alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.3.4



 Exhibit 10.3.4 

March 31, 2014 
 The Board of Directors, 

GS Home Shopping Inc., 
 GS Gangseo Tower, 10, 

Mullae-Dong 6-Ga, Youngdungpo-Gu, 
 Seoul, 150-096, 

Korea 
  

	Sub:	Tag-Along Right 

 Dear Sirs, 

We write to you in connection with the discussions held between the representatives of our two companies regarding a right to tag-along with Network18
Holdings Limited (being a shareholder in TV18 HSN Holdings Limited (the “Company”)) should Network18 Holdings Limited undertake an off-market sale of the shares held by it in the Company. 

With effect from the first closing date of the initial public offering by the Company of its securities, Network18 Media & Investments Limited agrees
and undertakes that if Network18 Holdings Limited proposes to transfer more than fifty percent (50%) of the shares held by it in the Company to any third party through an off-market transaction, Network18 shall ensure that Network18 Holdings
Limited shall provide GS Home Shopping Inc. (“GSHS”) a written notice of the terms and conditions of such proposed transfer and an opportunity to participate in such transfer. GSHS may participate in such transfer by allocating the
maximum number of shares of the Company which such third party is willing to purchase pro-rata to the respective proportions in which shares are held by each of Network18 Holdings Limited and GSHS amongst themselves at that time. 

The term “off market transaction” means a private sale of shares to a third party and not a sale of shares through a stock exchange. 

 

			
	Truly yours,
	
	For Network18 Media and Investments Limited, by:
	
	 /s/ KSHIPRA JATANA

	Name:	 	KSHIPRA JATANA
	
	Agreed on behalf of GS Home Shopping Inc., by:
	
	 /s/ HUH, TAE SOO

	Name:	 	HUH, TAE SOO
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 6627** 

RAHEEM RAHMAN ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; LIEUTENANT DOLLY; SERGEANT WHITACRE; OFFICER HOOVER; GARY MAYNARD, Secretary; DR. GREGORY TAYLOR ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William M. Nickerson , Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv
- 03497

- WMN )

Submitted : August 7, 2013 Decided: August 21, 2013

Before AGEE and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Raheem Rahman, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy P. Tennis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Michelle Jacquelyn Marzullo, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Raheem Rahman appeals the district court ’ s or der s denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and
denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rah man

v. Sto uffer , No. 1:11

- cv
- 03497

- WMN (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2013; Apr.

22, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIR MED
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3634

To amend provisions of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands which

relate to the temporary absence of executive officials and the priority

payment of certain bonds and other obligations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 1996

Mr. FRAZER (for himself, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. THOMPSON, Ms.

NORTON, Mr. MORAN, Mr. WYNN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mrs. MEEK

of Florida, Mr. LUTHER, Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Mr. HILLIARD, Ms.

MCKINNEY, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. DORNAN, Ms. JACKSONLEE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. HAYWORTH, and Mr.

MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend provisions of the Revised Organic Act of the

Virgin Islands which relate to the temporary absence

of executive officials and the priority payment of certain

bonds and other obligations.

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 ‘‘Virgin Islands Organic

5 Revision Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 3634 IH

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF OFFICIALS CLARIFIED.

2 Section 14 of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin

3 Islands (48 U.S.C. 1595) is amended by adding at the

4 end the following new subsection:

5 ‘‘(g) An absence from the Virgin Islands of the Gov6 ernor or the Lieutenant Governor, while on official busi7 ness shall not be a ‘temporary absence’ for purposes of

8 this section.’’.

9 SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO PRIORITY OF BONDS AND OTHER

10 OBLIGATIONS.

11 (a) AUTHORITY TO ISSUE OBLIGATIONS.—Section 3

12 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the government

13 of the Virgin Islands to issue bonds in anticipation of reve14 nue receipts and to authorize the guarantee of such bonds

15 by the United States under specified conditions, and for

16 other purposes’’, approved August 19, 1976 (48 U.S.C.

