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 on Form 10-Q of EXE
Technologies, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Raymond R. Hood, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Kenneth R. Vines, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

|                         |  |                                         
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|                         |  | /s/ RAYMOND R. HOOD                     
|                         |  |                                         
|Dated: November 14, 2002 |  | Raymond R. Hood
Chief Executive Officer 
|                         |  |                                         
|                         |  | /s/ KENNETH R. VINES                    
|                         |  |                                         
|Dated: November 14, 2002 |  | Kenneth R. Vines
Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                  GERHARD E. KURZ, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         OF SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350

         I, Gerhard E. Kurz, certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K
for the year ending December 31, 2002 and filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the
requirement of that section.

         I further certify that the information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material aspects, the financial operations and results of
operations of the Company.





                                                      /s/  GERHARD E. KURZ
                                                      -------------------------
                                                      Name: Gerhard E. Kurz
                                                      Date: March 28, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS CASE NO. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL 2641

_______________________________________ 

This Document Relates to Plaintiff,

Falene Sebandal and Albert Sebandal

Case No. 2:17-cv-02211-DGC

_______________________________________ 

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW attorney, Brian S. Katz, of the Flint Law Firm, LLC, and enters his 

appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff(s) in the above referenced action. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

FLINT LAW FIRM LLC 

/s/ Brian S. Katz

Brian S. Katz, KY Bar No. 86633 

FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 

2226 Broadway, Suite 1 

Post Office Box 2903 

Paducah, Kentucky 42002-2903 

Phone: (270) 575-3939 

Fax: (270) 575-3936 

bkatz@flintfirm.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8365 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mark Parrish, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03979-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/30/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

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

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

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

Printed Name 

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) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8760 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8760 Filed 11/09/17 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2873 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2873

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend the authority of the United States District Court for the 
   Southern District of Iowa to hold court in Rock Island, Illinois.

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

SECTION 1. HOLDING OF COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA.

    Section 11029 of the 21st Century Department of Justice 
Appropriations Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 95 note; Public Law 107-
273; 116 Stat. 1836) is amended by striking ``July 1, 2005'' and 
inserting ``July 1, 2006''.

SEC. 2. HOLDING OF COURT AT CLEVELAND, MISSISSIPPI.

    Section 104(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, is amended in 
the second sentence by inserting ``and Cleveland'' after 
``Clarksdale''.

SEC. 3. PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN TEXARKANA, TEXAS, AND TEXARKANA, 
              ARKANSAS.

    Sections 83(b)(1) and 124(c)(5) of title 28, United States Code, 
are each amended by inserting after ``held at Texarkana'' the 
following: ``, and may be held anywhere within the Federal courthouse 
in Texarkana that is located astride the State line between Texas and 
Arkansas''.

SEC. 4. PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

    Section 112(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``and Watertown'' and inserting ``Watertown, and 
Plattsburgh''.

SEC. 5. PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.

    Section 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
``Colorado Springs,'' after ``Boulder,''.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2873

