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

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John Boschert, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Balsam Ventures, Inc. (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:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                     

| | By:    |                            
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        | /s/
      John Boschert    
| | Name:  | JOHN BOSCHERT              
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | April
      14, 2009       



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 23
- 00 022
- CV

__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF B.F.

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 317 th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. C
- 234,240

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
On J anuary 26, 2023, T.F. filed a notice of appeal in Trial Court Ca u se Number C

- 234,240 . We questioned whether we had jurisdiction over the appeal , and we warned the appellant that we would dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless she filed a respon se showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Subsequently, T.F. failed to file a response
. 1 We find that when T.F. filed the notice of appeal , she could not effectively invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction

1 It is not clear what order, if any, T.F. wished to appeal. We have addressed appeals arising from Trial Court Ca u se Number C

- 234,240 on two prior occasions. In 20 20 , w e affirmed an order terminating T.F.’s parental rights to her minor child,2 over Trial Court Cause Number C

- 234,240

. 2 Additionally, t he appellant failed to comply with the notice from the C lerk which requir ed her to file a response to the notice the Court sent to her by February 21 sufficient to show the grounds that justified continuing her appeal

. 3
T.F. failed to file a timely notice of appeal and failed to comply with the notice from the C lerk. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed

. 4
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 29, 2023 Opinion Delivered March 30, 2023 Before Horton , Johnson and Wright, JJ.

B.F. See In re B.F. , No. 09

- 20

- 00154

- CV, 2020 WL 66600961 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Nov. 12, 2020, no pet.). In 2022 we dismissed T.F.’s attempt ed appeal from an order dismissing Trial Court Ca u se Number C

- 234,240. See In re B.F. , No. 09

- 22

- 00220

- CV , 2022 WL 3651990 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Aug. 25, 2022, no pet.). The notice of appeal T.F. filed in 2023 did not identify an order f rom which her notice of appeal would have been timely , and it did not identify an order from which she would have had standing to appeal since the trial court had previously signed an order terminating her parental rights

. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1; see also id

. 42.3(a). 3 See id . 42.3(c). 4 See id . 42.3(a), (c), 43.2(f).
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1995 Stock Option Plan, the
2000 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (No. 333-40524), and in the related Prospectuses, of IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated
January 12, 2001, with respect to the financial statements of IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in the annual report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2000.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 21, 2001

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 9.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Stolt Offshore S.A. (a Luxembourg company) and its subsidiaries' (the "Company") Registration Statements on
Form S-8, File Nos. 33-85168, 333-09292 and 333-74321 and on Form F-3, File No. 333-86288 of our
report dated April 29, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of November 30, 2003 and 2002 and for the years ended November 30, 2003 and 2002
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the application of procedures relating to certain disclosures and reclassifications of financial
statement amounts related to the 2001 financial statements that were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of assurance other
than with respect to such disclosures and reclassifications) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended November 30, 2003.



Glasgow,
United Kingdom
May 11, 2004

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy M. TURNER, Appellant.

Nos. WD 49937, WD 51465.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 18, 1996.

John M. Schilmoeller, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant’s direct appeal from his convictions of delivery of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMO 1994, and possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMO 1994, is dismissed for abandonment because he failed to brief the direct appeal. Rules 30.06, 30.20. Movant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. This judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

April 11, 2024

v No. 360171

Saginaw Circuit Court

JUMAANE AMUNRA JONES, LC No. 20-046833-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LETICA, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SWARTZLE, JJ.

CAVANAGH, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the majority in the result, but would hold that defense counsel’s failure to 

timely request an instruction on the definition of “reasonable force” likely fell below an objective 

standard of reasonableness. However, defendant has failed to establish that it is reasonably likely 

that counsel’s error affected the outcome of the case because the instructions that were given fairly 

presented the issues to the jury. See People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51; 826 NW2d 136 

(2012); People v Montague, 338 Mich App 29, 38; 979 NW2d 406 (2021).

Further, I would hold that a specific unanimity instruction should have been given. See 

People v Cooks, 446 Mich 503, 512, 524; 521 NW2d 275 (1994) (a specific unanimity instruction 

is warranted if “more than one act is presented as evidence of the actus reus of a single criminal 

offense” and any of the acts are materially distinct). However, plain error warranting reversal has 

not been demonstrated. See People v Gonzalez, 468 Mich 636, 643; 664 NW2d 159 (2003).

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19260-19261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9364]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Pikeville National Corporation, et al.; Formations of; 
Acquisitions by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may 
[[Page 19261]] express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank or to 
the offices of the Board of Governors. Any comment on an application 
that requests a hearing must include a statement of why a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute and summarizing 
the evidence that would be presented at a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than May 11, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (John J. Wixted, Jr., Vice 
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101:
    1. Pikeville National Corporation, Pikeville, Kentucky; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of Commercial Bank, Middlesboro, 
Kentucky.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Pilot Bancshares, Inc., Tampa, Florida; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Terrace 
Interim Bank, Tampa, Florida (in organization).
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166:
    1. Community Financial Corp., Olney, Illinois; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Community Bank & Trust, fsb, Olney, Illinois, which will convert from a 
federally-chartered stock savings bank to a national bank and operate 
under the name of Community Bank & Trust, N.A., Olney, Illinois.
    D. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Southern Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of First State Bank Brazoria, Brazoria, 
Texas, a de novo bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 11, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9364 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Motions Granted; Continuing Abatement Order filed January 8, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00640-CV

____________

DAVID LEE STUDER, P.E., Appellant

V.

JACK B. MOORE AND ONESUBSEA, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-19260

CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER

This is an attempted appeal from the grant of a summary judgment. The 

record, however, contains no signed final judgment. 

Appellees filed a motion to abate this appeal to allow supplementation of the 

record with a final judgment. On October 9, 2018 this court abated the appeal so that 

the trial court could sign an order memorializing its ruling on the summary judgment.
A supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s judgment was ordered to

be filed with the clerk of this court on or before December 11, 2018. 

To date, the court has not received a supplemental record containing the trial 

court’s final judgment. On December 17, 2018 and December 21, 2018 appellant 

filed motions in this court requesting compliance with this court’s order. The 

motions are granted.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s final judgment is filed in this court. The court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. It is the responsibility 

of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and 

to schedule a hearing in compliance with this court’s order. If the parties do not 

request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and 

notify the parties of such date.

If no final judgment is filed with this court within 30 days of the date of this 

court the court will consider dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
exv10w2



 





EXHIBIT 10.2



ALLONGE # 1



     This Allonge # 1 is hereby attached to and made a part of the Promissory Note dated
August 2, 2006 (the “Note”) executed by MannKind Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(“Borrower”) in the original principal amount of $150,000,000 in favor of Alfred E. Mann
(“Lender”). All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to
such terms in the Note.



     1. Section 4.4 of the Note is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence thereof and
substituting therefor: “Any amount prepaid pursuant to Section 4.2 or Section 4.3 hereof may be
reborrowed in accordance with Section 5 hereof.”



     2. Section 5 of the Note is hereby amended by deleting “$50,000,000” in the 7th
line thereof and substituting therefor “$10,000,000”.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Allonge # 1 to be executed and
delivered by their duly authorized officers on October 30, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MannKind Corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Dick Anderson
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Dick Anderson 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Alfred E. Mann
 
	 
	 	Alfred E. Mann
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John H. PRANGE, Appellant.

No. 68001.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Dec. 26, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 20, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied March 26, 1996.

C. John Pleban, Greenburg, Pleban & Fleming, St. Louis, for appellant.

*342Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John H. Prange, appeals the judgment of conviction for the Class C felony of deviate sexual assault, RSMo § 566.070 (1986), entered in St. Louis County Circuit Court after a non-jury trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5708 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend a priority 

review program to encourage treatments for agents that present national 

security threats. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 

Mr. FINSTAD (for himself and Mr. PHILLIPS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

extend a priority review program to encourage treatments for agents that present national security threats. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘MCM PRV Reauthor5 ization Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5708 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PRIORITY REVIEW TO ENCOURAGE 

2 TREATMENTS FOR AGENTS THAT PRESENT 

3 NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS. 

4 Section 565A(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos5 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–4a(g)) is amended by strik6 ing ‘‘2023’’ and inserting ‘‘2033’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, exceptunder the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R . 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 10 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES A. WILLIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. N. L. CONNOR, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Respondent - Appellee. No. 02-3216 D.C. No. 02-CV-3017-RDR (D. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , LUCERO and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Petitioner James A. Willis files under § 2241 to ch allenge his federal sentence for the possession and distribution of coc aine. He alleges that his sentence is invalid because (1) the trial court was without jurisdiction and the indictment against him was void, (2) he received in effective assistance of counsel, and (3) he was a victim of prosecutorial misconduct

.- 2 -

But motions under § 2241, such as the one Willis no w files, are generally reserved to challenge the execution of a sentence r ather than its validity. Bradshaw v. Story , 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). The proper ve nue for attacking a sentence itself is under § 2255. 28 U. S.C. § 2255. Moreover, claims may only be made under § 2241 when the statute is the litigant’s exclusive remedy. Bradshaw , 86 F.3d at 166. Willis’s claim here is more properly brought under § 2255 as it challenges the validity of his sentence rather than the conditions of his confinement. Id. (holding that a petition under § 2241 cannot be “an additional, alternative, or su pplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255”). He makes no other showing that § 2255 wo uld be inadequate or ineffective as a remedy. Id. Mr. Willis’s motion to replace pages in his brief i s denied as moot. For substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and the district court, we AFFIRM the denial of Willis’s § 2241 motion.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
#### Brian MOORE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 66676.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 9, 1995.

Lew Kollias, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
302 CERTIFICATION

I, Marc E. Combs, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peer
Review Mediation and Arbitration, Inc.;

         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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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))
and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant 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
registrant, 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 registrant's  disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant'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 registrant'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
registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: August 6, 2010             /s/Marc E. Combs
                               ----------------------------
                               Marc E. Combs, Chief Financial Officer