alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New EnglandRealty Associates Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald Brown, the Presidentand a Director of the Partnership’s General Partner, NewReal, Inc.,certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                               The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)                               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Partnership.

 
|   | /s/  RONALD BROWN                                                                                                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald Brown                                                                                                                       |
|   | Principal Executive Officer  (President and Director of  the Partnership’s General Partner,  NewReal, Inc.) May 15, 2003 |

 

----
Exhibit
3.5




STATE OF
DELAWARE


CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT


OF
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION





The
corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware does hereby certify:





FIRST:That at a meeting of the Board of
Directors ofCopsync,
Inc.resolutions were duly
adopted setting forth a proposed amendmentof the Certificate of
Incorporationof said
corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and callingameeting of the stockholders of
said corporation forconsiderationthereof.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment
is asfollows:





RESOLVED, that the Certificate
of Incorporation of this corporation be amendedby changing the Article
thereof numbered “fourth”so that, as amended, said
Article shall be and readas follows:


The amount of the total stock of this
corporation is authorized to issue is five hundred million (500,000,000) shares ofcommon stockwith a
par value of $0.0001 per share
and 1 million (1,000,000) series A preferred with a par value of
$0.0001.





SECOND:Thatthereafter, pursuant toresolution of its Board ofDirectors, a
special meeting of thestockholders ofsaid corporation was duly called and heldupon notice in accordance withSection 222 of theGeneral Corporation
Law of the State of Delaware at
which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute were
voted in favor of the amendment.





THIRD:That said amendment was
duly adopted in accordance with the provisionsof Section 242 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said
corporation has caused this certificate to be signed this 10th day of April,
2008.





By:/s/KRYSTAL
ROCHA


Authorized Officer


Title:
sole
officer and
director


Name:KRYSTAL
ROCHA


Print or
Type
#### Esther Heller, Plaintiff, *v.*Max Heller, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

November 18, 1936.

*Thomas A.*Allen, for the plaintiff.

*Nathan H. Richman*and *Sa?nuel D. Cooper,*for the defendant.

Bergajst, J.

The action is for a separation. On the 2d day of November, 1929, an order was entered directing the defendant to pay the sum of twenty dollars per week alimony during the pendency of the action, and $100 as counsel fees. On the 13th day of July, 1931, an order adjudging the defendant guilty of a contempt for the failure to conform with the directions in respect of temporary alimony and counsel fees, and fining him the sum of $250 was entered.

Defendant applies for an order modifying the order directing the payment of alimony and counsel fees and relieving him of the contempt. While the court has always had power to modify directions with respect of the payment of alimony during the pendency of an action, as the situation of the parties from time to time changed, the right to relieve a party of an adjudication of contempt for reasons other than those antecedent to the adjudication, and for causes arising subsequent to the order of punishment has not usually been exercised. Such power now exists, *493however, by virtue of express provision of statute. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1172-a, subd. 1, added by Laws of 1933, chap. 685.)

This subdivision provides that, where the court is satisfied that a person who has been directed to make payment of alimony or has been punished for contempt for failure to conform with such a direction is “ financially unable to comply with the order or judgment to make such payment ” may *“*modify the order of judgment to make such payment and relieve him from such contempt order.” Since the enactment this power has been exercised. *(Sampson*v. *Sampson,*243 App. Div. 636; *Bamboschek*v. *Bamboschek,*150 Misc. 885.)

This has been done as well with the provisions of orders to punish for contempt as with orders and judgments directing the payment of alimony. *(Singer*v. *Singer,*246 App. Div. 850.)

1 think the present financial condition of the defendant warrants a modification of the order of November 2, 1929, by striking out the directions for the payment of temporary alimony and counsel fees. The action has now been at issue for a period in excess of seven years and the statement of the moving affidavit is not denied that in the interim the defendant has paid the sum of $700 to the plaintiff. The action should now either be tried or discontinued. It is not the office of an order for the payment of temporary alimony during the pendency of an action, to continue over long periods of time where the action could otherwise be determined. The defendant is relieved of the provisions of the order adjudging him in contempt upon condition that on or before the 27th day of November, 1936, he pay to the plain iff the sum of seventy-five dollars. *(Sampson*v. *Sampson, supra.)*

Submit order. No costs.
#### Joseph Meigs, Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered in the Erie Comity Court, with costs to abide the event.

Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1570

RONNIE LEE HOWARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RED LOBSTER OPERATED BY DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:17-cv-00018-MSD-DEM)

Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Lee Howard, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Lee Howard appeals the district court’s order of April 14, 2017, dismissing 

without prejudice his employment discrimination action. After the district court 

dismissed Howard’s complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, Howard 

filed a notice of appeal to which he attached a copy of a right to sue notice issued prior to 

the filing of his federal action. The district court construed this filing as a motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and issued an order indicating its 

inclination to grant the motion. See Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891-92

(4th Cir. 1999) (establishing procedure for handling Rule 60(b) motions filed while 

judgment is on appeal). This Court remanded the matter for the limited purpose of 

considering the merits of Howard’s motion for reconsideration. See id. 

On remand, the district court vacated the April 14, 2017, order of dismissal. 

Because the order on appeal has been vacated, this appeal is now moot. See Incumaa v. 

Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth principles of appellate 

mootness); Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 363-64 (4th Cir. 2003) (“When a case has 

become moot after the entry of the district court’s judgment, an appellate court no longer 

has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### C. M. REEVES and J. C. WATKINS, Trading as Reeves & Watkins, v. R. E. MARKS and T. O. MARKS, Copartners, Trading as Marks Bros., and S. A. MARKS.

(Filed 12 October, 1927.)

Costs — Stenographer’s Fees — Reference—Evidence—Findings—Courts — Appeal and Error.

Where the losing party in the action moves the clerk of the court to recall execution under judgment on the ground of excessive cost taxed for stenographer’s fees, it is required of him, upon reference made, to appear and show that the charge was excessive, and failing to appear and offer evidence, the referee’s finding and approval of the court below will be sustained on appeal to the Supreme Court.

This was a motion made by defendants to recall execution which was issued in favor of Minnie Lee Hoover for $106.80, stenographer’s fees taxed in the above-entitled cause against defendants. From Lee.

*Hoyle & Hoyle for defendants.*

Pee CuRiam.

The record shows that the matter was heard by consent. The court found that the $75 stenographer’s fee taxed in the original cost was not returned on the execution by the sheriff as paid, but “stenographer $75” has the figure surrounded by a circle in lead pencil.

This ambiguity was explained by the clerk, who testified it was so marked as it had not been paid, and the judgment docket recites that all of the judgment has been satisfied in full “except $75 taxed as stenographer’s fees.” It is found as a fact that the stenographer’s fees have never been paid and the defendants still owe same.

The facts further found are to the effect that the stenographer filed her bill later for $106.80; that objection was made by defendants’ attorney; that the matter was referred to a referee, who gave notice to defendants’ attorney of the time and place of hearing, but he did not appear. The referee found that the bill of $106.80 was correct. No exception was filed to the report of referee, although defendants’ attorney had personal knowledge, and the report of the referee was confirmed by the judge who heard the original case and no appeal taken. The court below refused to recall the execution, and in this we find no error. The cases cited by defendants are not applicable.

Defendants contend that under the circumstances they were under no obligation to “hold a candle.” We cannot so hold. Under the facts found by the court below, and there was. some evidence to support them, *358it was incumbent on defendants to make objections and exceptions at the time and from adverse ruling appeal; otherwise, wbat rights defendants bad, if any in the beginning, were waived. *Burroughs v. Umstead,*193 N. C., p. 842. See *Bank v.*Edwards, *ante,*p. 308. The judgment below is

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER WITHDRAWING MEDIATION ORDER

Cause number: 01-18-00886-CV

Style: In the Interest of E. C. D. child v. Department of Family and Protective 

Services

Date motion filed: November 19, 2018

Type of Motion: Objection to Mediation

Party filing motion: Intervenor 

It is ordered that Intervenor’s objection to mediation is granted. We withdraw our 

Mediation Order dated November 14, 2018.

Judge's signature: /s/ Jennifer V Caughey

 x Acting individually Acting for the Court

 Panel consists of 

Date: November 27, 2018

* Absent emergency or a statement that the motion is unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for 

motion to extend time to file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

Note: Single justice may grant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except in a civil case a single justice 

should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion 

for rehearing. TEX. R. APP. P. 10.4(a).
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED                      SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                               APRIL 30,                             APRIL 30,
                                                       1999              2000                 1999                2000
Numerator:
<S>                                                      <C>                  <C>                <C>                <C>
Net (loss) income                                        (45,586)             240,744             (593,259)            401,446
Preferred stock accretion                                      -             (529,411)                   -            (529,411)
                                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net loss available to common shareholders                (45,586)            (288,667)            (593,259)           (127,965)
                                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Denominator:
Denominator for basic earnings per share-
  weighted-average shares                              8,941,493            9,574,409            8,941,493           9,497,400
Effect of dilutive securities:                                                                                               -
Employee stock options                                         -                    -                    -                   -
Warrants                                                       -                    -                    -                   -
Dilutive potential common shares                               -                    -                    -                   -
Denominator for diluted earnings per share adjusted
  weighted-average shares
and assumed conversions                                8,941,493            9,574,409            8,941,493           9,497,400

