alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


 


Centaur Capital Partners

1460 Main Street Suite 234


Southlake
TX 76092


 


 


May 29, 2008


 


American Defense Systems, Inc.


230
Duffy Avenue, Unit C


Hicksville,
NY 11801


Attention:
Gary Sidorsky, CFO


 


 


Reference is made to the Securities Purchase Agreement,
dated as of March 7, 2008, by and among American Defense Systems, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and
the investors listed on the Schedule of Buyers attached thereto (the “Buyers”) (the “Securities Purchase
Agreement”).  Any capitalized
term used herein and not defined shall have the meaning assigned to it in the
Securities Purchase Agreement.


 


The Company together with Centaur Value Fund, LP and
United Centaur Master Fund, each a Buyer (together “Centaur”), hereby agree that the obligations in the Securities
Purchase Agreement for Centaur and the Company to consummate the Additional
Closing shall be terminated and Centaur and the Company not shall consummate
any Additional Closing.


 


This
letter agreement shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of New
York, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision
or rule that would cause the application of the law of any jurisdiction
other than the State of New York.


 


On
or before 8:30 a.m., New York City time, on  the first (1st) Business Day following the date
hereof, the Company shall file a Current Report on Form 8-K describing the
terms of this letter agreement and attaching a copy of the form of this letter
agreement.


 

















 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Very
  truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  CENTAUR
  VALUE FUND, LP

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  UNITED
  CENTAUR MASTER FUND

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Agreed to and Accepted by:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  AMERICAN DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
EXHIBIT
32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C., ss.1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Genmed Holding Corp. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer, President, Treasurer, and the principal financial officer of
the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.





Date:
      August 19, 2009
            /s/ Erwin R. BouwensErwin
      R. Bouwens, Chief Executive Officer and
  President
#### Cornelius E. Byrne v. Fremont Realty Company.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Settle order on notice.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 624 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 305
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 624

                          [Report No. 106-971]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and 
 personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
          State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2000

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and 
 personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
          State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel 
overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for 
fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
conference report shall be considered as read.
                                                 House Calendar No. 305

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 624

                          [Report No. 106-971]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and 
 personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
          State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 11, 2000

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

In the interest of A.E.R. and * From the 326th District

A.A.R., children, Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 45,567

- C

.

No. 11

- 14

- 00051

- CV * March 6, 2014

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Janelle

Skinner.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as added by

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Pulaski Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William A. Donius, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



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



|2. |  | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                       |  |                                                       
|------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ William A. Donius
|                   |  |  |  |                       |  | Name: William A. Donius                               
|                   |  |  |  |                       |  | Title: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 51 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 51

  Recognizing the suffering and hardship endured by American civilian 
                 prisoners of war during World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1999

    Mrs. Lowey (for herself and Mr. Engel) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the suffering and hardship endured by American civilian 
                 prisoners of war during World War II.

Whereas 18,745 American civilians were incarcerated by the Axis powers during 
        World War II;
Whereas the incarceration of these American civilians violated international 
        human rights principles;
Whereas these American civilian prisoners of war were subjected to barbaric 
        prison conditions and endured torture, starvation, and disease; and
Whereas the vast majority of these civilian prisoners of war have never received 
        any formal recognition or compensation for their suffering, despite 
        their physical and emotional trauma: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses its 
recognition of the suffering and hardship endured by American civilian 
prisoners of war during World War II and extends its sympathies to 
these brave men and women and their families.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2006331EN.01002002.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-138/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and management of environmental noise - Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 331/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION BY
THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350



In connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin,
Chief Financial Officer and principal financial officer, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: December 27, 2017



| | /s/ Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin
| | -------------------------------
| | Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin    
| | Principal Financial Officer
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-135 

March 9, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4022(b)(1) & (8) Benefits Guaranteed. Five Year Phase-in of Guarantee

29 CFR 2621 Limitation on Guaranteed Benefits 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your inquiry in the above matter. 

You indicate that the Plan has been amended to vest all participants in the amount of their accrued benefits to the

extent funded as of December 31, 1974, on which date accruals ceased (by reason of an earlier plan amendment). Plan

benefits will continue to be funded in accordance with the minimum funding requirements of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"). The amendment was necessary to maintain the continued tax-qualification of

the plan, which, by reason of the cessation of accruals, is treated as "curtailed" by the Internal Revenue Service. You

ask whether the cessation of accruals constitutes a termination under Title IV of the Act. 

The cessation of accruals does not constitute a termination under Title IV of the Act on the basis of the above-stated

facts. 

You ask whether any increase in vested benefits arising as a consequence of the amendment, which was required

by the IRS, is guaranteed under Title IV of the Act and, if so, whether this is an increase in the plan benefits [*2] or a

new benefit, and, thus, subject to the phase-in requirements of Sections 4022(b)(1) and (8) of the Act. 

Any increased vesting in the accrued benefits which became effective as of the date of accrual cessation is

guaranteeable under Title IV of the Act. However, such increased vesting attributable to the amendment is a benefit

increase, the guarantee of which is subject to phase-in under Sections 4022(b)(1) and (8) of the Act [See 29 C.F.R. §

2609.]. The phase-in of a benefit increase commences on the later of its effective date or adoption date. Here the

amendment was adopted on March 31, 1976 and effective on December 31, 1974. Thus, the phase-in of any increase

attributable to the amendment commences on March 31, 1976. 

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call * * * of my staff at * * * . We hope this is of assistance.

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
#### Ferdinand Munch Brewery, Respondent, v. Grace Muller and Adolph Muller, Sued as John Doe, etc., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

Judgment and -order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, P. J., not voting.
# C_2007069EN.01001301.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/13

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-63/07)

(2007/C 69/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), or to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), or to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Grounds and principal arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on 6 July 2005

---

(1)  OJ L 177, p. 13.

1

---
# C_2006249EN.01000101.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/1

---

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2006 — L'Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Revlon (Switzerland) SA

(Case C-235/05 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Similarity between two trade marks - Likelihood of confusion - Application for Community trade mark FLEXI AIR - Earlier word mark FLEX - Refusal to register)

(2006/C 249/01)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L'Oréal SA (represented by: X. Buffet Delmas d'Autane, avocat)

Applicant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Revlon (Switzerland) SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2005 in Case T-112/03 L'Oréal SA v OHIM, dismissing as unfounded an application brought by the applicant for the Community word mark FLEXI AIR for goods in Class 3 for the annulment of decision R 0396/2001-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15 January 2003, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word marks FLEX for goods in Classes 3 and 34

L'Oréal SA

OHIM

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | L'Oréal SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

L'Oréal SA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.

1

---
#### KING, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

(Decided Jan. 28, 1938.)

H. B. BEST and SILAS JACOBS for movant.

HUBERT MEREDITH, Attorney General, GUY H. HERDMAN, Assistant Attorney General, M. HARGETT, Commonwealth’s Attorney, and CLYDE R. BARKER for the Commonwealth.
#### § 75.12 Enrollment Committee.

The Tribal Council shall appoint either from within or without the membership of the Council, but not from without the membership of the Band, a committee of three (3) persons to serve as the Enrollment Committee. The Enrollment Committee shall review all applications for enrollment filed in accordance with the existing regulations, and shall determine the qualifications of the applicant for enrollment with the Band. The Enrollment Committee may perform such other functions relating to the enrollment and membership in the Band as the Tribal Council may from time to time direct.

[38 FR 9999, Apr. 23, 1973. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982]
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 21

- 00225

- CV Regina CYPHERS , Appellant

v. CHILDREN ’ S ALLIANCE OF SOUTH TEXAS , Lorelei Iris Voronin, Christina Martinez , and Alexandra Torres, Appellees From the 285th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021

- CI

- 01494 Honorable Aaron Haas , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Delivered and Filed: August 11, 2 021
DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On January 25, 2021, Regina Cyphers sued Children’s Alliance of South Texas and other defendants for, inter alia, defamation. On May 11, 2021, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under the TCP A. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 27.003(a). In its order, the trial court noted that “the Court will determine the reasonable and necessary amount of fees and costs to award to Defendants against Plaintiff at a future hearing.” On June 2, 2021, Regina Cyphers, representing herself, filed a notice of appeal.04

- 21

- 00225

- CV

- 2

- Generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree .” Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Here, the trial court’s order expressly states it has not yet determined the court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses that it must award to the defendants. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 27.009(a) (mandatory costs, sanctions); Leniek v. Evolution Well Servs

. , LLC , No. 14

- 18

- 00954

- CV, 2019 WL 438825, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 2, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). The trial court’s May 11, 2021 order did not dispose of all parties and claims. Cf. Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 200 (noting “[t] he intent to finally dispose of the case must be unequivocally expressed in the words of the order ”); Leniek , 2019 WL 4 38825, at *2 (determining an order that granted a TCPA motion to dismiss but did not determine or award court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses was “an unappealable interlocutory order”). On July 16, 2021, we ordered Appellant Regina Cyph ers to show cause in writing not later than July 26, 2021, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 42.3(a). We warned her that if she did not timely provide written proof as ordered, we would dismiss her appe al

. See id. To date, Appellant has not filed any response. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM