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



Exhibit 99.1

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 American Building Control, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bryan C.W. Tate,
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:



|(a) |  | This Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Bryan C.W. Tate

Bryan C.W. Tate
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                         WASHINGTON, DC 20549

                               FORM 10-Q/A

           QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d)
                OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR QUARTER ENDED:  June 30, 1996    COMMISSION FILE #: 2-67918-NY

                      MIKROS SYSTEMS CORPORATION
                      --------------------------   
          (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)


          DELAWARE                            14-1598-200
          --------                            -----------  
(State or Other Jurisdiction of    (I.R.S. Employer Identification#)
 Incorporation or Organization)

                3490 U.S. Route 1, Princeton, NJ 08540
                --------------------------------------     
     (Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code)

   Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code: 609-987-1513

    Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports),
and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90
days.  [X]Yes    [ ]No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

                                                    OUTSTANDING  AT
           CLASS                                     June 30, 1996 
----------------------------                        ----------------
COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.01                        7,894,608 SHARES

CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK,                        1,005,000 SHARES
     PAR VALUE $.01

SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK                            1,131,663 SHARES
     PAR VALUE $.01

SERIES C PREFERRED STOCK                                5,000 SHARES
     PAR VALUE $.01

SERIES D PREFERRED STOCK                              690,000 SHARES
     PAR VALUE $.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------

<PAGE>

Item 6.     EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K.

a)  Exhibits:

    Exhibit No.                              Description
    -----------                          --------------------
       27                               Financial Data Schedule

b)  Reports on Form 8-K.
    No reports on Form 8-K have been filed during the
    quarter for which this report is filed.

<PAGE>

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the registrant has caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


                                MIKROS SYSTEMS CORPORATION
                                       (Registrant)

Dated: November 26, 1996

                                /s/ Thomas J. Meaney     
                                -----------------------
                                Thomas J. Meaney
                                President and
                                Chief Executive Officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

325 

KA 08-00139 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALTON A. DUNN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR.,

OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John

J. Ark, J.), rendered November 15, 2007. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2]

[b]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to

suppress statements that he made while in custody at the police

station, before he was advised of his Miranda warnings. Although

defendant is correct that he had not been Mirandized when two 

investigators initially questioned him in an interview room, defendant

did not make any inculpatory statements at that time. In fact, he

consistently denied involvement in the crime. Defendant was left

alone for approximately one hour before one of the two investigators

returned to the interview room, at which time Miranda warnings were

administered and the questioning continued. Defendant made the

incriminating statements at issue during the second interrogation.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that there was a

sufficiently “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation” to

dissipate the taint resulting from the initial Miranda violation

(People v Chapple, 38 NY2d 112, 115; see People v Paulman, 5 NY3d 122,

130-131; People v Smith, 275 AD2d 951, lv denied 96 NY2d 739), and

that the court therefore properly refused to suppress the

incriminating statements at issue. We reject defendant’s further

challenge to the severity of the sentence. 

Entered: April 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT      10.42**

----

----

**NOTE      PURCHASE AGREEMENT**

**NOTE      PURCHASE AGREEMENT**

----

----

----

----

**.**

*provided,      however*

----

----

----

*[Signatures      on Following Page.]*

----

|  COMPANY:      |  **SOMANTA PHARMACEUTICALS,              INC.** |
|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                                 |
|                |                                                 |
|                |  By:                                            |  /s/ Terrance              J. Bruggeman |  |
|                |                                                 |  Name: Terrance J. Bruggeman  |
|                |                                                 |  Title: Executive Chairman |
|                |                                                 |   |
|                |                                                 |   |
|  LENDER:  |  **ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS,              INC.**  |
|                |                                                 |   |
|                |  By:                                            |  /s/              Stephen R. Seiler |  |
|                |                                                 |  Name: Stephen R. Seiler |
|                |                                                 |  Title: President and Chief Executive              Officer |

----

----

----

----

----

|  Amount                of Advance Requested |  Wire                Instructions | Date                Advance is Requested to Be Made |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |                                   |                                                |
|                                             |                                   |                                                |
#### Henry Weber, Respondent, v Town of Hempstead, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 339]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated October 11, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the night of September 23, 2004 the plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on an uneven surface in the Newbridge Road Park parking lot, located in the defendant Town of Hempstead, and fractured his right foot. As the plaintiff correctly concedes on appeal, the defendant established that it lacked prior written notice of a dangerous and defective condition at the subject location *(see Amabile v City of Buffalo,*93 NY2d 471, 474 [1999]; *Tuzzolo v Town of Hempstead,*292 AD2d 446 [2002]). However, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]) as *618to whether the repair work which the defendant performed on the surface of the parking lot immediately resulted in the existence of the dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to trip and fall *(see Oboler v City of New York,*8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007]; *Bohm v Town of Brookhaven,*43 AD3d 454, 456 [2007]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.E, Santucci, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Washington

