alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

DRESSER-RAND GROUP INC. OTHER INFORMATION – EXHIBITS

**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 Dresser-Rand Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vincent R. Volpe, Jr., President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 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:   November 14, 2005 | /s/ Vincent   R. Volpe Jr.               |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                      |                                          |
|                      | Vincent R.   Volpe Jr.                   |
|                      | President,   Chief Executive Officer and |
|                      | Director                                 |

----
Case 4:18-cv-00041-RM--BGM Document 9 Filed 05/07/18 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:18-cv-00041-RM--BGM Document 9 Filed 05/07/18 Page 2 of 2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00023-CR

TRACI RENE CAHILL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1623108D)

November 23, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14757]



========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / 
Notices

[[Page 29524]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service
[Docket No. TB-96-24]


Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee; Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
App.) announcement is made of the following committee meeting:

    Name: Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee.
    Date: June 28, 1996.
    Time: 10 a.m.
    Place: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Tobacco Division, Flue-Cured 
Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation Building, Room 223, 
1306 Annapolis Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27608.
    Purpose: The purpose of the meeting is to elect officers, 
establish submarketing areas, discuss selling schedules and 
recommend opening dates. The Committee will also update the 1996 
policies and procedures and review other related matters for the 
1996 flue-cured tobacco marketing season.
    The meeting is open to the public. Persons, other than members, 
who wish to address the Committee at the meeting should contact John 
P. Duncan III, Director, Tobacco Division, AMS, USDA, Room 502 Annex 
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, (202) 205-
0567, prior to the meeting. Written statements may be submitted to 
the Committee before, at, or after the meeting.

    Dated: June 3, 1996.
John P. Duncan III,
Director, Tobacco Division.
[FR Doc. 96-14757 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Opinion issued March 24, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 20 - 00170 - CV

——————————— IN RE BRANDON PAREE CHRISTOPH E R , Relat or Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

MEMORANDU M OPINION R e lator, Bran don Paree Christopher , has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 1 We deny the petition. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k) (1) (A) , (g) ; T EX . R. A PP . P
. 9 .4
.

1 The underlying case is Sh e lita Denedra Mosley v. Brandon Paree Chr istopher , C ause n o. 2006

- 18875, pending in the 309th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Linda Marie Dunson presiding.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd , and Highto wer .
Summary of Hudson Highland Group, Inc. 2009 Incentive Compensation Program



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Summary of Hudson Highland Group, Inc. 2009 Incentive Compensation Program 
 The following is a summary of the
material terms of the Hudson Highland Group, Inc. (the “Company”) 2009 Incentive Compensation Program applicable to the Company’s executive officers: 
  

	•	 	 The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company established a bonus performance target for executive officers of the Company based on
consolidated corporate adjusted EBITDA for 2009. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as earnings before interest, income taxes, special charges, other non-operating expense, and depreciation and amortization. Adjusted EBITDA is calculated net of any bonuses
payable under the program and net of adjustments the Compensation Committee rules as appropriate. 


  

	•	 	 Adjusted EBITDA will be computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, but, unless otherwise determined by the Committee, will exclude the
effects of (i) gains or losses on the disposition of a business, (ii) changes in tax or accounting regulations or laws, (iii) changes in the value of individual balance sheet items in excess of $1 million that impact the income
statement, and (iv) mergers or acquisitions, that in all of the foregoing the Company identifies in its audited financial statements, including footnotes, or the Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the Company’s annual
report. 


  

	•	 	 Up to 50% of the maximum bonuses payable to the Company’s named executive officers will be paid using a profit sharing formula based on consolidated corporate
adjusted EBITDA performance. No bonuses will be paid for adjusted EBITDA performance at or below zero. For adjusted EBITDA performance between zero and target, bonuses will be paid on a pro rata basis based on dollars of adjusted EBITDA. For
adjusted EBITDA performance at target, executive officers will be paid 50% of their maximum bonus amount. If adjusted EBITDA performance meets or exceeds target, then the Compensation Committee will have discretion to approve an additional bonus of
up to 50% of an executive officer’s maximum bonus amount. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for executive officers other than Mr. Chait, Ms. Raymond and Ms. Noonan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company will have the discretion
to recommend adjusting up to 50% of the executive officer’s bonus (positively or negatively) based on consideration of overall fairness and/or individual performance. 


