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


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the
"Trust") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the
Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

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

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





                                BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
                                PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

Date: May 14, 2003              By:   /s/  Ron E. Hooper
                                      -----------------------------------------

                                      Ron E. Hooper,
                                      Senior Vice President, Royalty Management


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust and will be retained by Permian Basin
Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 4(b)

                   SUPPLEMENT TO INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT
                                      WITH
                              FUND ASSET MANAGEMENT


      As of January 1, 1994 Fund Asset Management was reorganized as a limited
partnership, formally known as Fund Asset Management, L.P. ("FAM"). The general
partner of FAM is Princeton Services, Inc. and the limited partners are Fund
Asset Management, Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc. Pursuant to Rule 202 (a) (1)
-1 under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and Rule 2a-5 under the Investment
Company Act of 1940, such reorganization did not constitute an assignment of
this investment advisory agreement, since it did not involve a change of control
or management of the investment adviser. Pursuant to the requirements of Section
205 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, however, Fund Asset Management
hereby supplements this investment advisory agreement by undertaking to advise
you of any change in the membership of the partnership within a reasonable time
after any such change occurs.



                                                By: /s/ Arthur Zeikel
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Arthur Zeikel
                                                    President

Dated:  January 3, 1994
<PAGE> 1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-83160) pertaining to the Zoltek Companies, Inc.
Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 33-84070) pertaining to 154,206 shares of common stock, the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-83160) pertaining to Zoltek Companies, Inc. 1992
Long Term Incentive Plan and Zoltek Companies, Inc. 1992 Directors Stock
Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-06565) pertaining
to 34,896 shares of common stock of our report dated November 14, 1997, which
appears in the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders of Zoltek Companies, Inc.,
which report and consolidated financial statements are included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1997. We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement
Schedule, which appears on page 42 of this Form 10-K.


/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Price Waterhouse LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
December 30, 1997
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                      GREY WOLF, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

             COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON STOCK SHARE
                     (in thousands except per share amounts)
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                                        September 30,                September 30,
                                                      1997          1996           1997           1996
                                                    --------      --------       --------       --------
<S>                                                  <C>          <C>            <C>            <C>      
Income (loss) per share:

Net income (loss)                                    $ 2,722      $    808       $  6,076       $   (159)

Less:    Series A preferred stock
                  redemption premium                      --            --           (240)            --
         Series B preferred stock subscription
                  dividend requirement                    --          (100)            --           (400)
                                                    --------      --------       --------       --------

Net income (loss) applicable to common stock        $  2,722      $    708       $  5,836       $   (559)
                                                    ========      ========       ========       ========

Income (loss) per common share                      $    .02      $    .01       $    .04       $   (.01)
                                                    ========      ========       ========       ========

Weighted average shares of common stock
     outstanding for per share computation           151,628        68,853        141,105         48,812
                                                    ========      ========       ========       ========
</TABLE>



Note:    Reference is made to Note 2 to Consolidated Financial Statements
         regarding computation of per common stock share amounts.

(a)  Stock options are not included since inclusion would be either antidilutive
     or not significant for all the periods presented.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification

I, Kristine Engelke, Corporate Controller (Principal
Accounting Officer) of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and

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

Dated: February 23, 2011



/s/ KRISTINE ENGELKEKristine Engelke,
Corporate Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Brown, Appellant.

Submitted December 21, 2009;

decided January 12, 2010

Reported below, 65 AD3d 1162.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
**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 WMS Industries, Inc. (“the Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, Scott D.
      Schweinfurth, Chief Financial 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








/s/
      Scott D. Schweinfurth


Scott
      D.
      Schweinfurth


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      7, 2007
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lester A. Peters, Appellant. Janus Elevator Products, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted January 18, 2011;

decided February 15, 2011

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*15 NY3d 950 (2010)].
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 19, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11655]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R03-RCRA-2009-0196; FRL-8906-7]


Pennsylvania: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal 
Register of April 29, 2009 (74 FR 19480), a document concerning 
Pennsylvania's Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revisions. This document corrects the Docket Number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3LC50, 
Office of State Programs, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-3379.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 29, 2009 in FR Doc. E9-9790, on 
page 19480, the following corrections are made:
    1. In the Heading of the document, the Docket Number is corrected 
to read ``EPA-R03-RCRA-2009-0196''.
    2. In the sentence following ``ADDRESSES:'' in the second column, 
the docket number is corrected to read ``EPA-R03-RCRA-2009-0196''.
    3. In the sentence following ``Instructions:'' in the third column, 
the docket number is corrected to read ``EPA-R03-RCRA-2009-0196''.

