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

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OFSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATEDS CODE)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of the registrantcertifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant’s Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 10-Q, fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe registrant.

 

 
| Dated:  August 14, 2003 | /s/ Charles  M. Fernandez |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                    | Charles M.  Fernandez     |
|                    | Chief  Executive Officer  |
|                    |                      |
|                    |                      |
| Dated:  August 14, 2003 | /s/ Paul R.  Thomson      |   |
|                    | Paul R.  Thomson          |
|                    | Chief  Financial Officer  |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**
Certification Required by 18 U.S.C.Section 1350(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
     I, Antonio B. Mon, as Chief Executive Officer ofTechnical Olympic USA, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to myknowledge:
     1. the accompanying Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2003 (the “Report”), filed with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     2. the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
 By: /s/ ANTONIO B. MON      ANTONIO B. MON     *Chief Executive Officer*
Date: August 5, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10.17


                       CITADEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

                    AMENDMENTS TO 1996 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

         Effective as of December 6, 2000, Section 4.1 of the Citadel
Communications Corporation 1996 Equity Incentive Plan was amended to provide:

         4.1 General. Awards may be granted only to an individual who is an
employee (including an employee who also is an officer or director), officer,
director, consultant, independent contractor, or adviser of the Company or a
Subsidiary, as determined by the Board.

         Effective as of December 6, 2000, Section 5.2 of the Citadel
Communications Corporation 1996 Equity Incentive Plan was amended to provide:

         5.2 Authority of Board. The Board has the power, authority, and
discretion, subject to the terms hereof, but which may be delegated by the Board
to one or more of its members and to one or more agents as it may deem advisable
to:

         (a) Designate Participants;

         (b) Determine the type or types of Awards to be granted to each
Participant;

         (c) Determine the number of Awards to be granted and the number of
shares of Stock subject to an Award;

         (d) Prescribe the form of each Award Agreement, which need not be
identical for each Participant;

         (e) Determine the terms and conditions of any Award granted under the
Plan, including, but not limited to, the exercise price, grant price, or
purchase price, any restrictions or limitations on the Award, any schedule for
lapse of forfeiture restrictions or restrictions on the exercisability of an
Award and accelerations or waivers thereof, and any modification or amendment of
any Award previously granted, based in each case on such considerations as the
Board in its sole discretion determines;

         (f) Determine whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances an
Award may be settled in, or the exercise price of an Award may be paid in, cash,
Stock, other Awards, or other property, or an Award may be canceled, forfeited,
or surrendered;

         (g) Decide all other matters that must be determined in connection with
an Award;

         (h) Establish, adopt, or revise any rules and regulations as it may
deem necessary or advisable to administer the Plan;

         (i) Interpret the Plan, any Award, and any Award Agreement in its
discretion; and

         (j) Make all other decisions and determinations that may be required
under the Plan or as the Board deems necessary or advisable to administer the
Plan.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JAMES M. GROSCH, )

) C.C.A. NO. M1999-00239-CCA-R3-PC

Appellant, ) (No. 29,862 Below)

) COFFEE COUNTY

VS. )

) The Hon. L. Craig Johnson

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) (Dismissal of Post-Conviction Petition)

Appellee. )

) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the

judgment in the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of

Criminal Appeals Rules. The petitioner opposes the motion. Having reviewed the state’s

motion, the petitioner’s brief and response to the motion, and the record on appeal, the

Court finds that the motion is well taken.

It appears that on March 17, 1998, the petitioner pled guilty to one count of

burglary of a building, two counts of aggravated burglary, and one count of theft of property

over $1000. Thereafter, on June 7, 1999, the petitioner filed his petition for post-conviction

relief, which the trial court dismissed as outside the statute of limitations.

The petitioner concedes that this petition for post-conviction relief was filed

outside the statute of limitations. However, he argues that he was under the mistaken

impression that he would be released after serving 30% of his sentence, and therefore, the

statute of limitations should have been tolled until after he served 30% of his sentence.

Accordingly, the petitioner contends that the trial court should not have dismissed his

petition without considering it on the merits.

