alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur S. Rosten,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.

| |                                                        
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/  Arthur S. Rosten                                  
| | Arthur S. Rosten
Chief Financial Officer
March 20, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,062
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,062
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,452)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,252)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,252)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00339-CV

ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, 

INC.; PSYCHIATRIC RESOURCE 

PARTNERS, INC.; MICHAEL A. 

SAUL; TIMOTHY J. PALUS; PETER 

D. ULASEWICZ; BARBARA H. 

BAYMA; AND JOHN M. PIECHOCKI

APPELLANTS

AND APPELLEES

V.

HORIZON HEALTH 

CORPORATION

APPELLEE

AND APPELLANT

------------

FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2011-10846-16

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered the parties’ “Agreed, Joint Motion for Disposition 

Pursuant to Settlement.” We grant the motion. In accordance with the 

agreement signed by the parties’ attorneys, we dismiss this case in its entirety 

and order that the mandate be issued this same day. See Tex. R. App. P. 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

18.1(c), 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(f). And as provided in the parties’ signed agreement, 

all costs of the trial and appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for 

which let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; SUDDERTH, C.J.; and WALKER, J.

DELIVERED: February 1, 2018
Review Activities of the 

VCAT Subcommittee on Safety

Tony Haymet

Chair

VCAT Subcommittee on Safety

October 16, 2012
Blue Ribbon Commission II 

Recommended the Following Actions

• Appoint crucial Associate Director for 

Laboratory Programs (and Principal Deputy)

• Address the enthusiasm gap in some senior 

management

• Establish an Audit mechanism
VCAT Subcommittee Oct 15

POSSIBLE Recommendations

• Establish frequent “grand rounds” audits of individual laboratory 

rooms led by senior, trained NIST executive.

• Set firm target for reduction in each OSHA reportable statistic

• Distribute and discuss IRIS statistics with all-at-NIST by Director 

memo each reporting period. Leadership team to identify top 

priority IRIS issues and action plans to reduce occurrence. These 

will be a standing agenda item at each VCAT meeting. 

• Increase “transparency” on all safety metrics, including exact stage 

at which non-closed IRIS cases are stalled.

• Address ergonomic factors, a major contributor to reported 

injuries. Establish pilot program, e.g. with statistical and 

mathematical scientists to pilot ergonomic impact progress.
Exhibit 32
 
 CERTIFICATION*
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vineyard National Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigneds hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigneds best knowledge and belief:
 
 (a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated this 14th day of May, 2004.
 Vineyard National Bancorp("Company")/s/ *Norman A. Morales*Norman A. MoralesPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 /s/ *Gordon Fong*Gordon FongSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 
 ___________________
 
 *A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rick HOLT, II, aka Rick Holt, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10192.

D.C. No. CR-97-00121-RCB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2001.*

Decided June 5, 2001.

Before HUG and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Holt argues that the district court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence for his violation of the conditions of his supervised release. Holt contends that the district court erred by considering U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3 to be mandatory. Holt’s contention stems mainly from the confusion created by the probation officer and Hurt’s trial counsel, both of whom incorrectly stated to the district court that it was mandatory under § 7B1.3 that Holt’s sentence be consecutive. In fact, that section is not mandatory. The provisions of Chapter 7 of the Guidelines Manual are advisory “policy statements” as opposed to mandatory “guidelines.” U.S.S.G. Ch. 7 part A(3)(a); *see United States v. George,*184 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir.1999).

Although the district court did nothing to indicate that it shared in the probation officer’s and defense counsel’s mistaken belief as to the true authority of Chapter 7’s provisions, it did not indicate that it was exercising its discretion rather than following a mandatory requirement. Accordingly, Holt’s sentence is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for the dis*638trict court to expressly exercise its discretion to choose between a concurrent and a consecutive sentence. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) and § 3553(a).

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R, 36-3.
11358.

#### Sheffield *et al. v.*King.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Processioning; from Camden superior court — Judge Graham. January 27, 1920.

*Cowart & Vocelle,*for plaintiffs in error.

*S. C, Townsend,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

There was some evidence which authorized the verdict, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows cause for a reversal of the judgment denying the motion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 4.12


 





AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 


NEITHER THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE
SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS NOTE NOR THE SECURITIES INTO WHICH THIS NOTE IS CONVERTIBLE HAVE BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES
ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS. NEITHER THIS NOTE NOR THE SECURITIES UNDERLYING THIS NOTEMAY BE OFFERED
FOR SALE, SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED (I) IN THE ABSENCE OF (A) AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR SUCH SECURITIES UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR (B) AN OPINION OF COUNSEL TO THE COMPANY THAT REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER SAID
ACT OR (II) UNLESS SOLD OR ELIGIBLE TO BE SOLD PURSUANT TO RULE 144 OR RULE 144A UNDER SAID ACT. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING,
SUCH SECURITIES MAY BE PLEDGED IN CONNECTION WITH A BONA FIDE MARGIN ACCOUNT OR OTHER LOAN OR FINANCING ARRANGEMENT SECURED BY
SUCH SECURITIES. ANY TRANSFEREE OF THIS NOTE SHOULD CAREFULLY REVIEW THE TERMS OF THIS NOTE, INCLUDING SECTION 3(c)(iii) AND 16(a)
HEREOF. THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT REPRESENTED BY THIS NOTE AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE SECURITIES ISSUABLE UPON CONVERSION HEREOF MAY BE LESS
THAN THE AMOUNTS SET FORTH ON THE FACE HEREOF PURSUANT TO SECTION 3(c)(iii) OF THIS NOTE.


 


realbiz
media group, inc.


 


Amendment
No. 1 to Convertible Note


 


	
        Original Issuance Date: October 20, 2014

        Amendment Date: ______, 2015
	
        Original Principal Amount: U.S. $150,000

         



 


Reference is made to
that certain Convertible Note, dated October 20, 2014 (the “Note”), and except as amended hereby, the terms of the
original Note are in full force and effect.


 


1. Amendment to
Conversion Price. The Fixed Conversion Price as defined under Section 3(b)(ii) of the Note shall be $0.10, subject to adjustment
as provided for therein.


 


2. Price Failure.
The term “Price Failure” shall be amended to replace $.75 with $0.10.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused
this Amendment No. 1 to Note to be duly executed as of the date set out above.


 



 


	 	REALBIZ MEDIA GROUP, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	Name:
	 	 	Title:
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4590 

To require that reimbursement provided to members of the Armed Forces 

who purchased their own protective body armor when military-issue body 

armor was unavailable include reimbursement for the cost to deliver 

the body armor to the member. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2004 

Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require that reimbursement provided to members of the 

Armed Forces who purchased their own protective body 

armor when military-issue body armor was unavailable 

include reimbursement for the cost to deliver the body 

armor to the member. 

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

•HR 4590 IH 

1 SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE 

2 ARMED FORCES WHO PURCHASED PROTEC3 TIVE BODY ARMOR DURING SHORTAGE OF 

4 DEFENSE STOCKS OF BODY ARMOR. 

5 Any reimbursement provided by the Secretary of De6 fense to a member of the Armed Forces for the cost of 

7 protective body armor purchased by the member, or by 

8 another person on behalf of the member, for use by the 

9 member while deployed in connection with Operation 

10 Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation 

11 Iraqi Freedom shall include reimbursement for any costs 

12 incurred by the member, or by another person on behalf 

13 of the member, to deliver the body armor to the member. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29158]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c) (4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; IMAT Biospecimen Science.
    Date: February 18, 2015.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical 
Center Drive, Room 6W032, Rockville, MD 20850, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Donald L. Coppock, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical 
Center Drive, Room 7W260, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6382, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92d6fdfcf3fef6bcf1fde2e2fdf1f9d2fcfbfabcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e1a31303f323a703d312e2e313d351e30373670393128">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/sep/sep.htm, where an 
agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted 
when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 9, 2014.
Melanie J. Gray,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-29158 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAULOS MURPHY, :

Petitioner, :

v. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00353-WS-B

GRANTT CULLIVER, :

Respondent. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

DONE this 4th day of August, 2006.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00353-WS-B Document 6 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 1
AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                               ALLTEL CORPORATION
                    PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
                (As Amended and Restated as of January 1, 1993)


    This Amendment No. 1 to ALLTEL Corporation Performance Incentive
Compensation Plan, as amended and restated as of January 1, 1993 (the  Plan ),
is effective as of January 29, 1998.

    Article VII of the Plan, titled  DEFERRAL OF AWARDS,  is hereby amended to
provide as follows:

         Notwithstanding the foregoing, no deferrals of Awards for any Plan
         Year beginning on or after January 1, 1998 shall occur hereunder;
         payment of those Awards may, however, be deferred under any other
         plan or arrangement of the Company according to the terms and
         conditions and to the extent (if any) provided thereunder.

    Article III of the Plan, titled  ADMINISTRATION,  is hereby amended to
provide as follows:
 
         "On or about March 1 of each year, the Company shall prepare and
         deliver to each Participant who has deferred all or a portion of an
         Award in accordance with Section VII a statement regarding the
         deferred amount of the Award."


                                       76
#### Joseph Wertin et al. v. Marlow H. Crocker.

*Case made*— Eindings—Exceptions.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of cases made for review upon the facts, even though the record leads irresistibly to the inference that the case below turned upon certain questions of law; the party complaining of the judgment must have excepted to' rulings on points of law, or to the rendition of judgment upon the findings of fact.

Where the record in ejectment shows no finding of facts nor exceptions to the rulings of the judge, but merely recites that the parties proved certain things and that the judge decided for plaintiff, and rendered judgment in his favor that he recover of defendant the possession of the premises, there is no case made for review.

