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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                 Netegrity, Inc.

                            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 Netegrity, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Barry N. Bycoff, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: April 28, 2003                  By: /s/ Barry N. Bycoff
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Barry N. Bycoff
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Netegrity, Inc. and will be retained by Netegrity, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

**EXHIBIT      10.3**

**LEASE      AGREEMENT**

**WITNESSETH:**

**2740      W California Ave Suite#5**

**SLC      UT 84104**

**Consisting      of:**

**15,635      Sq. Ft. of Warehouse plus 1,420 Sq. Ft. of Office w/mezzanine      above.**

**TERMS:**

**September      15, 2006 and continue for a period of 37 months through October 15, 2009. Tenant      may cancel this lease after 18 months if Lessor receives a prior 6 months      written notice. Lessor will keep the security deposit if this clause is      exercised**
**.**

**RENTAL:**

***Year      2 is $7150.00/month & year 3 is $7300.00/month**

----

**USE      OF PREMISES:**

----

**UTILITIES:**

**shall      not**
**shall**

**TAXES:**

**shall**
**2006      Pro-Rated Basis**

**MAINTENANCE:**

**Lessee**
**shall**
**Lessee**

----

**ALTERATIONS      AND IMPROVEMENTS:**

**KEY:**

**INSURANCE:**

----

----

**ABATEMENT      OF RENT:**

**DEFAULT      AND ABANDONMENT:**

----

**OPTION      TO RENEW: **

**HOLDING      OVER:**

**SUB-LEASE:**

**ENFORCEMENT:      **

**INDEMNITY:      **

**PROPERTY      OF LEASE: TITLE**

----

**ENTIRE      AGREEMENT MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY: **

**SUCCESSORS      IN INTEREST: **

**NOTICE:**

| Lessor: | Alder                Construction Company | Lessee: | ClearOne                Communications, Inc.  |
|---------|-------------------------------------------|---------|-----------------------------------------------|
|    | 3939                South 500 West        |    | 5225                Wiley Post Way, Suite 500 |
|    | Salt                Lake City, UT 84123   |    | Salt                Lake City, UT 84116       |
|    |                                      |    |                                          |
|    | Fax                (801) 266-2947         |    | Fax                (801) 977-0087             |

**ADDENDUM:**

**NONE**

| ACCEPTED                FOR LESSEE | CLEAR                ONE INC.By:                Marthes SolamuthuTitle:                Vice President of Operations  |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ACCEPTED                FOR LESSOR | ALDER                CONSTRUCTION COMPANYBy:                Greg AlderTitle:                Property Management           |
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

JOLLAN JOHNSON 09-00200-001

10782-003

02-23-2011

12-07-2011 Carlos Williams

✔

✔

120 95 months

02-23-2011

03-30-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.03.26 12:40:11 -06'00'

Case 1:09-cr-00200-CG-C Document 53 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AT SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 OF NALCO CHEMICAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                     63,900,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                             247,800,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (4,700,000)
<INVENTORY>                                88,700,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          418,600,000
<PP&E>                                  1,146,200,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          (653,600,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,426,600,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     309,500,000
<BONDS>                                   245,700,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         400,000
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                   15,100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                657,600,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,426,600,000
<SALES>                                 1,060,000,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,060,000,000
<CGS>                                     462,400,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             462,400,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          418,500,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         11,100,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           188,600,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               68,500,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       120,100,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                              120,100,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.54


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

WILLIAM SANDLIN MCLAURINE, II ) 

 ) 

v. ) MISC. ACTION 10-0026-WS 

 ) 

ROBERT A. WHERRY, JR., etc. ) 

 

ORDER 

 William Sandlin McLaurine II (“McLaurine”) has filed a document styled, 

“Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the district court of the United States.” (Doc. 1). The 

purpose of the document is to “reques[t] this court issue a writ certiorari, or a Writ of 

Certiorari, to correct this injustice by finding the actions of the United States Tax Court, 

Judge Robert A. Wherry Jr. without jurisdiction.” (Id. at 2). That is, the document seeks 

to have this Court review the action of the Tax Court. This is not possible. 

 “The United States Courts of Appeals (other than the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions 

of the Tax Court, except as provided in section 1254 of Title 28 of the United States Code 

....” 26 U.S.C. § 2682(a)(1); accord Roberts v. Commissioner, 175 F.3d 889, 892 (11th

Cir. 1999); Gulden v. United States, 287 Fed. Appx. 813, 817 (11th Cir. 2008). Section 

1254 addresses review by the Supreme Court. 

