alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1
                                  ------------


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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Litchfield Financial
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Joseph J. Greco, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/  Joseph J. Greco
--------------------
     Joseph J. Greco
     Chief Executive Officer

May 12, 2003
##### 



Doral Financial Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Quarter endedMarch 31, 2006Including Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax loss from continuing operations
    
    $
    (22,024
    )Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    175,587Total Earnings
    
    $
    153,563Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    174,276Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    547An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    764Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    175,587Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    (A
    )Excluding Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax loss from continuing operations
    
    $
    (22,024
    )Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    142,879Total Earnings
    
    $
    120,855Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    141,568Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    547An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    764Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    142,879Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    (A
    )
EXHIBIT 24




POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
 
 We the undersigned officers and/or directors of Chemtura Corporation, hereby constitute and appoint Stephen C. Forsyth and Billie S. Flaherty and each of them our true and lawful attorneys in fact with full power of substitution to sign and file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chemtura Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, and any and all amendments and other filings or documents related thereto.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this Power of Attorney in the capacities indicated on March 4, 2011.
 
 /s/Craig A. Rogerson

Craig A. Rogerson

Principal Executive Officer

Chairman of the Board

President, Chief Executive Officer

and Director
/s/Jeffrey D. Benjamin

Jeffrey D. Benjamin

Director/s/ Timothy J. Bernlohr

Timothy J. Bernlohr

Lead Director
/s/ Alan S. Cooper

Alan S. Cooper

Director/s/ James W. Crownover

James W. Crownover

Director
/s/ Jonathan F. Foster

Jonathan F. Foster

Director/s/ Anna C. Catalano

Roger L. Headrick

Director
/s/ John K. Wulff

John K. Wulff

Director
#### Howard YOUNG, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. TRANS UNION, et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 06-16051.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 10, 2007.

*2Howard Young, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on July 16, 2007, is withdrawn. A replacement memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.

Appellant’s motion for publication, petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are denied as moot.

MEMORANDUM **

Howard Young appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against numerous defendants arising out of his ongoing criminal prosecution in California state court. We review de novo a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. *Ramirez v. Galaza,*334 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir.2003). This Court may raise the issue of *Younger*abstention at any point during the appellate process. *H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel,*203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000). We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the action for damages and to stay the action until the state criminal proceeding has been completed.

The district court improperly treated Young’s Fair Credit Reporting Act and state and federal Right to Financial Privacy Act claims as brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and then dismissed them as barred *3under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because Young’s complaint did not purport to allege those causes of action under section 1983. *See Bogovich v. Sandoval,*189 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir.1999) (“courts should not undertake to infer in one cause of action when a complaint clearly states a claim under a different cause of action.”).

In light of the ongoing state court criminal proceedings, the district court was required under *Younger v. Harris,*401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Young’s statutory claims for money damages and to stay the action until the state court proceeding was completed. *See Gilbertson v. Albright,*381 F.3d 965, 981 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (“when damages are sought and *Younger*principles apply, it makes sense for the federal court to refrain from exercising jurisdiction temporarily by staying its hand until such time as the state proceeding is no longer pending.”).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to enter an order staying Young’s action for damages until the state proceeding has been completed.

Appellant shall bear the costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Opinion issued June 18, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00370-CR

———————————

IN RE RONALD GAYTON, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Ronald Gayton, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus challenging the trial court’s alleged failure to either recuse himself or 

refer the motion to the regional presiding judge after relator filed his second 

motion to recuse.1

1 The underlying case is State of Texas v. Ronald Gayton, cause number 19414, 

pending in the 21st District Court of Washington County, Texas, the Honorable 

J.D. Langley, visiting judge, presiding.
2

Relator filed the motion to recuse and this petition for writ of mandamus pro 

se despite stating in the mandamus petition that he is represented by defense 

counsel, Zoe Coufal. A defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation in the 

trial court or the appellate court. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1995). Because the issues raised in this petition concern his criminal 

proceeding in which he is represented by counsel, his petition for writ of 

mandamus presents nothing for review. See id.; In re West, 419 S.W.3d 312, 312–

13 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, orig. proceeding).2

We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

2 Relator has also attached to his petition a copy of the trial court’s order on the 

second motion to recuse, indicating that the judge declined to recuse himself and 

referred the motion to the Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Judicial 

Region for assignment of a judge to hear the motion.
Exhibit 4.2


  


CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION OF THE


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE


CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION OF


SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK


OF


HC2 HOLDINGS, INC.







It is hereby certified that:







1.            The name of the corporation is HC2 Holdings, Inc. (the “Corporation”).







2.            The Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Designation of Series A Convertible Participating Preferred Stock of the Corporation, which was filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on September 22, 2014 (the “Certificate of Amendment”), is hereby corrected.







3.            The inaccuracy to be corrected in the Certificate of Amendment is that the Certificate of Amendment was filed in error without the proper authorization of the stockholders of the Corporation.







4.            The Certificate of Amendment is hereby rendered null and void.







[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]


 











	
Dated:

	
August 5

	
, 2015










	 	
HC2 HOLDINGS, INC.


