alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Amendment to First Amended and Restated 2004 Incentive Award Plan



 Exhibit 10.4 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 DIGITAL REALTY TRUST, INC., DIGITAL SERVICES, INC. AND 
 DIGITAL REALTY TRUST, L.P. 2004 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND
RESTATED DIGITAL REALTY TRUST, INC., DIGITAL SERVICES, INC. AND DIGITAL REALTY TRUST, L.P. 2004 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN, made as of April 28, 2009 (this “Second Amendment”), is made and adopted by Digital Realty Trust, Inc., a
Maryland corporation (the “Company”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Plan (as defined below). 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the First Amended and Restated Digital Realty Trust, Inc., Digital Services, Inc. and Digital Realty Trust, L.P. 2004
Incentive Award Plan, as amended by the First Amendment thereto (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14.1 of
the Plan, the Plan may be amended from time to time by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”); and 
 WHEREAS,
the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan be amended as follows:

 1. The last sentence of Section 8.10(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective with respect to any grant of Profits Interest Units to an Independent Director pursuant to this
Section 8.10 on or after the Company’s 2009 annual meeting of stockholders, such Independent Director may elect in advance to receive in lieu thereof an equivalent number of shares of Restricted Stock which shall be subject to the same
vesting schedule as would have applied to the corresponding grant of Profits Interest Units. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that an Independent Director does not qualify as an “accredited investor” within the meaning of
Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on the date of any grant of Profits Interest Units to such Independent Director pursuant to this Section 8.10, then such Independent Director shall not receive such grant of Profits
Interest Units, and in lieu thereof shall automatically be granted an equivalent number of shares of Restricted Stock which shall be subject to the same vesting schedule as would have applied to the corresponding grant of Profits Interest
Units.” 
 2. This Second Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan. 
 3. All other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified herein. 
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







 I hereby certify that the foregoing Second Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. on April 28, 2009. 
 Executed on this 28th day of April, 2009. 
  

	
	 /s/    Joshua A. Mills

	Assistant Secretary


  

 2
Wright Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.12 
 12/20/08 
 Good morning, Jamey. 
 Below is a note memorializing your short-term loan to the Company. Please sign and date as indicated below. Thanks so much for your help! 
 PROMISSORY NOTE Addendum #1 
 This note memorializes the extension of the existing Promissory Note to January 31, 2009, continuing the existing
terms. 
 Signed this day, December 20, 2008 
  

					
	 /s/ Thomas Morrow
	 		 	 /s/ Jamey Wright

	Thomas Morrow, CEO Home School, Inc	 		 	Jamey Wright
ex4_1.htm




Exhibit 4.1

 

May 27, 2004






	
To:
	
First Public Securities









	
To
	
Whom It May Concern:




 

Mark DeSomer, founder of Sunburst Resources, am authorizing First Public Securities to act on my behalf, in order to facilitate the re-issue of Sunburst stock certificates for WiFi Wireless. As of this writing, Sunburst Resources, an Oregon corporation, with 10,000,000 shares authorized to issue, has been changed by the Secretary of State,
to be named WIFI Wireless, with 100,000,000 shares authorized to be issued.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5448-2    Filed: 01/22/20    Entered: 01/22/20 15:20:07    Page 1of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7268

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TERRY KERMIT JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (5:98-cr-00289-RLV; 5:03-cv-00049-RLV)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Kermit Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Terry Kermit Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 3.1

CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

OF

KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTORS COMPANY, LLC

This Certificate of Formation of
Keystone Automotive Distributors Company, LLC (the Limited Liability Company) has been duly executed and is being filed by the undersigned authorized person to form a limited liability company under the Delaware Limited Liability Company
Act (6 Del. C. §18-101, et seq.).

1. Name. The name of the Limited Liability Company formed hereby
is Keystone Automotive Distributors Company, LLC.

2. Registered Office and Registered Agent. The address of the registered office
of the Limited Liability Company in the State of Delaware, County of New Castle is 1313 N. Market Street, Suite 5100, in the City of Wilmington (19801). The registered agent of the Limited Liability Company for service of process at such address is
PHS Corporate Services, Inc.

