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


This Settlement Agreement, (the "Agreement") dated as of the 21st day of
June 2001 is entered into between Insynq, Inc. (the "Company"), John P. Gorst
("Gorst"), One Click Investments, LLC ("One Click").

WHEREAS, pursuant to a Registration Rights Agreement dated August 4, 2000,
One Click has been granted piggyback registration and one demand registration
for 200,000 shares of common stock and 200,000 warrants to purchase common
stock and;

WHEREAS, pursuant to a Registration Rights Agreement dated January 30, 2001,
One Click has been granted piggyback registration rights and;

WHEREAS, the Company, pursuant to contemplated funding agreements (the
"Funding"), which shall require the Company to file an SB-2 Registration and;

WHEREAS, the Funding requires the Registration to be filed for the sole purpose
of the Funding and;

WHEREAS, One Click has agreed to waive registration rights previously granted
and;

WHEREAS, Gorst has agreed to compensate One Click by gifting 1,000,000 shares of
common stock to One Click and;

WHEREAS, One Click has agreed that Gorst shall retain the voting rights to the
transferred common stock and;

WHEREAS, it is agreed that One Click shall have the August 2000 and the
January 2001 securities registered in the next registration filed by the
Company.

WHEREAS, it is further agreed the warrants to purchase common stock dated
February 21, 2000 shall bear an exercise price of $0.25 per share with an
exercise period extending to December 31, 2004 with a cashless exercise
provision.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreement contained
herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     In exchange for the waiver of certain registration rights by One Click,
Gorst shall gift to One Click 1,000,000 shares of common stock with voting
rights retained by Gorst and; One Click securities dated August 2000 and
January 2001 will be included in the next SB-2 Registration that the Company
shall file and the February 2000 warrants shall bear an exercise price of $0.25
per share of common stock with an exercise date extending to December 31, 2004
with a cashless provision.


INSYNQ INC.                            ONE CLICK INVESTMENTS, LLC

By: _______________________            By: __________________________
    John P. Gorst                          Eric Estoos
    Chief Executive Officer                Its ___________________________
<page>
			            EXHIBIT 32.01



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 Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Charter
MSFCM L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.





By:	  /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		March 15, 2004
#### Paul ASHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49948.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 2, 1995.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Asher appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Because we discern no jurisprudential value to publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Adam Anthony, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer,
of Aftermarket Enterprises, Inc. (the "Registrant") do 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 our knowledge, based upon a
review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2010 of
the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

 (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
     Registrant.

Dated: August 14, 2010   By: /s/ Adam Anthony
                             ------------------------------------------------
                             Adam Anthony
                             Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
                             Officer

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


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF DAN RIVER INC. AS OF JANUARY 3, 1998
AND THE RELATED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED
JANUARY 3, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                           1,759
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     92,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,551
<PP&E>                                         321,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                 113,866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 392,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,947
<BONDS>                                        143,455
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           189
<OTHER-SE>                                     165,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   392,295
<SALES>                                        476,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               476,448
<CGS>                                          372,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  372,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,615
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,381
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,264
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (243)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,021
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.88
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerry Lee RYE, Appellant.

No. 70418.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 18, 1997.

Kent Denzel, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jerry Lee Rye, appeals the judgment of conviction for unlawful use of a weapon, RSMo § 571.030 (1994), entered by the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County after a jury trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error. Because an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Exhibit 32














ACCREDITED MEMBERS HOLDING CORPORATION





Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 of the


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Accredited Members Holding Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, Mark Labertew, who serves as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:




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:  August 20, 2010

/s/ Mark LabertewMark Labertew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Frantz’s Appeal.

An alien inhabitant of the state is liable to taxation for municipal purposes of every description, and the Acts of Assembly warrant no distinction in this respect, between inhabitants who are citizens and those who are not.

Appeal from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of *Luzerne county.*In Equity.

This was a bill by Nicholas Frantz to restrain Jacob Robinson, Joseph Platt and Thomas Dickson, commissioners to carry out certain Acts of Assembly authorizing the raising money to pay bounties in the borough of Scranton, from collecting from the complainant the tax assessed for that purpose.

In a case stated, it was agreed that the complainant is an alien, and the only question raised was whether as such he was liable to taxation. The court below (Conyngham, P. J.) decided that he was so liable, and dismissed the bill, which was the error assigned.

*E. E. Wright*and *D. C. Harrington,*for appellant,

cited 1 Bl. Com. 309; 2 Kent Com. 64; Opinions of the Judges, 7 Mass. 523; Gardner’s Institutes 64, 74, 446; 2 Vattel Ch. 8, p. 174; 2 Phillimore Int. Law 6 ; 2 Burlamaqui 202; McCulloch *v.*The State of Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 ; Sharpless *v.*Mayor of Philadelphia, 9 Harris 187; The People *v.*The Commissioners of Taxes *et al.,*1 Amer. Law Reg. N. S. 93; 1 Story on the Constitution, § 1049; Academy of Fine Arts *v.*Philadelphia, 10 Harris 496 ; Dobbins *v.*Commissioners of Erie, 16 Peters 435 ; Stewart *v.*Foster, 2 Binn. 110 ; Speer *v.*Blairsville, 14 Wright 150 ; Dwarris on Stat. 711, 750 ; Pitman *v.*Flint, 11 Pick. 506.

*A. J. McClintock, A. Hand*and *I. J. Post,*for appellees,

cited Acts April 1st 1864, P. L. 188 ; March 23d 1865, P. L. 107; Wendell’s R. 140 ; Speer *v.*Blairsville, 14 Wright 150 ; Stew*368art *v.*Foster, 2 Binn. 110 ; 1 Bac. Abr. 208 ; Hood’s Estate, 9 Harris 114; Miller *v.*Kirkpatrick, 5 Casey 229; Academy of Fine Arts *v.*Philadelphia, 10 Harris 496; Easton Bridge *v.*County, 9 Barr 415; Opinion of Judges, 8 Mass. 523; Smith *v.*Hunter, 7 How. 738 ; Providence Bank *v.*Billings, 4 Peters 516; Dobbins *v.*Erie, 16 Id. 435; McCulloch *v.*Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Mager *v.*Grima, 8 How. 490.

The opinion of the court was delivered, October 17th 1866.

Per Curiam.

That an alien inhabitant of the state is liable to taxation for municipal purposes of every description is too plain for argument, and that the Acts of Assembly warrant no distinction in this respect between inhabitants that are citizens, and those who are not, is equally clear.

The appellant has, therefore, no case. The decree of the court below was abundantly justified by the opinion given by the learned judge of that court.

The decree of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BORGWARNER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-11602

v. Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

DORMAN PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the stipulation of dismissal filed by the parties on February 9, 2011, and the

court being fully advised;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Date: February 9, 2011 s/John Corbett O’Meara

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-11602-JCO-DAS ECF No. 74 filed 02/09/11 PageID.3284 Page 1 of 1
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4147

To prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument

without an express Act of Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

Mrs. CHENOWETH (for herself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. COOLEY

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

A BILL

To prohibit further extension or establishment of any

national monument without an express Act of Congress.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ES4 TABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, no extension or establishment of a national

7 monument may be undertaken in the United States with8 out an express Act of Congress enacted after the date of

9 enactment of this Act.
2

•HR 4147 IH

1 (b) DEFINITION OF UNITED STATES.—For the pur2 poses of subsection (a), the term ‘‘United States’’ means

3 the several States, the District of Columbia, and the terri4 tories and possessions of the United States.

Æ
MIED (Rev. 5/05) Statement of Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Plaintiff(s), Case No. 

v. Judge

Defendant(s).

/

STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE

OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST

Pursuant to E. D. Mich. LR 83.4, 

makes the following disclosure: (NOTE: A negative report, if appropriate, is required.)

1. Is said corporate party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation?

Yes No 

If the answer is yes, list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship

between it and the named party.

