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

                            EXCERPTS FROM MINUTES OF
                          BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF
                              NASH FINCH COMPANY ON
                                NOVEMBER 19, 1996


RESOLVED, that effective as of January 1, 1997, outside members of the Board of
Directors of the Company be compensated at a rate of $1,500 plus reasonable
expenses incurred for each meeting of the Board of Directors attended, $750 plus
reasonable expenses incurred for attendance at meetings of committees of the
Board, $1,250 per month ($15,000 per year) retainer for serving as a director,
$125 per month ($1,500 per year) retainer for serving as a member of a committee
of the Board, and $125 per month ($1,500 per year) retainer for serving as Chair
of a committee of the Board.  For the purposes of this resolution, an outside
director is defined as any director who is not a present full time employee of
Nash Finch Company or its subsidiaries.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the directer elected to serve as Board Chair, if such
director is not a present full time employee of Nash Finch Company or its
subsidiaries, shall, in addition to and not in lieu of any other compensation
paid to such director as an outside member of the Board of Directors, be
compensated with a monthly retainer equal to two times the amount of the monthly
retainer paid to outside members of this Board of Directors generally.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that upon becoming effective, the foregoing resolutions shall
supercede any resolution heretofore adopted by this Board of Directors
pertaining to compensation of outside directors including, without limitation,
the Board Chair.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                               TELVUE CORPORATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Fell, Controller
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: 08/16/10                          /s/ John Fell
                                        -------------
                                        John Fell
                                        Treasurer-Controller
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01

                               NASHUA CORPORATION
         COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE

(In thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      Year Ended December 31,
                                                             --------------------------------------
                                                              2001            2000            1999
                                                             -------         -------        -------

<S>                                                          <C>            <C>             <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations                     $(2,448)        $ 5,386        $  (420)
Loss from discontinued operations, net of taxes                   --              --         (4,001)
                                                             -------         -------        -------

Net income (loss)                                            $(2,448)        $ 5,386        $(4,421)
                                                             =======         =======        =======
Shares:

  Weighted average common shares
    outstanding during the period                              5,696           5,649          5,718

  Weighted average common and potential common shares
    Outstanding during the period                              5,696           5,667          5,718

Basic and diluted earnings per share:

  Income (loss) from continuing operations                   $  (.43)        $   .95        $  (.07)
Loss from discontinued operations                                 --              --           (.70)
                                                             -------         -------        -------

  Net income (loss)                                          $  (.43)        $   .95        $  (.77)
                                                             =======         =======        =======
</TABLE>
11631.

#### Dedge *v.*The State.

Decided July 28, 1920.

Indictment for drawing check, without funds to pay it; from city court of Baxley— Judge Lawrence. May 27, 1920.

*H. L. Williams,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. H. Parker, solicitor,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of alleged errors of omission in the charge of the court, are without merit. In the absence of timely and appropriate written requests for more particular instructions the charge was sufficiently full.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
1

This e-mail address is not to be utilized to communicate with the court unless otherwise

permitted or when communications are solicited by the court.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED BANK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. 09-0294-CG-C

)

M/V THE CROWN ROYAL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 ORDER

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 32),

in which the plaintiff moves for default judgment against defendants Richard J. Allen, Sheri A.

Allen, and R&S LLC.

Upon due consideration, the motion is hereby GRANTED. On or before May 11, 2010,

plaintiff is ORDERED to file a proposed default judgment, and is further directed to e-mail a

WordPerfect or Word version of the proposed default judgment to chambers at

efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov1

 in compliance with Section II(E)(4) of the Administrative

Procedure for Filing Signing, and Verifying Documents by Electronic Means.

Plaintiff is further ORDERED, no later than May 11, 2010, to advise the court of its

intent with respect to the in rem vessels, the M/V CROWN ROYAL and the M/V RESTLESS.

DONE and ORDERED this the 5th day of May, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00294-CG-C Document 35 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4.1

 

	
Number   CS-
    	
*              *   Shares
    
	
 
    	
Common Stock
    


 

NIVALIS THERAPEUTICS, INC.

a Delaware Corporation

Incorporated on July 31,  2012

 

Common Stock

Par Value: $0.001

 

THIS CERTIFIES THAT                        is the record holder of                                    (                    ) shares of Common Stock of Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder, in person, or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed or assigned.

