alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.49



 Exhibit 10.49 
  





 
 Insertion Order Amendment No. 1 

 

			
	Advertiser/Agency Information
		
	Advertiser/Agency Name:	  	Resolution Media
		
	Address:	  	225 N Michigan Ave, Suite 820, Chicago, IL 60601
		
	Contact Name/Phone Number:	  	***
		
	Email:	  	***
		
	Campaign Name:	  	State Farm – Life

  

					
	Campaign Summary
		
	Insertion Order subject to this Amendment:	  	Insertion Order dated December 24, 2015 entered into by and between Marchex Sales, LLC. (f/k/a Marchex Sales, Inc.) (“Company”) and the Advertiser or Agency set forth
above.
	  
 Amended Terms:
	  	  
 The Volume field on the Insertion Order is hereby
deleted and replaced with the following:

			
		  	Estimated Call Volume	  	Total Budget
		  	  
 ***
	  	  
 ***


 Amendment 

Advertiser agrees to pay Company for all calls delivered based on the amended terms of the Campaign Summary set forth herein (“Amendment”). This
Amendment incorporates the terms of the Insertion Order referred to herein, except to the limited extent that such terms were expressly modified by the change in Campaign Summary. Other than the specific terms and conditions expressly referenced
above, this Amendment shall not be construed to modify any term or condition of the Insertion Order, which will otherwise remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 

Authorization 
 By delivering this
Amendment, Advertiser or Agency hereby acknowledges and agrees to abide by the terms of the current Insertion Order except as expressly amended hereby, with the full understanding and acceptance of all terms, policies and conditions referenced
thereon. 
 Agreed and accepted this 20th day of January, 2016: 

 

									
	Authorized Representative for Marchex Sales, LLC:	 		 	Authorized Representative for Advertiser/Agency:
					
	By (Signature):	 	 /s/ Brendhan Hight
	 		 	By: (Signature):	 	 /s/ Kate Edelson

					
	Name:	 	 Brendhan Hight
	 		 	Name:	 	 Kate Edelson

					
	Title:	 	 Director
	 		 	Title:	 	 ABPM


 [***] Certain information in this agreement has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
Exhibit
      32.2


CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1250,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
        connection with the quarterly report of Power3 Medical Products, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I,
        John P. Burton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:
 
 The
        Report fully compiles with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:
                  May 21, 2007
              /s/
                  John P. BurtonJohn
                  P. BurtonChief
                  Financial OfficerPower3
                  Medical Products, Inc.
#### § 367.1520 Account 152, Fuel stock expenses undistributed.

The service company must utilize this account, where appropriate, to include the cost of service company labor and of office supplies used and operating expenses incurred with respect to the review, analysis and management of fuel supply contracts or agreements, the accumulation of fuel information and its interpretation, the logistics and handling of fuel, and other related support functions, as a service to the company engaged in the procurement and transportation of fuel. This account must be maintained to show the expenses attributable to each company through its cost allocation system. All expenses of a service company's fuel department or functions must be cleared through this account.
# C_2012194EN.01000701.xml

| 30.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/7

---

Order of the Court of 22 March 2012 — Cantiere navale De Poli SpA v European Commission

(Case C-167/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - State aid - Incompatibility with the common market - Commission Decision - Alteration to existing aid - Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 - Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding)

2012/C 194/10

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Cantiere navale De Poli SpA (represented by: A. Abate and A. Franchi, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T-584/08 Cantieri Navale De Poli v Commission, by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/38/EC of 21 October 2008 on State aid C-20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding (OJ 2010 L 17, p. 50)

Cantieri Navale De Poli

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Cantiere navale De Poli SpA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Cantiere navale De Poli SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

| 3. | The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.

1

---
### §80a–51. Short title

This subchapter may be cited as the "Investment Company Act of 1940".

(Aug. 22, 1940, ch. 686, title I, §52, 54 Stat. 847.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title of 2018 Amendment

Pub. L. 115–141, div. S, title VIII, §801, Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1138, provided that: "This title [amending sections 80a–56, 80a–60, 80a–62, and 80b–5 of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under under section 80a–53 of this title] may be cited as the 'Small Business Credit Availability Act'."

#### Short Title of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–290, title II, §201, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3426, provided that: "This title [amending sections 80a–2, 80a–3, 80a–12, 80a–24, 80a–26, 80a–27, 80a–29, 80a–30, 80a–34, and 80b–5 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 80a–2, 80a–3, and 80a–24 of this title] may be cited as the 'Investment Company Act Amendments of 1996'."

