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


          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the person whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints William G. Benton, G. L. Clark, Jr. and
Susan L. Christiansen his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, with full powers of substitution and resubstitution, for him and
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 1998, any or all amendments to
such Annual Report, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange commission,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Dated:  March 29, 1999


                                       /S/ PERRY C. CRAVEN
                                       ----------------------------------
                                       Perry C. Craven



<PAGE>


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the person whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints William G. Benton, G. L. Clark, Jr. and
Susan L. Christiansen his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, with full powers of substitution and resubstitution, for him and
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 1998, any or all amendments to
such Annual Report, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange commission,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Dated:  March 28, 1999


                                         /S/ WALTER H. ETTINGER, JR.
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         Walter H. Ettinger, Jr.
#### Omar Lopez CANO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 13-92-555-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

Feb. 25, 1993.

Abel Toscano, Jr., Arturo H. Saenz, Law Offices of Abel Toscano, Jr., Harlingen, for appellant.

Luis V. Saenz, County (Criminal Dist.) Atty., Brownsville, for State.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief. In his motion, appellant states that additional time is needed because he desires to file a bill of exception and needs the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his now-asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant requests that we direct the trial *909court to conduct the evidentiary hearing necessary so that he may perfect a bill of exception.

We will grant appellant additional time to file his brief, but we will not direct the trial court to conduct any additional hearings in this case. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the time for filing bills of exception. *See*Tex.R.App. 52(c)(ll). Unlike former law, the current rules do not permit extensions of time for the filing of bills of exception by either the trial court or the appellate court. *Goodin v. State,*750 S.W.2d 857, 860 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref d). A bill of exception must be filed within 60 days of the date the defendant is sentenced in open court, or within 90 days of that date if a motion for new trial is filed. Tex.R.App.P. 52(c)(ll). Untimely filed bills of exception preserve nothing for appellate review. *Price v. State,*840 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref’d).

Appellant has not complied with the applicable deadline for filing a bill of exception, and an extension may not be granted. Accordingly, we deny appellant’s request that we direct the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing for purposes of making a bill of exception. Appellant’s motion to extend the time for filing the brief is granted. The brief is due by March 24, 1993.
#### George E. MYERS, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 66836.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 28, 1995.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the dismissal, for untimely filing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The motion court’s conclusion is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Casey Container Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin R Nason,
Chief Financial 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:

     (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.


                                        /s/ Martin R Nason
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        Martin R Nason
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        August 12, 2013

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
EXHIBIT 1B

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-2 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-2 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 531-2 Filed 04/17/19 Page 3 of 3
Third Amendment



 Exhibit 10.4 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AGREEMENT is made and dated for reference February 11, 2009.

 BETWEEN: 
 DALEA PARTNERS, LP.,

 as Lender 
 AND: 
 TRANSATLANTIC PETROLEUM CORP., 
 as
Borrower 
 WHEREAS: 
  

	A.	The parties hereto entered into a credit agreement made as of November 28, 2008 (the “Credit Agreement”) wherein the Lender agreed to establish the Loan in
favor of the Borrower; 

  

	B.	The parties hereto entered into a First Amendment to Credit Agreement effective January 21, 2009; 

  

	C.	The parties hereto entered into a Second Amendment to Credit Agreement effective February 4, 2009 

  

	D.	The parties hereto have agreed to further amend the Credit Agreement, as herein set out. 

 NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT in consideration of the premises and of other good and valuable consideration (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

	1.	Unless otherwise defined herein or unless the context otherwise requires, defined words and terms used in the Credit Agreement shall have the same meanings when used herein.


  

	2.	The Credit Agreement shall be and is hereby modified as follows: 

  

	 	(a)	Paragraph 1 (Definitions) (c) (“Committed Amount”) shall be amended by replacing “USD $68,000,000” with “USD 69,000,000”;


  

	 	(b)	Paragraph 2(b) shall be amended by replacing “USD $68,000,000” with “USD 69,000,000”; 

  

	3.	The Credit Agreement, together with all terms, covenants and conditions thereof as hereby supplemented and amended, will be and continue to be in full force and effect.


  

	4.	This agreement and everything herein contained will enure to the benefit of and be binding on the Borrower and the Lender and their respective successors and assigns.










	5.	This agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and
the same instrument, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this agreement to produce or account for more than one such counterpart. Delivery of an executed signature page of this agreement by facsimile transmission or by e-mail in pdf
format shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. 

  

	6.	The amendment to the Credit Agreement set forth herein shall be and be deemed to be effective as of and from February 11, 2009. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the date first above written. 
  

									
	The Borrower:	 		 	The Lender:
			
	TRANSATLANTIC PETROLEUM	 		 	DALEA PARTNERS, LP.
	 CORP.
	 		 	
					
	Per:	 	 /s/ Jeffrey Mecom
	 		 	Per:	 	 /s/ Matthew McCann

		 	Authorized Signatory	 		 		 	Authorized Signatory

  

 - 2 -
#### Arnold MEYER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STOUT INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants/Respondents.

No. 64392.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

April 19, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 16, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied June 21, 1994.

Coggan R. Mills, Sally Austin Mills, Clayton, for plaintiff, appellant.

Timothy E. Hayes, Eric J. Lindhorst, Co-burn & Croft, St. Louis, for defendants, respondents.

Before SIMON, P.J., and SMITH and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment against him seeking damages for alleged tortious conduct of defendants. Jury found for defendants. No error of law appears, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, and no precedential value would be served by an opinion. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum supporting this order. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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 Derycz Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter
Derycz, Chief Executive Officer 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:





(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.




