alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32-1**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Cosi, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James F. Hyatt, Chief Executive Officer and President and Director of the Company and I, William Koziel, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 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 28, 2011 | /s/   JAMES F. HYATT                    |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                        | James   F. Hyatt                        |
|                        | Chief   Executive Officer and President |
|                        | and   Director                          |
|                        |                                    |
|                        |                                    |
| Date:   March 28, 2011 | /s/WILLIAM   KOZIEL                     |
|                        | William   Koziel                        |
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer,              |
|                        | Secretary   and Treasurer               |

 

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

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02641-RPM

NBH BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,

a Nebraska corporation, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER MODIFYING DEADLINES PENDING MEDIATION

 

Upon consideration of the Joint Motion for Modification of Deadlines Pending Mediation

[41], it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted and the deadlines are modified as follows:

1. Fact discovery deadline: July 1, 2013,

2. Expert disclosure deadline: August 15, 2013,

3. Dispositive motion deadline: October 15, 2013,

4. Expert discovery deadline: December 31, 2013.

Dated: March 7th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02641-RPM Document 42 Filed 03/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
1

This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E.

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00433-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ANTHONY C. JONES,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

On August 17, 2012, the court conducted a setting conference with the parties

appearing in chambers to reset the sentencing hearing in this matter. After conferring

with the attorneys and with their consent,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That on November 2, 2012, commencing at 1:30 p.m., the court shall conduct

the sentencing hearing in this matter; and

2. That, to the extent necessary, the United States Marshal for the District of

Colorado shall assist the court in securing the defendant’s appearance for this hearing.

Dated: August 17, 2012 

Case 1:11-cr-00433-REB Document 34 Filed 08/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### In re ESTATE OF SHAMPINEAR.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS 

LAFAYE ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,

MARK HARRIS, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Senior Manager, and

MARK POOLE, in his individual capacity and official capacity as P&D Manager,

Defendants.

 

FINAL JUDGMENT

 

PURSUANT to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) and the Order

entered by the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock on March 21, 2013, incorporated herein by

reference, it is

ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and comprehensive

recommendation is correct in all respects. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint is GRANTED. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment is hereby entered in favor of

Defendants, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Mark Harris, and Mark Poole, and

against Plaintiff, LaFaye Adams. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 22nd day of March, 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/ Edward P. Butler

Edward P. Butler, Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS Document 61 Filed 03/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Case 1:11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS Document 61 Filed 03/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE> 46

Exhibit 21 - List of Subsidiaries of the Small Business Issuer

   Pioneer Bank (incorporated in Virginia)
   Valley Finance Company,  Inc.  (incorporated in Virginia),  a subsidiary of
   Pioneer Bank
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2291

___________ Michael Anthony Gottson, Sr., also * known as Michael Anthony Gotson, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Arkansas Children & s Hospital, Director; * Appeal from the United States DOES, Physicians, Health Care * District Court for the Providers, Specialists, Director, * Eastern District of Arkansas. Tending Nurses, Administrative * Supervisor-tending status, Night Flight * [UNPUBLISHED] Medical Emergency Transportation * Unit Pilots & Health Care Providers * and/or Medical Staff who treated * Anthony Gotson, Jr., * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 23, 1999 Filed: November 26, 1999

___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 TheHonorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Michael Anthony Gottson, Sr., appeals the District Court’s 1 Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his medical malpractice action. We deny Gottson’s post-appeal motion to join additional defendants and add claims. See Spear v. Dayton’s , 771 F.2d 1140, 1144 (8th Cir. 1985) (claims not presented to District Court need not be considered). After a de novo review of the record, we conclude dismissalwas proper, and a comprehensive opinion in this diversity case would lack precedential value. We thus affirm the District Court’s opinion without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 28, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00305

- CR

Brian Keith GORHAM,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR10383

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’ s second motion for extension of time to file brief is GRANTED. The

appellant ’ s brief is due on October 30, 2015.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of Septemb er, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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 Florida Community Banks, Inc.'s ("Company") Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 ("Report"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") and to
which this certification is furnished as an exhibit, I, Guy W. Harris, the 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
            March
      17, 2008
            By:
            /s/  Guy W.
  HarrisGuy
      W. HarrisChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Florida Community Banks, Inc. and will be retained by Florida Community Banks,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. LOUIS A. MacFARLAND, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Argued October 21, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

For the defendant in error, *Walter D. Van Riper (John W. Griggs,*of counsel).

For the plaintiff in error, *Frank I. Casey (John Milton,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The judgment below is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the Supreme Court.

The alleged fatal variance between the proof and the indictment and the impropriety of certain questions to the plaintiff in error in reference to his knowledge concerning *R. S.*40:25-2 were not assigned as the basis for reversal in the assignments of error and the causes for reversal filed below. The Supreme Court therefore did not decide or pass upon the questions and they cannot be presented or considered in this court. *State*v. *Lavieri,*93 *N. J. L.*201.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Bodine, Donges, Wachenfeld, Burling, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 9.

