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

                                                                    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 Owosso Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 27, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
B. Lemmon, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer) of the
Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

June 11, 2003

                           George B. Lemmon, Jr.
                           --------------------------------------------------
                           George B. Lemmon, Jr.
                           President and Chief Executive Officer (principal
                           executive officer, principal financial officer and
                           principal accounting officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1999
<CASH>                                             321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,580
<ALLOWANCES>                                       262
<INVENTORY>                                     19,745
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,985
<PP&E>                                          67,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,821
<BONDS>                                         59,617
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,453
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,772
<SALES>                                         84,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,577
<CGS>                                           68,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,798
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,344
<INCOME-TAX>                                       177
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,167
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,167
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11



</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Larry POLK, et al.

No. 2010-KK-1186.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Polk, Joanie; Polk, Laramie; Polk, Larry et al.; Ochsner, Daniel; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. F1757515; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-133.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John MORGAN.

No. 2011-KO-0111.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Morgan, John; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 478-874; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0044.

Denied.
Amendment No. 1 to the Spark Networks, Inc. 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 SPARK NETWORKS, INC. 
 2007 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN 
 The following
constitutes Amendment No. 1 to the 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of Spark Networks, Inc. (the “Company”), which originally became effective as of July 9, 2007. This amendment increases the total number of
initially authorized shares of Common Stock reserved and available for issuance under the Plan from 2,500,000 shares by 250,000 shares so that the Plan authorizes a total of 2,750,000 shares, which amount does not include the annual increase of
reserved shares as provided in Article IV Section 4.01 of the Plan. 
 Pursuant to the resolutions of the board of directors dated November 5, 2008 and
the approval of the Company’s stockholders at the Special Meeting of Stockholders held on January 5, 2009, Article IV Section 4.01 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “4.01 Number of Shares Issuable. The total number of shares initially authorized to be issued under the Plan shall be 2,750,000 shares of
Common Stock; provided, however, that on January 1 of each year, beginning on January 1, 2009, such maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock shall be increased by an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 2,000,000 shares,
(ii) four percent (4%) of the number of outstanding shares of Common Stock on the last day of the immediately preceding fiscal year or (iii) an amount determined by the Board. No more than 500,000 shares of Common Stock may be issued
under the Plan as Awards under Articles VII, VIII and IX. The foregoing share limits shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with Section 11.07. The shares to be offered under the Plan shall be authorized and unissued Common Stock, or
issued Common Stock that shall have been reacquired by the Company.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant to the due authorization and adoption of this
amendment to the Plan by the board of directors and stockholders on the day and year set forth below, the Company has caused this amendment to the Plan to be duly executed by its duly authorized officer. 
 Dated: January 5, 2009 
  

					
	 SPARK NETWORKS, INC.,
 a Delaware corporation


		
	By:	 	 /s/ Joshua A. Kreinberg
  

		 	Name:	 	Joshua A. Kreinberg
		 	Title:	 	General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
627 A.2d 1130

#### JEFFREY HEALEY v. SCOTIA CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. AND WATERVIEW RESTAURANT, INC. AND HERCO COATINGS CORP.

May 7, 1993.

ORDER

The parties having stipulated to a dismissal of this matter, it is ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David
      J. Poston, Chief Financial 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 to the best of 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.


/s/ David
              J.
              PostonDavid
              J. PostonVice
              President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerMay 3, 2006





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




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32 to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-Q or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
Order entered January 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00481-CV

PRECISION EXTERIOR COATINGS LLC, DEBBIE 

ALLEN, AND LISA WALLER, Appellants

V.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-02055

ORDER

The Court has before it appellee’s January 8, 2013 second motion to extend time to file 

appellee’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellee to file its brief by 

January 29, 2013. No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of exceptional 

circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATION OF UNIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. PREVIOUSLY
FILED BY THE COMPANY WITH THE COMMISSION, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         340,263
<SECURITIES>                                 1,193,216
<RECEIVABLES>                                  801,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,041
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,531,333
<PP&E>                                       1,463,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                 793,688
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,399,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,150,391
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,069
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,399,160
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,658,881
<CGS>                                          448,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  448,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,151,233
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David
      J. Poston, Chief Financial 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 to the best of 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.




/s/
                David J. PostonDavid
                J. Poston
              Vice
                President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
              May
                9, 2006




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




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32 to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-Q or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
Exhibit 99.1 to Form 10-KSB

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Cecil A.  Brooks  does  hereby  certify  that the Annual  Report of  Cornerstone
Ministries Investments, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as  applicable,  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  and 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, 2005.
/s/ Cecil A. Brooks, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
-------------------                                                 -

Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

John T.  Ottinger,  does hereby  certify that the Annual  Report of  Cornerstone
Ministries Investments, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as  applicable,  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  and 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, 2005.
/s/ John T. Ottinger,
---------------------
Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

                                                                              31
#### James THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 253, Docket 24206.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 30, 1960.

Decided April 22, 1960.

Bromsen & Gammerman, Stanley M. Goldberg, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Conboy, Hewitt, O’Brien & Boardman, New York City (Thomas V. McMahon, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before WATERMAN and BARNES,1 Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District J udge.

1

. Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51-60, in the Southern District of New York and tried to a jury. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff’s appeal is confined to a single contention.

On cross-examination, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel, plaintiff was asked the following question: “How many accidents have you had altogether on the railroad?” After answering this question plaintiff answered, without objection, further questions relating to various accidents he had had in railroad employment.

We need not decide whether this question was proper to elicit evidence of plaintiff’s “habits,” see the various opinions in Cereste v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 2 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 50, certiorari denied 351 U.S. 951, 76 S.Ct. 848, 100 L.Ed. 1475. Nor are we required to reach any decision as to whether counsel properly preserved his initial objection. These issues are not reached for it is clear that no error was *800committed when the trial judge allowed the cross-examiner’s question to be answered. On direct examination plaintiff had testified somewhat vaguely to previous injuries he had sustained that were similar to the injuries for which he was then seeking damages. Plaintiff was a railroad employee, and this testimony was interpretable as referring to injuries sustained in railroad employment. Therefore, the subject having been opened on direct examination, it was permissible for defendant’s counsel on cross-examination to pursue the subject further.

Affirmed.
#### H. J. Knight v. A. V. D. Old and Gr. W. Ragland.

(No. 1477.)

Appeal from Morris County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§77. *Appeal bond from justice’s court; description of judgment in, held sufficient.*The appeal bond from justice’s to county court described the judgment by giving the style of the cause, the court in which the judgment ■ was rendered, the amount of the judgment, and in whose favor, and against whom, the same was rendered. *Held,*that this description was sufficient, although it did not show the number of the cause nor the date of the judgment.

§ 78. *Counterclaim.*Where the plaintiff’s action is to recover unliquidated damages for a tort, it is not permissible for the defendant to plead a counterclaim for a debt due by the plaintiff to him, which debt is in no way incident to, connected with, or growing out of, plaintiff’s cause of action. That the plaintiff is insolvent will not render such counterclaim a valid defense, because the statute makes no such exception. [R. S. arts. 619, 650.]

*63December 12, 1883.

§ 79. *Sub-tenant;-is not responsible for rent due by the tenant.*It is well settled that a sub-tenant is not responsible to the landlord for the rent due by the tenant, nor can the crop of the sub-tenant be distrained for the payment of the same. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 607; Hervey v. McGrew, 44 Tex. 412.] ¿

Reversed and remanded.
#### Nonesia MAY v. Gregory D. DUNN, Sr., Graves Chevrolet, Inc. and Sentry Select Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-0728.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Sentry Select Insurance Company; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 577,022; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0008.

Denied.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1341 

To require corporate income reported to the Internal Revenue Service to 

be included in annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Mr. GILLMOR (for himself, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. KUCINICH, and Mr. JONES of 

North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require corporate income reported to the Internal Revenue 

Service to be included in annual reports to the Securities 

and Exchange Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honest Income Disclo5 sure Act’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1341 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORTING OF TAX INCOME OF PUBLICLY TRADED 

2 CORPORATIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 13 of the Securities Ex4 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) is amended by add5 ing at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(m) DISCLOSURE OF INCOME REPORTED TO THE

7 IRS.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enact8 ment of the Honest Income Disclosure Act, the Commis9 sion shall revise the regulations under this section to re10 quire that each annual report required to be filed under 

11 this section include the income reported by the issuer to 

12 the Internal Revenue Service for the most recent taxable 

13 year. Such regulations shall require that such income be 

14 presented in a prominent location in each report and in 

15 a manner that permits a ready comparison of such income 

16 to income otherwise required to be included in such re17 ports under regulations issued under this section.’’. 

18 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EDGAR SYSTEM.— 

19 The Securities and Exchange Commission shall require 

20 that the information required to be filed with the Commis21 sion pursuant to regulations issued under the amendment 

22 made by subsection (a) be in a form and manner suitable 

23 for entry into the EDGAR system, and shall, immediately 

24 upon receipt of such information, make such information 

25 available via that system. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit 31.4


CERTIFICATIONS








I, Harriss T. Currie, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Luminex Corporation; and





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.








Date: March 1, 2018





By:/s/ Harriss T. CurrieHarriss T. CurrieChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Finance
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 -0585 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHARLES GEOFFREY SANTORO,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 25, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 19 2022

10/19/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0585
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM J. FAULKNER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 475 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.