alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.1

                             REX Stores Corporation

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

     The undersigned officers of REX Stores Corporation (the "Company") hereby
certify, to their knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended April 30, 2003, which this certificate accompanies, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

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

STUART A. ROSE
Stuart A. Rose


DOUGLAS L. BRUGGEMAN
Douglas L. Bruggeman

Dated:  June 12, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Larry Stanley and Terri Stanley v. John McClanahan

Appellate case number: 01-13-00982-CV

Trial court case number: D-13-5,197

Trial court: County Court of Colorado County

In this forcible-detainer action, appellants, Larry Stanley and Terry Stanley, have filed an 

“Emergency Motion to Review Provisions of the Supersedeas Bond Order,” appearing to argue 

that the supersedeas bond set by the trial court is excessive. On any party’s motion, we may 

review the sufficiency or excessiveness of the amount security and the trial court’s exercise of 

discretion in setting the amount of security. TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4; TierOne Converged Networks, 

Inc. v. Lavon Water Supply Corp., No. 05-13-00370-CV, 2013 WL 6727876, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). After reviewing appellants’ motion, however, we 

conclude that appellants have not demonstrated that they are entitled to relief. The clerk’s record 

does not contain any order by the trial court setting the amount of the bond for $18,963.1 See

TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4 (providing that appellate court reviews trial court’s order); LMC Complete 

Auto., Inc. v. Burke, 261 S.W.3d 749, 749 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, order) 

(appellant did not provide copy of trial court order); Hamilton v. Hi-Plains Truck Brokers, Inc., 

23 S.W.3d 442, 443 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000, order) (overruling appellee’s motion for order 

increasing amount of security because of insufficient record). Further, appellants have failed to 

provide a record of the evidentiary hearing that took place in the trial court on the bond amount 

issue. See LMC Complete, 261 S.W.3d at 749; see also Knowles v. Mack, No. 04-04-00422-CV, 

2004 WL 2046612, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 15, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(“Without a record of the evidence the trial court considered in deciding whether the amount of 

the bond would likely cause Knowles substantial economic harm, we cannot conclude the trial 

court abused its discretion in denying Knowles’ written motion to reduce the amount of 

security.”). Thus, we have an insufficient basis upon which to review the trial court’s decision. 

See LMC Complete, 261 S.W.3d at 749.

 

1 We note that appellants attached to their motion a purported copy of the trial court’s 

supersedeas bond order. However, the copy is not certified or file-stamped and is not 

contained in the clerk’s record.
Accordingly, appellants’ motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 4, 2014
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1702 Filed: 04/25/19 Entered: 04/25/19 17:16:50 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1702 Filed: 04/25/19 Entered: 04/25/19 17:16:50 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1702 Filed: 04/25/19 Entered: 04/25/19 17:16:50 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1702 Filed: 04/25/19 Entered: 04/25/19 17:16:50 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1702 Filed: 04/25/19 Entered: 04/25/19 17:16:50 Page 5 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1923 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 13:28:11 Page 1 of

1
EXHIBIT B 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1662-2 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 17:03:55 Page 1

of 29
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RYAN FRANK BONNEAU,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30075

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00402-MO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Ryan Frank Bonneau appeals from the 26-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute a

controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). We have

FILED

DEC 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-30075

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and vacate and remand

in part.

The government contends that this appeal should be dismissed in light of the

appeal waiver set forth in Bonnea’s plea agreement. We decline to reach that

issue, and instead affirm on the merits. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496

F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (enforceable appeal waiver does not

deprive this Court of jurisdiction).

Bonneau contends that the district court erred by denying Bonneau’s motion

to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Bonneau’s motion because Bonneau failed to show a fair and just reason

for withdrawing his plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v.

Showalter, 569 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009). Bonneau also contends that the

district court erred by denying his motion for substitute counsel. To the extent this

claim is not moot, the record shows that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Bonneau’s motion. See United States v. Mendez-Sanchez,

563 F.3d 935, 943-44 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Bonneau further contends that the district erred when it ruled that he was

permanently ineligible to receive federal benefits under 21 U.S.C. § 862. Because

the district court plainly erred in making this determination, and the government
3 11-30075

does not object to a limited remand, we remand with instructions to correct the

judgment to delete the ineligibility finding.

Bonneau’s motion for review of release pending appeal is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part.
<PAGE>


          Exhibit 11 - Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Fiscal                 Fiscal                Fiscal
                                                             1996                   1995                  1994
                                                       ------------------     ------------------     ------------------
                                                                       (In Thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                                     <C>                     <C>                    <C>             
Average shares outstanding .........................               57,722                 44,955                 45,010
Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on
   the treasury stock method using average
   market price ....................................                1,118                      -                     -

Total ..............................................               58,840                 44,955                45,010
                                                       ==================     ==================     ================== 
Income (loss) before extraordinary charge ..........    $          36,890       $        (58,104)      $       (10,083)
                                                       ==================     ==================     ================== 
Net income (loss) ..................................    $          24,144       $        (64,095)      $       (10,618)
                                                       ==================     ==================     ================== 
Per  share amounts:

   Income (loss) before extraordinary charge .......    $            .63       $           (1.29)      $         (0.22)
                                                       ==================     ==================     ================== 
   Net income (loss) ...............................    $            .41       $           (1.43)      $         (0.24)
                                                       ==================     ==================     ================== 
</TABLE>


