alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.1b

          SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE O'SULLIVAN INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.
                 AMENDED AND RESTATED 1994 INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN


             THIS SECOND AMENDMENT amends the O'Sullivan Industries Holdings,
Inc. Amended and Restated 1994 Incentive Stock Plan effective July 8, 1997.

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

             WHEREAS, the O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc. 1994 Incentive
Stock Plan was approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of O'Sullivan
Industries Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on January 22, 1994 and was approved
by the sole stockholder of the Company on January 26, 1994; and

             WHEREAS, the O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc. 1994 Incentive
Stock Plan was amended and restated effective September 20, 1996 by action of
the Board of Directors of the Company, which amendment and restatement was
approved by the stockholders of the Company at the annual meeting held on
November 14, 1996; and

             WHEREAS, the O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc. Amended and
Restated 1994 Incentive Stock Plan was further amended by a First Amendment
dated November 14, 1996 (as so amended, the "Plan"); and

             WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company wishes to make an
additional amendment to the Plan;

             NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

1.  Section 5.1.  The second sentence of Section 5.1 of the Plan is hereby
amended to read as follows: "Each Director Option granted shall be in respect
of 2,000 Shares."

             All other terms and provisions of the Plan and all Awards and
Options granted under the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the respective
meanings assigned to them in the Plan.


                                 Page 1 of 1
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 Thomas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (the
“Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify,
pursuant  to and solely for the purpose of 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(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
16, 2009





By: /s/ Harold Halman


Harold
Halman


President,
Chief Executive Officer and


Chief
Financial Officer
173 La. 925

#### Succession of ROGER.

No. 31057.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1932.

Dubuisson & Dubuisson, of Opelousas, for appellants.

Dudley L. Guilbeau, of Opelousas, for ap-pellee.

O’NIELL, C. J.

The only matter in contest here is the amount of an attorney’s fee for having probated a will, by which the testatrix distributed an estate valued at $70,744.53. The attorney sent the executors a bill for $1,000, including his fee for advice given to the testatrix in the making of the will; but the executors allowed the attorney only $250 on their final account. On trial of the attorney’s opposition to the account, thd district judge increased the allowance to $750. The executors have appealed. They cite the case of Dorsey v. His Creditors, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 399, where the court allowed an attorney a fee'of only $250 for filing a petition for the calling of a meeting of creditors to vote upon the proposition to discharge an insolvent debtor. Aside from the fact that the estate which had to bear the burden in that instance was insolvent, we must have respect for the age of the decision. It was rendered in 1826 — 105 years ago. Témpora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis. Lawyers, like men of other professions and callings, charge more — and need more — now than they did a century ago. Dorsey v. His Creditors remains as authority for the proposition merely that, in the fixing of attorneys’ fees, the courts are not compelled to accept at their face value the estimates given by the lawyers who testify in the case, but should use, in some measure, their own knowledge of the value of the service rendered. The fee allowed by the district judge in this instance is exactly what the fee bill of the bar association of his judicial district allows on the basis of an estate worth $70,000; and, considering the responsibility assumed in the rendering of such services, we do not find the fee excessive.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Lydian TUCKER v. COLUMBIAN NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO.

No. 1229.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1933.

Normann, McMahon & Rouchell, of New Orleans (on appeal only), and Ponder & Ponder, of Amite, for appellant.

J. H. Inman, of Ponchatoula, for appellee.

MOUTON, Judge.

In this ease an insurance policy was issued to plaintiff herein, and is identical with the policy issued in the case of Henry Tuckei v. Columbian National Life Ins. Co., 150 So. 72, decided this date by this court. The only difference' between the two policies is that in the present one a slightly smaller weekly payment is provided for than in the other. The same issues here of fact and law are presented as were submitted in the other ease which was consolidated with this case for trial.

For the reasons assigned in the other case, the judgment rendered in this case is annulled, avoided, and reversed, and it is further ordered that this case be and is hereby remanded to the district court for trial and the reception of evidence as was ordered in the case of Henry Tucker v. Columbian National Life Ins. Co., herein.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ANGIENEL ASTACIO IRIZARY A/K/A/ 

ANGIENEL ASTACIO VALDEZ, AND 

MOISES VALDEZ

v.

M & R PROPERTY INVESTMENT & 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, MODESTA 

MOLINA AND ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, 

MOHAMMAD QUADIR,MOHAMMAD 

ASHRA FUZZMAN, CITYWIDE 

COMMUNITY SERVICES; JOSE RUIZ

PETITION OF: CITYWIDE COMMUNITY 

SERVICES, MODESTA MOLINA AND 

ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 106 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Morabito, Appellant.

[677 NYS2d 511]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), rendered August 7, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*831Ordered that the judgment is. affirmed.

The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea without conducting a hearing *(see,*CPL 220.60 [3]; *People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520; *People v Andrews,*207 AD2d 406). In addition, the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see, People v Allen,*82 NY2d 761; *People v McKnight,*245 AD2d 390). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### Donnell WOODS, Jr., Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 70432.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 7, 1997.

Donnell Woods, Jr., Jefferson City, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donnell Woods, Jr., (“Movant”) appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Rule 75.01 motion which asked the court to reconsider its denial of his pro se petition for change of name under Supreme Court Rule 95. The State has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal contending that no appeal is possible from the denial of a Rule 75.01 motion. We agree. *See State v. Sielfleisch,*884 S.W.2d 422, 431 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). We therefore order Movant’s appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                               THE PANTRY, INC.