17 1574c), is amended—

18 (1) by striking ‘‘priority for payment’’ and in19 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘a parity lien with every other

20 issue of bonds or other obligations issued for pay21 ment’’; and

22 (2) by striking ‘‘in the order of the date of

23 issue’’.
3

•HR 3634 IH

1 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by this

2 section shall apply to obligations issued on or after the

3 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3632

AN ACT

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to

nificant change in physical or mental condition.mentally retarded residents when there is a sigand to require resident reviews for mentally ill orfor nursing facilities under the Medicaid programrepeal the requirement for annual resident review
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3632

AN ACT

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to repeal

the requirement for annual resident review for nursing

facilities under the Medicaid program and to require

resident reviews for mentally ill or mentally retarded

residents when there is a significant change in physical

or mental condition.
2

•HR 3632 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL RESI4 DENT REVIEW FOR MENTALLY ILL AND MEN5 TALLY RETARDED NURSING FACILITY RESI6 DENTS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1919(e)(7) of the Social

8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(e)(7)) is amended—

9 (1) in subparagraph (B)—

10 (A) by striking ‘‘ANNUAL’’ in the heading,

11 and

12 (B) by striking clause (iii); and

13 (2) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ‘‘AN14 NUAL’’ in the heading.

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact17 ment of this Act.

18 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW IN CASE OF SIGNIFI19 CANT CHANGE IN PHYSICAL OR MENTAL

20 CONDITION OF MENTALLY ILL OR MENTALLY

21 RETARDED NURSING FACILITY RESIDENTS.

22 (a) REQUIREMENT FOR NOTIFICATION OF STATE

23 AUTHORITY.—Section 1919(b)(3)(E) of the Social Secu24 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(b)(3)(E)) is amended by adding

25 at the end the following: ‘‘In addition, a nursing facility
3

•HR 3632 EH

1 shall notify the State mental health authority or State

2 mental retardation or developmental disability authority,

3 as applicable, promptly after a significant change in the

4 physical or mental condition of a resident who is mentally

5 ill or mentally retarded.’’.

6 (b) REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW.—Section

7 1919(e)(7)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(e)(7)(B)), as

8 amended by section 1(a)(1), is amended by inserting after

9 clause (ii) the following new clause:

10 ‘‘(iii) REVIEW REQUIRED UPON

11 CHANGE IN RESIDENT’S CONDITION.—A

12 review and determination under clause (i)

13 or (ii) must be conducted promptly after a

14 nursing facility has notified the State men15 tal health authority or State mental retar16 dation or developmental disability author17 ity, as applicable, under subsection

18 (b)(3)(E) with respect to a mentally ill or

19 mentally retarded resident, that there has

20 been a significant change in the resident’s

21 physical or mental condition.’’.

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 this section shall apply to changes in physical or mental
4

•HR 3632 EH

1 condition occurring on or after the date of the enactment

2 of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHESTER COLE, 

 Case No. 08-15234 

 Plaintiff, Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

v. 

MARY BERGHUIS 

 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability 

[dkt 16]. 

On November 22, 2010, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus and Denying a Certificate of Appealability. On May 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a 

Motion for Relief from Judgment in connection with his denied Habeas Corpus petition. On 

June 28, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment. On or about July 

27, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 

1, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking a Certificate of Appealability regarding the 

Court’s June 28, 2012, Order denying his Motion for Relief from Judgment. 

 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that an appeal may not proceed unless 

a certificate of appealability (COA) is issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A COA may be issued 

“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). A plaintiff must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for 

that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 

issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. 

2:08-cv-15234-LPZ-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 01/25/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1254
2

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation omitted). In this case, the Court concludes that 

reasonable jurists would not debate that Plaintiff failed to show the Court committed “a clear 

error of judgment.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability [dkt 16] is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

Date: January 25, 2013 LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:08-cv-15234-LPZ-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 01/25/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1255
Exhibit 32

Certificate 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 Piedmont Community Bank Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Drew Hulsey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Julie Simmons, Chief Financial Officer 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. | To my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Drew HulseyDrew Hulsey, C.E.O.(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Julie SimmonsJulie Simmons, C.F.O.(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


August 14, 2008



-21-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

 

TDC INTERNATIONAL CORP. 

f/k/a G.E. THOMPSON DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 08-14792 

 

JAE L. BURNHAM, d/b/a QUICK AND 

EASY MOVING, AND QUICK AND EASY 

MOVING, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER LIFTING STAY, REOPENING CASE, AND 

REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE 

The court entered a consent judgment in this trademark dispute on June 22, 

2009. (Dkt. # 30.) Defendant Jae Burnham, doing business as Quick and Easy Moving, 

repeatedly failed to abide by that consent judgment, prompting multiple orders in 2010 

holding Defendant in contempt of court. (Dkt. # 40, 57.) On January 1, 2011, 

Defendant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and this proceeding was stayed in 

accordance with the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 

362(a). (Dkt. # 61.) In May 2017, Plaintiff successfully petitioned the court to reopen the 

case and lift the stay (Dkt. #63); however, Defendant then filed a second notice of 

bankruptcy (Dkt. #64) which promoted the court to reimpose the stay. (Dkt. #65.) 