Note: In fiscal 1996, the conversion of the 5 1/2% Convertible Subordinated
Notes is not assumed in the computation because its effect is antidilutive.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.2

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Warp 9, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  September 30, 2007 (the "Report") I, Louie
Ucciferri,  Chairman, Corporate Secretary, and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18USC ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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: November 13, 2007


By: \s\ Louie Ucciferri
    -------------------------------------------------------------
     Louie Ucciferri, Chairman, Corporate Secretary, Acting Chief
     Financial Officer (Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1893 Filed: 05/07/19 Entered: 05/07/19 14:30:44 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1893 Filed: 05/07/19 Entered: 05/07/19 14:30:44 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1893 Filed: 05/07/19 Entered: 05/07/19 14:30:44 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1893 Filed: 05/07/19 Entered: 05/07/19 14:30:44 Page 4 of

4
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-117594 and 333-106607 and Form SB-2
No. 333-122123, Form S-3 No. 333-110779, and Form S-4 No. 333-102115), of CardioTech
International, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated June 4, 2004, except for Note R as to which the date is June 21, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of CardioTech International Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB/A) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004.



Boston,
Massachusetts
March 16, 2005

---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                        Michelle Mathieson, Public Health Analyst, National Center for Chronic Disease and Health Promotion, Office of the Director, Extramural Research Program Office, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop K-92, Atlanta, GA 30341,                         *Telephone:*                         (770) 488-3068,                         *E-mail: mth8@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: May 14, 2010.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2010-12212 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
amendment.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    Exhibit
10.1

    


    Amendment
No. Two to Employment Agreement dated effective as of January 1, 2004, between
DXP Enterprises, Inc. and David R. Little.

    


    WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive desire to amend said Employment Agreement pursuant
to the provisions hereof.

    


    NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, and agreements set out below, the
parties agree as follows:

    


    
      	
              1.  

            	
              All
      terms defined in the Agreement, which are used in this Second Amendment,
      shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement except as
      specifically changed or modified
hereby.

            


    

    
      	
              2.  

            	
              Section
      2(b)(ii) is hereby deleted in its entirety and is replaced by the
      following:

            


    

    Monthly
Bonus.  In addition to Base Salary, the Employee shall be awarded each
month during the Employment Period, a monthly bonus (“Monthly Bonus”) in cash
and/or restricted stock equal to five percent (5%) of the profit before the tax
of the Company as shown on the books and records of the Company at the end of
each month.  The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
the Company can decide to pay all or a portion of the Monthly Bonus in the form
of Restricted Stock.  The determination of whether the bonus is to be
paid in cash or shares of restricted stock will be made prior to the date on
which the amount of the bonus is determined.  The number of shares of
restricted stock to be issued will be determined by dividing the portion of the
bonus to be paid in restricted stock by the closing price of a share of DXP
common stock on the last day of the month for which the bonus was earned,
rounded up to the nearest whole share.

    
      	
              3.  

            	
              Except
      as herein amended and modified, the Agreement shall remain in full force
      and effect.

            


    

    


    EXECUTED
effective the 21st day of
May, 2009

    


    DXP
ENTERPRISES, INC.

    


    By:  /s/ Mac
McConnell                                           

    MAC MCCONNELL

    Title:  Senior
Vice President & CFO

    


    By:  /s/ David R.
Little                                           

    DAVID R. LITTLE
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4747 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4747

  To prohibit the use of global health activities to collect foreign 
                 intelligence, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 28, 2014

 Ms. McCollum introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select)

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the use of global health activities to collect foreign 
                 intelligence, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Global Health Worker Protection Act 
of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF GLOBAL HEALTH ACTIVITIES FOR INTELLIGENCE 
              GATHERING.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Central Intelligence Agency and any other 
department or agency may not use health or humanitarian workers or 
activities, including immunization and vaccination campaigns, health 
education and surveillance, or direct health services, in countries 
outside of the United States for the purpose of collecting foreign 
intelligence.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
to restrict the provision of medical services to individuals involved 
in authorized intelligence activities on behalf of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Oxford Residential Properties I Limited Partnership;

2.

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



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  November 13, 2007

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters



Vice President of Oxford Residential Properties I Corporation, equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership
po k k 

Parraguirre 

Hardesty 

347-48, 213 P.3d 476, 489-90 (2009). Tirado's prison term of 16-72 months 

falls within the parameters provided by the relevant statute, NRS 

205.226(2), and the sentence imposed is not so unreasonably 

disproportionate to the gravity of the offense as to shock the conscience, 

see CuIverson v. State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22 (1979); see 

also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality 

opinion). Further, it is within the district court's discretion to impose 

consecutive sentences. See NRS 176.035(1). Notably, at the sentencing 

hearing, Tirado asked the district court to impose a consecutive sentence 

pursuant to negotiations; according to defense counsel, the plea deal also 

included Tirado's stipulation to the revocation of his probation in district 

court case no. CR12-1137 and the State's dismissal of an additional 

pending case. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion at sentencing, and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2 

2The fast track statement fails to comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) 

because the footnotes are not "in the same size and typeface as the body of 

the brief," NRAP 32(a)(5). Counsel for Tirado is cautioned that the failure 

to comply with the briefing requirements in the future may result in the 

imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Hardy Law Group 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3