Parent Corporation/Affiliate Name:

Relationship with Named Party:

2. Is there a publicly owned corporation or its affiliate, not a party to the case, that has a substantial financial

interest in the outcome of the litigation?

Yes No 

If the answer is yes, list the identity of such corporation or affiliate and the nature of the financial interest.

Parent Corporation/Affiliate Name:

Nature of Financial Interest: 

Date:

WYETH

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD and

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES

09-11726-LPZ-MKM

Lawrence P. Zatkoff

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

✔

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a majority shareholder in

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd.

✔

February 18, 2010 s/ Mark R. Fox

P-39902

Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C.

124 W. Allegan

Suite 1000

Lansing, MI 48933

(517) 482-5800

mfox@fraserlawfirm.com

Judge

Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ESSIE BYRD,

Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 09-11873

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

On September 28, 2010, this Court entered an Order and Judgment in favor of

Defendant.

On September 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed Supplemental Documentation to her

objections.

The Court has reviewed the paper filed and finds that it does not warrant

reconsideration of the Court’s Order.

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: October 5, 2010

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Essie Byrd by electronic means or

U.S. Mail on October 5, 2010.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3799 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3799

    To amend title 49, United States Code, to exclude not-for-hire 
  transportation of agricultural production materials from regulation 
           under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 1996

  Mr. Buyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 49, United States Code, to exclude not-for-hire 
  transportation of agricultural production materials from regulation 
           under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION.

    Section 5117(d)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``do not prohibit'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) by inserting ``do not prohibit'' before ``or 
                regulate''; and
                    (B) by striking ``or'' the last place it appears;
            (3) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``do not prohibit'' 
        before ``transportation'';
            (4) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (5) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) do not regulate the not-for-hire 
                transportation of an agricultural production material 
                from a source of supply to a farm, from a farm to 
                another farm, from a field to another field on a farm, 
                or from the farm back to the source of supply.''.

SEC. 2. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION MATERIAL DEFINED.

    Section 5117 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(f) Agricultural Production Material Defined.--In this section, 
the term `agricultural production material' means a hazardous material 
that is used to support the production of an agricultural commodity and 
includes pesticides, fertilizers, and fuels.''.
                                 <all>
```
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00105

- CV

BARROW SHAVER RESOURCES COMPANY , LLC, KATHRYN M. DAWSON, AND MICHAEL RAY HILL, Appellant s V. NETX ACQUISITIONS, LLC , AND THOMAS C. MERRITT, TRUSTEE, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 5th District Court Cass County, Texas Trial Court No. 19C090

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Barrow Shaver Resources Company , LLC, Kathryn M. Dawson, and Michael Ray Hill (Appellants) have appealed the trial court’s November 8, 2019, summary judgment order. The clerk’s record in the referenced matter was filed by this Court on January 7, 2020. O n our review of the record, we n oted a potential defect in the Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal. “[T]he general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.” Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp

. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). “A j udgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record
. . . .” Id

. Generally, an interlocutory judgment becomes final when it merges into the final judgment disposing of the entire case. See Roccaforte v. Jefferson Cty

. , 341 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex. 2011). The trial court’s November 8, 2019, summary judgment order does not resolve all claims and issues between the parties. More specifically, the plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney
fees was neither a ddressed by the parties in their respective summary judgment motions nor resolved by the trial court in the summary judgment order. Under th o se circumstances, it does not appear that the November 8, 2019, summary judgment order is a final, appealable orde r. See
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Debose , No. 01

- 08

- 00717

- CV , 2009 WL 793851 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 2, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

. Consequently, we are currently without jurisdiction over this appeal. By letter dated January 7, 2020, we notified Appellants of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and afforded them the opportunity to show this Court how it had jurisdiction over the3 appeal, notwithstanding the noted defect. We further informed Appellants that the f ailure to respond by January 17, 2020, would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(a). Appellants did not file a response. We find that the trial court’s November 8, 2019, order was not final and appealab le. Consequently, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal.
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Date Submitted: January 28 , 2020 Date Decided: January 29 , 2020