 Pursuant to Section 2682, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the action of the 

Tax Court. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. The Clerk is directed to close 

this matter. 

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 2010. 

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-mc-00026-WS Document 3 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 1
#### A. H. Henninger *v.*Charlotte Henninger.

Divorce — Wife Insane.

Where the husband in his petition fop divorce avers that his wife had been judicially found to be of unsound mind, he is not a competent witness against her.

APPEAL FROM ROBERTSON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 7, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

The appellant was married to the appellee in Claremount, Ohio, in 1838. He alleged that they lived together as husband and wife until in 1862, when she left him, and that they have lived separate and apart without cohabitation ever since; that in 1866 he removed to what is nowi Robertson county, in this state, ánd had'resided there continuously up to the commencement of this suit, July 9, 1873; and upon the ground that they had lived separate and apart without co*628habitation for five years, he sought a divorce from the bonds of matrimony.

*J. A. & C. M. Buckler, for appellant.*

There is no competent evidence of the time of their separation. The appellant gave his own deposition, in which he says they separated in 1862, and have lived separate and apart ever since. This deposition was not excepted to, but should be rejected by the court of its own motion. Neither husband or wife is a competent witness against the other. The appellant, in an amended petition, alleged that the appellee had been judicially found to be of unsound mind, and this furnishes an additional reason why he was incompetent as a witness.

Aside from the appellant’s deposition, there is no evidence when they ceased to live together, or that when he came to Kentucky they separated with an intention not to live together again. For aught that appears, except from some incompetent declarations of the appellant which he introduced as evidence, there was no such separation as is contemplated by the statute until she came to Kentucky in 1870; and even then, the evidence strongly conduces to show that she was insane. Counting from the time of her arrival in this state to the time of the commencement of this suit, the parties have not been shown to have lived separate and apart as much as five years. During the greater part, if not all of that time, the appellee was insane.

We concur with the court below in the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to a divorce.

Judgment *affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
                                       

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF NASH FINCH COMPANY


A.   Direct subsidiaries of Nash Finch Company (the voting stock of which is 
owned, with respect to each subsidiary, 100 percent by Nash Finch Company):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                        Subsidiary                          State of
                        Corporation                       Incorporation
                        -----------                       -------------
<S>                                                       <C>
        GTL Truck Lines, Inc.                                Nebraska
        Norfolk, Nebraska

        Nash De-Camp Company                                California
        Visalia, California

        Nash Finch Funding Corp.                             Delaware
        Edina, Minnesota

        Piggly Wiggly Northland Corporation                  Minnesota
        Edina, Minnesota

        Super Food Services, Inc.                             Delaware
        Dayton, Ohio

        T.J. Morris Company                                   Georgia
        Statesboro, Georgia
</TABLE>

B.   Direct subsidiaries of Nash Finch Company (the voting stock of which is 
owned, with respect to each subisidiary, 66.6 percent by Nash Finch Company):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                        Subsidiary                          State of
                        Corporation                       Incorporation
                        -----------                       -------------
<S>                                                       <C>
         Gillette Dairy of the Black Hills, Inc.          South Dakota
         Rapid City, South Dakota

         Nebraska Dairies, Inc.                             Nebraska
         Norfolk, Nebraska
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

C.   Subsidiaries of Nash-DeCamp Company (the voting stock of which is owned, 
with respect to each subsidiary other than Agricola Nadco Limitada, 100 
percent by Nash-DeCamp Company):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                        Subsidiary                          State of
                        Corporation                       Incorporation
                        -----------                       -------------
<S>                                                       <C>
          Forrest Transportation Service, Inc.              California
          Visalia, California

          Agricola Nadco Limitada (*)                         Chile

          * Ninety-nine percent (99%) is owned by
          Nash-DeCamp Company.
</TABLE>
##### 



rd
    Section 1. Certain Definitions.
  provided however




---



##### 



provided however
 provided however
  2




---



##### 



Section 2. Employment Period; Employment Agreement. provided provided
 Section 3. Terms of Employment.
 Position and Duties.
   3




---



##### 



Compensation.
 Base Salary.
 Annual Bonus.
 Incentive, Savings and Retirement Plans.
 Welfare Benefit Plans.
 4




