alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1 Royal Finance Inc



EXHIBIT 10.1


                                     FORM OF

                        MINUTES OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
                               ROYAL FINANCE, INC.
                                DECEMBER 17, 2001

A meeting of the Board of Directors being called, and in attendance the
following:

         Douglas Meyers, Chairman
         Leon Wilde, CFO
         Lisa Wilde, Secretary


Constituting a quorum, the meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM EST, and the
following issue of business was presented and acted upon:

MOTION: To authorize the board to issue S-8 to the following individual:

         Richard P. Greene,  2,500 Shares


VOTE:  MOTION ACCEPTED UNANIMOUSLY

The meeting was then adjourned upon unanimous motion with no further business.

By: /s/ Douglas Meyers                      By: /s/ Lisa Wilde
---------------------------                 --------------------------
Douglas Meyers, CEO                         Lisa Wilde, Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Metals USA Holdings Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 (the Periodic Report), I, Robert C. McPherson, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. To my knowledge, the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                           
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 11, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/    ROBERT C. MCPHERSON,
III                                           
|                    |  |  |  | Robert C. McPherson, III
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement.

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered March 22, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00912-CR

AUSTON BRYCE ARMSTRONG, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-00259-86-F

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 18, 2021 unopposed second motion 

for an extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER 

appellant’s brief due on April 19, 2021.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                         LEASING TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED


         LEASING TECHNOLOGY  INCORPORATED (THE  "CORPORATION"),  PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISION OF SS. 16-10A-1006 OF THE UTAH REVISED BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT HEREBY
ADOPTS  AND  FILES  THESE   ARTICLES  OF   AMENDMENT  AS  AN  AMENDMENT  TO  THE
CORPORATION'S ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION.

         1.       THE  NAME   OF   THE  CORPORATION   IS    LEASING   TECHNOLOGY
                  INCORPORATED.

         2.       THE  FOLLOWING   AMENDMENT  IS  MADE   TO  THE   ARTICLES   OF
                  INCORPORATION:

                  ARTICLE I OF THE ARTICLES OF  INCORPORATION IS AMENDED SO THAT
                  IT SHALL READ IN ITS ENTIRELY AS FOLLOWS:

                                            ARTICLE I
                                              NAME

                  THE  NAME  OF  THIS  CORPORATION  IS  AMERICAN  RESOURCES  AND
                  DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

         3.       THE  AMENDMENT  SET  FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 2 ABOVE WAS ADOPTED BY
THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE CORPORATION ON FEBRUARY 20, 1997.

         4.       THE  NUMBER  OF  SHARES  ENTITLED  TO  VOTE AND  VOTING ON THE
AMENDMENT WERE:


               OUTSTANDING SHARES       SHARES VOTING          PERCENT OF
                ENTITLED TO VOTE      FOR THE AMENDMENT      SHARES ENTITLED
COMMON:            36,704,644            24,386,623                66%
PREFERRED:           252,220

         COMMON AND PREFERRED  SHARES VOTE AS A SINGLE CLASS.  THE AMENDMENT WAS
APPROVED  BY WRITTEN  CONSENT OF CERTAIN  SHAREHOLDERS  IN LIEU OF A MEETING AND
WILL BECOME  EFFECTIVE ON OR ABOUT MARCH 27, 1997.  THE SHARES VOTED IN FAVOR OF
THE AMENDMENT WERE SUFFICIENT TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT.


                                        1

<PAGE>


         THE UNDERSIGNED  HEREBY  ACKNOWLEDGES  UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT HE
HAS EXECUTED THESE ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE  CORPORATION  AND THAT
THE FACTS STATED HEREIN ARE TRUE.



DATED:  MARCH ____, 1997                           -----------------------     
                                                   KARL BADGER, PRESIDENT

                                        2
S05Y1082, S05Y1083, S05Y1084, S05Y1085.

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES R. VOGEL (four cases).

(620 SE2d 389)

Decided October 3, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

PER CURIAM.

These disciplinary matters are before the Court pursuant to four Notices of Discipline filed by the State Bar alleging that Vogel, who was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1985, violated Rules 1.2, 1.3,1.4,1.16 and 9.3of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.2 or 1.3 is disbarment, while the maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.4, 1.16 or 9.3 is a public reprimand.

Although each notice of discipline deals with a different client, each shows that Vogel agreed to represent a client in a legal matter; that he essentially abandoned each client, doing little or no work on their cases and refusing or failing to return their calls and their files, despite requests that he do so; and that Vogel failed or refused to respond to inquiries from his former law firm regarding the status of these clients’ cases. It appears that Vogel essentially has abandoned the practice of law without advising any of these clients. In each of these cases, Vogel was properly served with a Notice of Investigation by publication, but he failed or refused to answer the Notice of Investigation. Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel determined that Vogel had violated Rules 1.4 and 9.3 in all four cases; Rule

1.2 in two cases; and Rules 1.3 and 1.16 in three cases. The Investigative Panel properly served Vogel with Notices of Discipline recommending that he be disbarred and, as Vogel has failed to reject those Notices pursuant to Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b), these matters are now ripe for review by this Court.

