alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.4
                                 PROMISSORY NOTE



$50,000.00                                                   Palm Beach, Florida
Maturity: October 28, 2000                                    September 28, 2000
          ----------------

         FOR VALUE  RECEIVED,  Clements  Golden  Phoenix  Enterprises,  Inc.,  a
Florida corporation,  with its principle offices located at 3135 S.W. Mapp Road,
Palm  City,  FL 34990  ("Borrower"),  promises  to pay to the order of Bonnie K.
Ludlum,  with her principle  address at 3135 S.W. Mapp Road, Palm City, FL 34990
("Lender"),  the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars  ($50,000.00)  with interest from
and after the date  hereof,  at the rate of ten percent  (10%) per annum,  for a
period of thirty (30) days from September 28, 2000.

         This Note shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance
with the laws of the State of Florida.

         GIVEN  under  the  hand of each  party,  the day and year  first  above
written.

BORROWER

/s/ Joseph Rizzuti
Joseph Rizzuti, Chairman and Chief Operating Officer


STATE OF Florida                                )
                                                ) ss.:
COUNTY OF Palm Beach                            )

     The  foregoing  instrument  was  acknowledged  before  me  this  8th day of
November 2000, by Joseph  Rizzuti,  as Chairman and Chief  Operating  Officer of
Clements Golden Phoenix Enterprises,  Inc., who is personally known to me or has
presented the following identification -----------------------.

                                                /s/ Andrea S. Lisi
         My commission expires: 12/6/03         NOTARY PUBLIC

                                                Print Name: Andrea S. Lisi

                                      13
Exhibit
32.2





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 Greystone Logistics, Inc. (the
“Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert H. Nelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





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





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





October
      20, 2009
              
              /s/ Robert
      H. NelsonRobert
      H. NelsonChief
      Financial Officer






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part
of the Report.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09

- 1 3

- 00 540

- C R



### ____________________
JASON DAVID WINFREE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10

- 10484

________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jason David Winfree pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to the third

degree felony offense of indecency with a child, enhanced by a prior felony

conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11(a)(2) (West 2011); 12.42(a) (West
Supp. 2013 ). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt
, assessed a fine of $500,
and placed Winfree on unadjudicated commun ity supervision for ten years. T he
State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. Winfr ee pleaded “true” to
violations of his supervision. Finding Win free violated the terms of his community2 supervision, the trial court revoked Winfree’s supervision, adjudicated his guilt,
and sentenced him to twenty years in prison.
Winfree’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evalu ation of the record and concludes there are no arguable points of error. See
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Winfree to file a pro se response. We received no response from Winfree.
We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and reporter’s record to
determine whether there are arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See

Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 28 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2005); Stafford v.

State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found none.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief
Winfree’s appeal. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 826

- 28; compare Stafford , 813

S.W.2d at 511.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on May 15, 2014 Opinion Delivered June 11, 2014 D o Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDRE VEIRA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 832

[ October 21, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael A. Usan

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15006923CF10A

.

Andre Veira, Arcadia, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, C IKLIN and A RTAU , JJ., con cur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 10.9.1**

**Description of Verigy’s Pay-for-Results Program**

**Fiscal Year 2009**

***General***

The following is summary of the key provisions of Verigy’s Pay-for-Results program as in effect during fiscal 2009. There is no formal plan document related to this program. 

The Pay-for-Results program is designed to link the cash compensation for designated executives and other key contributors directly tobusiness performance. The program provides for the payment of cash bonuses if pre-determined business performance measures are met and/or exceeded. 

***Administration***

The Compensation Committee of the Board administers the program as it related toexecutives, and approves bonus attainment levels for all participants. 

***Participation and Eligibility***

All executives and certain other key contributors designated by the executive officers are eligible to participate in the program duringfiscal 2009. To be eligible for payment for a bonus period, participants have to be employed on the last day of that bonus period. Payouts for individuals who join the company and become eligible for participation in the program after the start of abonus period will be pro rated. 

***Plan Operation***

The program is administered in six-month performance periods that coincide with each half of Verigy’s fiscal year. Each participant’s target bonus is an amount, equal to a stated percentage ofthe participant’s base salary. The stated percentage includes, in each case, a target of 15% of the participant’s base salary that is tied to the same performance measures as apply to all employees under Verigy’s company-wide“Verigy Results Bonus” or “VRB” program. (The VRB program pays bonuses based on achievement of operating profit targets set in relation to a multi-year profitability model.) 

In addition to the 15% of a participant’s base salary that is tied to the VRB program, another percentage of the participant’sbase salary is based on achievement to short-term operating profit margin objectives set for each fiscal half year. For certain individuals, the program provides weighting for the financial results associated with the product family with which theyare primarily associated while other participant targets are based entirely on overall company-wide results. Executive Officers are also measured against relative total shareholder return compared to a peer group of semiconductor equipmentcompanies. Certain other individuals may also have a performance objective relating to sales results. 

