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 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aspect Medical
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 29, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Nassib G. Chamoun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and J.
Neal Armstrong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

                                         /s/ Nassib G. Chamoun
                                         --------------------------------
Dated: August 12, 2002                   Nassib G. Chamoun
                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                         /s/ J. Neal Armstrong
                                         --------------------------------
Dated: August 12, 2002                   J. Neal Armstrong
                                         Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Form
10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Form 10-Q.
 Dated: August 11, 2008
    /s/ Raymond J. MerkRaymond J. MerkChief Financial Officer
Order entered April 16, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01041 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01042 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01043 - CR ANTHONY HILL, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Cour t

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s. F 12 - 53911 - V , F12 - 53671 - V, F12 - 54044 - V 

### O RDER The Court GRANTS the State’s April 14, 2014 second motion for extension of time to file the State’s brief

. We ORDER the State to file the brief within THIRTY (30) D AYS f rom the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

DOUGLAS BORCHERS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0070 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. CR1974-006459

The Honorable Mark R. Moran, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Douglas Borchers, Florence

Petitioner

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By Mark Huston

Counsel for Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge 

Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 6-16-2020
STATE v. BORCHERS

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Douglas Borchers seeks review of the superior 

court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's third 

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. Petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review but deny relief.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.1
                                                                    ------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                        ------------------
                                                              March 31,
                                                              ---------
                                                      2001               2000
                                                      ----               ----
<S>                                               <C>               <C>
DETERMINATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
-------------------------------------
   FIXED CHARGES:
   -------------
Loss before benefit for income taxes                     $  344               ($442)

Fixed charges

     Amortization of deferred financing costs               239                 339
     Interest expense                                     5,155               5,061
                                                  --------------    ----------------
Earnings before fixed charges                             5,738               4,958



Fixed charges

     Amortization of deferred financing costs               239                 339
     Interest expense                                     5,155               5,061
                                                  --------------    ----------------
Total fixed charges                                       5,394               5,400



Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        1.06X               0.92X
                                                  ==============    ================
</TABLE>
| (1) | the      Annual Report on form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31,      2009, (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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/  Kelly      M.  Malson        |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Kelly      M. Malson                                  |
| Senior      Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |

----
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Peer Review Meeting.
    Date: September 20-21, 2017.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Kelly Y. Poe, Ph.D., Scientific Review Program, 
Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F40B, National Institutes 
of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-
9823, (240) 669-5036, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9eeef1fbf5e7def3fff7f2b0f0f7f6b0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="32425d57594b725f535b5e1c5c5b5a1c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)


    Dated: August 22, 2017.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-18121 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 531 

To permit health insurance issuers to offer additional plan options to 

individuals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2015 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To permit health insurance issuers to offer additional plan 

options to individuals. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removing Limitations 

5 on Insurance Effectiveness and Flexibility Act of 2015’’ 

6 or the ‘‘ReLIEF Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO OFFER ADDITIONAL PLAN OPTIONS. 

8 (a) CATASTROPHIC PLANS.—Notwithstanding title I 

9 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 

10 Law 111–148), a catastrophic plan as described in section 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 531 IS

1 1302(e) of such Act shall be deemed to be a qualified 

2 health plan (including for purposes of receiving tax credits 

3 under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

4 and cost-sharing assistance under section 1402 of this 

5 Act), except that for purposes of enrollment in such plans, 

6 the provisions of paragraph (2) of such section 1302(e) 

7 shall not apply. 

8 (b) INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.—Coverage under a cata9 strophic plan under subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

10 minimum essential coverage for purposes of section 5000A 

11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HOWARD O. TRERICE, an individual,

Appellant,

v.