We have reviewed the files in each of these matters and find in aggravation, that Vogel has multiple violations in each case and that multiple disciplinary matters are being pursued simultaneously, thereby evidencing a pattern and practice of wrongful behavior on Vogel’s part. Thus, although Vogel has no prior disciplinary history, we believe that the circumstances of this case warrant disbarment. Accordingly, we hereby order that the name of James R. Vogel be removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Vogel is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 32



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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Sole Executive
Officer of the Company, certifies, that to his knowledge:

         1) Ridgefield Acquisition Corp.'s Form 10-KSB for the annual period
         ended December 31, 2010 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 Ridgefield Acquisition Corp.'s Form
         10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


Dated:  March 31, 2011


                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; TINSAL-2D Ancillary and Supplement Applications.                    

*Date:*                         July 15, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Thomas A. Tatham, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 760, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-3993,                         *tathamt@mail.nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 30, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-16124 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Paul Vernhes, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dekania Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [Omission in accordance with SEC Release
No. 33-8760] for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;

(b) [Omission in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8760];

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul Vernhes       
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Paul Vernhes           
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
# table191_q19.2_state
#### AUER v. HERSHEY CREAMERY CO.

Civ. A. No. 495.

District Court, D. New Jersey.

Nov. 9, 1939.

Samuel Morris, of Atlantic City, N. J., for plaintiff.

Paul M. Salsburg, of Atlantic City, N. J., for defendant.

AVIS, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he was an employee of defendant from November 11, 1938 to August 5, 1939; that during that period his compensation was $25 per week, for which he was permitted to work not longer than 44 hours per week under and in accordance with the Act of Congress of June 25, 1938, § 7, 29 U.S.C.A. § 207; that during said period he worked 2695 hours, which calculated shows an overtime of approximately 1023 hours, and demands as damages $871.59 as compensation, and an equal additional amount as liquidated damages (less a credit of $25), together with a counsel fee and costs of action, as provided in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 16, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216.

Defendant’s answer, including defenses, has been filed, and the attorney for each party has served interrogatories on the other. None of the interrogatories has been answered. The attorney for each party has moved to strike all of the interrogatories without particular designation or objection to specific questions.

As I understand the rules relating to interrogatories (Rule 33 of Federal *15Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c), a party may be interrogated on any matter relevant to the issue, not shown by admissions in the pleading, and which could be produced in evidence at the time of trial. This theory would not, of course, include any matter of self-incrimination, hearsay or individual exemption or privilege.

I will determine the validity of each interrogatory, first considering those of defendant :

Interrogatories 1 and 2 need not be answered, in view of the admission of defendant in its answer that plaintiff was employed during the period charged in the complaint. The terms of employment are not material, if plaintiff is entitled to recover under the pleadings and the statute aforesaid.

Interrogatories 3 and 4 should be answered.

Interrogatory 5 need not be answered. The demand does not seem to be necessary, and is not set up as a defense in the defendant’s answer.

Interrogatory 6 need not be answered. The cause of leaving employment is not material. No counterclaim is filed.

Interrogatories 7, 8, and 9 should be answered.

Interrogatory 10 need not be answered. It is too general and all inclusive.

Interrogatory 11 need not be answered, in view of the statute, if the defendant is liable thereunder, and if not, it is immaterial. ■

Interrogatory 12 should be answered.

As to interrogatories of plaintiff:

Interrogatories 1 to 12, inclusive, should be answered.

Interrogatories 13 and 14 are too general and need not be answered.

Interrogatory 15 should be answered if the question is intended to apply to ice cream •cabinets belonging to defendant; otherwise not.

Interrogatory 16 is too general because it does not fix a period of time covered by sales. Defendant cannot be required to answer a question so indefinite.

Interrogatory 17 should be answered.

Orders accordingly.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133425 & (61) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 133425 

 COA: 261408 
 Wayne CC: 04-011607-02

MARCOS RAMIREZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2007 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for 

remand is DENIED. 

s0723 

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. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Dollarama Group Holdings L.P. and Dollarama Group L.P. (together, the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 2, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Larry Rossy and
Robert Coallier, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the general partner of the Company, Dollarama Group GP Inc., certify that to our knowledge:

1. the Report complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange 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 Company.

Dated: December 15, 2008



/s/ Larry RossyLarry RossyChief Executive Officer/s/ Robert CoallierRobert CoallierChief Financial Officer
Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 2 of 16 PageID: 2

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 3 of 16 PageID: 3

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 4 of 16 PageID: 4

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 5 of 16 PageID: 5

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 6 of 16 PageID: 6

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 7 of 16 PageID: 7

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 8 of 16 PageID: 8

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 9 of 16 PageID: 9

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 10 of 16 PageID: 10

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 11 of 16 PageID: 11

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 12 of 16 PageID: 12

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 13 of 16 PageID: 13

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 14 of 16 PageID: 14

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 15 of 16 PageID: 15

Case 3:11-cv-00221-GEB-TJB   Document 1    Filed 01/13/11   Page 16 of 16 PageID: 16
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 on Form 10-Q in accordance with Rule
15(d)-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Red Trail Energy, LLC (the
“Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kent
Anderson, Chief Financial Officer, 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, 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
      Company.





/s/
      Kent AndersonKent
      AndersonChief
      Financial OfficerDated:
      August 13, 2010