	 	 	 
	 	
By:

	
/s/ Keith Hladek


	 		
Name: Keith Hladek


	 		
Title:   Chief Operating Officer





 


[Signature Page to Series A Certificate of Correction]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

                             BTU INTERNATIONAL, INC.
         CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                 (in thousands, except share and per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             For the Three Months Ended     For the Nine Months Ended
                                           -----------------------------    -------------------------
                                             Sept. 28,        Sept. 29,        Sept. 28,     Sept. 29,
                                               2003             2002             2003          2002

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                       <C>              <C>             <C>             <C>

Net loss                                  $  (1,617)       $  (1,661)      $  (5,253)      $  (4,427)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net loss applicable to
     common stockholders                  $  (1,617)       $  (1,661)      $  (5,253)      $  (4,427)
=======================================================================================================

Weighted average number of
    shares outstanding:

     Basic Shares                         7,030,140        6,910,226       7,011,834       6,873,843
     Effect of Dilutive Options                   0                0               0               0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Diluted Shares                       7,030,140        6,910,226       7,011,834       6,873,843
=======================================================================================================

 Loss per Share

     Basic                                $   (0.23)       $   (0.24)      $   (0.75)      $   (0.64)

     Diluted                              $   (0.23)       $   (0.24)      $   (0.75)      $   (0.64)
=======================================================================================================

</TABLE>
















                                       14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0072-CG-C

)

280 Cody Road South, Mobile, AL, )

)

Defendant. )

FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

In accordance with the order entered of this date, the defendant, 280 Cody 

Road South, Mobile, Alabama, together with its appurtenances and improvements 

in Mobile County, Alabama, is forfeited to the plaintiff, the United States of 

America, for disposition according to law.

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00072-CG-C Document 25 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         568,549
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               570,318
<PP&E>                                         34,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 666,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,778,666
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       411,842
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,610,341)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   666,121
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21,722
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               166,879
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             64,771
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (171,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (171,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (171,377)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 24, 2017

t0117 

# Order

Clerk January 24, 2017

153846

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153846

COA: 326209

Genesee CC: 13

- 034264

- FC

JOSEPH DANTE LEE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the

case of People v Collins (Docket No. 153952) is pending on appeal before this Court and

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the

decision in that case.
Order entered December 6, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00313-CR

CARLA GAY JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA17-40154-L

ORDER

After reviewing the reporter’s record in this appeal, the Court notes two exhibits are 

missing. We ORDER court reporter Sharina Fowler to file, WITHIN TEN DAYS of the date 

of this order, a supplemental reporter’s record containing (1) State’s Exhibit #1, labeled “Police 

Body Cam Video” and (2) State’s Exhibit #11, labeled “911 Call.”

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Page 1







Page2







Page 3







Page 4







Page 5







Page 6







Page 7







Page 8







Page 9







Page 10







Page 11







Page 12







Page 13







Page 14







Page 15







Page 16







Page 17







Page 18







Page 19







Page 20







Page 21







Page 22







Page 23







Page 24







Page 25







Page 26







Page 27







Page 28







Page 29







Page 30
##### 



EXHIBIT 32(2) CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 Title 18,
United States Code) Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Doral Financial Corporation, a Puerto Rico corporation
(the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the
Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: August 9, 2004 By:
    
    /s/ Ricardo MeléndezName:
    
    Ricardo MeléndezTitle:
    
    Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer
 This certification accompanies this Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that Section. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to, and will be retained by, the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30235]



[[Page 77590]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8983]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Latin America in Construction: Architecture 1955-
1980''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Latin America in Construction: 
Architecture 1955-1980,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from 
on or about March 29, 2015, until on or about July 19, 2015, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 18, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-30235 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

vs. : CRIMINAL ACTION 09-00179-KD

ERIC SEBASTION BARROW :

ORDER

On March 8, 2010, Defendant filed a Fifth Motion to Continue

Trial Setting (Doc. 47). As grounds for the motion, Daniel L.

McCleave, counsel for Defendant, stated that he has requested

permission for excess fees to engage a computer expert to assist

in Defendant's defense. On December 10, 2009, Judge DuBose found

that the expense appeared reasonable for the services to be

provided and recommended to the Eleventh Circuit that the voucher

be paid. To date, there has been no ruling from the Eleventh

Circuit, thus prompting Defendant's Fifth Motion to Continue. 

Prior to the pretrial conference this date, this Court

contacted the Eleventh Circuit and was informed that the voucher

could not be located. The Clerk requested that another copy be

emailed to the Eleventh Circuit and it would be processed today. 

Judge DuBose's Memorandum, the CJA 21 Voucher, and the Affidavit

of defense counsel were emailed promptly. 

Under the circumstances, and after conferring with counsel

at the pretrial conference this date, the Court is persuaded that

the ends of justice outweigh the best interests of the public and

Case 1:09-cr-00179-KD-M Document 50 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 2
1

The Court further finds that any delay resulting from this

continuance is excludable for Speedy Trial Act purposes pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).

2

Defendant in a speedy trial. Accordingly, the trial is hereby

CONTINUED to the May 2010 criminal term, commencing with jury

selection at 8:45 a.m. on May 3, 20101. Defendant is to file a

written waiver of his speedy trial rights not later than March

18, 2010.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to refer this action to the

appropriate Magistrate Judge for the scheduling of another

pretrial conference.

DONE this 9th day of March, 2010.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cr-00179-KD-M Document 50 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/ A of American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the undersigned officer’s knowledge:





i.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Tony Liu


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


Tony Liu


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)


November 14 , 2011








/s/ Yanchun Li


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


Yanchun Li


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)


November 14 , 2011