HEATH M. TRERICE, individually and in his derivative capacity, on

behalf of MILJOCO CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2

[October 11, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael L. Gates, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 16-7823 

(12)

Vijay G. Brijbasi of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

John A. Tucker and Andrew E. Underkofler of Foley & Lardner LLP, 

Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### ’OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF **TEXAS** 

### AUSTIN

**Xonorablr George**  **B. Shq~rd**  

### Com~trollor

a? X'nbllo

**Aaoounts** 

### Alatin,

Tetar Dear Sirt -.'
,.

thisDepartment

on the control Boa?4 rug 

### be wed by It8 ror. aam0 out of

out OS the Coniisaatsd Liquor yun4. or'a0uMo, tha tlover0118 are mrely to **ba** loaned to the ~plOJ808, not 

### &iVM to than. to give the,ooverallr, to tha maployoe Or to permit their use by the aaployae for hi8 private pur~IIe8, would effsot 

### a gnnt ol publia prsport~ 

### not authorlmd by law. 

### The question of puroharing

artlolrs

a? woating 'appkl deomd neoousary to tba aooompll8hment d the workof the Dqwtsmt is oao pr$marSlyaddreared 

### to tbo dlr

### orotlaa

ot the head Of tha thon 18~a~$alpablo and arb r FtloulaFideparat. Ualess 

## trrw abuse of dImoratlarithe dool8lon **of the**  **department** hoad-should aOt **bo** set de. 'l&e test of the valldit~ot mmh r rOha8W aso rw80Mbl~ nOoos8~ tta 9ttro i8 rhothor the1 the E&ate*6purposo8; if u), tha taot that q IaoldwMl pmmml benotltmat loorwto

tb l 81plo~o~wUl not no&o the l xpaadltu~ oao fOF priVates nthor thta DnbllO, g\rrp08or.It Irr~anfaplated that the employremo? the Stat0 8hoold prevlda tbam8elvuwIththo ordIna~aad \uadl artloleaofrearIng appazolt tbo8r aanaot be tusnl8hed **by** tha **Depwtaonts** wlw a l

xproasly l

uthorIao6by tbo LmgIrlatun am a mrt or the omplo apparel pooPI..*a, **wmpeawtlw. But**  l l=tIoles

**of** WarIag larl;l aooea8arytar t3.m



### aooompti*hmont

of the work **at** the Stats MJ, 

### as above lndbatad, be pumhar

### ad by the Department.

APPROVEDJm 12, l942

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T.-E&is
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 12-1488

Filed July 30, 2014

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

BRIAN MICHAEL KENNEDY,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael G. 

Dieterich, District Associate Judge.

Brian Kennedy appeals his conviction for driving while revoked. 

AFFIRMED.

R. A. Bartolomei of Bartolomei & Lange, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant Attorney 

General, Patrick C. Jackson, County Attorney, and Lisa Schaefer, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, P.J.

Brian Kennedy appeals his conviction for driving while revoked arising 

from a stop on June 26, 2011. He contends:

The district court erred in permitting the admission of the 

certified abstract of driving record and all the attachments including 

affidavits of mail service of the required notices of revocation, 

without requiring the State to produce the attesting witnesses from 

the office of driver services to testify and be subject to crossexamination as required under the Confrontation Clause of the 

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under 

Article 1, Section 10 of the Iowa Constitution.

Kennedy concedes “the issue in this case is identical to the issue in State v. 

Kennedy, Court No. 11-1685,” a separate appeal from a prior driving-whilerevoked conviction. 

The Iowa Supreme Court recently resolved that appeal. See State v. 

Kennedy, 846 N.W.2d 517 (Iowa 2014). The court held the admission of the 

certified abstract of Kennedy’s driving record did not violate the Confrontation 

Clauses of the United States or Iowa Constitutions. Id. at 525. This holding 

controls the disposition of Kennedy’s present appeal, to the extent he challenges 

the admission of the certified driving record. 

With respect to Kennedy’s challenge to the admission of affidavits of 

mailing, no affidavits were attached to the certified driving record admitted in this 

case. Accordingly, we need not address the issue.

We affirm Kennedy’s judgment and sentence for driving while revoked.

AFFIRMED.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 92 

To reaffirm the importance of community banking and community banking 

regulatory experience on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, to 

ensure that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has a member 

who has previous experience in community banking or community banking supervision, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Ms. HEITKAMP) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To reaffirm the importance of community banking and community banking regulatory experience on the Federal 

Reserve Board of Governors, to ensure that the Federal 

Reserve Board of Governors has a member who has 

previous experience in community banking or community 

banking supervision, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Bank 

5 Preservation Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 92 IS

1 SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE 

2 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. 

3 The first undesignated paragraph of section 10 of the 

4 Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 241) is amended by in5 serting after the second sentence the following: ‘‘The 

6 Board shall at all times have as a member at least 1 per7 son with demonstrated experience working in or super8 vising community banks having less than $10,000,000,000 

9 in total assets.’’. 

