’ to the words ‘Travelers Insurance Company’ is not by any means conclusive that the appellee company at that time regarded travelers insurance as a distinct branch of the insurance business, still it lends some color to the claim that it. was so regarded. ’ ’

With the name corrected, this paragraph had no place in the opinion, and it is withdrawn.
Exhibit 16.01

                                LARRY LEGEL, CPA

                           Practice Concentrating in
                            Taxation and Securities
                       5100 N. Federal Highway, Suite 409
                            Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308

                             (954) 493-8900 Office
                               (954) 493-8300 Fax
                           e-mail: LarryLegal@aol.com

March 28, 2000

Securities & Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20549

re:  Zedik Enterprises, Inc.

Securities and Exchange Commission:

In accordance with Item 304 of Regulation S-B. Zedik enterprises, Inc. a
corporation incorporated within the State of Colorado, has made and has approved
by the Board of Directors of The Company the following statements that I agree
with:

          A. The independent certified public accounting firm for the Company,
Larry Legel, has been dismissed due to the Company's desire to engage a local
certified public accounting firm for ease of administration. Accordingly, the
dismissal was necessary in order for the Company to retain Angell & Deering,
Denver, Colorado as the Company's independent certified public accountants. The
dismissal was effective January 24, 2000.

          B. (i) Larry Legel was dismissed solely because of the Company's
desire to have a local independent certified public accounting firm.

             (ii) The reports on the financial statements of the Company by
Larry Legel over the past two years contain no adverse opinion or disclaimer of
opinion and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or
accounting principles except for a qualification based upon the Company's
business being dependent upon its ability to maintain adequate financing
arrangements and ultimately, upon future profitable operations which have raised
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.

             (iii) The decision to change accountants was approved by the Board
of Directors of the Company.

<PAGE>


             (iv) During the Company's two most recent fiscal years and any
subsequent interim period preceding the dismissal of Larry Legel there were no
disagreements with Larry Legel on any matter of accounting principles or
practices, financial statements, disclosure or auditing scope or procedure.

             (v) No reportable events referred into Item 304(a)(v) of Regulation
S-K occurred during the two years prior to the dismissal of Larry Legel.

               (2) Angell & Deering has been engaged effective January 24, 2000.
The Company did not, during the two most recent fiscal years or any subsequent
interim period prior to engaging Angell & Deering, consult with Angell & Deering
on any matter.

               (3) The Company has provided Larry Legel with a copy of the
foregoing disclosures and Larry Legel has furnished the Company with a letter
addressed to the Commission stating that it agrees with the foregoing statements
made by the Company.

Sunshine,

/s/  Larry Legel, CPA
---------------------
Larry Legel, CPA
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the annual report of SIGA Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A, for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas N. Konatich, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                                  /s/ Thomas N. Konatich
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Thomas N. Konatich
                                                  Acting Chief Executive Officer
                                                  and Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  September 5, 2003
#### Christiaime Garcin, Plaintiff, *v.*Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, Defendant.

City Court of New York, New York County,

June 8, 1936.

*Emanuel Van Dernoot,*for the plaintiff.

*Edgar R. Kraetzer,*for the defendant.

Keller, J.

A ticket issued by a steamship company for a voyage across the ocean is more than a mere token or voucher. It is a *688contract creating the obligation and defining the terms of the carriage. If the plaintiff did not read the ticket, she is nevertheless bound by its terms. If the ticket and its terms were written in English, which she could not read because she spoke, read and understood only French, it would be her duty to have it read or explained to her. Her failure to do so will not exempt her from the limitations and conditions printed thereon. *(Murray*v. *Cunard S. S. Co., Ltd., 235 N.*Y. 162; *Sterling Amusement Co.*v. *La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique,*61 Misc. 603.) The limitations of defendant’s liability for personal property other than baggage is defined and explained in paragraph 4, subdivision (G), of the contract. • Such clauses limiting liability even for defendant’s negligence are binding and enforcible. *(Gardiner*v. *New York Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 201 N.*Y. 387; *Tewes*v. *North German Lloyd S. S. Co.,*186 id. 151; *Watson*v. *American Hamburg Line,*140 Misc. 519.)

Judgment for the plaintiff for $100, with interest, as demanded in the complaint, for which sum the defendant concedes liability.