alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of eGene, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Ming S. Liu,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and Peter Sheu, 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: March 31, 2005         By:    /s/ Ming S. Liu
                              Ming S. Liu
                              Chairman of the Board and
                              Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 31, 2005         By:    /s/ Peter Sheu
                              Peter Sheu
                              Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE



CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jackson E. Reasor, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



Date: November 12, 2003



/s/    JACKSON E. REASORJackson E. ReasorPresident andChief Executive Officer




23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         181,233
<SECURITIES>                                   137,855
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,538
<INVENTORY>                                    233,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               729,424
<PP&E>                                         808,046
<DEPRECIATION>                                 419,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,233,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          218,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,496
<OTHER-SE>                                     881,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,233,543
<SALES>                                      1,835,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,850,601
<CGS>                                          833,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,491,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                359,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                   128,840
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            230,272
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   230,272
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.99
        

</TABLE>
Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust



 Exhibit 4.16 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL CAPITAL TRUST III 
 This Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Trust of Prudential Financial Capital Trust III (the “Trust”), is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned trustee to amend the Certificate of Trust of a statutory trust
formed under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (the “Act”). 
 1. Name. The name of the Trust is Prudential Financial Capital
Trust III. 
 2. Amendment. Article 2 of the Certificate of Trust of the Trust is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with its principal place of business
in the State of Delaware are BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711. 
 3. Effective Date.
This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective upon filing. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust has executed this
Certificate of Amendment in accordance with Section 3811(a)(2) of the Act. 
  

			
	BNY MELLON TRUST OF DELAWARE,
	not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo
	Name:	 	KRISTINE K. GULLO
	Title:	 	Vice President
07-02-0212-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D MAY 13, 2002

______________________________ IN RE JOHANSON LEE W ATSON, Relator

_________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, J.J. Johanson Lee Wat son p etit ions the c ourt for a writ ofman dam us as king t hat we either correct, r

everse, or

vacatethe judgm ent of conviction allegedly entered in cause number 9480, Wilbarger County, Texas or dis miss said cau se. Furthermore , he believes himself entitled to s ame because the tri al court “never found [him] guilty of the indictment 9480, in open cour

t . . . .” We deny the peti tion. Mandamus issues to correct err or when there is no adequate remedy by law
. In re Nolo Press/Folk Law Inc. , 991 S.W.2d 768, 776 (Tex. 1999). Given that he questionsthe legitimacyof his final felony convicti on, the statutory remedy of habeas corpus is an avenue availabl e to him. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 (Ve rnon 2002) (discussi ng that remedy). Indeed, the docu ment he filed with us indicates tha t su ch a1 W atson does no t discuss the status of the habeas proc eed ing he initiated in W ilbarge r Co unty

encompassing th e ve ry same i ssue bro ught to us. Nor does he a sk u s to di rect the t ri al cour t t o act i n any manner, assuming that proceedi ng is pending
. 2 proceeding was filed a nd apparently pends for disposi tion. 1 Ha ving a legal r emedy available t o him, Watson has not satisfied the prer equisites for obtaining awrit of mandamus. According ly, the w rit is deni ed. See Ater v. EighthCourt of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 1991) (h olding that since the appli cant’s attempt to vacat e hi s felony conv iction could be review ed through an hab eas proceeding initiated under art. 11.07 of the Code of Crimi nal Procedure, mandamus could not i ssue). Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish
.
###                                                            THRIVENT MUTUAL FUNDS

####                                           Supplement to Statements of Additional Information
EXHIBIT 3.2

 Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation

 Bylaws Amendment

           FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that   Section  1   of  Article   II  of   the
 Corporation's By-laws be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

           "SECTION  1.    Annual  Meeting.    The  annual  meeting  of   the
 shareholders of the Corporation, beginning with the year 1981, shall be held
 at the hour of 2:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of April in each year or such
 other day and  time as the  Board of Directors  agree, for  the election  of
 directors and for  the transaction of  such other business  as may  properly
 come before the meeting.  If the day fixed for the annual meeting shall be a
 legal holiday, such meeting  shall be held on  the next succeeding  business
 day.  If the election of  directors shall not be  held on the day  described
 above for the annual  meeting, or at any  adjournment thereof, the Board  of
 Directors shall cause the election  to be held at  a special meeting of  the
 shareholders as soon thereafter as such meeting can conveniently be convened
 and held."

           FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that   Section  3   of  Article   II  of   the
 Corporation's By-laws be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

           "SECTION  3.    Place  of  Meetings.     The  annual  meeting   of
 shareholders and all special  meetings of shareholders  for the election  of
 directors shall be held in  the City of Chicago,  State of Illinois or  such
 other place as the  Board of Directors agree,  either within or without  the
 State of Illinois, either at the  principal office of the Corporation or  at
 such other place  suitable for  the holding  of a  shareholders' meeting  as
 shall be designated in the notice thereof.  Special meetings of shareholders
 for a purpose or purposes other than  the election of directors may be  held
 at such place, either within or without  the State of Illinois, as shall  be
 specified or fixed in the call for such meeting and the notice thereof ."

 In all other respects,  said Article II of  the Corporation's By-laws  shall
 remain unchanged  and in  full force  and  effect, without  modification  or
 amendment as of the date hereof.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-12-00072-CR

BILLY JOE SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 0518109

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Billy Joe Smith was on deferred adjudication community supervision for the offense of 

aggravated sexual assault of a child. The State filed a motion for adjudication and revocation, 

alleging Smith failed to pay fees, fines, and costs assessed as part of his supervision and that he 

violated the terms and conditions of his supervision by being in the direct presence of or having 

personal contact with children. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated him guilty, 

and sentenced him to life in prison. 

Based on the reasoning and analysis in our opinion in cause number 06-12-00065-CR, 

issued on even date herewith, we overrule Smith’s points of error.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment and sentence. 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: January 10, 2013

Date Decided: January 23, 2013

Do Not Publish
EX-10.62







Exhibit 10.62




AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE

ADVOCAT INC.

1994 INCENTIVE AND NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN

FOR KEY PERSONNEL




     Amendment No. 4 to the Advocat Inc. (the “Corporation”) 1994 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock
Option Plan for Key Personnel authorizes the Committee to permit an Option holder to pay the Option
price by using the “net exercise” method. Capitalized terms used in the Amendment No. 4, if not
otherwise defined herein, shall have the respective meanings attributed to such terms in the Plan.



     The 1994 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock Option Plan for Key Personnel is hereby amended by
striking Subparagraph 7(e) in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu thereof:




     (e) Payment and Withholding.




     (i) Payment for all shares purchased pursuant to exercise of an Option will be
made in cash, by delivery of unrestricted shares of Common Stock at Fair Market
Value on the date of exercise, or a combination thereof. The payment will be made
at the time the Option or any part thereof is exercised, and no shares will be
issued until full payment therefor has been made. Payment in currency or by check,
bank draft, cashier’s check or postal money order will be considered payment in
cash.




     (ii) Notwithstanding the subparagraph 7(e)(i), the Committee may in its
discretion permit the Option price to be paid by the “net exercise” of such Option
In such case, the Company will not require a cash payment of the Option price, but
will reduce the number of shares of Common Stock issued upon the exercise of such
Option by the largest number of whole shares of Common Stock that have a Fair Market
Value which does not exceed the aggregate Option price with respect to the portion
of such Option that is being exercised. With respect to any remaining balance of
the aggregate Option price, the Company shall accept a cash payment. Upon the “net
exercise” of an Option (A) shares used to pay the Option price, (B) shares actually
delivered to the Option holder as a result of such exercise, and (C) shares withheld
for purposes of tax withholding, will no longer be outstanding under such Option
(and will therefore no longer be exercisable by the holder).




     (iii) In addition to the Option price, the Corporation will have the right, if
applicable, to require the holder of an Option to remit to the Corporation an amount
sufficient to satisfy any federal, state or local withholding tax liability prior to
the delivery of any certificate or certificates for shares issuable upon exercise of
the Option.



