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



EXHIBIT 99.1

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

I, Michael T. Solomon, Chief Executive Officer of MTS, Incorporated, (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this
certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.                                                                                     

|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: December 16, 2002 |  | /s/ Michael T. Solomon 
|                         |  |                        
|                         |  | Michael T. Solomon     
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer

31
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS,
               CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND
               NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
               AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
               FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                            18,079
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     26,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      270,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 328,920
<PP&E>                                           195,074
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   576,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            183,381
<BONDS>                                          269,161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               6
<OTHER-SE>                                       123,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     576,081
<SALES>                                          778,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 778,853
<CGS>                                            530,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    530,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 225,193
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                13,086
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1,703)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         920
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (2,623)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (2,623)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (2,622.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2,622.68)


</TABLE>
#### R. H. Kelly *v.*N. J. Kelly.

Marriage — Annulment.

A suit to annul a marriage obtained by force or fraud cannot be sustained by only tbe admission of the defendant.

APPEAL FROM TODD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 18, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

While a suit to- annul a marriage obtained by force or fraud is not a suit for a divorce, and does not therefore fall within the letter of Sec. 3, Art. 3, Chap. 52, of the General Statutes, which enacts that “no petition for a divorce shall be taken for confessed, or be sustained by the admissions of the defendant alone, but must be supported by other proof,” yet such suit does fall within the obvious scope and intention of the statute, and should for the most weighty reasons be held to be embraced by it. The manifest purpose of the statute was to prevent parties dissatisfied with their marriage relations, from obtaining judgment of separation by collusion. If by changing the form of the action, and alleging fraud or force in obtaining the marriage, the plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment annulling the marriage relation, unless the allegations of the petition are denied, the road would be open to that influx of divorce suits which in some states has been found so prejudicial to good morals, social order, and the peace and happiness of families. It has long been the settled policy of both the legislature and judicial departments of the government of this state, to discourage proceedings for dissolving the marriage relation, and to grant divorces, and annul marriages only when it appeared by evidence brought before the court, that there were sufficient reasons for so doing.

*269
      *S. W.*Kennedy, *for appellant.*

*H. T.*Willoughby, *for appellee.*

The' appellant not only alleges the marriage of himself and the appellee, but he files, as a part of his petition, certified copies of the license for and certificate of his marriage, and although the facts alleged, if proved, would have entitled him to a judgment declaring the marriage void, yet, as they were not proved, the chancellor properly refused to take the petition pro confesso, and the judgment dismissing it is *affirmed.*
In re Michael

McCrum Appellant/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 21, 2014

No. 04-14-00047-CR

IN RE Michael MCCRUM

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On January 17, 2014, relator filed a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition.

Relator then filed a supplemental petition and motion for emergency stay on January 21, 2014.

This court is of the opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought

requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party

in interest may file a response to the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition in this

court no later than January 28, 2014. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relator’s request for emergency stay is GRANTED. Further proceedings in Cause Nos.

2011-CR-11074 and 2011-CR-11075 concerning the State’s motion for contempt and hearing on

the court’s order to show cause are temporarily stayed pending final resolution of the petition

filed in this court.

It is so ORDERED on January 21st, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011CR11074; 2011CR11075, styled The State of Texas v. Taylor

Rosenbusch

, pending in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Dick Alcala

presiding.
Exhibit 32

Section 1350
Certifications

---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Greenville First Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed
               with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  March 30, 2005 |  | /s/  R. Arthur Seaver, Jr.
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------
|                      |  | R. Arthur Seaver, Jr.     
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer   

|Date:  March 30, 2005 |  | /s/  James M. Austin, III
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------
|                      |  | James M. Austin, III     
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                 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 June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Regina O. Sommer, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer 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: August 3, 2004                     /s/ Regina O. Sommer
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Regina O. Sommer
                                         Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                         (Principal Financial Officer and
                                         Principal Accounting Officer)
No. 16,764

#### Rauh, Administrator, *v.*Weis et al.

*Appeal.*— Transfer *of to Appellate Court.*— *Cause for.*— Decedent’s Estate.— *Claim.*— Recovery *of Personal Property.*— Jurisdiction.-—-Where an appeal was taken from an order and judgment of the Circuit Court directing the plaintiff to dismiss the suit at his own cost, to turn over two promissory-notes in his hands to the appellees, as part of their distributive share of the estate, and to file within ten days his final report as such administrator, an appeal was taken to this court; appellees filed a motion to transfer the case to the Appellate Court.

*Held,*that the case does not fall within any of the provisions of the statute giving jurisdiction to the Appellate Court; that claims referred to in the jurisdictional act are such as are required to be filed against the decedent’s estate, and to be entered upon the allowance docket and transferred to the issue docket for trial.

*Held,*also, that actions for the recovery of specific personal property, as mentioned in the jurisdictional act, has reference to actions of replevin.

Prom the Marion Circuit Court.

*W.F.A.*Bernhamer, *F. J. Van Vorhis*and *W. W. Spencer,*for appellant.

*A. C. Ayres*and *A. Q. Jones,*for appellees.

