alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1


   

  Exhibit 10.1

   

  Certain information marked as [****] has been excluded from this exhibit because it is both (i) not material and (ii) is the type that the Registrant treats as private or confidential.

   

  AMENDMENT #2

  TO

  SUPPLY AGREEMENT

   

   

  This Amendment #2 to Supply Agreement (“Amendment”) is made effective as of July 19, 2022 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) and entered into by and between Sight Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at 4040 Campbell Ave., Suite 100, Menlo Park, California 94025 (“Buyer”) and Peter’s Technology (Suzhou) CO., LTD., a Suzhou, Jiangsu Province corporation, with its principal place of business at No. 99 Jishi East Road, Wu Jiang District, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, P.R. China 215200 (“Supplier”).

   

  RECITALS

   

  WHEREAS, Buyer and Supplier are parties to that certain Supply Agreement, effective as of January 14, 2020 (as the same has been or may be amended, the “Agreement”); and

   

  WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend certain of their respective rights and obligations under the Agreement as set forth herein.

   

  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

   

  AGREEMENT

   

  1.This Amendment shall be effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.  


   

  2.Exhibit A shall be amended in its entirety and replaced with the attached Exhibit A as of the Amendment Effective Date.


   

  3.All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.


   

  4.Unless specifically amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement, including the remainder of Exhibit A, shall continue in full force and effect.


   

   

   

  

   

  The parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the Effective Date.

   

  		
	SIGHT SCIENCES, INC.
 
 
By /s/ Ken Gillette – Dir. Global Supply Chain
 [Name and Title] 
	  
 
 
Date July 25, 2022
 
 
 
	PETER’S TECHNOLOGY (SUZHOU) CO., LTD.
 
By /s/ Calvin Kuo
 
Calvin Kuo
(print name)
 
Title: General Manager
 
Date: July 26, 2022
 
 
 



   

   

   

   

  

   

  EXHIBIT A

   

  PRODUCTS; PRODUCT PRICING

   

   

  1.   Products; Prices.  Products and Product prices are as follows:

   

  			
	Product No.
	Product Description
	Price Per Unit

	FG-06721
	1-102 OMNI Surgical System (US)
	[****]

	FG-06722
	1-103 OMNI Surgical System (OUS)
	[****]

	FG-06011
	1-104 OMNI Plus Surgical System (US)
	[****]

	FG-06047
	1-105 OMNI Plus Surgical System (OUS)
	[****]

	FG-07938
	5-117 SmartLids, Single Pair, Gen 1.5
	[****]

	FG-08255
	1-107 Sion Surgical System
	[****]

	FG-07441
	1-108 OMNI Surgical System (US)
	[****]

	FG-07442
	1-109 OMNI Surgical System (OUS)
	[****]



   

   

  Products are current revision in accordance with Sight Sciences’ released specifications.
Exhibit 32.2


Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and


Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code


In connection with the Annual Report of OHA Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cory E. Gilbert, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: March 26, 2018/s/ CORY E. GILBERTCory E. GilbertChief Financial Officer and Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OHA Investment Corporation and will be retained by OHA Investment Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 983.305 Rent to owner: effect of rent control and other rent limits.

In addition to the limitation to 110 percent of the FMR in § 983.301(b)(1), the rent reasonableness limit under §§ 983.301(b)(2) and 983.303, the rental determination provisions of § 983.301(f), the special limitations for tax credit units under § 983.301(c), and other rent limits under this part, the amount of rent to owner also may be subject to rent control or other limits under local, state, or federal law.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q  of  InteliData
Technologies  Corporation  (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Alfred S. Dominick,  Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

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

By:   /s/ Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
     ----------------------------------
     Alfred S. Dominick, Jr.
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
     July 31, 2003

This  certificate  is being  furnished  as an exhibit to the Report  pursuant to
Exchange  Act Rule 13a-14 and Item 601 of  Regulation  S-K and not as a document
"filed"  as a  part  of  the  Report.  This  certificate  shall  not  be  deemed
incorporated by reference into any of the Company's  Securities Act registration
statements.


