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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6192

MARK AUBREY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK,

Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-94-2500-3-18-BC)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Aubrey Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent a

certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Williams v. South Carolina, No. CA-94-2500-3-18-BC (D.S.C. Dec. 11,

1995). 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
# 18SNR12_00

# image1.png
IRS Form 5305S
CERTIFICATE OF WITHDRAWAL
OF DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES


 


AND RIGHTS OF THE SERIES
A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK


 


OF


 


WHITE MOUNTAIN TITANIUM
CORPORATION


 


Pursuant
to Chapter 78, Section 1955(6)


of
the Nevada Revised Statutes





 


White
Mountain Titanium Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada (the “Company”),
in accordance with the provisions of 78.1955(6) of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”), hereby certifies as
follows:


 


1.          That,
pursuant to the provisions of 78.1955 of NRS and authority granted in the Articles of Incorporation of the Company, as theretofore
amended, the Board of Directors of the Company, by resolution duly adopted, authorized the issuance of a series of six million
eight hundred and seventy five (6,875,000) shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share
(the “Series A Preferred Stock”), and established the voting powers, designations, preferences and relative,
participating and other rights, and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions thereof, and, on July 7, 2005, filed a Certificate
of Designation (the “Certificate of Designation”) with respect to such Series A Preferred Stock in the office
of the Secretary of State of the State of Nevada.


 


2.          That
no shares of Series A Preferred Stock are outstanding and no shares thereof will be issued subject to said Certificate of Designation.


 


3.          That
the Board of Directors of the Company has adopted the following resolutions:


 


RESOLVED,
that, pursuant to NRS 78.1955(6), the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the withdrawal of the Certificate of Designation;


 


RESOLVED,
that the officers of the Company be, and hereby are, authorized and directed to file a certificate of amendment with the office
of the Secretary of State of the State of Nevada setting forth a copy of these resolutions whereupon the Certificate of Designation
is withdrawn;


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, White Mountain Titanium Corporation has caused this Certificate to be executed by its duly authorized officer
this __ day of February, 2013.


 


 


	 	WHITE MOUNTAIN TITANIUM CORPORATION
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Michael P. Kurtanjek
	 	 	Michael P. Kurtanjek
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant toSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief executive officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certifythat to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period endedJanuary 3, 2010 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 Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended January 3, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: March 19, 2010 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Microtune, Inc.



|                                        |  |  |  |                              |  |          |  | 
|--------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------- |  | -------- |  | 
|Name of Entity                          |  |  |  | Jurisdiction of Organization |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune, (GP) L.L.C.                  |  |  |  | Delaware                     |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune, (LP) L.L.C.                  |  |  |  | Delaware                     |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune (Texas), L.P.                 |  |  |  | Texas                        |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune (San Diego), Inc.             |  |  |  | California                   |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|HMTF Acquisition (Bermuda) Ltd.         |  |  |  | Bermuda                      |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|HMTF Erste Beteilingungs GmbH           |  |  |  | Germany                      |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune Verwaltungs GmbH              |  |  |  | Germany                      |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune GmbH & Co. KG                 |  |  |  | Germany                      |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune (Japan), Inc.                 |  |  |  | Delaware                     |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Transilica Singapore Pte Ltd            |  |  |  | Singapore                    |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune (Taiwan), Ltd.                |  |  |  | Taiwan                       |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune (Korea), Ltd.                 |  |  |  | Korea                        |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune RF-Technologies (Phil.), Inc. |  |  |  | Philippines                  |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|NSF-Technologies (Phil.), Inc.          |  |  |  | Philippines                  |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Auvitek International Ltd.              |  |  |  | Cayman Islands               |  |         
|                                        |  |  |  |                             
|Auvitek Corporation                     |  |  |  |                              |  | Delaware |  | 
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune Shanghai, Ltd.                |  |  |  | China                        |  |         
|                                        |  |  | 
|Microtune (Hong Kong) Limited           |  |  |  | Hong Kong                    |  |
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of iPCS, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedcertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/ TIMOTHY M. YAGER                                           |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy M. Yager, *President  and Chief Executive Officer*     |
| December 22, 2005                                         |
| /s/  STEBBINS B. CHANDOR, JR.                             |   |
| Stebbins B. Chandor, Jr., *Executive  Vice President and* |
| *Chief Financial Officer*                                      |
| December 22, 2005                                         |

 

----
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF PROMISSORY NOTE 
 Date: March 11, 2013 

This Amendment and Extension of Promissory Note (this “Agreement”), dated March 11, 2013, by and among The Hallwood
Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Debtor”), and Hallwood Family (BVI), L.P., a British Virgin Islands limited partnership (the “Holder”). 

The Holder has loaned to Debtor certain sums evidenced by that certain Promissory Note dated May 9, 2012 made by Debtor payable to
the order of Holder in the original principal amount of $10,000,000 (the “Note”; capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Note). 

Debtor has previously repaid to Holder $1,252,535.42 of the principal amount of the Note. 

Debtor has requested and Holder has agreed, that Holder now advance (the “Advance”) to Debtor an additional $300,000 under the
Note, with the result that after such advance, the total principal amount of the Note outstanding will be $9,047,464.58. 
 The
parties also wish to extend the maturity date of the Note and to continue in effect all the other Loan Documents. 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 Upon receipt of the Advance, the total principal amount of
the Note outstanding will be $9,047,464.58. 
 Section 1 of the Note is hereby amended to read: 

1. Principal Payments. The outstanding principal amount of this promissory note (“Note”), together with all unpaid
accrued interest, shall be due and payable on June 30, 2015. 
 The last sentence of Section 2 of the Note is amended to read:
“Such interest shall be payable on the last day of each calendar quarter, with the first payment to be paid on or before June 30, 2012 and the final payment to be paid on June 30, 2015.” 

