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

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                         Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
President of Pyramid Oil Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



     Dated: November 12, 2004

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                                   President


























PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 99.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of 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


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Company Pyramid Oil (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




     Date: November 12, 2004

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Aponte, Appellant.

Upon the court’s own motion, the order of this court entered herein on June 21, 1990, and the memorandum decision filed therewith [162 AD2d 299] are hereby recalled and vacated. No opinion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
#### Litman *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio et al.

(No. 24420

Decided March 7, 1934.)

*Mr. E. J. Shover*and *Mr. Taylor G. Burneson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John W. BricJcer,*attorney general, *Mr. Donald G. Power*and *Messrs. Thornburg <& Lewis,*for defendants in error.

It appearing to the court that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the defendant in error herein, having this day entered its order rescinding its action herein complained of and having reinstated this proceeding upon the docket of pending applications before said commission, that the errors complained of in the petition in error filed herein have thereby been corrected, this proceeding in error is hereby dismissed.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
#### Jenny E. Hashem, Appellant, v Samer H. Hashem, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly dismissed the mother’s petition under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act for modification of a Pennsylvania custody decree. New York is preempted by the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act from exercising jurisdiction because the custody proceeding is pending in Pennsylvania and the father continues to reside there. The Pennsylvania court specifically retained jurisdiction in the initial custody order and has not declined to exercise its jurisdiction in the present matter *(see,*28 USC § 1738A [a], [d], [f], [g]; *Clark v Boreanaz,*159 AD2d 981; *Matter of Tenenbaum v Sprecher,*133 AD2d 371, 372-373; *cf., Matter of Heitler v Hoosin,*143 AD2d 1018, 1019-1020; *see also,*Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 75-o, at 349-350). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J.—custody.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6000
WILLIAM RICKY DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusLONNIE M. SAUNDERS, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-374-R) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Ricky Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his requests to have counsel appointed and to have sanctions imposed for the Appellee's failure to comply with the district court's discoveryorders. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dixon v. Saunders , No. CA-95-374-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 21, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
exv10w14



 






EXHIBIT 10.14




Executive Life Insurance Plan




Compensation Committee Summary




On October 8, 2003, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Corn Products
International, Inc. adopted a Resolution providing that the named executive officers and certain
other officers of the Company were to receive life insurance benefits as a result of
non-recoverable amounts paid by the Company equal to (i) the amount due for Executive Life
Insurance premiums and (ii) payments to offset income taxes associated with the non-recoverable
amounts paid by the Company to cover Executive Life Insurance
premiums. During the years 2004 to 2008, the Company will also pay to
each such executive officer an additional sum to make up the 2003
premium previously paid with the cash value from such executive
officer’s Plan policy.
EXHIBIT 23.3


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Citigroup Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment No.
1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 Registration Statement of Citigroup Inc. of our report
dated January 20, 1998 relating to the  consolidated  balance sheets of Citicorp
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related  consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the  three-year  period ended  December  31, 1997,  and the related
consolidated  balance sheets of Citibank,  N.A. and  subsidiaries as of December
31, 1997 and 1996, which report is included in the Current Report on Form 8-K of
Travelers Group Inc. dated April 8, 1998 incorporated herein by reference.


/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

New York, New York
October 8, 1998
#### Arthur PARHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. Arthur Blackshear PARHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 45521, 45522.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 12, 1972.

*212John Mustachio, Houston (by appointment on appeal), for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Roland G. Woods, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

These are appeals from orders revoking probation.

On November 12, 1970, appellant waived trial by jury and entered pleas of guilty before the court to two offenses of felony shoplifting. The punishment was assessed at 5 years in each case, but the imposition of the sentences was suspended and the appellant placed on probation in each case. Among the conditions of probation in each case was the requirement that the appellant “(a) commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or the United States.”

On January 20, 1971, the State filed a motion to revoke probation in each case, alleging that the appellant had violated his probationary conditions in that on November 19, 1970, he had committed the offense of felony shoplifting in the City of Houston.

On April 23, 1971, the court conducted a hearing on the motion to revoke probation. The evidence reflects that an employee of a Montgomery Ward’s store in Houston saw the appellant and another man take women’s coats off the rack and flee the store on November 19, 1970. Another employee, along with a security officer, gave chase. Such employee identified the appellant as one of the men who got into a car and fled the scene. He related that during the chase, coats were thrown from the car and that shots were fired at the automobile in which he and the security officer were riding. The appellant and his companion escaped. The value of the coats and lack of consent were also shown. Still another employee of the store identified appellant as the man who had taken women’s coats from the same store on the day before, November 18, 1970.

The appellant testified as to an alibi and was supported by the *testimony of his*girl friend.

The court revoked probation in each case.

On appeal, court-appointed appellate counsel candidly states that the appeals are wholly without merit and of a frivolous nature. Aware of his duties under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and the procedure recommended in Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), counsel has filed briefs in which he questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocations as arguably supporting the appeals. A copy of such briefs was served upon the appellant and he has filed a pro se brief urging basically the same contention as counsel.

The contention advanced is that the alleged violation of probation occurred only seven days after probation had been granted and that “it is unlikely that a man would so soon risk his newly obtained freedom and the evidence is not actually conclusive.”

The contention is without merit.

The judgments are affirmed.

ODOM, J., not participating.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11409 and #11410] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 2. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA—1785—DR), dated 08/26/2008. 

*Incident:*                         Tropical Storm Fay.                     

*Incident Period:*                         08/18/2008 and continuing.                     

*Effective Date:*                         09/01/2008.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/27/2008.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/26/2009.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Florida, dated 08/26/2008 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

*Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*                     Duval, Lee, Leon, Seminole, Wakulla.                 

*Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

Florida: Baker, Clay, Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Liberty, Nassau, Saint Johns. 

Georgia: Grady, Thomas. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-20843 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 39 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 39

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
             repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

     Mr. Hoyer (for himself, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Frank, Mr. Berman, Mr. 
  Sensenbrenner, Mr. Sabo, and Mr. Pallone) introduced the following 
 joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
             repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States is hereby repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of the United States Code**

 

I, Thomas M. O’Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated.

 

 

|   |   |   | /s/ Thomas M. O’Flynn                   |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | **Thomas M. O’Flynn**                   |
|   |   |   | Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer                      |
|   |   |   | November 1, 2006                             |

 

 

----
Summary of 2005 Salaries



 Exhibit 10(j) 
  
 Summary of 2005 salaries and short-term incentive compensation of named executive officers 
  
 Base salaries for 2005 for the five executive officers with the highest 2004 compensation are as follows(1): 
  

				
	 Gary D. Forsee, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	1,200,000
	 Len J. Lauer, President and Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	933,000
	 Robert J. Dellinger, Executive Vice President—Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	562,400
	 Michael B. Fuller, President-Local Telecommunication Division
	  	$	714,300
	 Howard E. Janzen, President-Sprint Business Solutions
	  	$	556,500

  
 Awards under the Management Incentive Plan based
on 2005 results will be determined using three variables: (1) the executive officer’s annual incentive target, (2) achievement of two objectives, described below, and (3) weightings for the objectives. The executive officer’s incentive
target will be multiplied by the weightings and the payout results for each objective to calculate the actual incentive amount. Payouts can range from 0 to 200% of the respective target awards for each objective, subject to any applicable limitation
in any executive officer employment agreement. 
  
 The 2005 objectives for executive
officers include consolidated EVA (80%) and enterprise composite customer satisfaction (20%). Consolidated EVA is calculated as net operating profits after taxes less a charge for the carrying cost of all capital invested in the enterprise (average
invested capital multiplied by weighted average cost of capital). Enterprise composite customer satisfaction will be based on third party customer satisfaction survey results. 
  
 The 2005 incentive targets approved by the Compensation Committee of the Sprint Board in February 2005 for the five executive officers with the
highest 2004 compensation are as follows(1): 
  

				
	 Gary D. Forsee
	  	$	2,040,000
	 Len J. Lauer
	  	$	1,120,000
	 Robert J. Dellinger
	  	$	490,000
	 Michael B. Fuller
	  	$	490,000
	 Howard E. Janzen
	  	$	490,000

  
 If the proposed merger with Nextel
Communications, Inc., is completed before year-end 2005, full year EVA performance will be calculated by dividing actual year-to-date performance through the most recent full month before the close of the merger by budgeted year-to-date performance
for the same period and multiplying the quotient by the 2005 full year budget. The most recently completed quarterly customer satisfaction survey results available before the close of the merger will be used to proportionately assess cumulative
quarterly performance and payment results. 
  

	(1)	 	These amounts may change in connection with the proposed merger with Nextel Communications, Inc.
NO. 07-02-0095-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	FEBRUARY 24, 2005

	______________________________

	JOHN J. HINDERA, APPELLANT

	V.

	TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, ET AL., APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2000-509,053; HONORABLE SAM MEDINA, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.1

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	By order dated January 20, 2005, this Court reinstated this appeal and notified appellant John J. Hindera that failure to take action within ten days would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).  Hindera did not respond.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

						Don H. Reavis	

						    Justice
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTIONS            LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL CO.
AND OPTION AGREEMENT                        ID: 33-0361285
                                            6455 Nancy Ridge Drive
                                            San Diego, CA  92121
                                            (858) 452-6600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAME                                        OPTION NUMBER:______________________
ADDRESS                                     PLAN:         2004
                                            ID:_________________________________

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

Effective ________, you have been granted a(n) Incentive Stock Option to buy
________ shares of La Jolla Pharmaceutical Co. (the Company) stock at $______
per share.

The total option price of the shares granted is $         .

Shares in each period will become fully vested on the date shown.

         Shares            Vest Type          Full Vest         Expiration
         ------            ---------          ---------         ----------
         ______            _________          _________         __________

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

By your signature and the Company's signature below, you and the Company agree
that these options are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of
the Company's Stock Option Plan as amended and the Option Agreement, all of
which are attached and made a part of this document.

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

____________________________________        ____________________________________
La Jolla Pharmaceutical Co.                 Date

____________________________________        ____________________________________
Name                                        Date
<PAGE>

                                  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

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand Capital
Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the
Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

      Dated: August 11, 2004

                                              /s/ Allen F. Grum
                                              -----------------
                                             Allen F. Grum, President
                                            (Chief Executive Officer)

      Dated: August 11, 2004

                                              /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
                                              ------------------------
                                          Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer
                                            (Chief Financial Officer)