alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Cornell Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I John R. Nieser, ChiefFinancial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer, certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

3.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

4.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ John R. Nieser                        |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | John R. Nieser, Chief  Financial Officer, |
|   | Senior Vice President  and Treasurer      |
|   | May 8, 2009                          |

 

Note:      The certification the registrant furnishesin this exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to theliabilities of that Section. Registration Statements or other documents filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibitby reference, except as otherwise expressly stated in such filing.

 

----
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS

#### Jim Griffith Builder, Inc. v. State Board of Contractors

September 13, 1985

Case No. (Chancery) 14085-FB

By JUDGE FRED W. BATEMAN

The facts relating to the missing lintels and anchor bolts are undisputed. The facts relating to the combustible materials on the underside of the fireplace and the shims were disputed, but the evidence was sufficient to justify the agency’s conclusion. The remaining disputes involve the alleged uncompacted fill and the assessment of costs against the petitioner.

Historically, when the dwelling in question was built in 1976, the State Building Code, BOCA, or the one or two family dwelling code, was in effect and applicable to York County. Where the county cannot produce inspection records, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems to the court that an inference or perhaps a presumption that the county properly inspected the footings could have been utilized in a case of this type. This suggestion, however, is of no value since the Court is prohibited from trying the facts de novo, which give the agency’s record and conclusions the status of a jury verdict.

The statutory limitation on this court’s power to review is so restrictive that its practical effect is somewhat like adding maternity benefits to medicare; it is there but who need it.

The Supreme Court, as pointed out by the Attorney General, has defined "substantial evidence" with respect *245to agency hearings to mean "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind *might*accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Applying this rule, this Court cannot say that the hearing officer was wrong in his conclusion regarding the uncompacted fill, but it would observe that he was powerfully weak on being right.

Where the agency, as in this case, imposes a fine it may, under Section 54-1.22:1, assess costs limited to the reasonable hourly rate of the hearing officer and the actual costs of recording the proceeding.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the appeal should be dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,730
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,543
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,372
<INVENTORY>                                      6,127
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,515
<PP&E>                                           6,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,555
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,600
<SALES>                                         14,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,370
<CGS>                                            7,856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   607
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 876
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    770
<INCOME-TAX>                                       380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                390
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       390
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
Order filed January 14, 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00922

- CV

____________ 4922 HOLDINGS, LLC A ND HORIZON UNITED GR OUP

INTERNATIONAL, LLC , Appellant s

V.
SALVADOR RIVERA D/B/ A RIVERA'S COMMERCIA L, Appellee

On Ap peal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 30658



### O R D E R The notice of appeal in this case was filed December 2, 2019

. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that cross
- appellant is exc used by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issues the following order.

Cross

- a ppellant is ordered to pay th e filing fee in the amount of $20 5.00 to the c lerk of this court on or before January 24, 2020
. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Ifappellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal

will be dismissed.
PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bou rliot.
<PAGE>   1
                   [MARINE DRILLING COMPANIES LETTERHEAD]




                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8


F A X

DATE:        October 23, 1996

TO:          Personnel & Compensation Committee --
                David A. B. Brown
                Howard I. Bull

FROM:        William H. Flores

Re:          Vincent G. ("Buddy") Bounds


Jan has asked me to advise you of our hiring of Buddy Bounds as a member of our
Deepwater Projects Team.  Buddy will join us on 28 October 1996 as
Director--Deepwater Projects.  We are extremely happy to have been able to hire
him in light of the Company's future activities. Prior to his employment with
the Company, Buddy held various Operations positions with Zapata
Offshore/Arethusa/Diamond Offshore as detailed in the attached press release
draft.

The terms of his employment are as follows:

     o   Salary --                         $135,000/year

     o   Bonus Eligibility --              Pursuant to MDCO Incentive Policy
                                           for Job Family 1 employees, i.e. up
                                           to 50% of base salary payable
                                           quarterly subject to Company
                                           performance and individual job
                                           ratings

     o   Severance --                      One year base salary in the event of
                                           a change in control and loss of
                                           employment within one year
                                           thereafter

     o   Vacation --                       Pursuant to Company policy -- 2
                                           weeks initially

     o   Stock Options --                  Grant dated 23 October 1996 for
                                           125,000 shares vesting over a
                                           three-year period provided the
                                           Company Executes a deepwater
                                           drilling contract with Shell (the
                                           Spar project)

     o   Other Benefits --                 Buddy will be eligible to enroll in
                                           the Welfare and Retirement Plans
                                           available generally to Job Family 1
                                           employees.

Thank you for your review of these arrangements.  Please let me know if you
have questions or comments.


