alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 14.1 

 

**Code of Ethical Conduct for Senior Financial Officers**

 

In my role as the principal executive officer, principal financial officer, or principal accounting officer or controller, or a person performing similarfunctions (collectively, “Senior Financial Officers”) of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. (the “Company”), 

 

I recognize that I hold an important and elevated role in corporate governance. I am uniquely capable and empowered to ensure that shareholders’interests are appropriately balanced, protected and preserved. Accordingly, this Code provides principles to which Senior Financial Officers are expected to adhere and advocate. This Code embodies rules regarding individual and peerresponsibilities, as well as responsibilities to the Company, the public and shareholders. 

 

I certify that I adhere to and advocate the following principles and responsibilities governing my professional and ethical conduct: 

 

1. I act honestly and ethically, including ethically handling actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal andprofessional relationships. 

 

2. I act to ensure full, fair,accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files with, or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission and in other public communications made by the Company. 

 

3. I comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations.

 

4. I act in good faith, responsibly and with due care anddiligence, without misrepresenting material facts or allowing my independent judgment to be subordinated. 

 

5. I do not disclose any confidential information acquired in the course of my work, except when authorized or when I am legally obligated to disclosesuch information. I do not use such confidential information for personal advantage. 

 

6. I comply with the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for all employees. 

 

7. I promptly report to the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee any conduct that I believe to be a violation of law or businessethics or of any provision of this Code or the Company’s Code of Conduct and Ethics, including any transaction or relationship that reasonably could be expected to give rise to such a violation. 

 

I understand that violations of this Code of Ethical Conduct for SeniorFinancial Officers, including failures to report actual or potential violations by others, will be viewed as a severe disciplinary matter that may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. 

 

Signature: /s/ Robert J. Stetson

                    PrincipalExecutive Officer 

 

Date: March 15,2004
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1124 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1124

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
     To extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FIVE-YEAR REAUTHORIZATION OF TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
    (a) Public School Program.--Section 3(i) of the District of 
Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 38-2702(i), DC Official Code) 
is amended by striking ``each of the 7 succeeding fiscal years'' and 
inserting ``each of the 12 succeeding fiscal years''.
    (b) Private School Program.--Section 5(f) of such Act (sec. 38-
2704(f), DC Official Code) is amended by striking ``each of the 7 
succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``each of the 12 succeeding 
fiscal years''.
SEC. 2. MEANS TESTING.
    (a) In General.--Section 3(c)(2) of the District of Columbia 
College Access Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1324; Public Law 106-98) is 
amended--
        (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
    semicolon at the end;
        (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end and 
    inserting ``; and''; and
        (3) by adding at the end the following:
        ``(G) is from a family with a taxable annual income of less 
    than $1,000,000.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5(c)(2) of the District of 
Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1328; Public Law 106-98) 
is amended by striking ``through (F)'' and inserting ``through (G)''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
---

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 Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert E. Mead, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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) 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.








Dated:  March 8, 2010
/s/ ROBERT E. MEADRobert E. MeadChairman and Chief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and will be retained by Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 SpaceDev, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"), I, Richard B.
Slansky,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to  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.

Dated:  March  28,  2005


                                                 By:   /s/  Richard  B.  Slansky
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                            Richard  B.  Slansky
                                           President and Chief Financial Officer

A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required  by  Section  906,  has  been  provided  to  SpaceDev, Inc. and will be
retained  by  SpaceDev,  Inc.  and  furnished  to  the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
News United States Air Force
 O'Malley award winners announcedPublished July 24, 2015
                        
                        By Janis El Shabazz
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials have selected Col. William Liquori Jr. and his wife Amy as the 2015 General and Mrs. Jerome F. O'Malley Award winners.
This award recognizes the wing commander and spouse team whose contributions to the nation, Air Force and local community best exemplify the highest ideals and positive leadership of a military couple serving in a key Air Force position.
Liquori is the commander of the 50th Space Wing at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado. The couple provided world-class support to more than 7,700 contractor, civilian and military personnel and their families. Their leadership inspired record-setting space and network operations, delivering decisive global effects and high wing-wide morale in the face of challenging budget and personnel cuts. The Liquoris served as Air Force ambassadors, hosting more than 500 visitors and engaging in numerous community functions to strengthen wing awareness and local relationships.
For more information about Air Force personnel programs go to **myPers**. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following the instructions on the **Air Force Retirees Services website**.O’Malley 



awards 



General and Mrs. Jerome F. O'Malley Award
#### Knights & Ladies of Honor v. C. C. Burke.

(No. 3518.)

Appeal from Bowie County.

Tolbert & Tolbert, counsel for appellants.

