alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1





The Board of Directors


Mexican Restaurants, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-2271) on Form S-8 of Mexican Restaurants, Inc. of our report dated March 2,
2001, except as to Note 3 which is as of April 17, 2001, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of the Mexican Restaurants, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2000 and January 2, 2000 and the related consolidated statements
of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December
31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mexican Restaurants, Inc.


                                                 /s/ KPMG LLP

                                                 KPMG LLP

                                                 Houston, Texas

                                                 April 17, 2001
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund IV (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Partnership, and that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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
Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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 with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by
the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and
shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission



|                   |  |  |  |                                   
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel Stephenson             
|                   |  |  |  | Daniel Stephenson, General Partner
|                   |  |  |  | Rancon Realty Fund IV
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT



TO SECTION 960 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund IV (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Partnership, and that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.



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 with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the
Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission



|                   |  |  |  |                                   
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel Stephenson             
|                   |  |  |  | Daniel Stephenson, General Partner
|                   |  |  |  | Rancon Realty Fund IV
#### Day v. Commonwealth.

(Decided February 16, 1915.)

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court.

1. Criminal Law — Indeterminate Sentence — Instructions.—An instruction on the subject of voluntary manslaughter telling the jury that if they found the defendant guilty they should “fix his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary at any time so that it be not less than two years and not to exceed twenty-one years *768in the discretion of the jury,” was prejudicially erroneous under the indeterminate sentence act.

2. Criminal Law — Indeterminate Sentence — Verdict—Judgment.— Under the indeterminate sentence law the verdict of the jury must fix a minimum and a maximum sentence and the judgment must conform to the verdict.

FINLEY E. FOGG, FRED M. VINSON, H. C. SULLIVAN, Wl D. O’NEAL, W. T. CAIN and GARRED *&*GARRED for appellant.

JAMES GARNETT, Attorney General, and JOHN M. WAUGH for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Carroll

Reversing.

On the trial of the appellant under an indictment charging him with murder the court, in instruction number two, on the subject of voluntary manslaughter, told the jury that if they found the defendant guilty under that instruction they should “fix his punishment by confinement in the penitentiary at any time so that it be not less than two years and not to exceed twenty-one years, in the discretion of the jury.” The jury found'the defendant guilty under this instruction, and in their verdict said: “We, the jury, agree, and find the defendant, Nathan C. Day, guilty under instruction number two, and fix his punishment at the period of twenty-one years in the State penitentiary.”

■ On this verdict the court sentenced the defendant to confinement in the penitentiary at Frankfort for the period of twenty-one years.

The grounds of reversal relied on are that the court failed to give the proper instruction on the subject of voluntary manslaughter, and that the verdict and judgment thereon do not conform to the indeterminate sentence law.

In Biggs v. Com., 162 Ky., 103, we had under consideration the question here involved, and held that an instruction similar to the one given in this ease was prejudicial error. In addition to this, the verdict of the jury, as well as the judgment thereon, disregarded the plain letter of the indeterminate sentence act, now Section 1136 of the Kentucky Statutes. This act provides that “if the jury find the defendant guilty, they shall fix and render against the defendant an indeterminate sentence or judgment of imprisonment in the penitentiary for an indefinite term, stating in such verdict the maximum and minimum limits thereof. * * * and there*769upon the court shall render a judgment in conformity with such verdict. ’ ’ It will be observed that the verdict did not fix an indeterminate sentence or any minimum sentence at all, and that the court, in entering the judgment, simply followed the verdict.

For the reasons stated, we are reluctantly compelled to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial, and it is so ordered.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 2.6

                              SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                          AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER

This Second Amendment (the "Amendment") to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Agreement") dated as of July 9, 1998, by and among Cerulean, Inc., a
Georgia corporation ("Cerulean"), WellPoint Health Networks Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("WellPoint") and Water Polo Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation ("WPAC"), is dated as of December 31, 1999. Capitalized terms used
herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning set forth in the
Agreement.