WHF/ljw
C:   B. Barbanell
     J. Rask
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc lude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L ID IA A R A IC A -G R A N A D O S , a. k. a. Jo sefa M i ri am A rai ca-G ran ad o s, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73227 A ge nc yN o. A 072- 867- 794 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay24, 2011 ** B e f o r e : P R E G E R S O N , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . L i di aA r a i c a - G r ana dos , anat i ve and c i t i z e n of N i c ar a gua , pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her app ea lfr om an im m ig r atio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n an dto r e c o n s id e r . W e d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 

# FI LED JU N 08 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73227 2 A ra i ca -G ranado s c on t ends thatshe i s pri m a f ac i e e l i gi bl e f

or a w ai ver und er 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(i ) bec ause her r em ov alw ou l d cause extre m e har dshi p t o h er U ni t e d S t at e s c i t i z e n s pous e . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the a ge nc y ’ s de ni a lof d is c r e tio n aryr e lie f

u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( i) . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( B )( i ); N ath v. G on zales , 4 6 7 F .3 d1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DI S MI S S E D.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00078-CR

BRANDON P. KELLEY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1488594R

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Brandon P. Kelley pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a 

firearm in exchange for two years’ confinement and now attempts to appeal this 

conviction. On March 14, 2017, we notified Appellant that the trial court’s 

certification of his right to appeal states that this is a plea-bargain case, that he 

has no right of appeal, and that he waived his right of appeal, and we informed 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

him that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the 

court, on or before March 24, 2017, a response showing grounds for continuing 

the appeal, the appeal would be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 

44.3. We then granted Appellant two extensions to file a response and denied 

his third extension but ultimately gave Appellant until July 10, 2017, to file a 

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. 

Because Appellant has not shown grounds for continuing the appeal, we 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). 

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

BONNIE SUDDERTH

JUSTICE

PANEL: SUDDERTH, KERR, and PITTMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 27, 2017
CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

#### Bobbie B. Beasley v. Kayo Oil Co., etc., et al.

August 29, 1983

Case No. (Law) 3534-82

By JUDGE JOHN F. DAFFRON, JR.

The defendants, by counsel, filed a Special Plea of the statute of limitations to plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment. After oral argument on the motions, I held that plaintiff’s claims of malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and defamation are personal actions for which litigation must be commenced within one year. The defendants’ Special Plea of statute of limitations is sustained to Counts I and II of plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment.

Count III alleges assault and battery. This tort, if properly pled and proven, involves an unlawful touching involving injury to the person contrasted with defamation, a personal *action*involving injury to the reputation. Without deciding whether assault and battery is properly pled, I hold that an action to recover for the tort of assault and battery is governed by a two-year statute of limitations; hence, defendants’ Special Plea to Count III is denied.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1 





Promotion Summary dated February 1, 2018 between RealNetworks, Inc. and Max Pellegrini


In connection with the promotion of Massimiliano Pellegrini to the role of President of RealNetworks effective February 1, 2018, the employment offer letter of RealNetworks, Inc. to Mr. Pellegrini dated January 7, 2013 remains in full force and effect, except for the following changes that are effective upon his February 1, 2018 promotion:
		
	•
	Annual base salary:  $450,000


		
	•
	Annual bonus opportunity:  100% of annual base salary
<PAGE>

EX-99.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                          PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  (the
"Report") of Amplidyne, Inc. (the "Company") for the nine months ended September
30, 2003, I, Devendar S. Bains, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  hereby certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, 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/ Devendar S. Bains
--------------------------------------------------------
Devendar S. Bains
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer


November 18, 2003



                                      -19-
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2642 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist in the identification 

of unclaimed and abandoned human remains to determine if any such 

remains are eligible for burial in a national cemetery, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2009 

Mr. TIBERI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist in 

the identification of unclaimed and abandoned human 

remains to determine if any such remains are eligible 

for burial in a national cemetery, 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 ‘‘Veterans Missing in 

5 America Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

7 Congress recognizes the tireless work and dedication 

8 of the members of the Missing in America Project, in conmstockstill@gpo.gov on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2642 IH

1 junction with numerous veterans service organizations, in 

2 identifying the unclaimed remains of veterans. 

3 SEC. 3. IDENTIFICATION OF UNCLAIMED AND ABANDONED 

4 HUMAN REMAINS. 

5 (a) IDENTIFICATION OF UNCLAIMED OR ABANDONED

6 HUMAN REMAINS.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 shall cooperate with veterans service organizations to as8 sist entities in possession of unclaimed or abandoned 

9 human remains in determining if any such remains are 

10 the remains of veterans or other individuals eligible for 

11 burial in a national cemetery. 

