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



Exhibit 32.1 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 of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bruce D. Given, M.D., President and Chief Executive
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. 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/ Bruce D. Given, M.D.
Bruce D. Given, M.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer April 29, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Encysive
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and will be retained by Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Rath, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[852 NYS2d 922]

Present-Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,374,844
<SECURITIES>                                 7,919,487
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    167,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,234,140
<PP&E>                                       8,075,401
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,696,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,672,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,343,303
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         23
<COMMON>                                       130,014
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,199,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,672,537
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               690,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,532,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,691,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,691,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,691,691)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

Computation of Earnings per Share

The following represents the computation of earnings per share reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the option and warrants plan which
would be dilutive will be exercised.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Three Months Ended
                                                                                    March 31,
                                                                         -----------------------------
                                                                             2004             2003
<S>                                                                      <C>             <C>
Net earnings applicable to common shareholders - basic                   $   336,707     $     267,980

Add: Dividend to preferred shareholders                                       15,000                --
                                                                         -----------     -------------

Net earnings - diluted                                                   $   351,707     $     267,980
                                                                         ===========     =============

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                12,409,619        12,308,321

Common share equivalents relating to stock options,
warrants and preferred stock                                               3,629,294            95,991
                                                                         -----------     -------------
Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for
diluted computation                                                       16,038,913        12,404,312
                                                                         ===========     =============
Net earnings per share:
    Basic                                                                $      0.03     $        0.02
    Diluted                                                              $      0.02     $        0.02

Anti-dilutive options, warrants and preferred stock not
included in the diluted earnings per share computations                      365,100         1,161,234
                                                                         ===========     =============
</TABLE>

See notes to consolidated financial statements.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7366

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAYMOND FRETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CR-02-1381; CA-04-1133-3-17)

Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 11, 2005

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Frett, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Hunter Young, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Frett, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-

38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Frett has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1037

KATHY I. RILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BEVERAGE AIR, a division of Specialty Equipment Manufacturing Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-2267-8-24) Submitted: June 18, 2002 Decided: June 28, 2002 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven M. Krause, LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN M. KRAUSE, P.A., Anderson, South Carolina; Mary C. McCormac, Clemson, South Carolina, for Appellant. S. Clay Keim, Jeffrey A. Lehrer, EDWARDS, BALLARD, BISHOP, CLARK, STURM & KEIM, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kathy Riley appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment and dismissing her state privacy act and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2601-2654 (West 1999). We have reviewed the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Riley v. Beverage Air , No. CA-00-2267-8-24 (D.S.C. Nov. 28, 2001). 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 7, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00168

- CR

Richard DEBENEDETTO

, Appellant

v.

The State of TexasAppellee

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. A1484

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State ’s Motion for Extension of Time to Fi le Brief has this date been received and

filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the State’s brief is this

date GRANTED. Time is extended to November 13, 2015.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Patrick Edwin O'Fiel

The Law Office of Patrick O'Fiel, P.C.

The Schreiner Building

200 Earl Garrett, Suite 206

Kerrville, TX 78028 Steven A. Wadsworth

Assistant District Attorney

- 216th Judicial District

200 Earl Garret t St., Suite 202

Kerrville, TX 78028
----

**CERTIFICATION**

| 1.   | the                  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 Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the Company                  at the dates and for the periods                  indicated. |

|                                                                                     |   |   |                                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                     |   |   |                                                                      |
| /s/                  ROBERT A. WHITMAN                                                   |   |   | /s/                  STEPHEN D. YOUNG                                     |
| Robert                  A. WhitmanPresident                  and Chief Executive Officer |   |   | Stephen                  D. YoungChief                  Financial Officer |
ex10-10.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.10


     

    

     

    December
16, 2008

     

    Memorandum

     

    
      	 
      	 
      
	
              To:

            	
              Mr.
      Dennis Andrews

            
	 
      	
              Senior
      Vice President

            
	
              From:

            	
              Curtis
      Garner, CFO

            
	
              Re:

            	
              Otelco
      Employment Agreement and IRS Section 409A
  Compliance

            


    

     

    Dear
Dennis:

     

    In order
to comply with recent changes to the final Treasury Regulations issued under
Internal Revenue Code Section 409A, your employment agreement must be amended by
December 31, 2008. By amending the agreement as described below, any
severance payments under the agreement will be exempt from the 409A deferred
compensation rules. In order to avoid the application of these rules, your
agreement must be amended to specifically state that any severance to be paid
must be paid no later than March 15 of the year following your termination.
Currently, the agreement does not specify that the amounts will be paid within a
certain time period. By making this change, your agreement will comply with the
rules under 409A that make it exempt from their application. I have attached a
copy of your current agreement for your reference. Failure to amend the
agreement by December 31, 2008, to be exempt from 409A, could result in the
amounts being subject to a 20% penalty tax.