#### Short Title of 1995 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–62, §1(a), Dec. 8, 1995, 109 Stat. 682, provided that: "This Act [enacting section 80a–3a of this title, amending sections 77c, 78c, 78l, 80a–3, 80a–7, and 80b–3 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 77c of this title] may be cited as the 'Philanthropy Protection Act of 1995'."

#### Short Title of 1980 Amendment

Pub. L. 96–477, §1, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2275, provided that: "That this Act [enacting sections 80a–53 to 80a–64 and 80c to 80c–3 of this title, amending sections 77b, 77c, 77d, 77s, 77ddd, 78c, 78kk, 80a–2, 80a–3, 80a–6, 80a–46, 80b–2, 80b–3, and 80b–5 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 77a and 80c of this title] may be cited as the 'Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980'."

#### Short Title of 1970 Amendment

Pub. L. 91–547, §1, Dec. 14, 1970, 84 Stat. 1413, provided: "That this Act [enacting section 80b–6a of this title, amending sections 77b, 77c, 78c, 78l, 80a–2, 80a–3, 80a–8 to 80a–13, 80a–15, 80a–17 to 80a–19, 80a–22, 80a–24 to 80a–28, 80a–31, 80a–32, 80a–35, 80a–42, 80a–43, 80b–2, 80b–3, and 80b–5 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 77c and 80a–2 of this title] may be cited as the 'Investment Company amendments Act of 1970'."
| |  | CERTIFICATIONAS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 | EXHIBIT 31.2
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------
|

|I, Kathleen C. Haines, certify that:
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    
|                                    

|                       |                          
|---------------------- | -------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2004 | By: /s/Kathleen C. Haines
|                       | Kathleen C. Haines       
|                       | Senior Vice President,   
|                       | Chief Financial Officer  
|                       | and Treasurer            

2

---
BEFORE HE KICKS DAD OFF 

THE CONSOLE...

Start having short, frequent conversations about alcohol and 

other drugs.

Talking with your child at an early age about drinking and drug use is the first 

step toward keeping them safe. For tips on how—and when—to begin the 

conversation, visit: 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

SMA-18-5085
# C_2011173EN.01000602.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 31 March 2011 — Giuseppe Sibilio v Comune di Afragola

(Case C-157/11)

2011/C 173/11

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giuseppe Sibilio

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Afragola

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Directive 1999/70/EC (1) applicable to socially useful workers or should such workers be regarded, in accordance with Clause 3(1) thereof, as persons having an employment relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment relationship is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, being in the present case the end of a project? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Directive 1999/70/EC (1) applicable to socially useful workers or should such workers be regarded, in accordance with Clause 3(1) thereof, as persons having an employment relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment relationship is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, being in the present case the end of a project?

1

| 2. | Does Clause 4 preclude a socially useful worker or a publicly useful worker from receiving less remuneration than a permanent worker who carries out the same duties and has the same length of service solely because his employment relationship was initiated on the terms described above, or does this constitute an objective reason justifying less favourable treatment in terms of pay? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Clause 4 preclude a socially useful worker or a publicly useful worker from receiving less remuneration than a permanent worker who carries out the same duties and has the same length of service solely because his employment relationship was initiated on the terms described above, or does this constitute an objective reason justifying less favourable treatment in terms of pay?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

1

---
#### § 85.12 Cleaning and disinfecting means of conveyance.

All means of conveyance used in connection with the interstate movement of pseudorabies infected or exposed livestock shall be cleaned and disinfected in accordance with § 71.7 of this chapter using one of the disinfectants registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 135 *et seq.*) with herpes virucidal claims. These disinfectants shall be used in accordance with directions on their labels accepted in connection with their registration.

[44 FR 10309, Feb. 16, 1979, as amended at 62 FR 27937, May 22, 1997]
# C_2012379EN.01001002.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-402/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 18(1) - Legal nature of a communication from OHIM informing a party that an opposition has been found to be admissible - Right to an effective legal remedy)

2012/C 379/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

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

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE) dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o. — Infringement of Article 80(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to an effective legal remedy

Jager & Polacek

OHIM (REDTUBE)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o.;

| 3. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 32



                              CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by AccessTel,
Inc. (the "Company") with the Securities and Exchange Commission of its
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2003
(the "Report"), the undersigned does hereby certify 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 operation
         of the Company.