Miller, C. J.

The appellees have filed and submitted a motion for the transfer of this case to the Appellate Court.

The appeal is from an order and judgment of the Circuit Court directing the appellant to dismiss, at his own costs, an action instituted by him in the Marion Superior Court for the foreclosure of a mortgage; to turn over two promissory notes in his hands to the appellees, as part of their distributive shares of the estate; and to file, within ten days, his final report as such administrator.

In our opinion this case does not fall within any of the provisions of the statute giving the Appellate Court jurisdiction of this appeal.

That court is given jurisdiction “in all-cases of appeals from orders allowing or disallowing claims against decedents’ estates.” Acts of 1891, p. 39, section 1.

*265Filed December 21, 1892.

The claims allowed or disallowed, referred to in this act, are, we think, such claims as are required to he filed against decedents’ estates and entered upon the allowance docket, and transferred to the issue docket for trial (Elliott’s Supp. sections 385 to 389), and does not embrace general probate matters. *Ex parte Sweeney, Clerk,*126 Ind. 583 (592).

This action was not one brought for “ the recovery of specific personal property” as mentioned in the act under consideration. That evidently refers to actions of replevin for the direct and immediate recovery of the possession of personal property. This action only seeks, as part of the relief sought, to affect the disposition of the promissory notes, by controlling the action and conduct of the administrator in the discharge of the duties of his trust. *Ex parte Sweeney, supra.*

Motion to transfer overruled.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant      to**

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As      Adopted pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| Date:                February 8, 2007 | By:    | /s/                Zeynep Hakimoglu                                                              |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   | Zeynep                Hakimoglu                                                                  |
|                                  |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer) |

**A      signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc.      and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MATHEW ARCHIE, a/k/a Matthew Archie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-98-1184)

Submitted: March 23, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mathew Archie, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mathew Archie appeals the district court’s orders denying his

motions for release of documents related to his criminal conviction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Archie, No. CR98-1184 (D.S.C. Aug. 2, 2000; filed July 17, 2000; entered July 18,

2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
11208.

#### Redding *v.*The State.

Decided April 14, 1920.

Conviction of shooting at another; from Bibb superior court — Judge Graham presiding. December 11, 1919.

Bloodworth, J.

1. The plaintiff in error was indicted for assault with intent to murder and was convicted of unlawfully shooting at another. The facts of this case bring it squarely within the ruling in the case of *Drysdale*v. *State,*83 *Ga.*744 (10 S. E. 358, 6 L. R. A. 424, 20 Am. St. R. 340), where it was held: “1. Where a verdict is correct if the testimony of the prosecutor was' true, and where the jury must have believed it true in order to render the verdict, the result coincides with the substantial merits of the case. 2. A husband may attack for intimacy with his wife in his presence, raising a well-founded belief that the criminal act is just over or about to begin; and the adulterer, though in danger, has no right to defend himself by using a deadly weapon.” See also *Brown*v. *State,*10 *Ga. App.*50 (3), 52 (7), 56 (4) (72 S. E. 537).

2. When they are read in connection with the remainder of the charge of the court, there is no error in any of the excerpts of which complaint is made.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*

*234
      *John R. Cooper, W. O. Cooper Jr., W. R. Nisbet, Walter J. Grace Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general,*contra.
| William C. Owens as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that: |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  (1) | the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL STEPP, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0303-BH-C

MIKE HALEY, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the claims against defendant Rose

Johnson be and are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

DONE this 14th day of September, 2005.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00303-BH-C Document 28 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            ReliaStar Financial Corp.
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings
                     (in millions, except per share amounts)


                                                      Three Months
                                                     Ended March 31
                                                   ------------------
                                                   2000         1999
                                                   -----        -----

NUMERATOR - BASIC AND DILUTED

Net Income                                         $74.1        $64.4
                                                   =====        =====

DENOMINATOR

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding
  During the Period (Basic)                         89.3         88.8
Dilutive Effect of Stock Options                      .8          1.2
Other                                                 .1           .1
                                                   -----        -----
   Weighted Average Common Shares During the
     Period (Diluted)                               90.2         90.1
                                                   =====        =====


NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
Basic                                              $ .83        $ .73
                                                   =====        =====


Diluted                                            $ .82        $ .71
                                                   =====        =====
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador VALDEZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10475.

D.C. No. CR-00-00059-HDM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 9, 2001.1

Decided May 8, 2001.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

MEMORANDUM2

Salvador Valdez-Romero appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, and sentence for being an alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.3

Relying on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Valdez-Romero contends that the district court erred when it increased his base offense level by 4 points, because the fact that his prior deportation followed a felony conviction was neither admitted nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. He further contends that *Apprendi*calls into question the continuing validity of *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Valdez-Romero’s contentions, however, are foreclosed by our recent decision in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 413-14 (9th Cir.2000), *as amended*(Feb. 8, 2001). *United States v. Castillo-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

2

. 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.

3

. Appellee's motion to supplement the record by filing an amended Judgment and Commitment, entered by the district court on March 12, 2001 pursuant to the parties' stipulation to delete the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), is granted.