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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Trans  Energy,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2003,  as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert
I. Richards , Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certifies to the best of
his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/   ROBERT I. RICHARDS
---------------------------------
      Robert I. Richards
      Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2003
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 5 minutes.

  [Mr. GOSS addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 10.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
  of Heritage Management, Inc.

We hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference,  in this  Registration
Statement on Form SB-1 of Heritage Management, Inc. of our report dated June 30,
2003 relating to the financial statements of Heritage Management, Inc. appearing
in the Registrant's  Form SB-1 of Heritage  Management,  Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2002.




/s/ Malone & Bailey, PLLC
-------------------------
    Malone & Bailey, PLLC
    www.malone-bailey.com
    Houston, Texas


December 26, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 31.01 HARTFORD LIFE, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ENACTED BY SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Thomas M. Marra, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life, Inc.;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in
SEC Release 34-47986];(c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. Date: February 28, 2005 By:
    
    /s/ Thomas M. MarraThomas M. MarraPresident and Chief Operating Officer
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1138 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth 

City, North Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HR 1138 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North 

4 Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘J. Her5 bert W. Small Federal Building and United States Court6 house’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

10 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec11 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Herbert 

12 W. Small Federal Building and United States Court13 house’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### Mo. Pac. R’y Co. v. John G. Howe.

(No. 2994.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

*{Transferred from, Austin.)*

R. C. Foster and A. E. Wilkinson, for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 197. *Amended pleading not permissible after the evidence is concluded; evidence must conform to allegations; case stated.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for $603.50 damages for destruction of his *297crops by fire escaping from appellant’s engines. On the trial, when the evidence had been concluded and it had been developed that a portion of the crops destroyed belonged at the time of their destruction to the tenants of appellee, the court, over the objection of appellant, permitted appellee to file a pleading alleging that, before the institution of the suit, he had purchased from said tenants their claim for damages to their said crops, etc. Under this pleading, and the evidence, appellee recovered for the damages to the crops of said tenants. We hold that the said pleading should not have .been permitted. It was made after announcement of ready for trial, was not an amendment of the petition, or a trial amendment, in accordance with the rules governing amendments, and presented matters and issues not contained in the original petition, and which were material. To allow such a pleading was a violation of the statute and of the rules of court governing pleadings, and to tolerate such a violation would practically abolish our system of pleading. It would permit a party to conform his allegations to his proof after his evidence had been adduced, when the true rule is that his evidence must conform to his allegations, and, unless it does, he cannot recover. [R. S., art. 1192; Rules Dist. Ct. No. 13; Heflin v. Burns, 70 Tex. 352; 2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§173, 368; 3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 61.]

January 14, 1891.

Reversed and remanded.
#### In re Appeal of Decision of DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-PDB-022.

No. 2011-OB-1925.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Goza, Cynthia A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of Disciplinary Board, No. ll-PDB-022.

Leave to appeal denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          33,534
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,068
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               200,829
<PP&E>                                         128,917
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 535,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,603
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           464
<OTHER-SE>                                     365,618
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   535,689
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               460,314
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  295,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                86,269
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,512
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 61,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,026
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,597
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED INCOME
STATEMENT FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,255
<SECURITIES>                                     1,403
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,059
<INVENTORY>                                        189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,700
<PP&E>                                         232,925
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          123,583
<BONDS>                                        129,725
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,717
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   254,029
<SALES>                                         34,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,374
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,524
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (93)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (93)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (93)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.87

                      [LETTERHEAD OF UNITEDGLOBALCOM, INC.]


                                 April 17, 2003


Mr. Gene W. Schneider
UnitedGlobalCom, Inc.
4643 South Ulster Street, Suite 1300
Denver, CO 80237


     Re:   Split-Dollar Insurance Agreement

Dear Mr. Schneider:

     Effective July 30, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Act") made it
illegal for any public company to make loans to any of its directors or
executive officers. UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. (the "Company") has been advised by
counsel that it cannot pay premiums on your behalf under that certain
Split-Dollar Agreement between you and the Company, dated February 15, 2001 (the
"Split-Dollar Agreement"), without violating the Act. Accordingly, I am writing
to advise you that, until further notice to you and except as otherwise provided
in this letter, the Company will make no further premium payments on Lincoln
policy number 4818556 and John Hancock policy number 020061875.

     It is likely that the coverage provided to you under the policies will
remain in force for some time. Accordingly, each year that either or both of the
above-referenced policies remains in force, you should continue to reimburse the
Company in an amount equal to the "annual economic benefit" of this coverage.
For 2003, the combined annual economic benefit of the policies is $12,451. Once
the Company receives payment in this amount from you, it will forward these
funds to the insurance companies to be applied toward the policies. The
remainder of the premiums will be paid out of the cash value of the policy.

