alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATESCODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Point Therapeutics, Inc. (“Point”) for the three andnine-month periods ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald R.Kiepert, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions andresults of operations of Point.

 

Dated: November 9, 2005

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

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Point Therapeutics, Inc. (“Point”) for the three andnine-month periods ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand 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 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions andresults of operations of Point.

 

Dated: November 9, 2005

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

 

 

A signed original of these written statementsrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Point Therapeutics, Inc.and will be retained by Point Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
583 A.2d 346

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES E. REKULAK, CHIEF, BUREAU OF MANAGEMENT AUDITS (PS1867R), UTILITY MANAGEMENT ANALYST (S4607J) AND SUPERVISING UTILITY MANAGEMENT ANALYST (S4603J) v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL.

March 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KANAY MUBITA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LATAH COUNTY JAILERS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-35965

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00062-EJL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Kanay Mubita, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations

in connection with the conditions of his confinement and medical treatment in

FILED

FEB 25 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-35965

Latah County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mubita’s action because he failed to

exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was excused from doing so. 

See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper

exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural

rules).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mubita’s request

for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate extraordinary

circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting

forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

Mubita’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Mubita’s motion for leave to file exhibits in support of his Reply Brief is

granted.

AFFIRMED.
amendedhedgesagmt106



                           American Radio Empire, Inc.
          13210 Kerrville Folkway, Building G, Austin, Texas 78729-7522




Dear Mr. Hedges:

        This will confirm the terms of the amendment to your Employment Agreement
dated December 15, 2000 (the "Agreement"), with American Radio Empire, Inc. (the
"Company"). Notwithstanding the terms of the Agreement, you have agreed that the
Agreement shall continue to be binding on the parties, but to delay the
commencement of the term of the Agreement until the Company, in its sole
discretion, determines that it is financially feasible to employ you full time.
Until that time, you agree to make yourself available to the Company to serve as
divisional COO on a consulting basis.

        If this conforms to your understanding of our agreement, please acknowledge
your agreement below.

                                                     Sincerely,


                                                     Dain L. Schult
                                                     President


Accepted and agreed this
15th day of December, 2003:



_____________________
Harry H. Hedges
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terry BOYD, et al.

No. 2010-KK-2792.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 490-531; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1345.

Denied.
#### Jeremiah BUTLER, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D10-5525.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 16, 2010.

*107Jeremiah Butler, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Mobley v. McNeil,*989 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

BENTON, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
#### Jerome MULLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2475.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 17, 2011.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, and Stephen J. Weinbaum, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD and SUAREZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Hill v. State,*549 So.2d 179, 182 (Fla.1989) (failure to present constitutional argument grounded on due process to trial court procedurally bars appellant from presenting argument on appeal); *State v. Fernandez,*546 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (approving a “cash for weight” agreement in which the amount of the confidential informant’s fee was based upon the amount of drugs involved.)
#### Leslie EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.E. JOHNSON, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-7017

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 2, 1987.

Leslie Evans, pro se.

Thomas R. Allison, Montgomery, Ala., for Johnson.

Before RONEY, Chief Judge, HILL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Leslie Evans filed this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 civil rights complaint against his prison warden, alleging his constitutional *1428rights were violated when prison officials would not allow his family to visit him on June 26, 1984. Based on the applicable law and the facts found by the district court, set forth in the magistrate’s report after an evidentiary hearing, which findings are not clearly erroneous, judgment was properly entered against plaintiff.

A convicted prisoner has no absolute constitutional right to visitation, such privilege being subject to the discretion of prison authorities, provided the visitation policies of the prison meet legitimate penological objectives. *Lynott v. Henderson,*610 F.2d 340, 342 (5th Cir.1980); *McCray v. Sullivan,*509 F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*423 U.S. 859, 96 S.Ct. 114, 46 L.Ed.2d 86 (1975).

The facts in this case clearly meet that standard.

AFFIRMED.
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air ForceBrigadier General JOHN S. ALLARDGeneral John S. Allard was born in Boston, Mass., in January 1897 and received his education in Medford, Mass. He joined the Air Service on Nov. 24, 1917, when he was appointed a flying cadet. He received his ground school training at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, and later at Princeton University, completing same on Feb. 2, 1918. After nearly six weeks of temporary duty at Camp Dick, Texas, he was transferred Ellington Field, Texas, for his flying training, which he completed on May 25, 1918, when he was rated as a reserve military aviator and commissioned a second lieutenant.
Returning to Camp Dick, he served there until July 12, 1918, and then took a month of acrobatic flying training at the Pursuit Flying School at Crestner Field, La. He was then transferred to Rockwell Field, Calif., for aerial gunnery training, which he completed on Sept. 18, 1918. Thereafter until his honorable discharge from the service on Jan. 4, 1919, he remained at Rockwell Field as an instructor.
He was Vice President of Curtis-Wright Corp. from 1929 to 1942 and was then recalled to active duty as a colonel in July 1942 as assistant chief of staff of 12th Air Force. From March to July 1943 he was deputy chief of staff of North African Strategic Air Force. He was with 7th Bomber Command from July 1943 to March 1944, and then deputy chief of staff, later, chief of staff of 8th Air Force from March 1944 to May 1945.
He was promoted to brigadier general in September 1944. His decorations include the Legion of Merit.
(Biography compiled from information in the Biographical Dictionary of World War II Generals and Flag Officers by R. Manning Ancell with Christine M. Miller, and USAF Historical Study No. 91: Biographical Data on Air Force General Officers 1917 to 1952.)Department of the Air Force Logo
#### William BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-3426.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 2011.