 

This certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the Corporation and any amendments thereto, all of which the holder of this certificate, by acceptance hereof, assents.

 

A statement of all of the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions granted to or imposed upon the respective classes or series of stock of the Corporation and upon the holders thereof may be obtained by any stockholder without charge upon request delivered to the secretary of the Corporation at the principal office of the Corporation.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this           day of               , 2015.

 

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
President
    	
 
    	
Secretary
    


 











 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED                                                                    HEREBY SELLS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFERS UNTO                                                                                                                                                               SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DOES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT                                                ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

 

	
DATED
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
(Signature)
    


 

NOTICE:  THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
Exhibit
32.2














CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned, Anthony J. Miceli, Chief Financial Officer of United
Capital Corp., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, with respect to the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”) 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.








Dated: 
      April 22, 2009By:
              /s/
      Anthony J. MiceliAnthony
      J. MiceliChief
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2



        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
                             (FURNISHED, NOT FILED)






In connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Ronald Whitter, Chief Financial 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.



/s/ Ronald Whitter
------------------




Ronald Whitter
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2005
10982.

11006.

#### Tillman *v.*Groover *et al.*Dubberly *et al. v.*Tillman.

Decided Apkil 7, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Eeidsville — J. Y. Kelley, judge pro hac vice. September 1, 1919.

*A. S. Way,*for plaintiffs in error.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “ It is not only the right but the duty of a reviewing or appellate court to raise the question of its jurisdiciton in all cases in which there may be any doubt as to the existence of such jurisdiction.” Wel*borne*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*793, 796 (40 S. E. 857, 859).

2. “ A city court which, under the act creating it, is provided with a trial jury composed of- less than twelve jurors is not the kind of city court which, under the constitution, can grant new trials, and from which writs of error could lie to the Supreme Court.” *Ash v. Peoples Bank of Oliver,*149 *Ga.*713 (101 S. E. 912) ; Ga. L. 1915, p. 117.

3. The constitutional amendment fixing the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals does not intend “to confer jurisdiction in cases which could not be brought by writ of error to the Supreme Court before the creation of the Court of Appeals,” *Ash*v. *Peoples Bank of Oliver,*supra.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned,
Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III  
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | May 9, 2008            



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
| |  | Douglas P. Williams    
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | May 9, 2008
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Nash Finch Company of our report dated February 24, 1999, included in the
1998 Annual Report to Shareholders of Nash Finch Company.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Nash Finch Company
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein insofar as such
information relates to the periods covered by our report.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
No. 33-54487 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Incentive Plan of Nash Finch Company,
Registration Statement No. 33-64313 pertaining to the 1995 Director Stock Option
Plan of Nash Finch Company, and Registration Statement No. 333-27563 pertaining
to the 1997 Non-Employee Director Stock Compensation Plan all on Form S-8 of our
report dated February 24, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Nash Finch Company for the year ended January
2, 1999.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
----------------------------------

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 31, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                                  <C>               <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS             6-MOS             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996       DEC-31-1996       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1996       JUN-30-1996       SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                              894,000         2,279,000           930,000
<SECURITIES>                              0                 0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                    32,600,000        31,499,000        30,480,000
<ALLOWANCES>                        205,000           830,000           830,000
<INVENTORY>                      21,325,000        21,536,000        22,035,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 58,222,000        57,213,000        55,475,000
<PP&E>                           56,512,000        57,416,000        58,078,000
<DEPRECIATION>                   39,482,000        40,289,000        41,164,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   81,402,000        82,777,000        81,013,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            23,145,000        23,415,000        21,134,000
<BONDS>                                   0                 0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                 0                 0
<PREFERRED>                         176,000           176,000           176,000
<COMMON>                          2,584,000         2,584,000         2,584,000
<OTHER-SE>                                0                 0                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     81,402,000        82,777,000        81,013,000
<SALES>                          35,155,000        71,123,000       107,105,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 35,155,000        71,123,000       107,105,000
<CGS>                            20,005,000        41,342,000        61,871,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    20,005,000        41,342,000        61,871,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                 0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                 0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  119,000           253,000           363,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     940,000         1,260,000         1,989,000
<INCOME-TAX>                        711,000           972,000         1,349,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 229,000           288,000           640,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                 0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                 0                 0
<CHANGES>                                 0                 0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        229,000           288,000           640,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .09               .11               .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .08               .11               .24
        


</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 22, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 0 375

Lower Tribunal No. 20

- 12620

________________



### Robert Gold
, Appellant,

vs.



