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 LaSalle  Brands  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Scott  Campbell,  certify to the best of my knowledge,  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.


/s/ Scott Campbell
-------------------------------
Scott Campbell, President & CFO
November 14, 2007
EXHIBIT 11.1

                    HEALTHCOR HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                UNAUDITED NET INCOME PER COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES

                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                          ------------------
  BASIC AND DILUTED NET INCOME (LOSS)                          MARCH 31, 
     PER COMMON SHARE                                          --------- 
                                                          1998           1997
                                                          ----           ----
  Numerator:
  Net income (loss) ..............................   $ (5,488,093)   $ 1,808,252
                                                     ============    ===========
Denominator:
  Weighted average common shares
    outstanding-basic ............................     10,090,057     10,023,416
  Effect of dilutive stock options:
    Assuming exercise of options, reduced by
    the number of common shares which
    could have been purchased with the
    proceeds from exercise of such options .......           --          154,136

                                                     ------------    -----------
  Weighted average number of common shares
    outstanding and dilutive stock options -
    diluted ......................................     10,090,057     10,177,552
                                                     ============    ===========


Net income (loss) per common share ...............   $      (0.54)   $      0.18
Net income (loss) per common share- assuming
dilution .........................................   $      (0.54)   $      0.18


                                       14
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 Annual Report of Meredith Enterprises, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allen K. Meredith, 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, to my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 24, 2005 |  | /s/ Allen K. Meredith  
|                      |  | Allen K. Meredith      
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 293 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 293

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude executive branch 
 officers and employees from nonrecognition rules relating to the sale 
     of property to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2011

 Mr. Stearns introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude executive branch 
 officers and employees from nonrecognition rules relating to the sale 
     of property to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FROM 
              CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST NONRECOGNITION RULES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1043(b)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``an officer or 
employee of the executive branch, or a judicial officer,'' and 
inserting ``a judicial officer''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Paragraphs (1)(A) and (5)(B) of section 1043(b) of such 
        Code are each amended by striking ``judicial canon, or 
        executive order'' and inserting ``or judicial canon''.
            (2)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 1043(b)(2) of such Code 
        is amended by striking ``judicial canon, or executive order'' 
        and all that follows through ``Code)'' and inserting ``or 
        judicial canon''.
            (B) Subparagraph (B) of section 1043(b)(2) of such Code is 
        amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) that has been issued by the Judicial 
                Conference of the United States (or its designee), 
                and''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to sales after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.19



 Exhibit 10.19 
 GRANT AWARD AGREEMENT AND NOTICE 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR 

ANNUAL RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT GRANT 
             , 20     
 Under Armour, Inc. (the “Company”) has granted to you, the Grantee identified below, as a Non-Employee Director of the Company, an annual RSU grant. Your RSU grant has been made pursuant to the
terms of the Under Armour, Inc. 2010 Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) and the Under Armour, Inc. Amended and Restated 2005 Omnibus Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Incentive Plan”). The Plan, Incentive Plan and
the Under Armour, Inc. 2006 Non-Employee Director Deferred Stock Unit Plan (“Deferral Plan”), along with this Notice, set forth the terms and conditions of this grant. The Plan, Incentive Plan and Deferral Plan are incorporated herein by
reference. Acceptance of this grant by you constitutes your acknowledgment that you have received and read copies of the Plan, the Incentive Plan and the Deferral Plan, and your acceptance of all terms and conditions of such plans. Capitalized terms
used in this Notice shall have the respective meanings given to such terms in the Plan, unless otherwise defined in this Notice. 
  

					
	Grantee Name:	  	  
	  	
			
	Grant Date:	  	  
	  	
			
	Number of Restricted Stock Units Granted:	  	  
	  	
		
	Vesting:	  	 100% on the date of the Company’s 20     annual stockholder meeting.

Subject to accelerated vesting in accordance with the terms of the Plan and the Incentive Plan, as applicable.



Annual RSUs granted to you shall be settled in the form of Deferred Stock Units, in accordance with the terms of the Plan and the Deferral Plan. By
accepting this annual RSU grant, you agree to such deferral and agree to be bound by the terms of the Deferral Plan. 
  

			
	Under Armour, Inc.
		
	By:
#### Sioux City & St. Paul R. Co. *v.*Rice. St. Paul & Sioux City R. Co. *v.*The Same.

*(Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.*

November, 1881.)

1. Swamp Lands — Act op Congress — When to Take Effect.

Title to swamp land was not vested by the act of congress of September 28, 1850, until the admission of a territory into the Union. Hence, the state of Minnesota not having been admitted into the Union at the date of the passage of the act granting lands to the territory or future state of Minnesota for the construction of railroads, approved March 3,1857, a grantee of the state, by virtue of the acts of the legislature approved March 8,1861, and March 4,186'4, has a good title as against one whose title depends upon the proper construction of the acts of congress approved September 28, 1850, and March 12, 1860.

*E. C. Palmer,*for complainant.

*John B. & W. H. Sanborn,*for defendant.

Nelson, D. J.

This suit is instituted, to establish the superior right of the complainants to the land in controversy. The equitable title is claimed to be in the complainant and the legal title in the defendant. The defendant’s title is derived from the state of Minnesota by conveyance under the authority of an act of its legislature, the land being described as swamp, and certified to the state as swamp lands belonging to it by virtue of the acts of congress approved September 28, 1850, and March 12, 1860. The complainant’s title is claimed to be vested under the act of congress passed March 3, 1857, *369granting lands to the territory or future state of Minnesota to aid in the construction of railroads, and subsequent acts, disposing of those lands for that purpose, passed by the legislature of the state March 8, 1861, and March 4, 4864.

conclusions.

