alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1





STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF PARADYNE NETWORKS, INC.


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 Paradyne Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sean E. Belanger, President and Chief Executive 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 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 result of operations of the
Company.





By:

/s/    SEAN E. BELANGERSean E. Belanger President,
Chief Executive Officer and Director





August 13, 2002




1
#### David Jonap v. Abraham Preger and Another. George A. Carroll v. Joseph P. Farley. The People of the State of New York v. Steers & Menke. The People of the State of New York v. Alexander Paul. James Corcoran v. Thomas Kelly. Abe Brill v. Metropolitan Surety Company.

Application for leave to appeal to Appellate Division denied, with ten dollars costs in each case. Orders signed.
#### STATE ex rel. Samuel D. REEKS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COLISEUM PLACE BAPTIST CHURCH, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 14708.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 16, 1933.

Chas. M. Ward and I. F. Williams, both of New Orleans, for relator.

McLoughlin & West, of New Orleans, for respondent.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

On the 29th of May, 1933, defendant Samuel D. Reeks obtained an order for a sus-, pensive and devolutive appeal, conditioned upon the furnishing of bond of $100 for the devolutive appeal and a bond for the sus-pensive appeal conditioned as the law directs. On the 31st day of May, 1933, Reeks furnished an appeal bond in the sum of $1,200. The plaintiff filed a rule to test the surety on- the bond, and the rule was made absolute and the suspensive appeal dismissed ; the surety, James C. Maguire, being held insufficient. On the 14th of June, 1933, Reeks furnished another surety in the person of Artliur E. Cambias, whose financial sufficiency was assailed in another rule to dismiss the appeal, which was tried on the 30th of June and resulted in another judgment dismissing the suspensive appeal. On the 14th of July, 1933, Reeks obtained an order of this court, directing the Hon. Hugh C. Cage of the civil district court, the respondent judge, to show cause why writs of prohibition and’ certiorari, which had been temporarily granted by this court, should not be made perpetual. The allegations in the applications for writs, so far as they are now of in-' terest,. amount to the assertion that both sureties rejected by the lower court were financially unobjectionable and the action of the court in dismissing the appeal on that ground improper. At the same time our attention was directed to the fact that the lower court did not dismiss the devolutive appeal sued out b.y the defendant in either of the two judgments dismissing the suspensive appeal.- In argument at the bar and in brief counsel conceded that the devolutive appeal had not been dismissed and was now pending before us, so that matter is not any longer the subject of controversy.

Upon the ouer-tion of financial responsibility of the two sureties, we have examined the testimony with care and have reached the conclusion that the action of the trial court in dismissing the suspensive appeal on the-ground that the sureties were insufficient was eminently correct.

For the reasons assigned the alternative writs of prohibition and certiorari heretofore-issued in this ease will be annulled and recalled and plaintiff’s application dismissed.. It is further ordered that the cause be returned to the docket for consideration at such time as it may be reached in due course of procedure.

Alternate writs recalled and annulled.

Cause returned to docket.
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 Annual Report of Protection One, Inc. and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. (the "Companies") on
Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), which this certification accompanies, I, Richard Ginsburg, in my capacity as President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Companies, certify that to the best of my knowledge the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.

|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 23, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/RICHARD GINSBURGRichard Ginsburg
President and Chief Executive Officer, Protection One, Inc. and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Companies as part
of the Report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---
Blueprint





 






Exhibit
10.1

 



Amendment to Employment Agreement

 


This
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Addendum”), is entered
into as of February 12, 2020, by and between Charlie’s
Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (f/k/a True Drink Holdings,
Inc., hereinafter the “Company”), and Brandon
Stump (“Executive”).

 


WHEREAS, the
Company and Executive previously entered into an Employment
Agreement dated April 26, 2019 (the “Agreement”);

 


WHEREAS, the
regulatory environment and the Company’s market
capitalization have changed materially from what was anticipated
when the parties entered into the Agreement; and

 


WHEREAS, the
Company and Executive desire to amend certain terms of the
Agreement, as more particularly set forth in this
Agreement.

 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants and Addendums herein
contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree
as follows:

 

1. Equity Awards. The Market
Capital Milestones set forth in Exhibit A to the Agreement, and
the Stock Compensation set forth in Exhibit B to the Agreement as
the same relate to annual awards based on 50% of the
Executive’s base salary, are deleted in their entirety. The
Financial Milestones set forth in Exhibit A shall remain in full
force and effect. The parties agree and acknowledge that, as a
result of the foregoing, the equity compensation owed, owing or to
be issued to the Executive as a result of the achievement of the
Market Capitalization Milestones, or annual awards based on 50% of
the Executive’s base salary, are void, and shall terminate
and be of no force and effect.

 

2. Cash Bonus. The parties shall
defer payment of the Annual Bonus for 2019 as calculated by Section
3(b) to December 31, 2020, which Annual Bonus shall accrue on the
books and records of the Company.

 

3. Acknowledgement. The Company
acknowledges that the changes to the Executive’s compensation
herein, reflect a significant waiver of potential compensation by
the Executive being made as an accommodation to the Company.
Accordingly, and without any assurances, the Company will consider
these accommodations in any future negotiation or grant of equity
compensation to the Executive and agrees that discussion on a new
contract will occur in 2020.

 

4. No Modification. Except as
specifically set forth herein the Agreement remains in full force
and effect without any changes or modifications.

 

5. Incorporation. The provisions
of Sections 15-24 of the Agreement are hereby incorporated
herein.

 


[REMAINDER
OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

 


 

 


 




 








 






 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum effective
on the date and year first above written.

 

 


	
 

	
 Charlie’s
Holdings, Inc.
 


By:  /s/
Brandon Stump


Name:
Brandon Stump


Title:
Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
        32.2**
  **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 BLS Media, Inc. a Nevada corporation
        (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        Gary Prager, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best
        of
        his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        BLS Media, Inc., and will be retained by BLS Media, Inc. and furnished to
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  /s/
                    Gary
                    PragerGary
                    PragerChief
                    Financial Officer
 August
          13, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 656 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 656

  To authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make 
 organizations controlled by individuals who promote prejudice or bias 
 based on race, religion, or ethnicity ineligible for assistance under 
    programs administered by the Secretary, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 1995

   Mr. King introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make 
 organizations controlled by individuals who promote prejudice or bias 
 based on race, religion, or ethnicity ineligible for assistance under 
    programs administered by the Secretary, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hate Group Public Funding Exclusion 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (in 
this Act referred to as the ``Secretary) may--
            (1) deem an organization to be ineligible for assistance 
        within the jurisdiction of the Department if the Secretary 
        determines that such organization is controlled by an 
        individual or individuals who promote prejudice or bias based 
        on race, religion, or ethnicity; and
            (2) refuse to provide assistance within the jurisdiction of 
        the Department to an organization because of the determination 
        under paragraph (1), notwithstanding any other qualifications 
        of the organization to receive such assistance.
    (b) Determination of Control.--The Secretary shall determine 
whether an organization is controlled by an individual or individuals 
for purposes of subsection (a).

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``assistance within the 
jurisdiction of the Department'' includes any contract, grant, loan, 
cooperative agreement, insurance or guarantee of a loan, mortgage, or 
pool of mortgages, or other form of financial assistance provided 
through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         174,492
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               659,874
<PP&E>                                          94,850
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 868,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,946,206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        287
<COMMON>                                        13,354
<OTHER-SE>                                 (13,091,525)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   868,322
<SALES>                                        130,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,860
<CGS>                                          487,812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,445,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,380,392
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             167,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (7,694,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (7,694,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (7,694,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.07)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF EQUITY INNS, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Jurisdiction of
Name                                                Incorporation/Organization
----                                                --------------------------
<S>                                                 <C>
Equity Inns Trust                                           Maryland
Equity Inns Services, Inc.                                  Tennessee
Equity Inns Partnership, L.P.                               Tennessee
Equity Inns Partnership II, L.P.                            Tennessee
Equity Inns/West Virginia Partnership, L.P.                 Tennessee
EQI Financing Corporation                                   Tennessee
EQI Financing Partnership I, L.P.                           Tennessee
EQI Financing Corporation II                                Tennessee
EQI Financing Partnership II, L.P.                          Tennessee
EQI/WV Financing Partnership, L.P.                          Tennessee
ENN Company, Inc.                                           Tennessee
E. Inns Orlando, Inc.                                       Tennessee
E.I.P. Orlando, L.P.                                        Tennessee

</TABLE>
----

| (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 5, 2010 |   /s/ G. Wilson Hughes |
|----------------------|-----------------------------|
|                 | G. Wilson Hughes            |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer     |
|                 | GCI, Inc.                   |

----
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Union Security Life Insurance Company of New York (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, P. Bruce Camacho, President and Chief Executive 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,
based on 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: March 1, 2007



/s/    P. BRUCE CAMACHOP. Bruce Camacho President and Chief Executive
Officer
#### H. R. Driggs v. State.

No. 25631.

January 16, 1952.

*592Hon. W. C. Dowdy, Judge Presiding.

*Jack Nossaman,*Sherman, for appellant.

*Murray H. Nance, Jr.,*County Attorney, Sherman, *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a penalty of five years in the penitentiary upon his conviction for assault with intent to murder.

The statement of facts in this case, in question and answer form, consists of 372 pages with an additional 127 pages taken on his motion for a new trial. The statement of facts prepared by the reporter does not contain an index of the bills of exception taken, as provided for by Article 759a, Sec. 3, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., Acts of 52nd Legislature, Chapter 465, p. 819. For this reason we are not required to consider any questions of admission of evidence in the trial of the case except such as come to us by formal bills. See Floyd Greenwood v. State, 246 S. W. (2d) 191.

The chief question presented for reversal of this case complains of the misconduct of the jury, which is brought to us in appellant’s Bill of Exception No. 1. This bill is in compliance with the requirements sets forth in Article 760-e, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

The complaint is that the jury, after having retired to deliberate on their verdict, received other testimony from a juror who said that the defendant was a bootlegger and hoodlum in the town of Denison. The jurors were summoned on the hearing and three of them testified directly that a member of the jury, in discussing the matter with fellow jurors in the room, *593while the matter was being generally discussed but before a foreman was selected, told them that the defendant was a bootlegger and a hoodlum in the town of Denison. Other jurors placed on the witness stand by the state said they did not hear such statement, though some of them did remember hearing the word “bootlegger” used. Their testimony to that extent verifies the evidence of the three jurors. All jurors were cross-examined carefully and each admitted that he was not in position to say that it did not occur. The court examined most of these jurors and the record was closed with the fact well established that someone made the charge, even though it was not heard by all. There was no denial and no issue of fact for the court to decide. We cannot speculate as to the injury resulting from such statement. The motion for new trial should have been granted.

For the failure of the court to do so, the judgment of the trial court is now reversed and the cause remanded.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI,

Petitioner

v.

DAVID SCOTT RUDENSTEIN, ESQUIRE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 206 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1001 KA 15-00728** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID O. RIVERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Victoria M. Argento, J.), entered March 19, 2015. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq. ), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level because he met his burden of proving the existence of a mitigating factor to warrant the downward departure, i.e., he had an exceptional response to treatment. We reject that contention. While defendant is correct that “[a]n offender’s response to treatment, if exceptional, can be the basis for a downward departure” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 17 [2006]), we conclude that defendant failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his response was exceptional ( see People v Butler , 129 AD3d 1534, 1534- 1535, lv denied 26 NY3d 904; People v Pendleton , 112 AD3d 600, 601, lv denied 22 NY3d 861). In any event, it is well established that “[a] sex offender’s successful showing by a preponderance of the evidence of facts in support of an appropriate mitigating factor does not automatically result in the relief requested, but merely opens the door to the SORA court’s exercise of its sound discretion upon further examination of all relevant circumstances” ( People v Worrell , 113 AD3d 742, 743 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Smith , 122 AD3d 1325, 1326). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established that his response to treatment was exceptional, we nevertheless conclude that the court providently exercised its discretion in**-2- 1001 KA 15-00728** 

denying defendant’s request for a downward departure ( see Smith , 122 AD3d at 1326).

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court