Under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, a petition for post-conviction relief

must be filed within one year of the date of the final action of the highest state appellate

court to which an appeal is taken, or if no appeal is taken, within one year of the date on

which the judgement became final. T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a). Unless one of the enumerated

exceptions applies, a court does not have jurisdiction to consider an untimely petition. See

T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b). In the present case, the post-conviction petition was filed outside

FILED

January 7, 2000

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk
-2-

the statute of limitations, and the trial court properly held that the petitioner failed to show

that one of the exceptions listed in the statute was applicable.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the

judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules, is

granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It appearing that the petitioner is

indigent, costs of these proceedings are taxed to the state.

_____________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_____________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

_____________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
No. 14,399.

#### Winemiller *v.*Thrash.

Malicious *Prosecution.*— Indictment.—Admissibility *of in Evidence.*— In an action for malicious prosecution it was proper for the court to permit the plaintiff to read in evidence the indictment, with the endorsements, which it was alleged the defendant had procured against him.

•Same.— *Charge of Perjury.*— Truth *of Plaintiff’s Testimony.*— In such action it was proper to permit the plaintiff to prove the character of the transaction upon which the defendant based the charge of a criminal offence, and, as the offence charged was perjury, it was proper to show facts tending to prove that the testimony given by the plaintiff was true.

From the Gibson Circuit Court.

*G. G. Reily, T. R. Cobb*and *O. H. Cobb,*for appellant.

*W. A. Cullop, C. B. Kessinger, J. So Pritchett, J. E. McCullough*and *J. H. Miller,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

— The appellant appeals from a judgment awarding the appellee damages for a malicious prosecution.

The trial court permitted the appellee to read in evidence the indictment which it was alleged the appellant had procured against him, together with the endorsements upon it. In this there was no error. It has often been decided that *354a record is an entirety, and as such is admissible. Papers forming a part of the record are, under the general and familiar rule, competent and proper instruments of evidence. This is especially true where, as here, the papers are prepared and filed by public officers in the discharge of their duties, *Iles*v. *Watson,*76 Ind. 359; *State, ex rel.,*v. *Hawkins,*81 Ind. 486 ; *Anderson*v. *Ackerman,*88 Ind. 481.

Filed Oct. 11, 1890.

It was proper to permit the appellee to prove the character of the transaction upon which the appellant based the charge of a criminal offence, and, as the offence charged was perjury, it was proper to show facts tending to prove that the testimony given by the appellee was true. If it be true, as the appellant’s counsel assert, that some incompetent declarations were admitted, still there can be no reversal, for two satisfactory reasons: The question as to such declarations is not properly presented, and the trial court by its instructions properly and clearly limited and restricted the evidence and prevented harm to the appellant.

It has often been adjudged that a fact may be established by indirect evidence, and the fact that the appellant procured the indictment of the appellee is very clearly inferable from the facts proved. *Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co.*v. *Collingwood,*71 Ind. 476; *McFadden*v. *Fritz,*110 Ind. 1; *Heaton*v. *Shanklin,*115 Ind. 595; *Louisville, etc., R. W. Co.*v. *Balch,*122 Ind. 583. There is, indeed, direct evidence of that fact.

In this class of cases the courts are reluctant to interfere with the assessment of damages, and it is only in cases where the damages appear at first blush to be outrageous that they will displace the judgment of the jury by their own. This is by no means such a case.

Judgment affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gallagher &

Kennedy, P.A.

2575 East Camelback Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225

(602) 530-8000

Robert W. Boatman (009619) - rwb@gknet.com

Paul L. Stoller (016773) - paul.stoller@gknet.com

Shannon L. Clark (019708) - SLC@gknet.com

GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.