The overallPay-for-Results target percentage of a participant’s base salary is based on the position level within the company and competitive practice. There are minimum performance levels that must be attained before paying a bonus. Pay-for-Resultsbonuses are paid if the minimum performance threshold is met or exceeded in the performance period. The maximum bonus represents 200% of the target bonus if meeting the maximum performance level.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3553 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3553

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
   To exclude from consideration as income under the Native American 
 Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 amounts received 
by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-related 
                 disabilities of a member of the family.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Veterans Housing Opportunity 
Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME.
    Paragraph (9) of section 4 of the Native American Housing 
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103(9)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(C) Any amounts received by any member of the family as 
        disability compensation under chapter 11 of title 38, United 
        States Code, or dependency and indemnity compensation under 
        chapter 13 of such title.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted), Michael P. May, the Chief Executive Officer of iSECUREtrac
Corp. (the "Company"), and James E. Stark, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies that:

      1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
            March 31, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit
            99.1 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements
            of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
            1934, as amended; and

2.          The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the
            end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of
            operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic
            Report.

Dated:  May 15, 2003

/s/   Michael P. May                         /s/   James E. Stark
      ------------------                           ------------------

Michael P. May                               James E. Stark
Chief Executive Officer                      Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to iSECUREtrac Corp. and will be retained by iSECUREtrac Corp. and will
be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


                                                                         Page 19
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER  ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         295,974
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               327,106
<PP&E>                                         176,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (35,108)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,421,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          408,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,745,174
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,732,561)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,421,288
<SALES>                                         28,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,147
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               819,219
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (791,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (791,072)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (791,072)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-K/A of Voiceserve, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended March 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Michael Bibelman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
 
 Dated:  November 10, 2010
 
 By: /s/ Michael Bibelman
 Michael Bibelman
 Chief Executive Officer
[Nos. 66908-7-I; 66909-5-I.

Division One.

November 13, 2012.]

#### Grazyna Prouty, *Appellant,*v. Tahoma School District Board, *Respondent.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 10-2-30916-1, Monica J. Benton, J., entered January 31, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Schindler, J.,

concurred in by Lau and Verellen, JJ.
NUMBER 13-12-00115-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

COPPERFIELD PLAZA, LTD., APPELLANT,

v.

COMPASS BANK F/K/A LAREDO NATIONAL BANK, APPELLEE. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 275th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 275th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C-2694-08-E. Appellant has filed an 

unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have reached an 

agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Appellant requests that this Court 

dismiss the appeal.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant=s unopposed 

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant=s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is 

hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed 

against the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the 

parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at 

appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will 

issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

21st day of June, 2012.
#### Robert L. ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MONTANA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-35048.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 18, 2011.

Robert L. Rose, Deer Lodge, MT, pro se.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert L. Rose, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rose’s access-to-courts claims because ei*632ther they pertained to state law tort causes of action, or Rose failed to allege facts showing how defendants’ acts hindered his efforts to pursue challenges to his criminal conviction or prison conditions. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 354-55, 116 S.Ct. 2174,135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (the right to access the courts is limited to cases in which prisoners challenge their convictions or prison conditions); *Phillips v. Hust,*588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir.2009) (to state an access-to-courts claim, “an inmate must show that official acts or omissions hindered his efforts to pursue a [non-frivolous] legal claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because the defects of Rose’s complaint are not curable. *See Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (a district court need not grant leave to amend if the defects of the complaint cannot be cured).

Rose’s remaining contentions, including those concerning a preliminary injunction, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Vincent John BAZEMORE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan BUIE, Assistant United States Attorney; Walt Junker, Assistant United States Attorney, Defendants-Appel-lees.

No. 10-11186

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 21, 2011.

Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., FCI Latu-na, Anthony, NM, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Vincent Bazemore, Jr., federal prisoner # 37160-177, seeks leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*(“IFP”) in his appeal of the dismissal of his Bivens1 action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The motion is construed as a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Bazemore challenges the dismissal of his case as barred by res judicata, arguing *398that, under the fourth prong of the res judicata test, the two cases at issue do not have the same nucleus of operative facts. See *Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh,*428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir.2005). The record indicates, however, that the instant case in fact does have the same nucleus of operative facts as Bazemore’s prior complaint filed in No. 3:10-CV-720, which the district court dismissed on the merits, because both cases concern the execution of the same property seizure warrants by the same parties. *See id.*Because Bazemore has not shown that his complaint alleged facts that, if accepted as true, stated a claim for relief that was plausible on its face, his complaint cannot survive the dismissal for failure to state a claim. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, Bazemore’s request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Bazemore is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. *Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).