Case made from Marquette.

Submitted June 23, 1880.

Decided October 6, 1880.

Ejectment. Plaintiffs had judgment.

Dismissed.

*Ohandler <& Grant*for plaintiffs.

*Dan H. Ball*for defendant.

Cooley, J.

Action of ejectment. Both parties claim title through one John Fitzgerald; the plaintiffs by purchase on the foreclosure of a mortgage given by him, and the defendant by sheriff’s deed on an execution sale. The case was tried by the circuit judge without a jury. The record shows no finding of facts by the judge, but there is a recital that the parties respectively proved certain things, supposed to be sufficient to establish their case or defense. No exceptions to rulings of the judge appear. The only finding of any sort which appears is that the “said circuit judge decided said cause in favor of the said plaintiffs, and rendered a judgment in their favor that they recover of *643•the defendant the possession of the said premises.” The ■defendant brings the judgment here on case made.

It is manifest that this is nothing but a case made for .review upon the facts; and of such a case the statutes do not give us jurisdiction. It is true, we may infer from the record that the case in the court below turned upon a certain question of law; but that is true of most cases as they •stand upon the facts. If the inference were irresistible,' it would not help the party complaining of the judgment; he must come here with exceptions to rulings upon points of law, or upon findings of fact which he claims do not support •the judgment.

The case must be dismissed.

The other Justices concurred.
> 
Exhibit 23 (a)

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

 

 

 

To the Shareholders of 

    ALLTEL    Corporation: 

  

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation    of our report dated April 24, 2002 included (or incorporated by reference)    in this Amendment No. 1 to the 2001 ALLTEL Corporation Annual Report on Form    10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements, File    Nos. 333-85142, 333-94267, 33-48476, 33-54175, 33-56291, 33-65199,    333-88907, 333-88923 and 333-90167.

 

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN  LLP

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 

                        

 

 

 

 

Little Rock, Arkansas

April 25, 2002.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit (24)



                       CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE RESOLUTION

         I, Don W. Schmitz, Secretary of Pharmacia Corporation, hereby certify
that the following resolutions were duly adopted by the Board of Directors of
Pharmacia Corporation at a meeting held on February 22, 2001:


          RESOLVED, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
          ended December 31, 2000, in substantially the form presented to the
          meeting and with such changes as may be approved by the Company's
          General Counsel, be and hereby is approved for filing with the U.S.
          Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                     /s/ Don W. Schmitz
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     Don W. Schmitz
Dated: March 26, 2001
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 2 2
- 00 118
- CV

__________________
IN RE WINFREE BAPTIST CHURCH

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 128th District Court of Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A 190220
- C

__________________________________________________________________ ORDER Winfree Baptist C h urch , Relator, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator is a defendant in Trial Cause Number A 190 220

- C , Gary Hopkins v. Winfree Baptist Church

. Relator seeks a writ compelling the Honorable Courtney Arkeen , Judge of the 128th District Court of Orange County, Texas, to vacate an order signed on Decem be r 2, 2021, and to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. Relator requests that the trial , which is currently scheduled to begin in the trial
court on April 25, 202 2 , be stayed while this Court considers the mandamus petition.2 The Court finds temporary relief is n ecessary to prevent undue prejudice. It is ORDERED that the trial in Trial Cause Number A 190220

- C is STAYED until our opinion issues or until further order of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). No bond is required of Relator as a condition to any re lief herein granted. The response of the Real Part y in Interest, Gary Hopkins , is due April 25,
202 2

. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED.
ORDER ENTERED April 1 4 , 202 2

. PER CURIAM
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
10950.

#### Hightower *v.*Davis.

Broyles, C. J.

1. An unsanetioned petition for certiorari can not be specified or sent up as part of-the record. It should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions or be verified as a part thereof by the trial judge. *690
      *Hall*v. *State,*2*Ga. App. 437 (58 S.*E. 558), and cit.; *McGovern*v. *Trammell,*14*Ga. App. 754*(82 S. E. 318).

Decided January 27, 1920.

Petition for certiorari; from Fayette superior court—Judge Searcy. August 29, 1919.

*W. B.*Hollingsivorth, for plaintiff in error.

*J. W.*Culpepper, contra.

(a) An unsanctioned petition not incorporated in the bill of exceptions but specified and sent up as a part of the record is not sufficiently identified by the mere attaching to the bill of exceptions, and following the judge’s certificate, of the paper which purports to be the original petition, or a copy thereof, with the order refusing sanction. *Sullivan*v. *Surrency,*15 *Ga. App.*301, 303 (82 S. E. 926); *Hollingsworth*v. *College Park,*17 *Ga. App.*372 (86 S. E. 945.)

2. Under the above ruling the writ of error must be

*Dismissed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
No. 87-6170.

#### Cataldo *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.