    Dated: May 7, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. E9-11655 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RODNEY EARL COFFIN

No. 405P05

ORDER

The Attorney General’s petition for discretionary review is allowed, pursuant to our general supervisory authority under Article IV, Section 12 of the Constitution of North Carolina, for the limited purpose of (1) vacating that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion ordering remand to the trial court for resentencing and (2) remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,*361 N.C. 41, - S.E.2d- (2006). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 19th day of December, 2006.

s/Timmons-Goodson. J. For the Court
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127906 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 127906 

 COA: 249493 

Wayne CC: 02-012626-01 

WILLIAM NORMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2004 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan, lv gtd 472 Mich 

881 (2005). 

s0120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 27, 2006 

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20790

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBIN ARTURO MARTINEZ-DELFA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(USDC No. H-97-CR-64-1)

- - - - - - - - - -

August 4, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Robin Arturo Martinez-Delfa appeals the sentence imposed

following his conviction on a plea of guilty to illegal re-entry

after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). MartinezDelfa argues that the district court erred in finding that his

conviction in California for voluntary manslaughter was an

“aggravated felony” under the Sentencing Guidelines. MartinezDelfa also argues that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P.
1 United States v. Ortiz-Gutierrez, 36 F.3d 80, 82 (9th

Cir. 1994). 

2 United States v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397, 416 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1817 (1998); United States v. Carreon,

11 F.3d 1225, 1231 (5th Cir. 1994). 

2

32(b)(6)(D) when it failed to make specific findings other than by

adopting the presentence report (PSR).

Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities

convince us that no reversible error was committed. The California

voluntary manslaughter conviction is an aggravated felony for

purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines, as Martinez-Delfa received

a total term of imprisonment of more than five years.1 Also, the

district court satisfied the mandates of Rule 32 when it overruled

the objection and adopted the PSR because the findings in the PSR

were “so clear” as not to leave us in a position requiring that we

“second guess” the basis for the district court’s decision.2

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23






                        Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
The Multicare Companies, Inc.


We  consent  to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements
(No's.  33-86764, 33-94516, 33-80977, 333-04545) on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement (No. 33-96992) on Form S-3 of The Multicare Companies, Inc. of  our
reports  dated February 4, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance  sheets
of The Multicare Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and
1996,  and  the  related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity,  and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period  ended
December 31, 1996, and the related schedule, which reports appear in  or  are
incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K
of The Multicare Companies, Inc.



                                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Short Hills, New Jersey
March 27, 1997
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FAUSTO RUIZ-VARGAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-00-407; CA-03-629-1)

Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fausto Ruiz-Vargas, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Fausto Ruiz-Vargas seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Ruiz-Vargas

that failure to file timely objections to the recommendation would

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Ruiz-Vargas failed to object

to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review.

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Ruiz-Vargas has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

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. 

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Chaymarl Cormier, Appellant, v James T. Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted May 17, 2010;

decided June 29, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that this motion for leave to appeal does not lie from the order of the individual Justice of the Appellate Division *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5602).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-16-00320-CV 

In the Matter of A.H., A Juvenile § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

From the 323rd District Court 

of Tarrant County (323-103486-16) 

April 27, 2017 

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston 

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston 

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
#### Jinks *v.*Lewis & Son.

The uncontradicted evidence showing that the claimant purchased the land in controversy during the pendency of a claim case between the plaintiffs in execution and her vendor, which resulted in an adjudication that the land was subject, she, as a privy in estate of the latter, was concluded by that adjudication; and consequently there was no error in directing a verdict for the plaintiffs, this being the only result legally possible under the evidence.

August 14, 1894.

Levy and claim. Before Judge Butt. Taylor superior court. August term, 1893.

C. C. West and Thornton & McMichael, for plaintiff in error. O. M. Colbert, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11707 and #11708] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 2. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-1829-DR), dated 04/10/2009. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms and Flooding.                     

*Incident Period:*                         03/13/2009 and continuing.                     

*Effective Date:*                         05/13/2009.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/09/2009.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         01/11/2010.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of North Dakota, dated 04/10/2009 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

*Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*                     Ramsey, The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indian Reservation.                

All other counties contiguous to the above named primary counties have previously been declared. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11879 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,392] 

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 25, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Smead Manufacturing Company, Logan, Ohio. 

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11854 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P