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.



                                          /s/ DAVID C. MERRELL
Date:  September 9, 2003             By:  _______________________
                                          David C. Merrell
                                          President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer
----

****

----

**From the Batch Plant**byAlfred McAdams (1914-2008)Acrylic on paper, 40" x 26"
The view from the batch plant, Third Powerhouse at Grand Coulee Dam, Columbia Basin Project, Washington. 
**back**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shariff Alleyne, Appellant.

[828 NYS2d 2]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J., at hearing; Arlene R. Silverman, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 10, 2002, convicting defendant of five counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. During the booking procedure, the officer asked defendant if he had any nicknames, a question included in the on-line *368booking sheet. Defendant answered “Slim,” which, as the officer had been aware, was the nickname by which the victims knew the former coworker whom they accused of robbing them.

Although defendant had not yet received *Miranda*warnings, his response was admissible under the routine booking or pedigree exception for questions reasonably related to police administrative concerns *(see Pennsylvania v Muniz,*496 US 582, 601-602 [1990]; *People v Rodney,*85 NY2d 289, 292-293 [1995]). Even assuming the officer knew or should have known that, since defendant’s nickname was relevant to the question of identity, the question was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response *(see Rhode Island v Innis,*446 US 291, 302 [1980]), “a question which falls within the scope of interrogation under *Rhode Island v Innis*does not for that reason fall outside the pedigree exception” *(People v Velazquez,*33 AD3d 352, 353 [2006]). The evidence establishes that the officer was simply asking the questions set forth on the booking sheet, and that none of his questions was “designed to elicit incriminatory admissions” *(Pennsylvania v Muniz,*496 US at 602 n 14), or “a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation” *(People v Rodney,*85 NY2d at 294). To carry defendant’s argument to its logical conclusion, an officer who was aware that an arrestee’s true name could link him to a crime could not even ask that elementary question during routine booking without first providing *Miranda*warnings. In any event, were we to find the statement to be inadmissible, we would find the error to be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
§ 1318.601 Area of impact. ( a ) If a proposed action will potentially occur in or affect wetlands or floodplains, the initiating TVA entity, as soon as practicable in the planning process, will request the appropriate TVA staff with expertise in floodplain or wetland impact evaluations (“TVA staff”) to determine whether the proposed action will occur in or affect a wetland or floodplain and the level of impact, if any, on the wetland or floodplain.
( b ) Further floodplain or wetland evaluation is unnecessary if the TVA staff determines that the proposed action: ( 1 ) Is outside the floodplain or wetland,
( 2 ) Has no identifiable impacts on a floodplain or wetland, and
( 3 ) Does not directly or indirectly support floodplain development or wetland alteration.
Exhibit 23.2
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors

Solectron Corporation:

 

 

We consent to Incorporation herein by reference of our report dated January 31, 2001, (except for note 18 which is as of December 3, 2001),on the C-MAC Industries Inc. consolidated financial statements as at December 31, 2000 and 1999 and for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2000 which report appears in the December 18, 2001 Form 8-K/A of Solectron Corporation. 

		/S/ KPMG LLP

		 Chartered Accountants

Montreal, Canada

March 7, 2002
# C_2012399EN.01000601.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Déborah Prete v Office national de l’emploi

(Case C-367/11) (1)

1

(Freedom of movement for persons - Article 39 EC - National of a Member State seeking employment in another Member State - Equal treatment - Tideover allowance for young persons seeking their first job - Grant subject to completion of at least six years’ studies in the host State)

2012/C 399/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Déborah Prete

Applicant:

Defendant: Office national de l’emploi

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 12, 17, 18 and 39 EC (now Articles 18, 20, 21 and 45 TFEU) — Tideover allowance for young persons seeking their first job — Grant subject to completion of at least six years’ studies at an educational establishment in the Member State concerned — Refusal to grant it to a national of another Member State who completed her secondary studies in that other State, on the sole ground that the above condition was not fulfilled — Factors to be taken into account to appraise the young person’s link to the national employment market

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39 EC precludes a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the right to a tideover allowance for the benefit of young people looking for their first job subject to the condition that the person concerned has completed at least six years’ studies in an educational establishment of the host Member State, insofar as that condition prevents other representative factors liable to establish the existence of a real link between the person claiming the allowance and the geographic labour market concerned being taken into account and accordingly goes beyond what is necessary to attain the aim pursued by that provision which is to ensure that such a link exists.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---