/s/ Peter DeryczPeter
      DeryczChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)November
      16, 2009
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-76006) pertaining to the CTI Industries Corporation 2001 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-76008) pertaining to the CTI IndustriesCorporation 1999 Stock Option Plan and Registration Statement (Form SB-2 No. 333-31969), of our report dated April 15, 2003, on the consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2002 which report is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form10-K of CTI Industries Corporation and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

 

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

 

Schaumburg, Illinois

April 27, 2005

 

----
ex10-43.htm


    
       

      
        

        

      

       

      EXHIBIT
10.43

       

      Summary of Certain Executive Officer and
Director Compensation Arrangements

       

       

      Named
Executive Officer Salary and Bonus Information

       

       

      The
following table presents the base salaries as of February 24, 2009 of our named
executive officers serving as executive officers as of December 31,
2008.

       

      
        
          
            
              
                	
                        Name

                      	 
      	
                        Salary

                      	 
      
	
                        Louis
      Raspino

                      	 
      	
                        $

                      	
                        950,000

                      	 
      
	
                        Rodney
      W. Eads

                      	 
      	
                        $

                      	
                        560,000

                      	 
      
	
                        Brian
      C. Voegele

                      	 
      	
                        $

                      	
                        425,000

                      	 
      
	
                        W.
      Gregory Looser

                      	 
      	
                        $

                      	
                        402,000

                      	 
      
	
                        Lonnie
      D. Bane

                      	 
      	
                        $

                      	
                        352,000

                      	 
      


              

            

          

        

      

       

      Under our
annual incentive compensation plan for 2009, bonuses for executive officers will
be paid based on the achievement of specific objectives established by our
Compensation Committee. The objectives under the plan for 2009 (with target
weight) consist of earnings per share (30%), operating and general and
administrative expense control (15%), operating efficiency (10%), working
capital (10%), safety performance on a company-wide basis (10%) and personal
performance goals (25%). Bonuses for executive officers under the 2009 plan will
be determined with reference to the level of achievement of the plan objectives.
Target bonuses payable for 2009 as a percentage of base salary for the persons
named above are as follows: Mr. Raspino—100%; Mr. Eads—75%; Mr. Voegele—65%; Mr.
Looser—60%; and Mr. Bane—60%. The maximum bonus equals two times the target
bonus.

      


      


      Director
Fees

       

       

      The
annual retainer for the chairman of the board is $180,000. Each other director
who is not an employee of our company receives an annual retainer of $75,000 and
a fee of $2,000 for each board and committee meeting attended. In addition, the
chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual fee of $15,000; the chairman
of the Compensation Committee receives an annual fee of $12,000; and the
chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an annual
fee of $10,000.
#### Kevin R. DAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69808.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 6, 1996.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD, and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kevin R. Day, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.085 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. The time limitation of Rule 24.035 is valid and mandatory. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo.banc 1989). As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### Billy Don DAY, Appellant, v. Mary Ellen DAY (Farnham), Respondent.

No. WD 49591.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 11, 1995.

Cynthia A. Suter, Moberly, for appellant..

David A. Masters, Macon, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Billy Don Day appeals from an order modifying a decree of dissolution. He contends the trial court erred in calculating child support and ordering payment of a portion of his daughter’s college expenses. He also contends the court erred in ordering him to continue to provide health insurance coverage for the children and to pay the deductibles. Among other things, he contends that the departure from the Form 14 calculation violated Rule 88.01 in that the court did not specifically use the word “unjust” or “inappropriate” in its findings. Finally, he contends the court erred in the award of attorney’s fées to Mary Ellen Day.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard HILL, Appellant. Richard HILL, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66215, 67618.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 21, 1995.

*789Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

KAROHL, Judge.

Richard Hill appeals convictions and sentences on two counts of robbery first degree, in violation of § 569.020 RSMo 1986. We have consolidated the direct appeal with an appeal after denial of Rule 29.15 relief without an evidentiary hearing. The direct appeal involves only Count II on arguments: (1) the state failed to make a submissible case; and (2) the court erred in admitting identification testimony after an unduly suggestive lineup.

As proof of Count II the state offered eyewitness testimony that defendant approached three people who were standing a few feet from the car belonging to one of them. The motor was running, the driver’s door was open, purses had been left on the car seats and another member of the party remained in the back seat due to the heat. He pointed a sawed-off double-barrelled shotgun at them, told them he was borrowing the car and ordered the women to leave their purses. This evidence was sufficient to support proof that defendant, as charged, forcibly stole the automobile and purses by immediate use of a dangerous instrument. This satisfied proof of the elements of the crime as defined in § 569.020.1(3) RSMo 1986. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the defendant guilty. *State v. Grim,*854 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo. banc 1993), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 562, 126 L.Ed.2d 462 (1993). Point denied.

The state offered identification testimony of those present at the time of the commission of the crime. Their identification testimony was admitted without objection after two of the three witnesses positively identified defendant in a pre-trial lineup and one did not. All positively identified defendant at trial. We find no error, plain or otherwise. *Sellenriek v. Director of Revenue,*826 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Mo. banc 1992), *State v. Balle,*442 S.W.2d 35, 39 (Mo.1969).

Defendant has not argued any Rule 29.15 issues. Accordingly, that appeal has been abandoned.

We affirm the judgment and sentences contested on direct appeal and affirm denial of relief on the Rule 29.15 motion.

REINHARD, P.J., and RONNIE L. WHITE, Special Judge, concur.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Energy Fuels Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen P. Antony, Chief Executive Officer, 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;
  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/ Stephen P. AntonyStephen P. AntonyChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: May 5, 2016

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 required by Section 906, 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.

---