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To extend the authority of the United States District Court for the 
   Southern District of Iowa to hold court in Rock Island, Illinois.
```
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4815

To provide that December 7 each year shall be treated for all purposes

related to Federal employment in the same manner as November 11.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 12, 1998

Mr. QUINN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To provide that December 7 each year shall be treated for

all purposes related to Federal employment in the same

manner as November 11.

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

3 That December 7 each year shall be treated for all pur4 poses related to Federal employment in the same manner

5 as November 11.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Desiree Radford,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03599-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/14/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9043 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Huff *v.*Gilbert.

In error.

Wednesday, *May*27,

REPLEVIN. Pleas, 1. That the defendant had not taken or detained the property. 2. Property in a stranger. 3. Property in the defendant. The plaintiff joined issue on the first plea, and replied to the second and third, property in himself. Verdict, “We find the property to be in the plaintiff.” Judgment against the defendant for costs. *Held,*that this verdict did not authorise a judgment for the plaintiff, as the jury had not found that the horse had been taken or detained by the defendant.

*20A bill of exceptions relative to the affidavit and bond in this case, stated—“ which affidavit and bond -are made a part of the record.” *Held,*that this statement did not make the affidavit and bond a part of the record; and that to make them so by-means of a bill of exceptions, they should be copied into the bill (1).

(1)

 Vide *The Stale Bank of Indiana*v. *Brooks, May*term, 1838, note.
Exhibit 4.24


 


Summary
Translation


 


Lease
Agreement between Shenzhen Xinrui Commercial Property Co., Ltd. and 

Shenzhen Yimao New Energy Sales Co., Ltd.


 


Party
A: Shenzhen Xinrui Commercial Property Co., Ltd. 


Party
B:Shenzhen Yimao New Energy Sales Co., Ltd.


 



On November 11, 2020, the two parties signed a Lease Agreement. Party A rented the house to Party B.


 


The
house is located at No. 1108, Tianle Building, No. 1021, Buji Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen China ,with an area of 54 square
meters.


 


The
house is used as office space for Party B.


 


The
rental period of the house is 1 year, from November 23, 2020 to November 22, 2021. The rent is paid every month. The total annual
rent of the house is 1,45,360 yuan.


 


The
Agreement is made in duplicate with all parties herein holding one copy each with the same legal effect.


 


Shenzhen
Yimao New Energy Sales Co., Ltd. 


/s/
Corporate Chop


 


By:
/s/ Mingqin Dong 


Name:
Mingqin Dong


 


Shenzhen
Xinrui Commercial Property Co., Ltd. 


/s/
Corporate Chop


 


By:
/s/ Yong Li 


Name:
Yong Li
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0001046883
<NAME>     Asian Star Development, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>     1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                        4601
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                   7586
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            247606
<PP&E>                                     1348061
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             8301399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1306947
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     12956
<OTHER-SE>                                 8299811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               8301399
<SALES>                                      41926
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             95296
<CGS>                                        40603
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                40603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            361493
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (306800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (306800)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.21)


</TABLE>
#### Sidney BIRCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles GREINER, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-2754.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 15, 2005.

Christopher Booth, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Linda Breen, Assistant District Attorney (Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Kings County, Leonard Joblove, Assistant District Attorney, Sholom J. Twersky, Assistant District Attorney, on the brief), Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.

Present: WALKER, Chief Judge, HALL, and GIBSON,* Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable John R. Gibson, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

*439SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Petitioner-appellant Sidney Birch appeals from the September 10, 2003 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Jack B. Weinstein, *Judge)*denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Birch argues that the district court erred in finding that the state trial court had not exhibited bias that violated his due process right to a fair trial. Familiarity with the facts and procedural background is assumed. We affirm.

Birch bases his claim of constitutional error primarily on the trial court’s questions concerning the inconsistency between (1) his statements during a videotaped interrogation, in which petitioner blamed his co-defendant, and (2) his testimony at trial, during which he claimed that the videotaped interrogation was not reliable, because in it he was trying to cover up for the co-defendant. We find that the trial judge’s questioning, which was meant to clarify Birch’s confusing testimony, does not meet the level of substantial prejudice that a habeas petitioner must show in order to sustain a claim of judicial bias. *See Daye v. Attorney General of New York,*712 F.2d 1566, 1572 (2d Cir.1983); *see also Gayle v. Scully,*779 F.2d 802, 812-13 (2d Cir.1985).

Birch also fails to show a violation of due process when he contends that the trial court’s rulings permitting certain questions by the prosecutor exhibited judicial bias. The district court correctly concluded that none of the rulings to which Birch objects gave rise to the sort of grave constitutional error warranting habeas relief. *See id.*at 806.

We have carefully reviewed Birch’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1160 

KA 14-02212 

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES HOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW

S. SZALKOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County

(Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered December 5, 2014. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of promoting prison

contraband in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a

jury trial of promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal

Law § 205.25 [2]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the

weight of the evidence. We reject that contention. The evidence at

trial established that defendant, an inmate in state prison, knowingly

possessed the contraband in question, i.e., a razor blade melted into

a pen cap that was found in his sock. Thus, viewing the evidence in

light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People

v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not

against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley,

69 NY2d 490, 495). 

Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in allowing the

People to introduce testimony that defendant made an inculpatory

statement, i.e., that the contraband was his, is unpreserved for our

review inasmuch as he failed to move to suppress that evidence (see

generally CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review defendant’s

contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see

CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>


                                                                EXHIBIT 11.1

               PDS FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                   STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                                        1996           1995
                                                        ----           ----

Net income (loss), primary                          $   305,319    $(4,614,075)
                                                    -----------    -----------
                                                    -----------    -----------

Net income (loss), fully diluted (1)                $   305,319    $(4,614,075)
                                                    -----------    -----------
                                                    -----------    -----------

PER SHARE DATA

Net income (loss) per common and
     common equivalent share, primary               $      0.10    $     (1.49)
                                                    -----------    -----------
                                                    -----------    -----------

Net income (loss) per common and
     common equivalent share, fully diluted (1)     $      0.10    $     (1.49)
                                                    -----------    -----------
                                                    -----------    -----------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON
    AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES

Primary:
   Weighted average number of
     common shares outstanding                        3,119,816      3,092,876
   Common equivalent shares:
    Dilutive stock options and
     warrants using the
     treasury stock method                                7,032       -----
                                                    -----------    -----------

                                                      3,126,848      3,092,876
                                                    -----------    -----------
                                                    -----------    -----------

Fully diluted (1):
   Weighted average number of
     common shares outstanding                        3,119,816      3,092,876
   Common equivalent shares:
    Dilutive stock options and
     warrants using the
     treasury stock method                                7,032       -----
                                                    -----------    -----------

                                                      3,126,848      3,092,876
                                                    -----------    -----------
                                                    -----------    -----------

(1) This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item
    601(b)(11), despite not being required by APB Opinion No. 15 because it
    results in dilution of less than 3%


                                          30