<PAGE>


                                                                   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  on Form  10-Q  of  InteliData
Technologies  Corporation  (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, John R. Polchin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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, as amended; and

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

By:  /s/ John R. Polchin
     ----------------------------------
     John R. Polchin
     Vice President, Chief Financial
     Officer and Treasurer

     July 31, 2003

This  certificate  is being  furnished  as an exhibit to the Report  pursuant to
Exchange  Act Rule 13a-14 and Item 601 of  Regulation  S-K and not as a document
"filed"  as a  part  of  the  Report.  This  certificate  shall  not  be  deemed
incorporated by reference into any of the Company's  Securities Act registration
statements.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.9

[GMAC MORTGAGE LOGO]

March 10, 2005

REDWOOD TRUST, INC.
KERRY A. LAYDEN
ONE BELVIDERE PLACE
SUITE 300
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941

Re: ANNUAL OFFICERS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
    YEAR ENDING 2004
    GMACM INVESTOR AGREEMENT # 41040

We hereby certify to the best of our knowledge and belief, that for the calendar
year 2004:

1. A review of the activities of the Seller / Servicer and of performance
   according to the Seller / Servicer contract has been made with the
   undersigned Officer's knowledge.

2. To the best of the undersigned Officer's knowledge, and based on such review,
   the Seller / Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Guides for
   such year.

3. If applicable, GMACM has filed the information returns with respect to the
   receipt of mortgage interest pursuant to Sections 6050H, 6050J and 6050P of
   the Code, received in a trade Or business, reports of foreclosures and
   abandonment's of any Mortgaged Property and the information returns relating
   to cancellation of indebtedness income with respect to any Mortgaged
   Property.

4. All hazard, flood, FHA mortgage insurance and primary mortgage insurance
   premiums, taxes, ground rents, assessments and other lienable items have been
   paid in connection with the mortgaged properties.

5. All property inspections have been completed as required.

6. Compliance relative to Adjustable Rate Mortgages has been met.

7. Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions Insurance coverage is current, in full
   force and effect.

Servicer: GMAC Mortgage Corporation

By: /s/ Michael Kacergis
    ---------------------------------------------

Name: Michael Kacergis

Title: Manager, Contract Administration
       National Loan Administration Risk and Compliance

500 Enterprise Road
Suite 150
Horsham, PA 19044
### §56302. Charter terms

(a) In General.—If a vessel is requisitioned for use but not ownership under this chapter, the Secretary of Transportation, at the time of requisition or as soon thereafter as the situation allows, shall offer the person entitled to possession of the vessel a charter containing—

(1) the terms the Secretary believes should govern the relationship between the United States Government and the person; and

(2) the rate of hire the Secretary considers just compensation for the use of the vessel and the services required under the charter.

(b) Refusal To Accept.—If the person does not accept the charter and rate of hire, the parties shall proceed as provided in section 56304 of this title.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1654.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 56302 | 46 App.:1242(c) (1st sentence). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title IX, §902(c) (1st sentence); as added Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 555, §3, 53 Stat. 1255; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(131), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 165. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "requisitioned for use but not ownership under this chapter" are substituted for "taken and used under authority of this section, but the ownership thereof is not required by the United States" to eliminate unnecessary words. The word "requisition" is substituted for "taking", and the word "vessel" is substituted for "such property", for consistency.

Subsection (b) is added because the provisions about disputed compensation, for both charter use and other takings, are consolidated in section 56304 of the revised title to avoid repetition.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 12, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00751-CV

YUSUF M. SULTAN, Appellant

V.

CA NEW PLAN FIXED RATE PARTNERSHIP, L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-46160

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 1, 2012. The clerk’s record 

was filed October 10, 2012. The reporter’s record was filed February 7, 2013. This 

appeal was abated for sixty days and the underlying dispute was referred to 

mediation. The appeal was subsequently reinstated, and the court ordered appellant 

to file his brief on or before August 16, 2013. No brief or motion for extension of 

time was filed. 
2

On October 22, 2013, this court issued an order stating that unless appellant 

filed his brief with the clerk of this court on or before November 4, 2013, the court 

would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no response. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00297