2022 to 2023

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international 

system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented 

measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and 

has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

NOTE: Amended on 2023-01-31 to update 

the Mass Echelon III range of ounces

Mass Echelon I

20 kg to 1 mg

50 lb to 0.001 lb

Mass Echelon II

25 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb to 0.001 lb

4 oz to 0.03125 oz

Mass Echelon III

25 kg to 1 mg

4000 lb to 0.001 lb

4 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts 

4000 lb to 3000 lb

Volume Gravimetric, I

5 gal 

Volume Transfer, II

1000 gal to 5 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

200 gal to 19 gal

Time

Stopwatches, Timers

 24 h

_____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

(Rev.: September 2021)

Effective Dates: 2022-02-01 to 2024-02-01
**EXHIBIT        10.3**

**AMENDMENT        NO. 2 TO THE**

**GENENTECH,        INC. TAX REDUCTION INVESTMENT PLAN**

**(January        1, 2006 Restatement)**

*.        *

| 2. | Section                  6.3.5 is amended in its entirety, effective as of March 31, 2007,                  to read                  as follows: |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

*Limitation        on Investment in Company Stock Fund.*

----

**IN        WITNESS WHEREOF,**

| **GENENTECH,                  INC.** |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                 |   |   |   |   |
| By:                                  | /s/ DAVID                  A. EBERSMAN |   | And                  by: | /s/ DENISE                  SMITH-HAMS |
| Title:                               |    Chief                  Financial Officer |   | Title: |    Vice                  President, Human Resources |
| Dated:                               |    March                  2, 2007 |   | Dated: |    March                  2, 2007 |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 4, 2018

No. 04-18-00334-CV

Paulette BARIBEAU,

Appellant

v.

HILL COUNTRY PARTNERS, L.P.,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-08378

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due November 1, 2018; however, the court granted an 

extension of time until December 3, 2018. Appellant has filed an unopposed second motion for 

extension of time to file the brief. 

We grant the motion and order appellant’s brief due January 3, 2018. Counsel is 

advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed before the brief 

is due, that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the 

court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court 

reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended 

deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary 

circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7211

FELTON ANTHONY WIGGINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:09-hc-02116-FL)

Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felton Anthony Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. William E.H. Creech, 

Tobin Webb Lathan, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Felton Anthony Wiggins, a federal prisoner, appeals 

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we 

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Wiggins v. United States, 

No. 5:09-hc-02116-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2010). 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
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON FORM 10-Q PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 NOT FILED PURSUANT TO
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on
Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certify that this report on Form 10-Q of
American Building Control, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained herein this report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of American
Building Control, Inc. Dated: November 15, 2004/s/ J. Collier SparksJ. Collier SparksPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jon D. GreenwoodJon D. GreenwoodSenior Vice-President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cyril Winebrenner, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 140]

— Motion for re-argument denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         434,909
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,244,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,005,460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,767,899
<PP&E>                                       9,092,832
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,653,839
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,575,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,799,479
<BONDS>                                        531,238
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,010
<COMMON>                                        48,552
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,464,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,575,214
<SALES>                                      3,170,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,170,641
<CGS>                                        2,144,107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,144,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               626,189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                365,611
<INCOME-TAX>                                   146,297
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            227,932
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   227,932
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kamal MABREY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-5153.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2006.

Decided: June 16, 2006.

*272James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, John H. Chun, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland; Sherri Keene, Staff Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, John F. Purcell, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Kamal Mabrey pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced him as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp.2005), to 188 months of imprisonment, the bottom of the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines range. We affirmed Mabrey’s conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *See United States v. Mabrey,*150 Fed.Appx. 274 (4th Cir.2005) (No. 04-5077) *(“Mabrey I”).*

On remand, the district court resentenced Mabrey to a 180-month prison term, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Mabrey appeals the sentence imposed on remand, asserting that the district court erred in concluding that his second-degree burglary conviction under Maryland law qualified as a violent felony for purposes of sentencing him as an armed career criminal and that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the predicate offenses were neither submitted to a jury nor admitted by him. Mabrey acknowledges, however, that he is precluded from raising these issues in this appeal because he litigated them in *Mabrey I.*

In *Mabrey I,*we rejected the claims Mabrey now seeks to raise in this appeal. Thus, we find that Mabrey’s claims are barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine and that none of the exceptions applies. *See United States v. Aramony,*166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir.1999) (discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto); *see also S. Atl. Ltd. P’ship of Tenn. v. Riese,*356 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir.2004) (discussing mandate rule). Accordingly, we affirm Mabrey’s sentence.

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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                   5

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>		                 	17,286
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>  			        91,487
<ALLOWANCES>              50,000
<INVENTORY>                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> 		       63,727
<PP&E>				                59,722
<DEPRECIATION>          		51,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>           100,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>  	 207,987
<BONDS>                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>     80,450
<PREFERRED>               20,766
<COMMON>                 309,091
<OTHER-SE>              (517,990)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 100,304
<SALES>                   43,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>    	     43,369
<CGS>                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>         122,156
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>         8,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>          (87,187)
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>      (87,187)
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>            4,377
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>             (82,810)
<EPS-BASIC>               0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>               0.00


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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         183,069
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    355,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               587,428
<PP&E>                                         354,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 929,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,454,755
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,709
<OTHER-SE>                                   (540,891)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   929,055
<SALES>                                      3,625,935
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,623,486
<CGS>                                        1,152,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,120,388
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,698,883)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,698,883)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,698,883)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.193)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.193)


</TABLE>