 In its July 12, 2017 order re-imposing the stay in this case, the court authorized 

Plaintiff to reopen the case upon filing notice with the court and without payment of a 

fee. Plaintiff now seeks to reopen the case because the Bankruptcy Court has ruled in 

its favor and held that Defendant’s debt for court sanctions is non-dischargeable. (Dkt. 

Case 2:08-cv-14792-RHC-MKM ECF No. 68 filed 10/25/18 PageID.693 Page 1 of 2
2 

#67, PageID 691.) Plaintiff also requests that the court order Defendant to show cause 

why he should not be held in contempt for his continued violation of the court’s previous 

orders. The court finds Plaintiff’s request appropriate. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the stay is LIFTED. The Clerk of the Court shall reopen the 

case to the court’s active docket. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is ORDERED to appear in person at 

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan located at 526 Water 

Street in Port Huron, Michigan on November 7, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. for a hearing at 

which he shall SHOW CAUSE, if any he has, why he should not be held in contempt of 

court. 

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 25, 2018 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

on this date, October 25, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

(810) 292-6522 

S:\Cleland\Cleland\HEB\Civil\08-14792.TDC.reopen.and.show.cause.HEB.docx 

Case 2:08-cv-14792-RHC-MKM ECF No. 68 filed 10/25/18 PageID.694 Page 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134911 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134911 

 COA: 269690 

Oakland CC: 2005-204854-FC 

MICHAEL WAYNE RUTHERFORD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 31, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1123 

To provide for a five-year payment increase under the Medicare program 

for home health services furnished in a rural area. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2009 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mrs. LINCOLN, and Mr. BOND) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for a five-year payment increase under the Medicare program for home health services furnished in a 

rural area. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Rural Home 

5 Health Preservation Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR APPLICATION OF THE MEDICARE RURAL 

7 HOME HEALTH ADD-ON POLICY. 

8 Section 421(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 

9 Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 

10 108–173; 117 Stat. 2283), as amended by section 5201(b) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 1123 IS

1 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109– 

2 171; 120 Stat. 46), is amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘, and episodes’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘, episodes’’; and 

5 (2) by inserting ‘‘and episodes and visits ending 

6 on or after January 1, 2010, and before January 1, 

7 2015,’’ after ‘‘January 1, 2007,’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN HART,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 393 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN HART,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 394 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

STEVEN A. KOCH, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-2339 

 ) 

CHARLENE P. KOCH, ) 

n/k/a CHARLENE P. McKAY, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed June 21, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Jack Helinger, Judge. 

Christin C. Brennan of Meros, Smith, 

Lazzara, Brennan, Brennan & Olney, P.A., 

St. Petersburg, for Appellant. 

Jane H. Grossman, St. Petersburg, for 

Appellee. 

VILLANTI, Chief Judge. 

Steven A. Koch appeals an order denying his motion to vacate and set 

aside rulings premised upon Mr. Koch's allegations of wrongful conduct on the part of 

his former wife's attorney. Mr. Koch also appeals an order of enforcement entered in 
- 2 -

favor of his former wife in which he was ordered to continue paying his former wife's 

health insurance premiums. 

 To the extent that Mr. Koch seeks review of the order denying his motion 

to vacate and set aside rulings, we affirm without further discussion. To the extent that 

Mr. Koch seeks review of the order of enforcement, we must dismiss the appeal as 

premature because the order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Fla. R. App. P. 

9.110(l). 

 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. 

KELLY and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
NO. 12-15-00048-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CHASE ALLEN GILLIAM,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 173RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant 

and his counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion 

to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered June 3, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 3, 2015

NO. 12-15-00048-CR

CHASE ALLEN GILLIAM,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. C-20,707)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15948]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Perceptual-Based Video Encoding and Quality 
Measurement

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 24, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the David Sarnoff Research 
Center has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the changes 
are as follows: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Dallas, TX, replaces 
LSI Logic Corporation and Bell Atlantic Network Services changed 
location from Arlington, VA to Washington, DC.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or the 
planned activities of the project. Membership in the project remains 
open, and the parties intend to file additional written notifications 
disclosing all changes in the membership.
    On September 1, 1995, David Sarnoff Research Center filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 4, 1995, 60 FR 62109.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-15948 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0551

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MARGARET BEAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 10, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 3 2021

04/05/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0551
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Accredited Members Holding Corporation (the “Registrant”) for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J.W. Roth, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; 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 16, 2011By:
/s/ J.W. Roth

J.W. Roth

Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)