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                            (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 Sep. 25,  Sep. 24,  Sep. 30,  Sep. 28,  Sep. 27,
                                   1997      1998      1999      2000      2001
                                 --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
<S>                              <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Pretax (loss) income..........   $  (975)  $ 4,673   $24,750   $24,772   $(1,785)
Fixed charges:
Interest expense..............    13,039    28,946    41,280    52,329     58,731
Amortization of deferred
 financing costs..............     1,461     2,071     1,894     2,055      2,096
Preferred stock dividends.....     5,304     2,003     3,657       --         --
Rental expense (1)............     2,901     7,919    13,517    16,952     19,973
                                 -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
Total fixed charges...........   $22,705   $40,939   $60,348   $71,336   $ 80,800
                                 -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
Preferred stock dividends.....    (5,304)   (2,003)   (3,657)      --         --
                                 -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
Earnings......................   $16,426   $43,609   $81,441   $96,108   $ 79,015
                                 -------   -------   -------   -------   --------
Ratio (shortfall) of earnings
 to fixed charges.............   $(6,279)     1.07      1.35      1.35   $ (1,785)
                                 =======   =======   =======   =======   ========
</TABLE>
--------
(1) One-third of rental expense related to operating leases representing an
    appropriate interest factor.
| (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 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Nana Baffour                                      |   |
|                  |   | Nana Baffour                                          |   |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                  |   |                                                  |   |
****Exhibit
      32









**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND THE**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**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 Aldabra 2 Acquisition Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, Jason Weiss, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, on the date
      indicated below, hereby certifies, 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),
                as
                applicable, 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,
        2007                                                                            
/s/
        Jason
        Weiss
 Name: Jason
        Weiss
 Title: Chief
        Executive Officer and Secretary
 (Principal
        Executive Officer and
 Principal
        Financial
        Officer)
#### BROUSSARD v. POLICE JURY OF ST. MARTIN PARISH.

No. 935.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 8, 1932.

Moise Thibodeaux, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

L. O. Peeot, Dist. Atty. of Franklin, for ap-pellee.

ELLIOTT, J.

Police jury of St. Martin parish, La., moves to dismiss the appeal taken by Joseph Brous-sard herein, assigning as grounds that the appeal has been abandoned and the right of appeal lost.

The record shows that the judgment was rendered on May 24,1930, but was not signed until June 23,1930. The plaintiff was granted a devolutive appeal on June 23, 1930, and the same was made returnable to this court on August 18,1930, but no appeal bond was filed under this order making the appeal effective.

*48Tile minutes of the lower court show that on, October 24, 1930, plaintiff obtained from the lower court an order extending the return day which had expired in August, 1930, until December 8, 1930. Bond was filed under this last order on October 29, 1930.

The appellee contends that the district court had no authority to extend a return day, the life of which had expired and ceased to have effect long before 'the extension was moved for.

If the plaintiff-appellant had obtained a new order on October 24, 1930, it would have been all right. Gresham v. Collier, Sheriff, 128 La. 143, 54 So. 590. But that was not done. The order in question merely purports to extend a return day, already expired, and without effect at the time in question.

As it is, there is no order supporting the present appeal, and without an order there is no appeal. Not only that, but the order of October 24, 1930, was granted in open court at a term of court succeeding that during which the judgment was rendered, and there is no order by the court, nor prayer by plaintiff-appellant that defendant be cited to answer the appeal, and defendant was not cited to .answer this appeal. The situation is imputable to the carelessness of the plaintiff-appellant.

For the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss must prevail. It is now ordered that the appeal herein be dismissed at the cost of appellant.
#### Emma W. Carr, Respondent, v. Frank B. Carr, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
47922 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E8–18651 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–91] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–91 

with attached transmittal, and policy 

justification. 

Dated: August 5, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 47923 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN15AU08.017</GPH>
47924 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN15AU08.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 47925 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN15AU08.019</GPH>
47926 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E8–18652 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–35] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–35 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: August 5, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Exhibit 32.2
 
 
 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Sona Resources Inc. (the “Company”) for the six months ended March 31, 2011 and for the period from January 18, 2007 (date of inception) to March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Monika Sagar, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, 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 and belief:
 
 1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.     The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 April 25, 2011                                                                MONIKA SAGAR
 Monika Sagar
 Chief Accounting Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
 
 
 
 
 -1-
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 653

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse under construction in White Plains, New York, as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse under construction at

5 300 Quarropas Street in White Plains, New York, shall
2

•HR 653 EH

1 be known and designated as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall

2 United States Courthouse’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

6 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

7 to be a reference to the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States

8 Courthouse’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 5,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 653

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse under

‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse’’.construction in White Plains, New York, as the
Exhibit 13.2







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 Annual Report of Migenix Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur J. Ayres, Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Arthur Ayres

Arthur J. Ayres

Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer

September 17, 2004



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.
#### Violet Hall, appellee, v. Hitchcock County, appellant: Hayes County, appellee.

298 N. W. 558

Filed June 6, 1941.

No. 31054.

*J. F. Ratcliff,*for appellant.

*Gerald G. Lefler, Butler, James & McCarl*and *Cordeal, Colfer & Russell, contra.*

Heard before Rose, Eberly and Yeager, JJ., and Kroger and Ellis, District Judges.

Yeager, J.

This is an action for damages which presents issues exactly the same as those presented in *Stitzel v. Hitchcock County, ante,*p. 700, 298 N. W. 555, and likewise this case was presented here without bill of exceptions.

The two cases were briefed and submitted together. The opinion in that case is controlling here.

Reversed.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 16, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00472-CV

CURTIS TYLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF M.P., 

Appellant

V.

TORCSILL FOUNDATIONS, LLC AND INTERVALE CAPITAL, LLC, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-07582

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed July 15, 2021. The clerk’s record was 

filed January 24, 2022. The reporter’s record was filed March 7, 2022. No brief 

was filed.
2

On May 3, 2022, this court issued an order stating that unless appellant filed

a brief on or before June 3, 2022, the appeal was subject to dismissal without 

further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain and Poissant.