12 (b) BURIAL OF UNCLAIMED OR ABANDONED HUMAN

13 REMAINS.—If the Secretary determines that any un14 claimed or abandoned human remains are the remains of 

15 a person who is eligible for burial in an open national cem16 etery under the control of the National Cemetery Adminis17 tration under section 2402 of title 38, United States Code, 

18 the Secretary shall provide for the burial of the remains 

19 and cover the cost of the burial of the remains and the 

20 cost of preparing the remains and transporting them to 

21 the place of burial, if the Secretary determines, with re22 spect to the remains— 

23 (1) that there is no next of kin or other person 

24 claiming the remains; and 

mstockstill@gpo.gov on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 2642 IH

1 (2) that there are not available other sufficient 

2 resources to cover burial and funeral expenses. 

3 (c) CREATION OF NATIONAL DATABASE.—The Sec4 retary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a database in 

5 which the Secretary shall enter the names of any veteran 

6 or other individual identified pursuant to subsection (a). 

7 The Secretary shall ensure that the database is publicly 

8 accessible. 

Æ 

mstockstill@gpo.gov on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### Miqueias Nunes, Appellant, v Window Network, LLC, Respondent.

[863 NYS2d 815]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered *835June 28, 2007, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new determination of the motion after final resolution of a prompt application to the Workers’ Compensation Board to determine the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

“[Plrimary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board and ... it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board” *(Botwinick v Ogden,*59 NY2d 909, 911 [1983]). Where the availability of workers’ compensation benefits hinges upon questions of fact or upon mixed questions of fact and law, the parties may not choose the courts as the forum for resolution of the questions, but must look to the Workers’ Compensation Board for such determinations *(see O’Rourke v Long,*41 NY2d 219 [1976]).

The question of whether a particular person is an employee within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law is usually a question of fact to be resolved by the Workers’ Compensation Board *(see Santigate v Linsalata,*304 AD2d 639 [2003]). In this case, although the plaintiff identified himself at his deposition as an employee of the defendant, the deposition testimony of a principal of the defendant tended to negate such a finding. Thus, it would be inappropriate to determine that the plaintiffs self-described status as an employee of the defendant is binding upon him, especially since he does not speak English. Under these circumstances, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, there is a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff has a valid negligence cause of action against the defendant, or if he is relegated to benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law. That determination must be made in the first instance by the Workers’ Compensation Board *(see Augustine v Sugrue,*305 AD2d 437 [2003]; *Melo v Jewish Bd. of Family & Children’s Servs.,*282 AD2d 440 [2001]; *Hofrichter v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Syosset,*271 AD2d 649 [2000]; *Manetta v Town of Hempstead Day Care Ctr.,*248 AD2d 517 [1998]; *Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co.,*171 AD2d 262 [1991]). Lifson, J.E, Ritter, Dillon and Leventhal, JJ, concur.
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 320 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 31, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California. 

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


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 320 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Distinguished Flying 

3 Cross National Memorial Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS 

5 NATIONAL MEMORIAL IN RIVERSIDE, CALI6 FORNIA. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The most reliable statistics regarding the 

9 number of members of the Armed Forces who have 

10 been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross indi11 cate that 126,318 members of the Armed Forces re12 ceived the medal during World War II, approxi13 mately 21,000 members received the medal during 

14 the Korean conflict, and 21,647 members received 

15 the medal during the Vietnam War. Since the end 

16 of the Vietnam War, more than 203 Armed Forces 

17 members have received the medal in times of con18 flict. 

19 (2) The National Personnel Records Center in 

20 St. Louis, Missouri, burned down in 1973, and thus 

21 many more recipients of the Distinguished Flying 

22 Cross may be undocumented. Currently, the Depart23 ment of Defense continues to locate and identify 

24 members of the Armed Forces who have received the 

25 medal and are undocumented. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 320 RFS 

1 (3) The United States currently lacks a na2 tional memorial dedicated to the bravery and sac3 rifice of those members of the Armed Forces who 

4 have distinguished themselves by heroic deeds per5 formed in aerial flight. 

6 (4) An appropriate memorial to current and 

7 former members of the Armed Forces is under con8 struction at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, 

9 California. 

10 (5) This memorial will honor all those members 

11 of the Armed Forces who have distinguished them12 selves in aerial flight, whether documentation of 

13 such members who earned the Distinguished Flying 

14 Cross exists or not. 

15 (b) DESIGNATION.—The memorial to members of the 

16 Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished 

17 Flying Cross, located at March Field Air Museum in Riv18 erside, California, is hereby designated as the Distin19 guished Flying Cross National Memorial. 

20 (c) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The national memo21 rial designated by this section is not a unit of the National 

22 Park System, and the designation of the national memo23 rial shall not be construed to require or permit Federal 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 320 RFS 

1 funds to be expended for any purpose related to the na2 tional memorial. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 24, 

2011. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS