alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.4

                      LAMAR ADVERTISING OF GREENVILLE, INC.

                             SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE


         THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE dated as of October 23, 1998, is delivered
pursuant to Section 10.04 of the Indenture dated as of November 15, 1996 (as
heretofore or hereafter modified and supplemented and in effect from time to
time, the "Indenture") among LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
certain of its subsidiaries ("Guarantors") and STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY, a Massachusetts banking corporation, as Trustee ("Trustee") (all terms
used herein without definition having the meanings ascribed to them in the
Indenture).

         The undersigned hereby agrees that:

         1. The undersigned is a Guarantor under the Indenture with all of the
rights and obligations of a Guarantor thereunder.

         2. The undersigned hereby grants, ratifies and confirms the guarantee
provided for by Article Ten of the Indenture to guarantee unconditionally,
jointly and severally with the other Guarantors, to each Holder of a Note
authenticated and delivered by the Trustee, and to the Trustee on behalf of such
Holder, the due and punctual payment of the principal of (and premium, if any)
and interest on such Note when and as the same shall become due and payable.

         3. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the
representations and warranties set forth in the Indenture, to the extent
relating to the undersigned as Guarantor, are correct on and as of the date
hereof.

         4. All notices, requests and other communications provided for in the
Indenture should be delivered to the undersigned at the address specified in
Section 12.02 of the Indenture.

         5. A counterpart of this Supplemental Indenture may be attached to any
counterpart of the Indenture.

         6. This Supplemental Indenture shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York.




<PAGE>   2



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Supplemental
Indenture to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

                                   Guarantor:

                                   LAMAR ADVERTISING OF GREENVILLE, INC.



                                   By: /s/ Keith A. Istre
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Keith A. Istre
                                   Title: Vice President - Finance and Chief
                                          Financial Officer

Attest:



By: /s/ Charles W. Lamar, III
   --------------------------------
   Charles W. Lamar, III, Secretary

Accepted:

STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST
  COMPANY, as Trustee


By: /s/ Andrew M. Sinasky
   --------------------------------
Title: Assistant Vice President
     



                                       2

<PAGE>   3



                          SCHEDULE OF ADDITIONAL SUBSIDIARY GUARANTORS


LAMAR OCI NORTH CORPORATION
LAMAR OCI SOUTH CORPORATION




                                       3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-27-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-26-2000
<CASH>                                         647,634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,723,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                   201,299
<INVENTORY>                                  4,285,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,774,266
<PP&E>                                       2,277,152
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,701,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,486,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,808,387
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           881
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,486,129
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,377,538
<CGS>                                       13,524,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,117,966<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               277,496
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,296,579)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,283,794)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,283,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 469,040
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                455,842
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,358,912)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
<FN>
<F1>SG&A
</FN>


</TABLE>
10546.

#### Odum Brothers Co. *v.*Adler.

Decided December 16, 1919.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge' Bell. March 8, 1919.

*Julius D. Ward, Burress & Dillard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Napier, Wright & Wood,*contra.

Stephens, J.

There being only issues of fact in this case upon which the evidence was conflicting the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of
Magnitude Information Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the "Form 10-QSB Amendment"), I, Edward
Marney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof,
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, that the Company's
Form 10-QSB Amendment fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-QSB Amendment, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: January 2, 2007                  /s/ Edward Marney
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Edward Marney
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
NO. 03-15-00249-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Michael Franzak, Appellant

v.

Cielo Multi Family LLC d/b/a Cielo Apartments, Appellee

CIELO'S RESPONSE TO FRANZAK'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

[MOTION TO STAY]

Cielo Multi Family LLC d/b/a Cielo Apartments (Cielo), Appellee, responds to the

Motion to Reconsider filed by Michael Franzak (Franzak), Appellant, to point out false

statements made by Appellant in his Motion.

1. On May 11, 2015, Franzak filed handwritten Motion to Reconsider.

2. On the third page of the three page motion, Franzak made representation and

certification to the Court to the effect that he had spoken with counsel for Cielo about the

Motion to Reconsider. This is false statement. Franzak never spoke with counsel for

Cielo concerning such motion.

3. Franzak also falsely represented to the Court that counsel for Cielo did not oppose

Franzak's Motion to Reconsider. This is also false statement. No such representation

was ever made by counsel for Cielo to Franzak.

4. The Motion to Reconsider has been denied by this Court. Counsel for CIELO, however,

felt it was necessary to bring to the Court's attention the fact that FRANZAK was

making material misrepresentations to it, as summarized above.

[Signature Block on Following Page]

ACCEPTED

03-15-00249-CV

5268909

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

5/13/2015 2:16:15 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/13/2015 2:16:15 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

WARREN LAW FIRM

1011 Westlake Drive

Austin, Texas 78746

Telephone (512) 347-8777

Telecopier (512) 347-7999

wsw@wlftexas.com

[LLIAM S. WARREN

Texas Bar No. 20890800

Attorney for Appellee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

certify that true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on the parties listed

below:

Via First Class Mail

Michael Franzak

3501 Ranch Road 620 South, Apt #19104

Austin, Texas 78738

SERVED on the day of May, 2015

WILLIAM S. WARREN
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report of Laycor Ventures Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Robert Wayne Morgan, Chief Executive Officer and 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:

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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 29th day of June, 2006.



| | ROBERT WAYNE MORGAN                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Robert Wayne Morgan                                
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





















---
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION SAFETY TEAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NCSTAC) MEETING

3 May 2016

ROOM C121 (THE WEST SQUARE ROOM), ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 101

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS & TECHNOLOGY (NIST)

100 BUREAU DRIVE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

AGENDA

MEETING GOALS:

• Receive NIST’s response to the Committee’s 2015 annual report recommendations 

• Receive update on the progress of the implementation of NIST Joplin tornado investigation’s 

recommendations

• Receive update on the Disaster and Failure Studies program

Tuesday, 3 May

Time Topic Discussion Leader

Opening Remarks

9:00 – 9:15 am Meeting Goals

Agenda

Jeremy Isenberg

NCSTAC Chairperson

9:15 – 9:20 am Welcome

Opening Remarks 

Kent Rochford

Associate Director for 

Laboratory Programs

NIST 

9:20 – 9:35 am NIST Response to the NCSTAC’s 2015 Report to 

Congress

Howard Harary

Director, Engineering 

Laboratory 

NIST

9:35 – 9:50 am Committee Discussion of the NIST Response to the 

2015 Recommendations 

Jeremy Isenberg

Progress on Implementation of the Joplin Tornado Recommendations

9:50 – 10:45 am Summary of Progress on Joplin Recommendations

Tornado Hazard Maps

Long Phan

Group Leader, Structures 

Group

NIST

Melissa Faletra

Wind Engineer, Applied 

Research Associates, Inc.

10:45 - 11:00 am BREAK
11:00 – 12:00 pm − Standards

• ASCE - Tornado Wind Speed Estimation

• ASCE - Performance-Based Design for 

Extreme Winds

• NFPA – Mass Evacuation and 

Sheltering

− IBC and IEBC Code Change Proposals

− Guidance on Selection of Best Available Refuge 

Areas for Tornadoes

− NFPA Update on Emergency Communications 

(Recommendation 13)

− NOAA Grid-based, probabilistic threat 

communication: Forecasting a Continuum of 

Environmental Threats (FACETs)

Marc Levitan

Acting Director of NWIRP 

NIST

Erica Kuligowski

Group Leader, Wildland-Urban 

Interface Fire Group, NIST

Dave Jorgensen

Research Meteorologist 

and Chief, NOAA/National 

Severe Storms Lab/Warning 

R&D Division

12:00 – 1:45 pm Lunch & Tour of the National Fire Research Laboratory 

COMMITTEE PHOTO 

1:45 – 2:00 pm Public Comment Period Jeremy Isenberg

Disaster and Failure Studies Program Updates

2:00 – 2:25 pm Disaster and Failure Studies Overview – recent 

disasters

Public access of the Chile Earthquake Data 

Repository/Status of the Joplin and Moore 

Tornadoes Data Repository

Update on Center for Risk-Based Community 

Resilience Planning – Thrust 3

Jason Averill,

Division Chief, Materials and 

Structural Systems Division

NIST

WUI Fires and NFRL Updates

2:25 – 2:35 pm WUI Fires and NFRL Updates

Nelson Bryner,

Division Chief, Fire Research 

Division

NIST

Reauthorization of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

2:35 – 2:45 pm National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

(NWIRP) Reauthorization

Marc Levitan

2:45 – 3:00 pm BREAK

NCSTAC Discussions

3:00 – 4:00 pm Ask of the Committee regarding NCST Deployment Howard Harary

4:00 – 5:00 pm NCSTAC Preparation of Annual Report to Congress Jeremy Isenberg

5:00 pm ADJOURN
#### Rafert *v.*Scroggins.