3. Notice of Series. The Limited Liability Company shall have the authority to establish one or more
series of interests in accordance with Section 18-215(a) of the Act and hereby gives notice, pursuant to Section 18-215(b) of the Act, that the debts, liabilities, obligations and expenses incurred, contracted for or otherwise existing
with respect to a particular series so established shall be enforceable against the assets of such series only, and not against the assets of the Limited Liability Company generally or any other series thereof, and , unless otherwise provided in the
limited liability company agreement, none of the debts, liabilities, obligations and expenses incurred, contracted for or otherwise existing with respect to the Limited Liability Company generally, or any other series thereof shall be enforceable
against the assets of such series.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned authorized person has duly executed this Certificate of Formation
as of December 14, 2005.



/s/ Maria E. DeCarloName: Maria E. DeCarloAuthorized Person
Amendment No.2 to Research Collaboration and License Agreement




 Confidential Materials omitted and filed separately with the 
 Securities and Exchange Commission. Asterisks denote omissions. 
  

 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 RESEARCH COLLABORATION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 2 to the Research Collaboration and License Agreement (the “Amendment #2”), effective as of January 15, 2009,
modifies certain provisions of the Research Collaboration and License Agreement, entered into as of November 24, 2004, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated March 26, 2007 (the “Agreement”), between Achillion Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., 300 George Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 (“Achillion”), and Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, California 94404 (“Gilead”). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 
 In accordance with Section 12.12 of the Agreement, Gilead and Achillion hereby
modify the Agreement as follows: 
 1. Amendment of Exhibit 1.2. Section (iii) of the Compound definition set forth in Exhibit 1.2
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(iii) any [**] prior to the end of the term of the Agreement,
[**]. For purposes of clarification of this clause (iii), “Compounds” included in this clause (iii) [**] 
 2. No Other
Amendment. Except as expressly set forth herein, the amendment provided herein shall not, by implication or otherwise, limit, constitute a waiver of, or otherwise affect the rights and remedies of Gilead or Achillion under the Agreement, nor
shall it constitute a waiver of any default, nor shall it alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms, conditions, obligations, covenants or agreements contained in the Agreement. The amendment provided herein shall apply and be
effective only with respect to the provision of the Agreement specifically referred by this Amendment #2. 
 3. Governing Law. This
Amendment #2 shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, except for any of its choice of law rules that would require the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. 
 4. Counterparts. This Amendment #2 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which
shall be one and the same document. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment #2 as of the date first above
written. 
  

					
	ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Michael Kishbauch
		 	Name:	 	Michael Kishbauch
		 	Title:	 	President and CEO


  

					
	GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ John F. Milligan, Ph.D.
		 	Name:	 	John F. Milligan, Ph.D.
		 	Title:	 	President and COO
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ISAAC A. POTTER, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERTA S. BREN, OBLON SPIVAK, MICHELLE 

K. LEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND

TRADEMARK OFFICE, AND LINDA M. KING,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2014-1379

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:13-cv-01417-CMHIDD, Senior Judge Claude M. Hilton.

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Upon review, it appears that this court may lack jurisdiction over Isaac A. Potter’s recently-docketed appeal. 

Mr. Potter filed his action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and made 

allegations of, among other things, criminal copyright 

infringement, criminal trademark infringement, unfair 

competition, and fraud. It appears that his district court 

Case: 14-1379 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/31/2014
2 POTTER v. BREN

complaint challenges at least in part registration of the 

trademark KNIGHTS OF THE ZODIAC to registrant 

Toei Animation Co. 

Mr. Potter previously appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for default judgment to the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which dismissed as 

interlocutory. Mr. Potter’s current appeal appears to 

stem from the district court’s order granting certain 

defendants’ motions to dismiss and directing Mr. Potter to 

file an amended complaint.