---



##### 



Expenses.
 Fringe Benefits.
 Office and Support Staff.
 Vacation.
 Section 4. Termination of Employment.
 Death or Disability. provided
 5




---



##### 



Cause.
    Good Reason.
 6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



Notice of Termination.
 Date of Termination.
 8




---



##### 



(f) Non-Renewal of Employment Agreement.
 Section 5. Obligations of the Company upon Termination.
 Good Reason, Death or Disability; Other Than for Cause.
     9




---



##### 



Cause; Other Than for Good Reason.
 Section 6. Employment Agreement; Non-Exclusivity of Rights.
 10




---



##### 



Section 7. No Set-Off; Companys Obligations; Mitigation.
 Section 8. Certain Additional Payments by the Company.
   11




---



##### 



Section 9. Covenants of Executive.
 Confidential Information.
 12




---



##### 



Non-Competition.
 Non-Solicitation.
 Continuation of Employment.
 13




---



##### 



provided
 Section 10. Arbitration. provided, however
 Section 11. [Intentionally Omitted]
 Section 12. Successors.
 provided, however
   Section 13. Miscellaneous.
  14




---



##### 



provided
    15




---



##### 



MYLAN LABORATORIES INC.By:
    /s/ Robert J. CouryName: Robert J. CouryTitle: Vice Chairman and CEO/s/ Stuart A. WilliamsStuart A. Williams
 16
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1625 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish St. Patrick’s Day as 

a Federal holiday. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2023 

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

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish St. 

Patrick’s Day as a Federal holiday. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘St. Patrick’s Day Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ST. PATRICK’S DAY. 

6 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

7 amended by inserting after the item relating to Washing8 ton’s Birthday the following: 

9 ‘‘St. Patrick’s Day.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, AIS 134016, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CA 11-0228-CG-C 

PENTON ASHWORTH, et al., : 

 Defendants. : 

ORDER 

 After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant 

to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the 

recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated September 14, 2012 (Doc. 

149), is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. The motion to dismiss filed by 

Penton Ashworth, James Pate and Roger Marsh (Doc. 119), and the motion to 

dismiss filed by defendant Kevin Dunn (Doc. 131) are hereby DENIED in their 

entirety. 

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 2012. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-00228-CG-C Document 156 Filed 10/03/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN LAVIGNE and PAUL LAVIGNE, :

Plaintiffs, :

vs. : CA 10-0222-MJ-C

BRITISH PETROLEUM, PLC, et al., :

Defendants.

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP

America, Inc., and BP North America, Inc.’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings (Doc. 5), the

joinder in the motion to stay filed by defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Doc. 12),

the plaintiffs’ response (Doc. 21), and the BP defendants’ reply (Doc. 27). 

Upon consideration of the foregoing pleadings, the motion for stay of proceedings

(Doc. 5) is DENIED without prejudice to the defendants’ ability to re-file same after

responsive pleadings have been filed. See, e.g., Hopkins, et al. v. Transocean, Ltd., et al., CA

10-0221-WS-C, Doc. 12 (May 25, 2010 order denying motion to stay as premature). 

DONE and ORDERED this the 27th day of May, 2010. 

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00222-KD-C Document 30 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000839950
<NAME> NORTH COAST ENERGY, INC. 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,317,579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,731,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    176,669
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,389,819
<PP&E>                                      50,566,039
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,698,782
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,993,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,718,067
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,074
<COMMON>                                       227,825
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,075,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,993,942
<SALES>                                      8,164,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,164,257
<CGS>                                        6,615,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,615,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (65,098)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,437,355
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                176,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            176,270
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   176,270
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND> 
This  schedule  contains  summary  information   extracted  from  the  financial
statements for National Computer Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries,  for the fiscal
year ended  January 31,  1999,  and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.

</LEGEND>                                                       
<CIK>                                   0000069999
<NAME>                                  NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. Dollars

                                                  
                                              
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             JAN-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1.0
<CASH>                                     16,310
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                             128,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                21,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          174,077
<PP&E>                                    215,432
<DEPRECIATION>                           (109,416)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            362,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     127,438
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                      944
<OTHER-SE>                                225,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              362,471
<SALES>                                   180,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          505,372
<CGS>                                      73,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             314,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          135,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            54,111
<INCOME-TAX>                               21,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        32,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               32,511
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                1.00
        


</TABLE>