     

    Please
sign and return to me by December 31, 2008, this letter evidencing your
agreement with the following amendment to your employment
agreement:

     

    Section
5(a)(iii) is amended to read as follows: “The Company shall pay to the Employee
a lump sum in the amount of one-half (1/2) of his Annual Base Salary within six
(6) months following termination but not later than March 14 of the calendar
year following termination; and”

    
      
        	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                Otelco
      Inc.

              
	 
      	
                /s/
      Curtis L. Garner

              
	 
      	
                Curtis
      L. Garner, Chief Financial
Officer

              


      

    

     

    I hereby
agree to the above amendment to my employment agreement.

    
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              /s/
      Dennis Andrews

            	 
      	
              December
      17, 2008

            
	
              Dennis
      Andrews
#### LEVEN et al. v. BIRRELL et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 22, 1952.

See also, 92 F.Supp. 436.

Geller & Saslow, New York City, for plaintiff.

Abraham M. Glickman, New York City, for Greater N. Y. Industries, Inc.

Abraham Rotwein, New York City, for Securities Corp.

Koenig & Bachner, New York City, for American Druggists etc.

Curtis, Mallet, Prevost, Colt & Mosle, New York City, for International Utilities Corp.

*342EDELSTEIN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, minority stockholders prosecuting a derivative action, have moved under Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., for the production of a large number of documents by defendants. The documents are, for the most part, designated by categories, and objection is taken on the ground that the designation is too general. Designation by category is sufficient so long as the category itself is sufficiently defined, see Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd ed., vol. 4, § 34.07; and I believe that this test has been met. A more serious objection is that the affidavits accompanying the motion do not, with some exception, contain factual allegations concerning the relevancy of the documents sought, nor is there any specific showing of good cause. An affidavit indicates, in tabular form, the counts of the complaint to which designated documents are claimed to be relevant, and the plaintiff urges that the court, on perusal of the notice of motion and the complaint, will conclude that the showing is adequate. But the plaintiff has the burden of stating facts leading to the conclusion of relevancy; he has not entirely met that burden and he cannot avoid it merely by stating a conclusion and leaving the court with the task of supplying for itself the necessary factual basis, a task involving a detailed study of all of the counts of a voluminous complaint. However, with respect to item 18, requesting documents relating to non-defendant corporations, relevancy has been specifically established, and a proper foundation has been laid under the requirement of a previous ruling by Judge Clancy. Facts also have been supplied to indicate the relevancy of documents requested in items 17, 20 and 21.

The question of good cause, in a case such as this, is conditioned by the fact that the evidence would normally be within the knowledge and possession of the defendants, and considerations of practical convenience dictate that the production of the requested documents is necessary to enable plaintiff to prepare his case and to facilitate proof and progress at the trial. Good cause, therefore, may be taken as established here without a more precise exposition.

The plaintiff’s motion will be granted with respect to items 17, 18, 20 and 21 and with respect to those items which have been conceded by defendants, with such modifications as the plaintiff has already agreed to accept. The motion will be denied as to the other items, but with leave to renew the motion to include a proper showing of relevancy.

Settle an order accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF AUGUST 31, 1997 AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED AUGUST
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,401,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,899,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,802,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   650,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,174,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,484,000
<PP&E>                                      13,563,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,277,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,457,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,247,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,172,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,457,000
<SALES>                                     10,968,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,099,000
<CGS>                                        9,842,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,493,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,702,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,332,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   892,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,440,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,440,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.39
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 29 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 29

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA AND EMANCIPATION HALL OF THE CAPITOL.

    The rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the United States Capitol are 
authorized to be used on January 20, 2017, by the Joint Congressional 
Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings 
and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect 
and the Vice President-elect of the United States.

            Passed the Senate January 20, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 29

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   To authorize the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the 
Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in 
   connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the 
inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the 
                             United States.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

December 23, 2013

h1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147699

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147699

COA: 310331

Wayne CC: 11

- 012587

- FH

ROBERT DARYL THREAT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2013

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.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350,As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to my knowledge, the AmendmentNo. 1 on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2005 of Graphic PackagingCorporation (the “Company”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   | /s/ JOHN T. BALDWIN                                        |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name: John  T. Baldwin                                     |
|   |   | Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|   |   | August 9, 2005                                             |

 

----