2575 East Camelback Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225

Telephone: (602) 530-8000

Ramon Rossi Lopez (CA Bar No. 86361)

(admitted pro hac vice)

LOPEZ McHUGH LLP

100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600

Newport Beach, California 92660

rlopez@lopezmchugh.com

Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MD No. 02641

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF

AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT

ORDER NO. 4 RE: MASTER

COMPLAINT, MASTER

RESPONSIVE PLEADING, USE OF

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT,

WAIVER OF SERVICE FOR BARD

DEFENDANTS, AND ANSWER AND

GENERAL DENIAL IN CASES

SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED

TO MDL 2641

As discussed at the Court’s January 29, 2016, Case Management/Status

Conference, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel submit a proposed form of Amended

Case Management Order No. 4, to address the Master Complaint, Master Responsive

Pleading, use of Short Form Complaint, waiver of service for Bard Defendants, and

answer and general denial in cases subsequently transferred to MDL 2641. The form of

order and attached Amended Short Form Complaint are agreed and stipulated to by the

parties.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 875 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2016.

GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.

By: /s/ Robert W. Boatman

Robert W. Boatman

Paul L. Stoller

Shannon L. Clark

2575 E. Camelback Road, Suite 1100

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225

LOPEZ McHUGH LLP

Ramon Rossi Lopez (CA Bar No. 86361)

(admitted pro hac vice)

100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600

Newport Beach, California 92660

Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 875 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of February, 2016, I electronically transmitted

the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Nancy Jo Koenes

5254289v1/26997-0001

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 875 Filed 02/23/16 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.3


 


 


November 18, 2020


 


To the Members of the Board of


 


Brightlane Corp.


1600 West Loop South


Suite 600


Houston, TX
77056


 


Dear Sirs:


 


This letter confirms that
I hereby resign from my position as a Director and Vice President of Legal Affairs of Brightlane Corp. (the “Company”),
and all other positions with the Company to which I have been assigned, regardless of whether I served in such capacity, effective
immediately. My resignation is not the result of any disagreement with the Company on any matter relating to the Company’s
operations, policies or practices.


 


 


Sincerely,


 





 


/s/ David L Hill II


“Colin” DAVID LOUIS HILL
II
#### Parks, Administrator, *v.*Perry, in Error.

Thursday, *May*17.

A WILL, after directing the personal estate to be sold, and the real estate leased until the rents, with the proceeds of the sale .of the personal property, should he sufficient to pay the after-named legacies, contained the following provision—“I will and bequeath to my sister *Isabel*the sum *of 50*dollars annually, to he paid out of the rents of the place and the proceeds of the sale of my personal property, and continued until the following sums are paid.” The will then gave several legacies, and directed that, after their payment, the real estate should be sold and a distribution made.

Held, that in each year the 50 dollars were to be paid to *Isabel,*before any payment to the other legatees.
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 2, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 126562(78) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. BETTY SORKOWITZ, Individually and as Trustee Stephen J. Markman,
Justices for the MORRIS & SARAH FRIEDMAN IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Betty Sorkowitz, Trustee for the SARA H FRIEDMAN TRUST, Betty Sorkowitz, Personal Representative for the ESTATE OF SARAH FRIEDMAN, BETMAR CHARITABLE FOUNDA TION, INC., JULIE SHIFFMAN, JANET JACOBS, CAROLYN JACOBS, RENEE JACO BS, JODIE SHIFFMAN and JEFFREY SHIFFMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, SC: 126562 v COA: 242016 Oakland CC: 01-037192-NO LAKRITZ, WISSBRUN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., a/k/a LAKRITZ, WISSBURN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., GERALD LAKRTIZ and KENNETH WISSBRUN, a/k/a KENNETH WISSBURN, Defendants-Appellants.

On order of the Court, the motio n for reconsideration of the order of November 28, 2005 is considered and it is DE NIED because it does not appear the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsideration and reinstate the decision of the Court of Appeals for reasons stated in her dissent.

M ARKMAN

, J., would grant reconsideration an d reinstate the Court of Appeals decision.

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

February 2, 2006

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Christoffer G. Day, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03455-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8634 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 12.1**                       **For the Years Ended** **(In Thousands)** **2004**  **2003**  **2002**  **2001**  **2000** Earnings from continuing operationsbefore income taxes $110,678   62,021  $28,201  $40,490  $32,160 Fixed interest charges  97,957   123,059   157,229   192,765   212,269                 Earnings (loss):                    Including fixed interest charges  208,635   185,080   185,430   233,255   244,429 Excluding interest expense on deposits  180,280   148,891   122,653   147,587   152,706 Fixed interest charges excluding interestexpense on deposits  69,602   86,870   94,452   107,097   120,546 Ratios:                    Earnings including fixed interest chargesto fixed interest charges  2.13   1.50   1.18   1.21   1.15 Earnings to fixed interest excludinginterest on deposits  2.59   1.71   1.30   1.38   1.27 Dollar deficiency of earnings to fixedinterest charges $—   —  $—  $—  $—
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2436

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Native American Programs Act of 1974.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2436 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS ACT OF 1974. 