 The potential amounts payable to the Company’s named executive officers under the 2009 Incentive Compensation Program are as follows: 
  

													
	 	  	Bonus for
Performance
at Threshold	  	Profit Sharing Portion
of Bonus for
Performance at Target	  	Maximum Discretionary
Portion of Bonus for
Performance at or above
Target	  	Maximum
Bonus
					
	 Jon F. Chait
	  	$	0	  	$	375,000	  	$	375,000	  	$	750,000
	 Mary Jane Raymond
	  	$	0	  	$	116,725	  	$	116,725	  	$	233,450
	 Margaretta R. Noonan
	  	$	0	  	$	22,344	  	$	22,344	  	$	44,688
	 Richard S. Gray
	  	$	0	  	$	75,000	  	$	75,000	  	$	150,000
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302**

 

I, Margaret Theiss Faison, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Annapolis Bancorp, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, 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 annual report fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors: 

 

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

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

Date: March 25, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 799 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 799

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 7, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2997) making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration are waived. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2838-2839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1445]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission; Meetings

AGENCY: Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of open meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is 
hereby given that the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission 
(Commission), established by the Secretary of the Interior under the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, will 
hold its first meeting to discuss the goals and activities of the 
Commission. The meetings will be open to the public.

DATES: Meetings will be held on Friday, February 16, 1996 from 9 a.m. 
to 5 p.m. and Saturday, February 17, 1996 from 8:30 a.m. to noon.

ADDRESSES: The Commission meeting will be held in the Council Chambers 
in Templeton Center on the Lewis and Clark College Campus, 0615 SW 
Palatine Hill Road, Portland, Oregon. Parking will be in the Griswold 
Parking Lot which will be marked by red and white signs. Maps to 
Council Chambers will be available at Campus Security located at the 
south end of the Griswold lot.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Curt Brown, Program Manager, Western Water Policy Review Office, PO Box 
25007, Denver, Colorado 80255, (303) 236-6211.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Reclamation Projects Authorization and 
Adjustment Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-575, Section 30 directs the 
President to undertake a comprehensive review of Federal activities in 
the 19 Western States which affect the allocation and use of water 
resources, and to submit a report on the President's finding and 
recommendations to Congress. The Secretary of the Interior established 
the Commission to provide assistance regarding the President's report 
to Congress. The President's report is due to Congress by October 2, 
1997.
    The Commission will discuss goals and objectives and a workplan to 
guide their investigations, as well as perform other duties specific to 
the Commission. Time will be available for public 

[[Page 2839]]
comments during the morning session, Saturday, February 17. Members of 
the public may submit written statements to the Commission at the 
address listed above, or at the meeting. If you wish to make a 5 minute 
oral presentation, please call the Commission office at (303) 236-6211 
prior to February 9. Members of the public making oral presentations 
should submit a written copy of their remarks at the meeting. Seating 
and oral presentations at the meeting will be limited and therefore on 
a first come basis.

    Dated: January 23, 1996.
David Cottingham,
Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Designated 
Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 96-1445 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-M
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 24-0256 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. ORDER 

CHARLES DAVID AMENT, FILED 

Defendant and Appellant. MAY - 3 2024

BOVVUO 

:wood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

When self-represented Appellant Charles David Ament filed his Notice of Appeal 

of a Flathead County District Court's Judgment and Sentence, he filed a "Motion for 

Summary Ruling on Appeal" as well. The State of Montana responds in opposition. 

On May 1, 2024, this Court denied Ament's petition for rehearing concerning our 

earlier denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Ament v. Heino, No. OP 24-0117, 

Order (Mont. May 1, 2024). 

The State responds that Ament's motion is improper. Citing to the Montana Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, the State points out that Ament must file the opening brief, 

pursuant to M. R. App. P. 12 and 13, and that the State will file its response brief. The 

State adds that Ament's opening brief is not yet due. The State provides that the transcripts 

have not been filed, making the record on appeal incomplete. 

There is no provision in this Court's rules for Ament's Motion for a Summary 

Ruling. As detailed by the State, he must comply with these rules to proceed with his 

appeal. Ament will receive a notice from the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court 

when the transcripts have been received. Additionally, Ament may file a motion for 

appointment of counsel with this Court for his criminal appeal. Section 46-8-103(1), MCA. 

Therefore, 

05/03/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0256
IT IS ORDERED that Ament's Motion for Summary Ruling on Appeal is DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to 

Charles Davide Ament along with a copy of this Court's Appellate Handbook. 

rel 

DATED this — day of May, 2024. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

2
#### George DANNER and Carol Danner, Respondents, v. Richard CALLAWAY and Centric, Inc., A Missouri Corporation, Appellants.

No. WD 47844.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 29, 1994.

Lawrence R. Magee, Kansas City, for appellants.

James D. Worthington, Lexington, for respondents.

Before BERREY, C.J., P.J., and KENNEDY and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from judgment against appellants for wrongful eviction and forcible entry and detainer and subsequent award of compensatory and punitive damages.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15118]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Register of Historic Places; Notice on NHL Boundaries

    The National Park Service has been working to establish boundaries 
for all National Historic Landmarks that did not have clear boundaries 
when they were designated.
    In accordance with the National Historic Landmark program 
regulations 36 CFR 65, the National Park Service notifies owners, 
public officials and other interested parties and gives them an 
opportunity to comment on the proposed boundary documentation.
    The 60-day comment period on the National Historic Landmark listed 
below has ended and the boundary documentation has been approved. 
Copies of the documentation of the landmark and its boundaries, 
including maps, may be obtained from the National Register of Historic 
Places, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Suite 250, Washington, 
DC 20013-7127, Attention: Marilyn Harper (Phone: 202-343-9546). 
Carlsbad Irrigation District (Carlsbad Reclamation Project) National 
Historic Landmark, North of Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico, 
Designated a Landmark on July 19, 1964.
Carol D. Shull,
Chief of the National Historic Landmarks Survey and Keeper of the 
National Register.
[FR Doc. 96-15118 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0225. TUSSAHAW RESERVES, LLC et al. v. BUTTS COUNTY.

The application fordiscretionary reviewfiled by TussahawReserves, LLC, and

Keys Ferry Crossing, LLC (the “Applicants”), is hereby GRANTED. Because the

Applicants already have filed a notice of appeal in the superior court, they need not

file an additional notice of appeal. The appeal in that case — which already has been

transmitted to this Court — shall proceed in Case No. A24A0851. The clerk of the

superior court is DIRECTED to supplement the record in Case No. A24A0851 with

a copy of this order.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

February 08, 2024

02/08/2024
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**PART II, ITEM 2 OF QUARTERLY REPORT OFCOMBIMATRIX CORPORATIONFOR PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2007**

 

**Item 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITYSECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS**

 

In May 2007, Acacia Research Corporation sold340,000 shares of unregistered Acacia Research-CombiMatrix common stockpursuant to a consulting services agreement between CombiMatrix Corporation anda third-party consultant. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, 306,000shares of Acacia Research-CombiMatrix common stock were issued to theconsultant on May 29, 2007, and an additional 30,000 shares and 4,000 shares ofAcacia Research-CombiMatrix common stock will be to be issued to the consultant in August 2007 and November2007, respectively. This transaction ismore fully described in Part II, Item 2 of the Quarterly Report of AcaciaResearch Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2007, incorporated byreference herein and included as Exhibit 99.2 of that report. The shares ofAcacia Research-CombiMatrix common stock issued to the consultant as of August 15, 2007 will be redeemed for upto 30,600 shares of our common stock on August 15, 2007, with the remaining3,400 shares to be issued in CombiMatrix Corp. common stock in accordance withthe terms of the consulting agreement.

 

1

----
#### Ronald JORDAN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 56819.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 3, 1990.

Henry B. Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.

William L; Webster, Atty. Gen., Christine A. Alsop, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. 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 our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).