10 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

11 The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 

12 on the date of enactment of this Act and apply to appoint13 ments made on and after that effective date, excluding any 

14 nomination pending in the Senate on that date. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.36(1)






Exhibit 10.36(1)




Schedule of 2008 Annual Incentive Bonus Compensation Payouts

and 2008 and 2009 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	2008 Annual Incentive	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Bonus Compensation	 
	Named Executive Officer	 	2008 Base Salary	 	 	2009 Base Salary	 	 	(1)	 
	Paul O. Bower
	 	 	375,000	 	 	 	375,000	 	 	$	271,875	 
	Randall H. Brown
	 	 	253,000	 	 	 	253,000	 	 	$	201,135	 
	Craig L. Cardwell
	 	 	197,000	 	 	 	197,000	 	 	$	142,825	 
	Thomas J. Hickey
	 	 	168,500	 	 	 	168,500	 	 	$	76,668	 
	Thomas Trubiana
	 	 	190,000	 	 	 	190,000	 	 	$	134,700	(2)







 





	 	 	 
	(1)	 	Amounts listed in this column reflect annual incentive cash bonuses paid pursuant to the
Incentive Compensation Plan for Executive Officers.

	 
	(2)	 	During 2008, Mr. Trubiana was eligible to participate in the Incentive Compensation Plan for
Executive Officers and to receive accrued bonuses under the On-Campus Student Housing Development
Bonus Plan which were earned prior to January 1, 2007; however, he is only eligible to receive a
maximum of the greater of the amounts awarded under the Incentive Compensation Plan for Executive
Officers and received pursuant to the On-Campus Student Housing Development Bonus Plan. During
2008, the bonus Mr. Trubiana received from the On-Campus Student Housing Development Bonus Plan was
$26,800 for a development project initiated in 2006. Mr. Trubiana received the remaining $134,700
of the $161,500 he was eligible for under the Incentive Compensation Plan for Executive Officers.
#### Nelson MURDERS, Jr., Lester Bates, Vernon Blake, and James Stark *v.*GARLAND COUNTY, Arkansas, and Larry Williams, as Garland County Judge

97-871

966 S.W.2d 900

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 23, 1998

[Petition for rehearing denied June 4, 1998.]

*Hurst Law Office, P.A.,*by: Q. *Byrum Hurst,*for appellant.

*660
      *Ralph C. Ohm,*for appellee.

Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.

At the center of this appeal are a number of ordinances enacted by the Garland County Quorum Court creating and implementing a new solid waste collection system for unincorporated areas of the county. The County excluded Hot Springs Village from required participation in the system. Following the initiation of a declaratory judgment action by the appellants, the trial court granted summary judgment to the County, upholding the constitutionality of the ordinances. Among other things, appellants now contend that the exclusion of Hot Springs Village constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws. Appellants also argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in that material facts were in dispute and that summary judgment was premature as they were entitled to more discovery. Pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b), we affirm due to appellants’ flagrantly deficient abstract.

In their brief, appellants purport to challenge the constitutionality of five separate ordinances, yet have failed to abstract any of them. *See Blount v. Hughes,*292 Ark. 166, 728 S.W.2d 519 (1987) (appellants sought mandamus challenging statutory validity of municipal ordinances — abstract was flagrantly deficient due to failure to abstract ordinances despite portions of ordinances contained in appellants’ brief). Only two sentences from an ordinance can be found in the abstract (contained in the abstract of appellants’ complaint), although the specific ordinance is not identified.

The other remarkable deficiency of appellants’ abstract, considering that this is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment, is the failure to abstract *any*of the evidence' in the case, including affidavits that were submitted by parties on both sides. Without the benefit of such evidence, it is impossible for the court to determine if genuine issues of material fact exist, or if summary judgment was granted prematurely.

The reason for our rule is one of practicality in that there is only one transcript to be spread among seven members of the court. *See Oliver v. Washington County,*328 Ark. 61, 940*661S.W.2d 884 (1997). It is impossible for each of the seven judges to examine the one transcript. *Id.*Given the state of appellants’ abstract, we are precluded from an understanding of the issues on appeal. *See Porter v. Porter,*329 Ark. 42, 945 S.W.2d 376 (1997).

Affirmed.