This court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295. Based only upon our review, it does not appear 

that the district court’s jurisdiction arose in whole or in 

part under the laws specified in § 1295 as defining this 

court’s appellate jurisdiction. 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) The parties are directed to respond within 21 days

from the date of this order as to whether this appeal 

should be dismissed or transferred to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1631.

(2) The briefing schedule is stayed. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s30

Case: 14-1379 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/31/2014
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4927 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 12:52:38 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4927 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 12:52:38 Page 2 of

3
(;+,%,7$

1RWLFH3DUWLHV6HUYLFH/LVW

6HUYHGDVVHWIRUWKEHORZ

^Z/Wd/KE ED EKd/ED Z^^ D/>

Dd,KK&

^Zs/

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽĞďƚŽƌƐ tĞŝů͕'ŽƚƐŚĂůΘDĂŶŐĞƐ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ<ĂƌŽƚŬŝŶ͕ZĂĐŚĂĞů&ŽƵƐƚ͕:ĞƐƐŝĐĂ>ŝŽƵ͕DĂƚƚŚĞǁ'ŽƌĞŶ

ϳςϳ&ŝĨƚŚǀĞŶƵĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ͕EzϭϬϭρϯͲϬϭϭε

ƐƚĞƉŚĞŶ͘ŬĂƌŽƚŬŝŶΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵƌĂĐŚĂĞů͘ĨŽƵƐƚΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵũĞƐƐŝĐĂ͘ůŝŽƵΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵŵĂƚƚŚĞǁ͘ŐŽƌĞŶΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽĞďƚŽƌƐ <ĞůůĞƌΘĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ>>W ƚƚŶ͗dŽďŝĂƐ<ĞůůĞƌ͕:ĂŶĞ<ŝŵ

ςρϬĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϭεϬϬ

^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬΘ

ƚŬĞůůĞƌΛŬĞůůĞƌďĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ͘ĐŽŵũŬŝŵΛŬĞůůĞƌďĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ĞďƚŽƌƐ

W'ΘŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWĂĐŝĨŝĐ'ĂƐĂŶĚůĞĐƚƌŝĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ ƚƚŶ͗:ĂŶĞƚ>ŽĚƵĐĂ

ϳϳĞĂůĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚW͘K͘ŽdžϳϳϬϬϬϬ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬρ &ŝƌƐƚůĂƐƐDĂŝů

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐdƌƵƐƚĞĞ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐdƌƵƐƚĞĞ

ƚƚŶ͗:ĂŵĞƐ>͘^ŶLJĚĞƌ͕ƐƋ͘ΘdŝŵŽƚŚLJ>ĂĨƌĞĚĚŝ͕ƐƋ

κρϬ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞǀĞŶƵĞρƚŚ&ůŽŽƌ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϬρͲϬϭρϯ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬϮ

:ĂŵĞƐ͘>͘^ŶLJĚĞƌΛƵƐĚŽũ͘ŐŽǀƚŝŵŽƚŚLJ͘Ɛ͘ůĂĨĨƌĞĚŝΛƵƐĚŽũ͘ŐŽǀ

ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůĨŽƌƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞŽĨhŶƐĞĐƵƌĞĚƌĞĚŝƚŽƌƐ DŝůďĂŶŬ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗ĞŶŶŝƐ&͘ƵŶŶĞ͕^ĂŵƵĞů͘<ŚĂůŝů

ρρ,ƵĚƐŽŶzĂƌĚƐEĞǁzŽƌŬ͕EzϭϬϬϬϭͲϮϭςϯ

ĚĚƵŶŶĞΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵƐŬŚĂůŝůΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůĨŽƌƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞŽĨhŶƐĞĐƵƌĞĚƌĞĚŝƚŽƌƐ DŝůďĂŶŬ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗WĂƵů^͘ƌŽŶnjŽŶ͕'ƌĞŐŽƌLJ͘ƌĂLJ͕dŚŽŵĂƐZ͘<ƌĞůůĞƌ

ϮϬϮεĞŶƚƵƌLJWĂƌŬ͕ϯϯƌĚ&ůŽŽƌ>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ͕εϬϬςϳ

WĂƌŽŶnjŽŶΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ'ďƌĂLJΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵd<ƌĞůůĞƌΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

&ĞĞdžĂŵŝŶĞƌ ƚƚŶ͗ƌƵĐĞ͘DĂƌŬĞůů

ρκϭE͘&ĂŝƌďĂŶŬƐŽƵƌƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϮϬϬŚŝĐĂŐŽ͕/>ςϬςϭϭͲϯϳϭϬ

ďĂŵĞdžĂŵƉŐĞΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵƉŐĞΛůĞŐĂůĚĞĐŽĚĞƌ͘ĐŽŵƚƌĂĐĞLJƌŐĂůůĞŐŽƐΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽ&ĞĞdžĂŵŝŶĞƌ ^ĐŽƚƚ,͘DĐEƵƚƚ ^ĐŽƚƚ,͘DĐEƵƚƚ

ϯϮκtĂƌƌĞŶZŽĂĚ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕εκκϬϮ ƐŵĐŶƵƚƚΛŵůͲƐĨ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4927 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 12:52:38 Page 3 of

3
Exhibit
32.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of EClips Media Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Gregory D.
Cohen, chief executive officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350 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.
 
 
 
 Date:
      May 17, 2010
                By:
                /s/ Gregory D.
CohenGregory
      D. Cohen
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
                  (principal
      executive officer, principal financial and accounting
officer)
 
 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 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.
#### In the Matter of proving the last Will, etc., of Samuel Woolever, deceased.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 1, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00 355

- CV

SSC WIMBERLEY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC , Randall Morris, Bozena Mrozek, Calvin Boutte, SavaSeniorCare Administrative and Consulting, LLC, and SSC Equity Holdings
MT, LLC, Appellants

v.

Shellie GOODMAN

, Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Cour t

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI17165

Honorable Norma Gonzales , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was originally due August 1, 2022, howeve r, Appellee has filed a motion requesting an additional sixty days to file the brief. We grant in part the motion and order Appellee to file the brief no later than September 12, 2 022

.

Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed before the brief is due, that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of August, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SteelCloud, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas P. Dunne Chief
Executive 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 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.

Dated September 12, 2003

By: /s/ Thomas P. Dunne
    --------------------------------
Name: Thomas P. Dunne
Title: Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1  In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Grand Motion Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jim Akrivos, in my capacities set forth below 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 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 results of operations of the Company.   April 10, 2008 /s/ Jim Akrivos Jim Akrivos, President (as Principal Executive Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF TO STAY 

ENFORCEMENT PENDING EN BANC CONSIDERATION 

Appellate case name: In re The State of Texas Ex Rel. Brian W. Wice, Relator

Appellate case numbers: 01-20-00477-CR, 01-20-00478-CR, and 01-20-00479-CR

Trial court case numbers: 1555100, 1555101, and 1555102

Trial court: 185th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: June 8, 2021

Party filing motion: Relator

It is ordered that the motion for temporary stay is granted. 

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Julie Countiss______

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Hightower, and Countiss.

Date: June 15, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       184,281
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       752,207
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                7,313,534
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       518,255
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         455,984
<LOANS>                                   44,326,571
<ALLOWANCE>                                  182,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            54,301,327
<DEPOSITS>                                36,413,396
<SHORT-TERM>                               6,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        1,262,140
<LONG-TERM>                                3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                    4,754
<OTHER-SE>                                 7,121,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            54,301,327
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              801,269
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            133,711
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              20,664
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             955,644
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           428,143
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           599,309
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        396,335
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              347,885
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               55,525
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    55,525
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  31,198
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  3.00
<LOANS-NON>                                        0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             182,951
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    140
<RECOVERIES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            182,811
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         182,811
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications





The
undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Advanced Battery
Technologies, Inc.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced Battery
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.





May
      10, 2010
            /s/ Zhiguo
      FuZhiguo
      Fu (Chief Executive Officer)May
      10, 2010
            /s/ Guohua
      WanGuohua Wan (Chief Financial
Officer)