### Lee Rosen
, Appellee.

An a ppeal from a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Beatrice Butchko , Judge.

Crabtree & Auslander, and John G. Crabtree, and Charles M. Auslander, and Bri an C. Tackenberg , for appellant.

Fasano Law Firm, PLLC, and Michael C. Fasano , for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

MILLER, J

.2 Appellant, Robert Gold, appeals a non

- final order denying his motion

to dismiss the lawsuit pending against him in the lower tribunal

. The genesis

of the underlying complaint concerns a meeting that occurred between Gold

and appellee, Lee Rosen, in Bal Ha rbo u r, Florida

. Observing the trial court

properly confined the sole inquiry below to “whether the tort as alleged

occurred in Florida , and not whether the alleged tort actually occurred ,” the

allegations were sufficient to both satisfy the long

- arm statu te, codified in

section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2021) , and establish the requisite minimum

contacts with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over

Gold. Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. v. Teague , 721 So. 2d 358 , 359 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1998) ; see § 48.193 (1)(a) 2. , Fla. Stat. (“ A person

. . . thereby submits

himself

. . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action

arising from any of the following acts:

. . . [c] ommitting a tortious act within

this state. ”); Godfrey v. Neumann

, 373 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1979) ( “[B] y
committing a tort in Florida a nonresident establishes ‘ minimum contacts ’

with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over him

. . . . ”) ; Krilich v. Wolcott

, 717 So. 2d 582

, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ( “ The

commission of a tort in Florida is sufficient to establish minimum contacts

and satisfy federal due process concerns. ”). Concluding the remaining3 issues warrant no further discussion , we affirm the reasoned decision under

review.

Affirmed.
#### Samuel W. Grindrod v. Benjamin F. Lauzon, William W. Campfield and Dennis Jones.

*Parol evidence of levy*— Partnership—Replevin.

Where defendants in replevin set up that the property was held under levies in favor of specified parties, and parol evidence was given, without objection, of one of the levies, with testimony tending to show that one of the firm, in whose favor it was made was spoken to on the subject and refused to release the levy, it was error, while directing a verdict against the officer who took the property, to charge that in the absence of documentary evidence the firm could not be held, as there was enough to go to the jury on this question.

Error to St. Clair.

Submitted Jan. 17.

Decided Jan. 25.

Beplevin. Plaintiff brings error.

Beversed.

*585*P. A. Hurd*and *Frmik Whiffjle*for plaintiff in error.

*O’Brien J. Atkinson*and *Elliott O. Stevenson*for ■defendants in error.

Campbell, J.

G-rindrod brought replevin for a piano, ■and defendants, in connection with their plea of the general issue, set up that it was held under levies — one in favor of Campfield & Jones, and one in favor of one Parsons, by Lauzon as an officer. On the trial there was no direct evidence of the documents of the levy, but there was parol evidence, not objected to, of the levy in favor of Campfield & Jones. There was also testimony tending to show that Campfield was spoken to on the subject and would not release it.

The court below directed a verdict against Lauzon, but held that in the absence of documentary evidence, Camp-field and Jones could not be held.

*We*think this was erroneous, and that there was enough to go to the jury on this .point. And we cannot hold that if Lauzon was responsible they may not have been. The objections based on an absence of testimony to hold either are not admissible on this record, and we do not think they are of much force.

The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.
11494.

#### Stanley *et al. v.*The State.

Decided July 14, 1920.

Indictment for kidnapping; from Twiggs superior court — Judge Kent. February 23, 1920.

*J. S. Davis, R. A. Harrison,*for plaintiffs in error.

*E. L. Stephens, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. A ground of a motion for a new trial based upon an affidavit of a juror impeaching the verdict is without merit. Park’s Ann. Code, § 5933, and citations.

2. The evidence amply authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*