CONTRACT.—Custom.—A custom cannot be introduced in evidence to control an express contract. To prove a custom, it must be shown that it has been established for a considerable length of time, or that it was of such standing as to raise a reasonable presumption that the parties contracted with reference to it.

APPEAL from the Morgan Common Pleas.

Worden, J.

This was an action by Scroggins against Rafert on an account for work and labor. Issue, trial by the court, finding and judgment for the plaintiff Motion for new trial by defendant overruled, and exception.

Two points are made by the appellant for a reversal; first, that the court excluded competent-evidence offered by the defendant; and, second, that the damages assessed are excessive.

The most of the work done by the plaintiff for the defendant was done in the business of house building, and while the plaintiff was learning the trade of a house carpenter. There seems to have been a contract between the *196plaintiff and defendant as to the compensation to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff for his work, but there is a little disagreement as to the precise terms of the contract. On the trial, the defendant offered to prove, by several practical house carpenters, that there was a customary rule existing in that locality among house carpenters and mechanics relating to apprentices, which was, that the apprentice was required to work while learning the trade, and that he received his instructions and boarding free, receiving no other pay for the first year, fifty dollars for the second year, and seventy-five dollars for the third year. This evidence, on objection being made, was excluded.

*A, Ennis,*for appellant.

*W. R. Harrison*and *W. S. Shirley,*for appellee.

It may well be doubted whether a custom can be held valid unless it be coextensive with the boundaries of the State. *Harper*v. *Pound,*10 Ind. 32. However *this may be,*a custom cannot be introduced to control the express contract of the parties. *Atkinson*v. *Allen,*29 Ind. 375. The proof offered fell short of showing a valid custom in another respect. It did not show that the custom had been established for any considerable length of time, or that it was of such standing as to raise a reasonable presumption that the parties contracted with reference to it. *Wallace*v. *Morgan,*23 Ind. 399.

There was no error in excluding the evidence.

We do not feel justified in disturbing the judgment on the evidence. There was evidence tending to sustain the finding for the full amount found, viz., seventy-five dollars. There have been two trials of the cause; one before a justice of the peace, where the suit was commenced, when the plaintiff recovered one dollar and forty-five cents more than the recovery in the court of common pleas, to which the cause was appealed.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.
NUMBER 13-15-00066-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE FRED ADKINS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Perkes, Benavides, and Longoria

Per Curiam Order

Relator, Fred Adkins, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on 

February 9, 2014 contending that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside a 

jury verdict. Relator requests that this Court conduct a merits-based review of the trial 

court’s order granting a new trial. See, e.g., In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 

S.W.3d 746, 755–59 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Whataburger 

Restaurants LP, 429 S.W.3d 597, 598 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re 

Health Care Unlimited, Inc., 429 S.W.3d 600, 602 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam). 
2

The Court requests that the real party in interest, Antonio Gutierrez Tingle, or any 

others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to 

the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of 

this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

2nd day of March, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          248966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   380493
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    3565976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4437758
<PP&E>                                         8146936 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1683519      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                12813051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1880287
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       6763652
<OTHER-SE>                                     6918510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  12813051
<SALES>                                        1260179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1260179
<CGS>                                           580512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1166347
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              104399
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4130
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4130
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4130
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4470 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4470

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 8, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the 
   authorization of appropriations for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin 
           Restoration Program from fiscal year 2005 to 2010.

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

SECTION 1. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN RESTORATION PROGRAM.

    (a) Stakeholders Conference.--For purposes of carrying out section 
121 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1273), the 
Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, basin stakeholders conference convened 
on February 25, 2002, shall be treated as being a management conference 
convened under section 320 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330).
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--The first sentence of section 
121(f)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1273(f)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
following: ``, $19,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $20,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010''.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

    The second section 121 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1274; relating to wet weather watershed projects) is 
redesignated as section 122.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7 (legislative 
      day, October 6), 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                         
<ARTICLE>                     5
                               
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                  192,664
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            94,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                           3,415,398
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              0
<PP&E>                                  100,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        4,468,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         0
<BONDS>                               2,967,064
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   696,774
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                              1,011,899
<OTHER-SE>                           (1,023,984)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          4,468,991
<SALES>                               5,160,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      6,210,663
<CGS>                                 4,881,475
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         5,350,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      147,276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          23,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      23,520
<DISCONTINUED>                          (80,700)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            (57,180)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.05)
        
 
</TABLE>