                                   WITNESSETH

          WHEREAS, Cerulean, WellPoint and WPAC have previously entered into
the Agreement, pursuant to which Cerulean would merge with and into WPAC upon
the terms and conditions set forth therein; and

          WHEREAS, Cerulean, WellPoint and WPAC entered into a First Amendment
to the Agreement dated July 9, 1999 ("First Amendment") amending Section 7.01(b)
of the Agreement to provide that the Agreement may be terminated and the Merger
contemplated thereby may be abandoned by either Cerulean or WellPoint if the
Merger shall not have been consummated on or before December 31, 1999 (which
date was elected by WellPoint and Cerulean pursuant to the First Amendment);
and

          WHEREAS, Cerulean, WellPoint and WPAC desire further to amend the
Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.


                                   AGREEMENT

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained
herein, and upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth,
the parties do hereby agree as follows:

          1.  Section 7.01(b) of the Agreement, as it read prior to the First
              Amendment, shall be amended by deleting the words "the one year
              anniversary of this Agreement" and inserting in their place the
              words "December 31, 2000." This Section 1 shall supersede
              Section 1 of the First Amendment.

          2.  Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain
              unmodified and shall continue in full force and effect.



<PAGE>   2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereof have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed on its behalf as of the date indicated above.


                                        CERULEAN COMPANIES, INC.


                                        By: /s/ HUGH J. STEDMAN
                                           ------------------------------------


                                        WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORKS INC.


                                        By: /s/ THOMAS C. GEISER
                                           ------------------------------------


                                        WATER POLO ACQUISITION CORP.


                                        By: /s/ THOMAS C. GEISER
                                           ------------------------------------
THE STATE OF SOUTH C AROLINA In The Supreme Court

Nathenia J. Rossington, Respondent,

v.

Julio A. Rossington, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2022

- 000715

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Berkeley County

The Honorable Michael S. Holt, Family Court Judge

Opinion No. 28123
Submitted November 3, 2022

– Filed November 23, 2022

REMANDED

Brett Lamb Stevens, of Stevens Law, LLC, of Columbia,

for Petitioner.

Megan Catherine Hunt Dell, of Dell Family Law, P.C.

, of

Charleston

, for Respondent.

Suzanne E. Groff, of Charleston, Guardian ad Litem.PER CURIAM : Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the c ourt of

a

ppeals' reversal of the f amily c ourt's order in this matter. Rossington v. Rossington , Op. No. 2022

- UP

- 025 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Jan. 12, 2022 ). We grant the petition on Petitioner's Questions 1, 2, and 4 and deny the petition on Petitioner's Question 3.

This action was commenced in 2017. The matter of physical and legal custody of the parties' minor child has been in contention for almost six years

— since the child

was two months old . We regret the delay caused in part by our s tate's court system
and acknowledge considerable changes and milestones could occur for a minor

child durin g such a substantial delay that may alter the determination of an arrangement created in the best interest s of the child. Indeed, i t is more than likely the amount of time that has passed since the f amily c ourt's order has resulted in a stale record incap able of reflecting facts and circumstances from which the current

best interest s of the child can be determined

. See Davis v. Davis , 356 S.C. 132, 135, 588 S.E.2d 102 , 103 (2003) (holding the best interest s of the child is the court's paramount considerat ion in child custody matters).

Accordingly, we dispense with briefing

, remand this matter to the f amily court for

a trial de novo on the custody issue to ensure the custody determin ation is based on

the current best interest s of the child

, and direct the family court to revise the award of attorney's fees in light of the new trial on the custody issue

. See Georgetown Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Phipps , 278 S.C. 64, 65, 292 S.E.2d 184, 185 (1982) (remanding to the family court for a trial de novo

, with the full right of each party to submit evidence and be heard on custody

, due to the considerable

amount of time

— three years

— that had elapsed between the original custody order

and this Court's decision in the matter ) ; Dorn v. Criddle , 306 S.C. 189, 193, 410 S.E.2d 590, 593 (Ct. App. 1991) (remanding a child custody matter for a trial de

novo after a three

- year lapse between court proceedings resulted in a stale record);

Cook v. Cook , 280 S.C. 91, 93, 311 S.E.2d 90, 91 (Ct. App. 1984) (remanding a child custody matter for a trial de novo after a four

- year lapse between court proceedings resulted in a stale record)

. If either party wishes to appeal the order of the family court after a trial de novo , the appeal shall be filed directly w ith this

Court

.