1. The state of Minnesota was admitted into the Union May 11, 1858, and the title under the swamp-land act did not take effect until the date of this act of admission.

2. The title to the land in controversy wasún ihe United States at the time of the passage of the act granting lands to the territory or future state of Minnesota for the construction of railroads, approved March 3, 1857, and there is nothing in the acts of congress of September 28, 1850, which prevented congress from granting this land for that purpose.

3. The land was not reserved out of that grant by any of the provisions embodied in the act of March 3,1857, but is located within the limits prescribed therein, and enured to the complainant’s benefit, and the title became vested in it by virtue of the acts of the legislature of the state of Minnesota, approved March 8,1861, and March 4, 1864.

The complainants are, therefore, entitled to a decree, and it is so ordered.

McCrary, C. J., concurred.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40079 

Summary Calendar

__________________

JUAN GARCIA MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-B-91-194

- - - - - - - - - -

February 9, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Garcia Martinez moves this Court for a certificate of

probable cause (CPC).

Martinez argues that he should have been appointed counsel

for the evidentiary hearing conducted by the district court to

determine whether his trial counsel failed to file a timely

notice of appeal. 

Appointment of counsel is mandatory if a district court

determines that an evidentiary hearing is required and a

petitioner qualifies for appointment under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 
No. 95-40079

-2-

Lamb v. Estelle, 667 F.2d 492, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1982). As the

district court had already adjudged him a pauper, Martinez was

qualified under § 3006A(g). Therefore, the district court should

have appointed counsel for Martinez. See Bell v. Watkins, 692

F.2d 999, 1014 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 843

(1983).

 Martinez's motion for CPC is GRANTED. The judgment of the

district court is VACATED and the case REMANDED for the district

court to conduct an evidentiary hearing with Martinez represented

by counsel.
November 25 , 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

VINCENT COLBY DUFFEY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00803

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order app ellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 11.2
                            Schick Technologies, Inc.
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                               Weighted
                                                                                Days           Average
                                                             Shares         Outstanding         Shares
                                                          --------------------------------------------
<S>                                                          <C>                <C>           <C>      
Six months ended September 30, 1997
-----------------------------------

Shares outstanding at April 1,1997                           7,957,321          181           7,957,321
                                                                                            
Sale and issuance of common stock                            2,012,500           91           1,011,809
                                                                                            
Cheap stock consideration for stock, stock options                                          
and warrants issued during fiscal 1997                         305,489           90             151,901
                                                                                            
Stock options and warrants considered to be common                                          
stock equivalents                                              438,191           91             220,306
                                                                                            
Options issued during fiscal 1998                               12,272           82               5,559
                                                                                             ----------
                                                                                            
   Weighted average shares outstanding                                                        9,346,896
                                                                                            
   Net income for the six months ended September 30, 1997                                    $  312,452
                                                                                             ----------
                                                                                            
   Net income per share                                                                      $     0.03
                                                                                             ==========
</TABLE>

                                                                               
                                       13
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG

#### Benjamin E. Blaisdell v. Marriott C. Johnson, Jr.

November 7, 1985

By JUDGE JOHN A. JAMISON

I have reviewed my bench notes made during your arguments in the above matter at the hearing last month and have studied the memoranda of counsel. For the defendant, Mr. Harman has filed a Motion for Protective Order and for the plaintiff, Mr. Thorsen has filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. Both motions concern the same issue of whether the defendant can be compelled to answer questions at the pre-trial deposition that require his expert opinion.

It should be noted that the court is aware that there are no Virginia Supreme court cases directly in point. Therefore, the circuit court opinions submitted by both attorneys have been very helpful.

Depositions of the defendant-physician were taken on July 18, 1985. At that time, the defendant was asked to articulate his understanding as to the standard of care in Virginia and as to whether he had performed at that level in his treatment of Benjamin E. Blaisdell. Discovery, since its inception has been progressively broadened. The Rules of the Supreme Court, Part 4, clearly express the Supreme Court’s intention that it have almost no limitations. Since no arguments were made that the information sought was privileged or irrelevant, the only exceptions in Rule 4:1(b), the Court must require the defendant to answer this particular inquiry.

*253In the same deposition, the defendant was presented an X-ray of Benjamin Blaisdell’s elbow taken one year after the defendant had concluded his treatment and after an intervening injury to the elbow had occurred. From the evidence recounted by counsel and from the arguments, it appears that the defendant was not provided with sufficient information to make an accurate diagnosis by merely viewing the plaintiff’s X-ray. However, even if the defendant had analyzed such information, it appears to be simply irrelevant to this cause of action because of the intervening injury. Therefore, the Court finds that this subject area in the deposition is irrelevant to this case and the defendant is not required to offer his expert opinion on the X-ray.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE THIRD
QUARTER FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 6/30/00 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1999
<CASH>                                             494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,469
<INVENTORY>                                     62,784
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,529
<PP&E>                                          47,915
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,732
<BONDS>                                        148,376
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           44,649
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,998)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   215,807
<SALES>                                        123,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,236
<CGS>                                           71,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,468
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,807)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,829)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,829)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.68)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000858346
<NAME> WEST COAST REALTY INVESTORS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,099,857
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  288,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,427,219
<PP&E>                                      28,465,682
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,143,073)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,839,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          791,296
<BONDS>                                     11,194,832
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,635
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,831,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,839,091
<SALES>                                      2,822,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,217,492
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,189,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,048,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                978,978
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   978,978
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53


</TABLE>