*For reversal*— None.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2377

BRIAN KIRK MALPASSO; MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL 

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

WILLIAM M. PALLOZZI, in his official capacity as Maryland Secretary of State 

Police,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; BRADY 

CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; MARYLAND CHIEFS OF POLICE 

ASSOCIATION; EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY,

Amici Supporting Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01064-ELH)

Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss, John D. Ohlendorf, COOPER & 

KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, 

Mark H. Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Brian Kirk Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., appeal 

the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that § 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the 

Maryland Code of Public Safety is an unconstitutional burden on the Second 

Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Malpasso and the Association seek a 

declaratory judgment declaring that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) is unconstitutional and an injunction 

precluding future enforcement of the statute and requiring the State to issue handgun 

carry licenses to Malpasso and the Association’s members. The district court granted the 

State’s motion to dismiss the complaint after Malpasso and the Association conceded that 

our ruling in Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), controlled.*

 

On appeal, Malpasso and the Association acknowledge that this panel cannot 

overturn Woollard. “A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit 

and is binding on other panels unless overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this 

court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.” United States v. Collins, 

415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we 

affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. We dispense with oral argument 

 * In Woollard, we held that assuming, without deciding, that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii)’s 

“good-and-substantial-reason” requirement implicated Second Amendment protections, 

the provision did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights granted by the Second 

Amendment, as applied to the statute’s challenger. 712 F.3d at 882.
4

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2012

p0514 

# Order

May 21, 2012

144418

TERRENCE MOORE, Plaintiff,

v SC: 144418 AGC: 2734-09, 2760-09 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On the order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the first
quarter of fiscal 1997 10Q financial statements and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,817
<SECURITIES>                                    37,105
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,279
<INVENTORY>                                     11,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,370
<PP&E>                                          38,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,320
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,653
<SALES>                                         44,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,486
<CGS>                                           23,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,405
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,501
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,451
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS OFTEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

STATE ©F TEXAS

PENALTY FOR

10/1/2014 PRIVATE USE

MCMILLEN, ROBERT CYLDE Tr.ft. N^wf^MTxf/tf "WR-79',255-03

The Court has dismissed your application for writ of habeas corpus without written

order; the sentence has been discharged. See Exparte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d

452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

S«2 N3&»,M.MfflC5g PITNEY BOWES

02 1M

0004279596 CCT02 2014

MA" F.O FROM Zlf-QftDg 7« 7n1

yp w Abel Acosta, Clerk

ROBERT CYLDE MCMILLEN

HUTCHINS UNIT - TDC # 1921678

1500 E. LANGDON RD.

DALLAS, TX 75241

ji
#### MACKEY AIR TRANSPORT, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. CARIBBEAN AIR TRANSPORT, Inc., a Corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

July 9, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Gus N. WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

July 16, 1954.

PER CURIAM..

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51388 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALFREDO MARTINEZ-AGUILERA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1397-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alfredo MartinezAguilera raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-93,194-01

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. JAMES HUGGLER, Relator

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION IN CAUSE NOS. 2017-C-0268; 2017-C-0269 IN THE 123 R

D 

### DISTRICT COURT FROM PANOLA COUNTY

Per curiam . S L A U G H T E R 

### , J. dissented. O R D E R Relator filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. On F riday , October 1 5, 2021, this Court stayed the trial proceeding s scheduled t o b e gi n October 18, 2021 and ordered a r esponse from the trial judg e. See In re State of Texas e x.rel. James Huggler , Relator W R-93,194-01 (Tex . Crim. App. Oct. 15, 2021). R e l ator has n o w filed a second motion for emerg ency relief stating that a plea h e ar i n g i s scheduled in this cause for Monday , October 18, 2021. The motion requests that the Court clarify that all proceeding s of any sort are stayed p ending further order from this Court. The motion also requests that the Court order the Panola County District Clerk to discharg e the jury p anel summoned2

for this case. This Court has stayed the trial proceeding s in this case. T h at stay includes all proceeding s, including any pre-trial hearing s, voir dire, jury proceeding s, plea proceeding s, o r any o ther matter reg arding this cause until further order o f this Court. All other requests for relief in the second motion for emerg ency

relief are hereby

denied.

F iled: October 18, 2021 Do Not Publish
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MILTON YOAO ESTRADA OLIVERA,

AKA Milton Estrada, AKA Milton

Olivera,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-70257

Agency No. A043-802-503

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 9, 2015** 

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Milton Yoao Estrada Olivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of

FILED

DEC 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

constitutional claims and questions of law, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198

(9th Cir. 2012), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal as a

matter of discretion is limited to questions of law and constitutional claims, 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B),(D), and Estrada Olivera has not established that the BIA

used an incorrect standard or considered impermissible factors in making its

discretionary determination, see Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir.

2007). In addition, the agency did not err in relying on the 2009 police report in

evaluating his eligibility as a matter of discretion. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d

308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The sole test for admission of evidence is whether the

evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair.”); Torres-Valdivias

v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2015) (“In the context of the BIA’s

discretionary decisions, we have noted that ‘it is proper [for the BIA] to look to

probative evidence outside the record of conviction . . . to determine whether a

favorable exercise of discretion is warranted.’”) (quoting Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371

F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir. 2004)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(error is required to establish due process violation). 

2 14-70257
Finally, Estrada Olivera has not established that the BIA failed to consider

his contentions on appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.

2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 14-70257
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-65245, No. 333-65255 and No. 333-31054 of Entrust Technologies Inc. on Forms
S-8 of our report dated January 28, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Entrust Technologies Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Dallas, Texas
March 13, 2000
##### 



Exhibit
10.49
 WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL LTD.
2006 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN
 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
  Grant
     Changes in the Companys Capital Structure




---



##### 



Exercise of Options
 Requirements of Law
 5. Termination
  2




---



##### 



Amendment
 No Rights as a Shareholder
 Governing Law
 Notices
 3




---



##### 



Retention Obligation
 Binding Effect
 Termination of Plan; Discretionary Grant
 Data Privacy
 4




---



##### 



. Assignability; Successors and Assigns.
 Counterparts
 5




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL LTD.By:Name:Title:Optionee:
 6