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

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

In connection with the Annual Report of CardioTech International, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Szycher, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



June 19,
2003

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-35257, 333-35259, 333-38657, 333-38659) of
Peritus Software Services, Inc. of our report dated January 27, 1998, appearing
on page 39 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference
to us under the heading "Selected Financial Data" included in such Annual Report
on Form 10-K. However, it should be noted that Price Waterhouse LLP has not
prepared or certified such "Selected Financial Data."


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP

Boston, Massachussetts
March 30, 1998
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*The West Shore Railroad Company, Appellant, v. Alfred D. Putnam and others, Assessors of the Town of Brutus, Cayuga County, Respondents.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Haight, J.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1970 Filed: 05/10/19 Entered: 05/10/19 10:17:32 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1970 Filed: 05/10/19 Entered: 05/10/19 10:17:32 Page 2 of

2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1723

_____________________________
C HRISTOPHER B ACHMAN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Michael A. Flowers , Judge

. September 5, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Christopher Bachman appeals a “ F inal O rder ” denying almost all of his seventeen claims for postconviction relief raised pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The circuit court issued the order after holding an evidentiary hearing.

One of the arguments Mr. Bachman asserts on appeal is that the court err ed by not addressing one of his claims for relief . The claim alleged that defense counsel failed to object to certain improper and prejudicial argument s by the State

.
Mr. Bachman is indeed correct that the court’s order did not address the second of two claims that were labeled “Gr ound Six” in his motion. R ather than forming a basis to reverse the order
, however, the lack of a ruling on this claim deprive s this court of jurisdiction. See Hanner v. State , 228 So. 3d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA2 2017) (d ismissing where “[o]n appeal, Appellant argues that the postconviction court erred by failing to address all of the claims in his motion”)

. “It is well

- settled that an order disposing of some, but not all of the claims in a motion for postconviction relief is not an
appea lable final order.” Lake v. State , 53 So. 3d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)

. See also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(8)(C) (“The order issued after the evidentiary hearing shall resol ve all the claims in the motion

. . . .” ). W e therefore dismiss this appeal wi thout prejudice to Mr. Bachman ’s ability to fil e a future appeal after the circuit court has ruled on all of his claims.

D ISMISSED

.
W OLF , O STERHAUS , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Rachael E. Reese
, O’Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 99 (Monday, May 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12427]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Liquid Crystal Institute, et al., Notice of Consolidated Decision 
on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes

This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 
part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 
P.M. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue., NW, Washington, D.C.
Docket Number: 10-005. Applicant: Liquid Crystal Institute, Kent, OH 
44242. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the 
Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 75 FR 21232, April 23, 
2010.
Docket Number: 10-006. Applicant: Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 
21232, April 23, 2010. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: 
FEI Corporation, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 75 FR 
21232, April 23, 2010.
Docket Number: 10-007. Applicant: Washington University in St. Louis, 
St. Louis, MO 63130. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: 
JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 78 FR 21232, April 23, 
2010.
Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were 
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an 
electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

    Dated: May 17, 2010.
Christopher Cassel,
Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-12427 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
NO. 07-03-0309-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A AUGUST 8, 2003

______________________________ W ARREN P. CANADY, APPELLANT

V. TEXAS DEPARTME NT OF CRIM INAL JUSTICE, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 3 20TH DI STRICT COURT OF PO TTER CO UNTY; NO. 088254-00-D ; HONORABLE DON EMERSO N, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPIN ION Warren P. Canady, an inmate proceedi ng pro se, fil ed a notice of appeal fro m the trial court’s or

der dismissi ng his cl aim against t he Texas Department of Criminal J usticeInstitutional Divis ion for injuri es he allege dly sustai ned. Canady timely filed his notice of appeal on July

7, 2003. By letter

dated July 9, t his Court not ified Canady t hat no further action would be ta ken in this ap peal until the $125 filing fee w as received and that failure1 All referencesto rules ar e to the Texas R ules of Appellate P rocedure.

2 to pay the fee might res ult in dismi ssal under Rule 42.3(c)

of the Texas Rul es of Appellate Procedure. 1 In response, on July 25, 2003, he f il ed an appl icati on to pr oceed i n forma pauperis. For the reasons expressed herein, we dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to Rule 20.1(a), a par

ty may pr

oceed withou t advance pay mentof costs if the party files an affid avit of indigence in compliance with the Rules. Rule 20.1(c) providesthat an affid avit of indi gence must be fi led in the tr

ial court wi

th or before the notice of appeal , and Rule 20.1(c )( 3) further prov ides that the ti me in whic h to file the affidavit may b e extended if, w ithin 15 days after the date the notice of appeal was filed, the party files a motion for extension oftime in compliance with Rule 10.5(b). (Emphasis added). Canady’s application to proceed in forma pauperiswas not fil ed in the tri al court w ith or before the notice of

appeal nor was it filed w ithin the 15-da y wi ndow wi th a motion for extension of t ime. See Mi kkilineni v. City of Houston, 4 S.W.3d 298, 299 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist. ] 1999, no pet.). Thus, it is i neffective to excuse hi m from paying t he filing fee. Accordingl y, the appeal is dismiss ed. Don H. Reavis Justice
No. 1075.