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


Basic and diluted earnings per share                        (.01)                (.03)                (.07)               (.01)
</TABLE>
#### David Thomson, as Trustee, etc., v. Lorenzo Goodwin and Others.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 478 Filed: 02/19/19 Entered: 02/19/19 15:38:53 Page 1 of 1
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 31, 2011 | /s/ DARRELL W. CAIN             |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                             | Darrell W. Cain                 |
|                             | Chief Executive Officer,        |
|                             | III to I International Maritime |
|                             | Solutions Cayman, Inc.          |

----
Exhibit 99.2


                Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of State Financial Services Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Timothy L. King
--------------------------------------
Timothy L. King
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 8, 2002
#### Daniel Sheehan, Respondent, v Thomas Butler, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Opinion by

Follett, J.
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
 Date: June 13, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Robert E. Frick.Name:
    Robert E. FrickTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer and President
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

EXHIBIT B 

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR 

SERVICES RENDERED BY WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2019 THROUGH MAY 31, 2019 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

002 Asset Sales/363 Sales 12.70 $9,779.00 

003 Automatic Stay 263.20 $234,615.00 

004 Bankruptcy Litigation 331.10 $293,322.50 

005 Bar Date Motion/Claims Reconciliation/Claim Reconciliation Issue 155.60 $162,633.00 

006 Case Administration (docket updates, WIP and calendar) 26.30 $15,548.00 

008 Chapter 1 Plan/Plan Confirmation 109.20 $94,030.00 

009 Communications with Client 13.00 $12,930.50 

010 Corporate Governance and Board Issues 63.50 $84,120.50 

011 Customer, Supplier and Vendor Issues 43.90 $40,378.00 

012 DIP Financing/Cash Mgmt./Hedging Transactions 3.70 $3,158.50 

013 Disclosure Statement 2.50 $2,026.00 

014 Employee Issues 261.10 $238,171.50 

015 Equity Committee 2.30 $2,620.00 

016 Exclusivity 69.00 $76,597.50 

017 Executory Contracts/Lease Issues 59.50 $47,641.00 

018 General Case Strategy(includes calls with client and team calls) 136.20 $134,705.50 

019 Hearings and Court Matters 39.50 $46,573.50 

020 Legislative Issues/Inverse Reform 1.70 $2,247.50 

022 Non-Working Travel 112.80 $78,134.75 

023 FERC Adversary Proceeding 21.10 $19,669.00 

024 Reclamation/503(b)(9) 16.60 $12,300.50 

025 Regulatory Issues including CPUC and FERC 17.70 $21,585.00 

026 Retention/Billing/Fee Applications: WGM 49.50 $36,644.00 

027 Retention/Fee Application: Ordinary Course Professionals 6.50 $4,067.50 

028 Retention/Fee Application: Other Professionals 62.70 $50,075.00 

030 Tax Issues 173.20 $201,848.00 

031 U.S. Trustee issues/ meetings/ communications/monthly operating 10.20 $10,694.00 

032 Unsecured Creditor Issues/ Communications/Meetings 32.40 $37,255.50 

033 Utility Issues/Adequate Assurance 2.20 $2,095.50 

035 Real Estate and Real Property Issues 85.70 $90,274.00 

036 Tort Claimants Committee, including Wildfire Claimants 237.80 $252,530.00 

037 Insurance Issues 9.10 $7,898.50 

Total: 2,431.50 $2,326,168.75 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3368-2 Filed: 08/05/19 Entered: 08/05/19 10:01:39 Page 1

of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2333

WAYNE P. RALEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; DAVID PETERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-377-3) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 21, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Raley, Appellant Pro Se. Hunter Martin Robertson, Prince George, Virginia; Christopher Lawrence Perkins, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Raley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Raley v. Prince George County Police Dep’t , No. CA-01-377-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 2001). We dispense with oral 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
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification**


**of**


**Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of VioQuest
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc. do hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:




(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of VioQuest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for
      the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and





(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VioQuest
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.




Date:
                August 8, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Daniel GreenleafDaniel
                Greenleaf
              President
                & Chief Executive OfficerDate:
                August 8, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Brian LenzBrian
                Lenz
              Chief
                Financial Officer
**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**

| 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                for the periods presented therein. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                September 15, 2008 | By:    | /s/                Kevin Murphy               |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                    |   | Name:                Kevin Murphy             |
|                                    |   | Title:                Chief Financial Officer |

----