REMANDED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
# Featured Biographies 

**

----

Nearly 2000 individuals have served in the United States Senate since it first convened in 1789. This collection of featured biographies explores the varied experiences and accomplishments of some of those U.S. senators. 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

A

John Quincy Adams

George  Aiken

Nelson  Aldrich

William Boyd Allison

Henry B. Anthony

David Rice Atchison

B

Edward Dickinson Baker

Howard Henry Baker, Jr.

Alben  Barkley

James A. Bayard

Thomas Hart Benton

Hiram  Bingham

Hugo  Black

James G. Blaine

William  Blount

William  Borah

Stephen Row Bradley

Joseph L. Bristow

Edward  Brooke

Blanche K. Bruce

Robert C. Byrd

C

John C. Calhoun

Hattie Wyatt Caraway

Clifford  Case

Dennis  Chavez

Frank  Church

Daniel  Clark

Joel Bennett Clark

Henry  Clay

Earle C. Clements

Roscoe  Conkling

John Sherman Cooper

Edward P. Costigan

Norris  Cotton

William  Crawford

Charles  Curtis

D

Jefferson  Davis

Thomas A. Daschle

Chauncey M. Depew

Everett McKinley Dirksen

Robert J. Dole

Stephen A. Douglas

E

James  Eastland

Allen  Ellender

Oliver  Ellsworth

Clair  Engle

Sam  Ervin

F

Rebecca Latimer Felton

William P. Fessenden

Ralph E. Flanders

Hiram  Fong

William H. Frist

J. William Fulbright

G

John Nance Garner

Walter F. George

William B. Giles

Guy  Gillette

Carter  Glass

John  Glenn

Barry M. Goldwater

Albert A. Gore, Jr.

Arthur Pue Gorman

Theodore Francis Green

James  Grimes

H

Marcus A. Hanna

Philip A. Hart

Mark O. Hatfield

Carl  Hayden

Bourke  Hickenlooper

Gilbert  Hitchcock

George  Hoar

Hubert  Humphrey

I

Daniel K. Inouye

Ralph  Izard

J

Jacob  Javits

Hiram  Johnson

Lyndon B. Johnson

Andrieus A. Jones

K

Nancy L. Kassebaum

Kenneth B. Keating

Estes  Kefauver

Edward M. Kennedy (Ted)

John F. Kennedy

Rufus  King

William  Knowland

Thomas H. Kuchel

L

Robert  La Follette

Octaviano  Larrazolo

Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr.

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.

Huey  Long

Trent  Lott

Scott  Lucas

M

William  Maclay

William P. Mangum

Mike  Mansfield

James Murray Mason

Joseph R. McCarthy

Kenneth Douglas McKellar

Charles  McNary

Barbara  Mikulski

George  Mitchell

Justin  Morrill

Wayne L. Morse

Carol  Moseley Braun

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Karl  Mundt

N

George  Norris

O

Lee Slater Overman

Robert  Owen

P

Timothy  Pickering

Orville H. Platt

Samuel C. Pomeroy

William  Proxmire

R

Hiram  Revels

Joseph T. Robinson

Richard  Russell

S

Aaron Augustus Sargent

Hugh  Scott

Morris  Sheppard

John  Sherman

James  Shields

Margaret Chase Smith

Reed Owen Smoot

John  Sparkman

John C. Spooner

William  Sprague

William Morris Stewart

Charles  Sumner

T

Robert A. Taft

Henry M. Teller

Strom  Thurmond

Uriah  Tracy

Harry  Truman

Millard E. Tydings

U

Oscar  Underwood

V

Arthur  Vandenberg

W

Benjamin  Wade

Robert  Wagner

Thomas J. Walsh

Francis E. Warren

Daniel  Webster

Kenneth S. Wherry

Henry  Wilson

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Biographical Directory 

*Directory*
exv10w23






Exhibit 10.23




PetSmart, Inc.