William Bryant, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christine Ann Guard, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his pro se “Motion for Reconsideration,” which the court construed as a motion to withdraw plea after sentencing, upon finding that the motion was untimely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). The state correctly concedes that appellant’s motion was timely pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.040, which provides that when the last day of a time period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the time period is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of appellant’s motion and remand with directions that the trial court address the merits of the motion in accordance with *Sheppard v. State,*17 So.3d 275 (Fla.2009).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

THE LEGEND(s) SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE SIDE HEREOF
CONSTITUTES A PART OF THIS CERTIFICATE


                                STATE OF MARYLAND

[GRAPHIC]

   NUMBER                                                            SHARES
      0                                                                 0

                BOSTON CAPITAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.

                          Common Stock $.001 Par Value

  THIS CERTIFIES THAT                 NAME OF HOLDER                 IS THE
  REGISTERED HOLDER OF          **Zero**                             SHARES
                Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.

   TRANSFERABLE ONLY ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION BY THE HOLDER HEREOF IN
   PERSON OR BY ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY
   ENDORSED.

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE SAID CORPORATION HAS CAUSED THIS CERTIFICATE TO BE
   SIGNED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND ITS CORPORATE SEAL TO BE
   HEREUNTO AFFIXED THIS      DAY         DAY OF         MONTH      A.D. YEAR


-----------------------                            -----------------------------
President                                          Treasurer

[SEAL]

<Page>

The Corporation is authorized to issue Preferred Shares (in one or more series),
Common Shares and Excess Shares. The Corporation will furnish a full statement
of the terms, rights, restrictions and qualifications of each such class and
series to any stockholder on request and without charge, in accordance with the
requirements of Maryland General Corporation Law.

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED,_________HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER UNTO
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________SHARES
REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND
APPOINT _______________________________________________________________ ATTORNEY
TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE BOOKS OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH
FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

   DATED
        --------------------------

        IN PRESENCE OF
                                          --------------------------
-------------------------------

                     NOTICE. THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT
                MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE
              FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
               ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
Exhibit 10.23
 
 RC2 Corporation
 1111 W. 22nd Street
 Suite 320
 Oak Brook, IL  60523
 Phone (630) 573-7200
 Fax (630) 573-7575





December 28, 2010







Gregory J. Kilrea

1207 Ashbrook Court

Darien, IL 60561


Dear Greg:
Re:
Amendment to Employment Agreement




The purpose of this letter is to make a technical amendment to the Employment Agreement between you and RC2 dated April 1, 2008 (your "Employment Agreement").  The following is hereby added to the end of section 6(d) of your Employment Agreement:




Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, any Change of Control Severance Payment in excess of the Severance Exception Limit shall be paid on the same schedule as Salary Continuation Severance Payments (in proportionate installments for amounts calculated with reference to Base Salary) and the Bonus Severance Payment (in proportionate installments for amounts calculated with reference to the Bonus Plan) unless the applicable Termination Date occurs within the two-year period following a "change in control event" (within the meaning of Treasury Regulation section 1.409A-3(i)(5)).




Undefined terms in this letter have the meaning provided in your Employment Agreement.  Please confirm your acceptance of this letter and the amendment to your Employment Agreement by signing and returning a copy of this letter to me.




Yours very truly,





RC2 CORPORATION





BY/s/  Linda A. Huett


Linda A. Huett


Compensation Committee Chairperson


Accepted and agreed to this


30th day of December, 2010





/s/  Gregory J. Kilrea


Gregory J. Kilrea
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 of Hartford Life, Inc. (the "Company"), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 as enacted by section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
             section 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.

                                    /s/ Thomas M. Marra
                                    --------------------------------
                                    Name: Thomas M. Marra
                                    Title: President and Chief Operating Officer
                                    Date: March 1, 2004
AMENDMENT #1 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 1999 STOCK PLAN



 Exhibit 4.5 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 MATRIXONE, INC. AMENDED AND RESTATED 1999 STOCK PLAN 
  
 The MatrixOne, Inc. Amended and Restated 1999 Stock Plan (the “1999 Stock Plan”) is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 3(a) of the 1999 Stock Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

  
 “Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment under Section 3(c), the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock of
the Company (the “Common Stock”) that may be issued pursuant to the Plan is 8,000,000 shares. If any Award expires, or is terminated, surrendered or forfeited, in whole or in part, the unissued Common Stock covered by such Award
shall again be available for the grant of Awards under the Plan. If shares of Common Stock issued pursuant to the Plan are repurchased by, or are surrendered or forfeited to, the Company at no more than cost, such shares of Common Stock shall again
be available for the grant of Awards under the Plan; provided, however, that the cumulative number of such shares that may be so reissued under the Plan will not exceed 8,000,000 shares. Shares issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in part
of authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.” 
  

	2.	Except as modified hereby, the 1999 Stock Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

  

	3.	This amendment, and all previous amendments to the 1999 Stock Plan, may be memorialized as a separate amendment to the 1999 Stock Plan, or included in an amended and restated 1999
Stock Plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,976
<SECURITIES>                                     5,841
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,881
<PP&E>                                          36,535 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,307
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           218
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   141,868
<SALES>                                         46,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,109
<CGS>                                           31,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   942
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,871
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,577
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,294
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
#### Terry L. ASHLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-5812.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 6, 2010.

Terry L. Ashley, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.