All other provisions of the Note and the Loan Documents shall remain in effect and apply to the Note, as extended by this Agreement. 

[Signature Page Follows] 







 
			
	DEBTOR:
	
	THE HALLWOOD GROUP INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Richard Kelley

	Name: 	 	Richard Kelley
	Title:	 	Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	
	HOLDER:
	
	HALLWOOD FAMILY (BVI), L.P.
	By: Hallwood G.P. (BVI) Limited, General Partner
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Gert Lessing

	Name: 	 	Gert Lessing
	Title:	 	Director
# 2018-Violence-industry-state

&8page &P of &N
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, Richard A. Sandberg, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Matritech, Inc. (the registrant):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 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)) 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.
    [Paragraph omitted in
accordance with SEC
transition instructions
contained in SEC Release
33-8238 and 34-47986.]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; andd.
    Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants
internal control over
financial reporting that
occurred during the
registrants first fiscal
quarter 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 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
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 controls over
financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to
adversely affect the
registrants ability to
record, process, summarize
and report financial
information; andb.
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees
who have a significant role
in the registrants internal
controls over financial
reporting. Date: May 12, 2005 /s/ Richard A. Sandberg
Richard A. Sandberg
Chief Financial Officer
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 558

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain manufacturing equipment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain manufacturing 

equipment.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by striking heading 9902.84.87 and inserting in 

7 numerical sequence the following new heading:
2

•HR 558 IH 

‘‘ 9902.84.88 Machinery for 

molding, or otherwise forming 

uncured, 

unvulcanized 

rubber to be used 

in production of 

radial tires designed for offthe-highway use 

with a rim measuring 63.5 cm or 

more in diameter 

(provided for in 

subheading 

4011.20.10, 

4011.61.00, 

4011.63.00, 

4011.69.00, 

4011.92.00, 

4011.94.40, or 

4011.99.45), numerically controlled, or parts 

thereof (provided 

for in subheading 

8477.51.00 or 

8477.90.85) ....... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2005 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00008

- CV

Chris STONE

, Appellant

v.

TALBERT OPERATIONS, LLC

, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 08

- 00195

- CVL

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. It is ORDERED that appellant, Chris Stone, recover his costs of this appeal from appellee, Talbert Operations, LLC.

SIGNED December 31, 2014.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended August 1, 2009 of Stein Mart, Inc. (the Form 10-Q), I, Gregory W. Kleffner, Senior Vice President, Finance and 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 Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                                           
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 9, 2009 |  | /s/ Gregory W. Kleffner                                   
|                        |  | Gregory W. Kleffner                                       
|                        |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer



17
#### LIFE MUSIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Sesac, Inc., Radio Corporation of America, National Broadcasting Company, Inc., Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., Columbia Records, Inc., Columbia Music Publishing Company, Master Records, Inc., and Okeh Music Publishing Company, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Feb. 7, 1959.

Sidney W. Rothstein, New York City, for plaintiff.

Rosenman, Goldmark, Colin & Kaye, New York City, for defendant Broadcast Music, Inc.; Max Freund, Lawrence R. Eno, Robert A. Kirtland, Edward M. Cramer and Herbert H. Blau, New York City, of counsel.

Cahill, Gordon, Reindel & Ohl, New York City, for defendant Nat. Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for defendant Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

The action is a treble damage action under the anti-trust laws, in which plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among the defendants to prevent plaintiff from engaging in, and to drive it from, the business of licensing performance rights in musical compositions. The complaint is lengthy and there are numerous defendants. By its motion plaintiff seeks to secure summary judgment for a substantial part of the relief demanded in the complaint, including an injunction against licenses issued by BMI and a divestiture of its stock.

On a motion for summary judgment the first issue to be determined by the Court is whether there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact.” The papers submitted on this motion show that there are numerous issues of fact which are controverted in this case. The motion is of the type referred to by Judge Learned Hand in Bozant v. Bank of New York, 2 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 787, where Judge Hand pointed out in that case

> “ * * * that the case is another mistaken effort to save time by an attempt to dispose of a complicated state of facts on motion for summary judgment.” (At page 790.)

*182The Court cannot reach the conclusion that there are no genuine issues' as to material facts. Under those circumstances the Court cannot conclude that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, this is an important case involving a substantial industry and the application of the summary judgment rule to such an action is questionable. United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1958, 157 F.Supp. 877.

It would be much better if this case is tried on the facts. See Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 1957, 352 U.S. 992, 77 S.Ct. 526, 1 L.Ed.2d 540, which reversed a summary judgment entered in a triple damage anti-trust action; Syracuse Broadcasting Corp. v. Newhouse, 2 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 522.

The motion for summary judgment is denied.
# cpsaat13
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17332]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0454]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Food Contact Substances Notification 
System

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Food Contact Substances 
Notification System'' has been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: : Jonna Capezzuto, Office of 
Information Management (HFA-710),Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-3794.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 4, 2008 
(73 FR 73936), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0495. 
The approval expires on May 31, 2012. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: July 15, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-17332 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
[Nos. 32578-1-II; 32581-1-II.

Division Two.

October 25, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Robbie Jay Davis, *Appellant.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 04-1-00958-5, Stephen M. Warning, J., entered November 18, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Van Deren, A.C. J., concurred in by Armstrong and Penoyar, JJ.