2009 Performance Share Unit Program




Approved: February 16, 2009




Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meanings set forth in the PetSmart,
Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan or Performance Share Unit Grant Notice and Performance Share Unit
Agreement, as applicable.



The number of Performance Share Units awarded to Participant under the 2009 Performance Share Unit
Program (the “Program”) will be determined by the Company’s Compensation Committee or its designee
(the “Committee”), subject to the conditions set forth below (the “Performance Conditions”).



The Performance Conditions for a target award of the Performance Share Units shall be satisfied
upon the earlier of the Participant’s continuous employment through:




	(i)	 	the date of a “Change of Control Transaction,” or
	 
	(ii)	 	attainment of “End-of-Year Net Cash” as determined by the Committee (the “Performance
Criteria”) as calculated from the Company’s audited financial statements for the 2009 fiscal
year performance period (the “Performance Period”) applicable to the PSU Grant. For purposes
of the PSU Grant, “End-of-Year Net Cash” is defined as cash, restricted cash and cash
equivalents, less outstanding debt on the Company’s revolving credit agreement, as adjusted
for: (A) changes to the Company’s current dividend policy, (B) any common stock share
repurchases, (C) changes in capital expenditures due to Board approved increases to the
Company’s fiscal year 2009 budget or decreases from fewer new store openings, and (D) changes
to the Company’s accounts payable policies relative to payment terms.





The number of Performance Share Units awarded due to attainment of the Performance Criteria will be
determined in accordance with the following percentages of actual performance rounded up to the
next whole number of Performance Share Units. For example, if End-of-Year Net Cash results are
$316.5M, 75% of the Target Number of Performance Share Units will be awarded.



	 	 	 
	Percentage of Performance	 	 
	Criteria Achieved	 	End-of-Year Net Cash
	0%-50%
	 	$291M
	100%
	 	$325M
	150%
	 	$353M






 









 






If actual performance is less of than $291M of End-of-Year Net Cash, then 50% of the Performance
Share Units will be awarded.



Between 50% and 150% of Target Number of Performance Share Units will be awarded if actual
performance is at least $291M, rounded up to the next whole number of Performance Share Units.



If actual performance is equal to or greater than $353M of End-of-Year Net Cash, then 150% of
Target Number of Performance Share Units will be awarded.



Miscellaneous Provisions




Participation in the Program shall not alter in any way the at will nature of the Company’s
employment of a Participant, and such employment may be terminated at any time for any reason, with
or without cause and with or without prior notice.
# William Borah: A Featured Biography

**

----

Senator William Borah was affectionately known as the "Lion of Idaho" during his 33 years in the United States Senate. Elected as a Republican in 1907, Borah established himself as a prominent progressive with a fiercely independent spirit. This superb orator who had a knack for courting publicity was once named by *Time* magazine as the "most famed senator of the century." Despite his leading role in the creation of two constitutional amendments—establishing the graduated income tax and the direct election of senators—Borah is best remembered for his unwavering opposition to the so-called Susan B. Anthony amendment granting women the right to vote. As a 10-year chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Borah also shaped American foreign policy in the period between the world wars. An isolationist,  Borah helped organize opposition to the Treaty of Versailles, which the Senate resoundingly rejected in 1919. In January 1940, Borah suffered a brain hemorrhage and died. His funeral service was held in the U.S. Senate Chamber.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.

### Related Art 

William Borah
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, for the year ended December 31, 2003 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: March 30, 2004