1
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT



## ___________ No. 04-1399

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Charles Allen Bisbee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: Filed: July 7, 2005

___________ Before

___________ PER CURIAM. After two days of trial, Mr. Bisbee pleaded guilty to eight counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Over Mr. Bisbee’s objection, the district court 1 imposed a role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and sentenced him to thirty-three months imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the-2- enhancement. Also, the district court sentenced Mr. Bisbee before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Mr. Bisbee raises a Sixth Amendment argument on appeal claiming that the district court impermissibly based the enhancement on facts neither admitted by the defendant nor found by the jury. We affirm. Mr. Bisbee’s crimes involved the fraudulent sale of stolen vehicles as salvaged and rebuilt vehicles. Participants in the scheme stole vehicles nearly identical to recently wrecked vehicles and switched the vehicle identification numbers between the wrecked and stolen vehicles. Mr. Bisbee then sold the stolen vehicles as salvaged and rebuilt vehicles. On Mr. Bisbee’s property, government agents found twenty wrecked vehicles with identification numbers removed. The unwitting buyers used the mail to communicate with lenders, insurers, and a state government agency to finance and register the vehicles. Mr. Bisbee admitted to these facts in his change of plea hearing. He also admitted during his sentencing hearing that at least two other individuals were involved in the scheme. The district court relied on these facts to assess the role enhancement. This evidence was sufficient to support the enhancement. When a defendant raises a Sixth Amendment, Blakely claim for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error under the standard set forth in United States v. Pirani , 406 F.3d 543, 551-52 (8th Cir. 2005). To show prejudice under Pirani , a defendant must show a reasonable probability that the district court would have granted a lesser sentence had the district court not treated the Guidelines as mandatory. Id. Here, the district court sentenced Mr. Bisbee at the top of the applicable Guidelines range. There is nothing to suggest that the district court would have given Mr. Bisbee a lesser sentence had the district court not treated the guidelines as mandatory.-3- The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CEO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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)
    
    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; andc)
    
    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
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  CINEMARK USA, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Lee Roy Mitchell

Lee Roy MitchellChief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1216

GEORGE E. BURDICK, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

PRITCHETT & BIRCH, PLLC; LLOYD C. SMITH, JR.; REGINA PARKER; 

SAMUEL GRIMES; CHRISTOPHER B. MCLENDON, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (4:08-cv-00053-BO) 

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

George E. Burdick, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Graham Baker, 

BAKER, JENKINS, JONES & DALY, PA, Ahoskie, North Carolina, Grady 

L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

George E. Burdick appeals the district court’s orders 

granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his civil complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his subsequent 

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Burdick v. Pritchett & 

Birch, PLLC, No. 4:08-cv-00053-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2008; 

Jan. 22, 2009). 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
ACCEPTED

03-14-00484-CR

6515999

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/17/2015 8:59:03 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK NO. 03-14-00484-CR 

MICHELLE GAMBLES IN THE 

vs. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

THIRD COURT 

THE STATE OF TEXAS OF APPEALS 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

Now comes MICHELLE GAMBLES, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, and 

moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellant's brief, pursuant to Rule 38.6 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows the following: 

1. This case is on appeal from the County Court At Law of Bell County, Texas. 

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. MICHELLE GAMBLES, and 

numbered 2Cl3-07438. 

3. Appellant was convicted of Resisting Arrest or Search. 

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of6 days in jail on July 16,2014. 

5. Notice of appeal was given on August 4, 2014. 

6. The clerk's record was filed on September 5, 2014; the reporter's record was filed on 

January 9, 2015. 

7. The appellate brief is presently due on May 22, 2015. 

8. Appellant requests an extension of time of90 days from the present date, i.e. August 

20, 2015. 

9. Two extensions to file the brief have been received in this cause. 

10. Defendant is not currently incarcerated. 

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/17/2015 8:59:03 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
II. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested extension: 

Attorney handling the appellant's brief is no longer with the firm. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Court grant this 

Motion To Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other and further relief as the Court 

may deem appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

455 East Centr 

I 

·' 

~~-------~--------- BOBBY DALE BARINA 

State BarNo. 0!738480 

Attorney for MICHELLE GAMBLES 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certifY that on August 17, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was served on the Bell County Attorney's 0 unty, by facsimile transmission 

to 254-933-5150. 

I BOBBY DALE BARINA 
STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF BELL 

§ 

§ 

§ 

AFFIDAVIT 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared BOBBY DALE 

BARINA, who after being duly sworn stated: 

"I am the attorney for the appellant in the above nwnbered and entitled cause. I have 

read the foregoing Motion To Extend Time to File A ellant's Brief and swear that 

all of the allegations of fact contained ther · n are true correct." 

I 

/

BOBBYD 

Affiant 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO rBE 

witness my hand and seal of office. 

E n August 17, 2015, to certifY which