Chas. S. Todd, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 165. *Benefit certificate; voluntary payment; public policy.*One Pinson was a member of the order of the Knights & Ladies of Honor, and held two benefit certificates thereon, aggregating $3,000. Appellee, Burke, was the beneficiary in said certificates. Burke had no insurable interest in the life of Pinson. Burke paid dues and assessments for Pinson to the amount of $189.20. Appellant had no notice that Burke, and not Pinson, paid said dues and assessments. Burke ceased to pay dues and assessments for Pinson, and, while Pinson still lived, brought this suit to recover of appellant the said sum of $189.20, paid out as aforesaid. He recovered judgment for said amount in both the justice’s and county court. We are of the opinion that the judgment is wrong. Appellee could not be beneficiary in the certificates, and could not legally claim or recover the insurance upon the death of Pinson. Having no insurable interest in the life of Pinson, public policy would not permit him to be recognized as a beneficiary in said certificates. [Price v. Lodge, 68 Tex. 361.] His payment *235of the dues and assessments for Pinson was an arrangement between Pinson and himself, with which appellant had nothing to do. There was no privity of contract between him and appellant. Appellant was entitled to the amount paid from Pinson, and not. from Burke, but, if Burke saw proper to pay the same for Pinson, he must look to Pinson and not to appellant for reimbursement. The certificates are not void, except as to Burke, but, upon Pinson’s death, would be payable to his heirs. Burke might, in the event of Pinson’s death, have an equitable claim upon the money collected upon the certificates; but this question is not in this case. [Schonfield v. Turner, *75*Tex. 324.]

November 12, 1890.

Eeversed and remanded.
#### J. H. Thompson v. N. J. Albright.

(No. 3185.)

Appeal from Harrison County.

A. Pope and T. P. Young, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 24. *Joint trespassers; each liable for the whole damages; separate judgment against each for part of the damage suffered cannot be rendered; case stated.*This was an action brought by Albright against Thompson and Thaddeas and Gross for a joint trespass upon and conversion of an undivided interest in four hundred thousand bricks, of the value of $900. At the trial the jury by their verdict found for plaintiff, against defendant Thompson for $250, and against the defendant Thaddeas for $40.64, and as to these parties judgment was entered accordingly. There was no finding by the jury as to the other defendant, Gross, but the court rendered a judgment in favor of Gross against the plaintiff. It is insisted that the verdict and judgment are erroneous, and not in conformity with the pleadings ; that, as the action was one for joint trespass and conversion, in such case the recovery must be a joint one for the full amount of the damages against each and all the alleged trespassers who may be found liable for the trespass and conversion. We are of the opinion the point is well taken. “In case of joint trespass the party injured may sue one and all the trespassers, and each one will be liable for the whole damages, but a satisfaction made by one of them will discharge all.” [2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 424; McGehee v. Shafer, 15 Tex. 198; 1 Suth. Dam. 211; Markham v. Navigation Co., 73 Tex. 247; Freeman, Judg. (3d. ed.), § 236.] The verdict and judgment are contrary and repugnant to the *45cause of action set out in plaintiff’s petition, the cause of action being a joint trespass, and the verdict and judgment being for separate and distinct liabilities.

November 27, 1889.

§ 25. *Verdict; uncertain cannot be aided by matters outside the record; is the basis of the judgment, which must conform to it.*The verdict of the jury did not find either for or against the defendant Gross, while the judgment rendered by the court was in his favor. A judgment of a court must correspond with, and be only the legal result of, the facts found in the verdict. [Bledsoe v. Mills, 22 Tex. 650.] Whenever a verdict is neither certain in itself nor finds facts from which certainty can be attained, it ought to be set aside. [Mays v. Lewis, 4 Tex. 38.] When a verdict is thus deficient, no aid can be given to it by looking out of the record to the evidence given upon the trial in order to support a judgment rendered upon it. [Smith v. Tucker, 25 Tex. 594; 1 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§ 904, 907.] The judgment must conform as well to the verdict as to the pleadings [3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 186].; and the verdict must constitute the basis of the judgment. [Id., § 377; Claiborne v. Tanner, 18 Tex. 68; Akin v. Jefferson, 65 Tex. 137.] There being no verdict in favor of defendant Gross, there was no basis for a judgment in his favor.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 2014 FEHB open season ends Dec. 9Published Dec. 3, 2013
                        