     If at any time in the future the Company is able to fulfill its contractual
obligations and resume its payments under our split-dollar agreement without the
risk of violating federal or state laws, it will do so.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        /s/ ELLEN SPANGLER

                                        Ellen Spangler, Esq.

cc: Jim Butler
#### STATE ex rel. Derrick HOPSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0246.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Hopson, Derrick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 97-0253; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-1059.

Denied.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2 ,

2019
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00092- CV

DESHON INVESTMENTS L LC , Appellant

V. MICHAEL J. CORDUA AND LUCIA C. CORDUA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-51461

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an interlocutory appeal from an order signed January 11, 2019 denying a motion to dismiss under chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. On April 23, 2019, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PointTherapeutics, Inc. (“Point”) for the three and six-month periods ended June 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Donald R. Kiepert, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations ofPoint.

 

Dated: August 9, 2005

 
|       | /s/  DONALD  R. KIEPERT, JR. |
|------------|-----------------------------------|
| ** ** |                              | **Donald R.  Kiepert, Jr.** |
| ** ** | ** **                        | **Chief Executive  Officer** |

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PointTherapeutics, Inc. (“Point”) for the three and six-month periods ended June 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Richard N. Small, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations ofPoint.

 

Dated: August 9, 2005

 
|       | /s/  RICHARD  N. SMALL |
|------------|-----------------------------|
| ** ** | **Richard N. Small**        |
| ** ** | **Chief Financial Officer** |

 

A signed original of these written statements required by Section 906has been provided to Point Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained byPoint Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of ForceProtection, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Amended Annual Report for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in theForm 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: October 12, 2007 |     |
|-----------------------------|----------|
|                        |     |
| /s/ Gordon McGilton         |     |
| Gordon McGilton             |     |
| *Chief Executive Officer*   | * * |
| * *                    | * * |
| * *                    | * * |
| Date: October 12, 2007 |     |
|                        |     |
| /s/ Michael S. Durski       |     |
| Michael S. Durski           |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer*   | * * |

 

----
#### Eva Williams v. W. M. Sims.

(No. 6706.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

Park, Oronby & Daily, counsel for appellant.

Hodges & Pollard, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 151. *Appeal from justice's to county court; trial de novo on; without such trial court of appeals will entertain*jurisdiction, *when.*On August 26, 1889, appellee recovered judgment in justice’s court against appellant for $28.20 and costs. On September 3, 1889, less than ten days after the rendition of said judgment, appellant made a motion for a new trial, which on the same day was overruled. On the 13th day of September, 1889, the said date being within ten days after the overruling of the motion for new trial, appellant filed an appeal bond. Said bond is in proper form, contains the statutory conditions, describes correctly the judgment appealed from by stating the style and number of the suit, the justice who rendered it, the date of its rendition, the amount for which it was rendered, and the parties in whose favor it was rendered, and against whom it was rendered. Upon the motion of the appellee, made in the county court, the appeal was dismissed upon the ground that the appeal bond was not filed in time, and that it misdescribed the judgment appealed from. It was error to dismiss the appeal. The appeal bond was filed in time. [3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 105.] It did not misdescribe the judgment appealed from, but in all essential particulars described it correctly, and with sufficient certainty to identify it. This court will entertain jurisdiction of an appeal where there has not been a trial *de novo*in the county court, and the amount in controversy or the judg*216ment of the justice’s court exceeds $20. [Pevito v. Rodgers, 52 Tex. 581.] Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for trial *de novo.*

June 25, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 4.2

 

	
-Stock certificate number-
    	
eHi Car Services Limited
    	
-no. of   shares-
    


 

 

INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

 

 

 

SHARE CERTIFICATE

 

 

 

 

AUTHORISED CAPITAL : US$500,000 divided into (i) 407,328,619 Class A Common Shares of US$0.001 par value each; (ii) 92,671,381 Class B Common Shares of US$0.001 par value each.

 

 

 

 


	
This is to certify that    
    	
Name of shareholder

 
    	
   Of
    
	
 
    	
Address   of shareholder
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
					




 

	
is the   registered holder of
    	
(no. of shares) Class A Common   Shares

 
    	
   fully   paid and non-assessable, subject to the rules and laws governing the   administration of the Company.
    


 

 

	
 
    	
Given   under the Common Seal of the said Company 

 

This              day of                    ,   2014
    


 

 

 

The Common Seal of the Company was hereunto affixed in the presence of

 

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 

Director