*Cecil Sims*for petitioner. *J. Vaulx Crockett*and *Caruthers Ewing*for respondent.

#### Tennessean Newspapers, Inc., *v.*Venn.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: 

(1) Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-159015, 333-160750, and 333-161736) of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. and

(2) Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-142405 and 333-165442) pertaining to the OrexigenTherapeutics, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan and 2004 Stock Plan; 

of our reports dated March 11, 2011,with respect to the financial statements of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. forthe year ended December 31, 2010. 

/S/    Ernst & Young LLP

San Diego, California 

March 11, 2011
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 

MANITEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

2004 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

WHEREAS, Manitex International, Inc. (“Company”), previously adopted the Second Amended and Restated Manitex International, Inc. 2004 Equity
Incentive Plan (as amended, “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan in Section 7(a) thereof; and

 WHEREAS, pursuant to the First Amendment to Plan, the Company previously amended the plan to increase the number of shares of Company common stock
authorized for issuance thereunder to 917,046 from 500,000; and 
 WHEREAS, subject to the approval of the Stockholders of the Company, the Company
desires to further amend Plan to increase the total number of shares both already issued, and yet to be issued from the authorized amount of 917,046 to 1,329,364. 

NOW THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the Company’s stockholders at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Company’s Stockholders, the Plan is
amended by deleting the first full sentence of Section 4(a)(i) in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 
 “The number of Shares with
respect to which Awards may be granted under the Plan shall be 1,329,364 Shares.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment
to be executed as of this 2 day of June, 2016.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers participate in Tradewinds 2016
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/7/Images/SOUTHCOM_logo_thumb.jpg?ver=SIvIeRRofyrg5ZHPpvvh6Q%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers participate in Tradewinds 2016</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div><b>By Story by Staff Sgt. Heidi McClintock</b> <span class="date">/ Published June 12, 2016</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    ST GEORGE’S, Grenada-- U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers from the 396th Combat Support Hospital are providing medical support during Phase 1, Tradewinds 2016. <br />
<br />
The Soldiers from the Vancouver, Washington based unit are providing medical support for all the participating countries of Tradewinds 2016. <br />
<br />
Tradewinds 2016 is a joint combined exercise conducted in conjunction with partner nations to enhance the collective abilities of defense forces and constabularies to counter transnational organized crime and to conduct humanitarian/disaster relief operations.<br />
<br />
The exercise is providing a great opportunity for the Soldiers to use their medical skills to help not only treat anyone that has a medical need but also to teach those getting medical assistance on the proper care of their wound or burn. <br />
<br />
“It’s a wonderful opportunity to be here for Tradewinds 2016,” said Spc. Emily Panther, a practical nursing specialist with the 396th CSH. “It’s part of the Army you don’t see everyday.”<br />
<br />
“These missions make me appreciative of my job in the Army more,” added Panther.<br />
<br />
According to Panther, they have been providing primarily preventive healthcare during the exercise but also enjoying the opportunity to work with other partner nations. <br />
<br />
“It feels great that I can offer medical support to those that need it,” said Spc. Richard Travis, a a practical nursing specialist with the 396th CSH. “It feels great to (have all the participating countries) come together with unity as one team.” <br />
<br />
Travis added, “you can’t say you really experience anything similar to this unless you participate in an exercise like Tradewinds.”<br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
**CERTIFICATION OF THE CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Auxilio, Inc. and Subsidiary (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Joseph J. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer and Paul T. Anthony Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

 

(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 the Company.

 

Date:  March 31, 2010                                                   

                                                                By:               /s/ Joseph J. Flynn                     

                                                                        Joseph J. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer

 

 

                                                             By:                  /s/ Paul T. Anthony                   

**           **                                                            Paul T. Anthony, Principal Financial Officer

 

 

|   |
|--------|

                                                                                                                

----
|                                             |   | Jurisdiction      of  |   | %      of Voting        |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                                             |   | Incorporation      or |   | Securities      held at |
| Name      of Corporation                         |   | Organization          |   | December      31, 2008  |
|                                             |   |                  |   |                    |
| Consolidated      subsidiaries:                  |   |                  |   |                    |
| Ti-Pro, LLC                                      |   | Nevada                |   |  100%              |
| TMCA International,      Inc.                    |   | Delaware              |   |  100%              |
| TIMET Bermuda      Limited                       |   | Bermuda               |   |  100%              |
| TIMET UK Holding Company      Limited            |   | United Kingdom        |   |  100%              |
| Loterios SpA                                     |   | Italy                 |   |  100%              |
| TIMET UK Limited                                 |   | United Kingdom        |   |  100%              |
| Titanium MC    Limited                           |   | United Kingdom        |   |  100%              |
| TIMET UK (Export)      Limited                   |   | United Kingdom        |   |  100%              |
| TIMET Europe    Limited                          |   | United Kingdom        |   |  100%              |
| TIMET Savoie, SA                                 |   | France                |   |  70%               |
| TIMET Germany,    GmbH                           |   | Germany               |   |  100%              |
| Titanium Hearth Technologies,      Inc.          |   | Delaware              |   |  100%              |
| TIMET Millbury      Corporation                  |   | Oregon                |   |  100%              |
| TIMET Castings      Corporation                  |   | Delaware              |   |  100%              |
| TIMET Finance Management      Company            |   | Delaware              |   |  100%              |
| TIMET UK Finance Management      Company Limited |   | United Kingdom        |   |  100%              |
| TIMET UK Finance Company      Limited            |   | United Kingdom        |   |  100%              |
| TIMET Real Estate      Corporation               |   | Colorado              |   |  100%              |
| TIMET Asia, Inc.                                 |   | Delaware              |   |  100%              |
|                                             |   |                  |   |                    |
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					ANNOUNCEMENT				

## Blueprint for Racial Justice Webinar: The Importance of Language: How to Use Inclusive Communications to Advance Equity in the Administration of Justice

Upcoming Webinar! Funded by State Justice Institute, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) will be hosting: Blueprint for Racial Justice Webinar: The Importance of Language: How to Use Inclusive Communications to Advance Equity in the Administration of Justice on Tuesday, October 18th, 2022, at 1:00PM EST. Inclusive communications are central to fairness and individualized decision making, and a foundational skill for judges and other court professionals. This webinar provides practical tips for judges and court staff seeking to communicate more inclusively with all those who come before the court.

Register here: Webinar Registration – Zoom

### 

                    - blueprint-for-racial-justice-social-media-webinar-post  (147 kB)

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
#### MARTHA E. VAN WYCK and others, Trustees under Will of HENRY L. VAN WYCK, Deceased, Appellants, v. PHILIP WALTERS and ELIZA JANE WALTERS, his Wife, Impleaded with CHARLES M. PINE and others, Respondents.

*Usury*— when *a bonus reserved by one trustee does not avoid a mortgage held by the estate.*

Where, in an action to foreclose a mortgage owned by a trust estate, it appears that one of the trustees received an usurious *bonus,*the mortgage is not avoided thereby, unless it be shown that the same was received by the authority or with the knowledge of the other trustees.

*Stotit*v. *Rider*(12 Hun, 574), followed.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, entered upon the trial of this action by the court without a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made upon the ground of surprise and newly discovered evidence.

The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage. The defense was usury. The defense was founded upon the fact that at the time of the loan an usurious bonus thereon was received by one of the trustees.

*E. Ellery Anderson,*for the appellants.

*A. R. Dyett,*for the respondents.

Pratt, J.:

*Stout*v. *Rider*(12 Hun, 574), and cases there cited, seem' to be authority that the trust fund will not be damnified by the unauthorized act of one of three trustees, in taking more than seven per cent per annum for the forbearance of money.

The respondent argues that we should not apply that doctrine to the case at bar, for the reason, as he claims, that affirmative proof was not given that the two other trustees were ignorant of the usury charged upon Blunt. But the testimony of Blunt, to the effect that he did accept usury, certainly tends to show that *210the other trustees did not know of his accepting it, and there is no testimony to show that they did not know of his taking it.

If a presumption of law exists that the act of one trustee is the act of all, it certainly cannot extend to the case of an act that is expressly forbidden by law. It will not be contended that the other trustees could be convicted criminally of taking usui-y, upon proof that their co-trustee had taken it. Why should a different rule be applied in civil cases?

It follows from these views that the fourth finding of fact, to wit, that the moneys were retained by Odell as agent for *“*the plaintiff,” is not sustained by the evidence, and the judgment should be reversed upon the facts, and a now trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Present — Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.