2 (a) INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL COUNCIL ON NATIVE

3 AMERICAN AFFAIRS.—Section 803B(d)(1) of the Native 

4 American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991b–

5 2(d)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘There’’ and all that fol6 lows and inserting the following: ‘‘There is established in 

7 the Office of the Secretary the Intra-Departmental Coun8 cil on Native American Affairs. The Commissioner and the 

9 Director of the Indian Health Service shall serve as co10 chairpersons of the Council. The co-chairpersons shall ad11 vise the Secretary on all matters affecting Native Ameri12 cans that involve the Department.’’. 

13 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

14 816 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 

15 U.S.C. 2992d) is amended—

16 (1) by striking subsections (a) through (c) and 

17 inserting the following: 

18 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be ap19 propriated—

20 ‘‘(1) to carry out section 803(d), $8,000,000 

21 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009; and 

22 ‘‘(2) to carry out provisions of this title other 

23 than section 803(d) and any other provision having 

24 an express authorization of appropriations, such 

25 sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 

26 through 2009. 
3

S 2436 RFH 

1 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Not less than 90 percent of the 

2 funds made available to carry out this title for a fiscal 

3 year (other than funds made available to carry out sec4 tions 803(d), 803A, 803C, and 804, and any other provi5 sion of this title having an express authorization of appro6 priations) shall be expended to carry out section 803(a).’’; 

7 (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub8 section (c); and 

9 (3) by striking subsection (e). 

10 (c) REPORTS.—Section 811A of the Native American 

11 Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992–1) is amended—

12 (1) by striking the section heading and all that 

13 follows through ‘‘each year,’’ and inserting the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘SEC. 811A. REPORTS. 

16 ‘‘Every 5 years, the Secretary shall’’; and 

17 (2) by striking ‘‘an annual report’’ and insert18 ing ‘‘a report’’. 

19 SEC. 2. RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 

20 Section 7205(a)(3) of the Native Hawaiian Edu21 cation Act (20 U.S.C. 7515(a)(3)) is amended—

22 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (K) and 

23 (L) as subparagraphs (L) and (M), respectively; and 

24 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the fol25 lowing: 
4

S 2436 RFH 

1 ‘‘(K) research and educational activities re2 lating to Native Hawaiian law;’’.

Passed the Senate September 29, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 99.1


Second and Third paragraphs under the caption "Legal Proceedings", beginning on
page 12 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2000 (File No. 1-11616).

Following the public announcement of Citigroup's proposal to acquire the 20% of
the Company's stock that Citigroup does not already beneficially own, in October
1999 six putative class action complaints were filed in Delaware Chancery Court
against the Company and its directors (as well as Citigroup and certain
subsidiaries). In November 1999, one of the six complaints was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice. In December 1999, the Delaware Chancery Court
consolidated the five remaining complaints under the caption "In re The Student
Loan Corp. Shareholders Litigation" and, on February 3, 2000, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. In the consolidated amended complaint,
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that because Citigroup holds a majority
position in the Company there have been no steps taken to ascertain the
Company's true value and that defendants have engaged in a series of
self-dealing transactions artificially depressing the Company's stock price. The
relief plaintiffs seek includes enjoining Citigroup's offer, or, if the proposed
transaction is consummated, rescinding the transaction and recovering monetary
damages caused by defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

On February 17, 2000, Citigroup and the Special Committee of the Company's
independent directors, formed to evaluate the proposal, publicly announced the
termination of discussions regarding the proposal. The same day, the Company and
several other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for
failure to state a claim. That motion has not yet been ruled upon and the action
remains pending.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANDREW N. GERARDO.

September 5, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.