- CV

THE WILLIAM J. SCHNABEL REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST v. REBECCA H. LOREDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A LOREDO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

On Appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 2461

- 06

- F

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 14, 2014
SCPW-22-0000003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

JB, Petitioner

vs. LK, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on January 4, 2022, petitioner presents no special reason for invoking the supreme court’s original jurisdiction. See Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 511, 512, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). Therefore, It is ordered that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

It is further ordered that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of habeas corpus without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 20, 2022. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-22-0000003 20-JAN-2022 11:01 AM Dkt. 3 ODDP
#### James Stoddard, an Infant, by Francis J. Stoddard, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff, then three years and nine months old, as a result of a fire in an unimproved privately-owned lot, the action being brought on the theory that defendant failed to furnish adequate police supervision either to prevent the setting of such fire on .the premises or to abate the fire, plaintiff appeals: (a) from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated March 16, 1961, which granted defendant’s motion, made under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint; and (b) from the judgment of said court, dated April 3,1961, entered on such order. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40748

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALLEN RAY CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:95-CR-30-5

- - - - - - - - - -

February 20, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Allen Ray Carter appeals his sentence for conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. 

He argues that the district court erred in attributing to him

quantities of cocaine involved in transactions which occurred

outside of the time frame alleged in the count of conviction. 

The district court did not err in calculating the quantity of

drugs attributable to Carter for sentencing purposes. See United

States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993), cert.

denied, 510 U.S. 1198 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: RICHARD RALPH MALCOLM,

Petitioner

______________________

2022-132

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00505-SSS, Judge 

Stephen S. Schwartz.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Richard Ralph Malcolm petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking, inter alia, an order from this court directing 

the United States Court of Federal Claims to file his motion 

for summary judgment. Mr. Malcolm also moves for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis.

Mr. Malcolm filed this suit with the Court of Federal 

Claims seeking retroactive medical disability retirement. 

In August 2021, the Court of Federal Claims remanded to

the Board for Correction of Naval Records to consider Mr. 

Malcolm’s evidence. Following the Board’s decision on 

Case: 22-132 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 04/15/2022
2 IN RE: MALCOLM

remand, the Court of Federal Claims issued a scheduling 

order on March 7, 2022, that, inter alia, directed the government to supplement the administrative record with the 

record from the remand proceedings by March 14, 2022,

and directed Mr. Malcolm to file any motion for judgment 

on the administrative record by April 13, 2022.

On March 8, 2022, Mr. Malcolm filed a motion for summary judgment. On the same day, the Court of Federal 

Claims issued an order rejecting the filing. The court explained that the filing did not comply with the court’s rules 

because it lacked the case caption and the name of the presiding judge. The court further explained that any motion 

for summary judgment would be premature and unnecessary at that juncture given that the administrative record 

had not yet been filed. This petition followed.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only 

where the petitioner shows: (1) there are no adequate alternative legal channels through which he may obtain that 

relief; (2) a clear and indisputable right to relief; and (3) 

the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 

380–81 (2004). Mr. Malcolm has not shown any clear error 

in the March 8, 2022, rejection order. Mr. Malcolm also has 

readily available alternative means to raise the same arguments for judgment by filing a motion for judgment on the 

administrative record by April 13, 2022, or other motions 

that comply with the trial court’s rules and orders. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is denied.

Case: 22-132 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 04/15/2022
IN RE: MALCOLM 3

(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

is denied as moot.

April 15, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

Case: 22-132 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 04/15/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             308
<SECURITIES>                                     6,694
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,068
<PP&E>                                           1,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (160)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,129
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,303
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
#### J. P. Detweiler, defendant in error, v. Jake W. Miller, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 7,115.

Action on note. Judgment for plaintiff. Error to the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. Stevens R. Baker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed August 13, 1923.

Robert E. Larkin and Barnes, Mago on & Black, for plaintiff in error. Kennedy & Kennedy, for defendant in error; Ed E. Robeson, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Radale Imports, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Lee D. Dodson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); 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: February 22, 2005
By:
/s/ *Lee D. Dodson*Lee D. DodsonChief Financial Officer


The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit 32.1