                        By Janis El Shabazz
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO -- RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Open season for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program and the Federal Flexible Spending Account Program continues through Dec. 9.
The average premium rate for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program will increase by 3.7 percent in 2014, according to U.S. Office of Personnel Management officials. That percentage is only slightly higher than last year's 3.4 percent increase, and less than the 2013 national average increase. The average premium increase for the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program will be less than 1 percent for dental coverage and average premiums for vision benefits will decrease by 1.3 percent.**Federal Employees Health Benefits**
There are no significant benefit changes for 2014 and more plan choices: 256, up by more than 10 percent from 2013. 
Some plans are reducing their service areas or leaving the FEHB Program altogether, though. Employees in terminating plans or service area reductions with terminating enrollment codes must enroll in a new health plan during open season if they want coverage. If they do not enroll in a new plan, they will not have FEHB coverage in 2014. Agency officials have been instructed to notify enrollees of the need to select new plans for 2014; however all employees should review OPM guidance for the 2014 open season before making a selection.
Coverage under an enrollee's new health plan will be effective the first day of the pay period beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014. For most employees that will be the pay period beginning Sunday, Jan. 12. Enrollees will remain covered and receive the 2013 plan benefits until coverage under the new plan is effective.
Federal Employee Dental and Vision Insurance Program
There are three new dental plans and one new vision plan in FEDVIP. There are a total of 10 dental plans and four vision plans for employees to review during open season. Additionally the GHI plan has changed its name to EmblemHealth. **Federal Flexible Spending Account**
Eligible employees can enroll in FSAFEDS during the open season, and current enrollees must enroll annually to continue participating in FSAFEDS. Enrollment does not carry forward year to year.
For more information about the comprehensive open season and the Affordable Care Act, go to myPers at https://myPers.af.mil, or the Internal Revenue Service website at www.irs.gov/uac and search for "questions and answers on the individual shared responsibility provision.FEHB 



open season 



flexible spending account 



personnel
Exhibit 32.1

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

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D., as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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:



|/s/MALCOLM L. GEFTER, PH.D.Name: Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D.
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 15, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in
typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED and will be retained by PRAECIS
PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities
Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

---

QuickLinks
#### TOWN OF BELLEVILLE v. PARRILLO’S INC.

Jan. 28, 1980.

Petition for certification granted. (See 168 *N.J.Super.*1)
#### Peguy JOSEPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D10-2583.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 8, 2011.

PER CURIAM.

Peguy Joseph appeals an order dismissing his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The order, which was dated April 19, 2010, informed Mr. Joseph that his motion was facially insufficient, dismissed the motion without prejudice, and, citing *Spera v. State,*971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), granted Mr. Joseph thirty days to file a facially sufficient claim. The order also advised Mr. Joseph that he “may not appeal until such time as this Court has entered a final Order.” Despite this admonition, Mr. Joseph prematurely filed this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as an appeal from a nonfinal and nonappealable order. *See Williams v. State,*884 So.2d 374, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (explaining that a dismissal of a pleading with leave to amend “renders the order nonfinal and nonappealable”).

We also observe that more than two years had elapsed from the date Mr. Joseph’s judgment and sentence became final to the time the trial court entered its nonfinal order. Accordingly, the two-year time limitation for filing a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850 has expired.

We recognize the possibility that Mr. Joseph might have filed an amended motion prior to the expiration of the thirty days he was given to do so by the trial court; there is no indication in the appellate record one way or the other. If he has done so, on remand, the trial court may consider his amended motion on its merits. If he has not, the trial court shall enter a final order denying Mr. Joseph’s motion for postconviction relief. *See Bloye v. State,*28 So.3d 137, 139 (Fla. 2d DCA *3842010) (holding that after the expiration of the two-year time limit, and having offered the defendant the opportunity to file an amended motion pursuant to *Spera,*the trial court had the authority to enter a final order on the merits when no amended motion was received).

Dismissed.

KELLY, WALLACE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00241-CR

JUAN DOMINGO RAMIREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1927238

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Appellant Juan Domingo Ramirez was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a young 

child and sentenced to life imprisonment. Ramirez has appealed from that conviction and the 

resulting sentence. On March 11, 2020, Ramirez’s court-appointed appellate counsel, Frank R. 

Hughes, III, filed an Anders1 brief, and on March 27, 2020, Ramirez filed a pro se motion for 

access to the appellate record for purposes of preparing a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. 

Ramirez’s motion for access to the appellate record is granted. Under Kelly v. State,

2 we are 

required to enter an order specifying the procedure to be followed to ensure Ramirez’s access to 

the record.

On March 31, 2020, Hughes advised this Court that he would mail a complete paper copy 

of the appellate record to Ramirez. Allowing fifteen days from the date of this order for the record 

to be delivered to Ramirez and giving him thirty days to prepare his pro se response, we hereby 

set May 18, 2020, as the deadline for Ramirez to file his pro se response to his counsel’s Anders

brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

DATE: April 1, 2020

1

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to Registration
Statement No. 333-101928 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate
Account Three on Form N-4, of our report dated March 26, 2003 of Hartford Life
and Annuity Insurance Company relating to the statutory financial statements as
of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 and of our report dated February 21,
2003 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate Account Three
relating to the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31,
2002, appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of
such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the headings
"Experts" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
December 30, 2003