alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Laura A. Marriott, does hereby certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to her knowledge:

 

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

 

2.              Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationof the Company.
#### WILLIAMS v. BROWN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1903.)

1. Check — Laches in Presenting — Liability on Drawer.

Delay of party in presenting check given him by holder in settlement of an account for goods until after the bank on which it was drawn had failed would not prevent his recovering against the holder for the goods, it appearing that the maker of the check had settled with the bank in such a way as to incur no loss, so that the holder’s remedy against the maker was unimpaired.

Appeal from municipal court of New' York.

Action by Samuel J. Williams against Abraham C. Brown and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, JENKS, WOODWARD, and HIRSCHBERG, JJ.

Hamilton R. Squier, for appellants.

Robert L. Luce, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case was before the appellate division at the July term, in 1900, when a judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed on account of the unexplained delay of the plaintiff in collecting the check, which was given in conditional payment for the goods sold and delivered. 53 App. Div. 486, 65 N. Y. Supp. 1049. Upon the trial which the present appeal brings up for review, it was made distinctly to appear that the person whose check upon the Perth Amboy Bank was given in payment of the plaintiff’s account had settled with that bank in such a way as to incur no loss by reason of the failure of the institution. Under these circumstances the delay in the presentation of the check did him no damage, and would not be available to him' as a defense in case the defendants should endeavor to enforce payment thereof. As it is now claimed that the defendants have not actually paid for the property which they purchased from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has in no wise harmed them or the maker of the check by his manner of dealing with it, it follows that the judgment is right, and should be affirmed.

Judgment of the municipal court affirmed, with costs.
§ 285.101 What is the purpose of this part? The purpose of this part is to: ( a ) Inform you and third parties of your obligations when you undertake activities authorized in this part and 30 CFR parts 585 and 586; and
( b ) Ensure that renewable energy activities on the OCS and activities involving the alternate use of OCS facilities for energy- or marine-related purposes are conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner, in conformance with the requirements of subsection 8(p) of the OCS Lands Act, other applicable laws and regulations, and the terms of your lease, ROW grant, RUE grant, or Alternate Use RUE grant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                           2,943
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                       388
<INVENTORY>                                     87,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,988
<PP&E>                                          28,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,427
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,320
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,819
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,786
<SALES>                                        145,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           93,089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,950
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,077)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (429)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (648)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (648)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)


</TABLE>
#### § 36.40 Test site.

Tests shall be conducted at MSHA's Diesel Testing Laboratory or other appropriate place(s) determined by MSHA.

[39 FR 24006, June 28, 1974, as amended at 43 FR 12318, Mar. 24, 1978]
### §1394. Customs duties and internal-revenue taxes

There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles coming into the United States or its possessions from the Virgin Islands the rates of duty and internal-revenue taxes which are required to be levied, collected, and paid upon like articles imported from foreign countries: Provided, That all articles, the growth or product of, or manufactured in, such islands, from materials the growth or product of such islands or of the United States, or of both, or which do not contain foreign materials to the value of more than 20 per centum of their total value, upon which no drawback of customs duties has been allowed therein, coming into the United States from such islands shall be admitted free of duty. In determining whether such a Virgin Islands article contains foreign material to the value of more than 20 per centum, no material shall be considered foreign which, at the time the Virgin Islands article is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, may be imported into the continental United States free of duty generally.

(Mar. 3, 1917, ch. 171, §3, 39 Stat. 1133; Sept. 7, 1950, ch. 909, 64 Stat. 784.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1950—Act Sept. 7, 1950, permitted free entry of articles into the United States from the Virgin Islands when such articles contain foreign materials which may be imported directly into the United States free of duty.
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-111713, as amended, 333-120414, 333-120415, 333-120416, 333-120417 and 333-120418) pertaining to the stock option and incentive plans of Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries of ourreports dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of OutdoorChannel Holdings, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofOutdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPMarch 14, 2008Los Angeles, California
§ 1218.203 Recoupment of overpayments on Indian mineral leases. ( a ) Whenever an overpayment is made under an Indian solid mineral lease, a payor may recoup the overpayment through a recoupment on Form ONRR-4430 against the current month's royalties or other revenues owed on the same lease. However, for any month a payor may not recoup more than 50 percent of the royalties or other revenues owed in that month under an individual allotted lease or more than 100 percent of the royalties or other revenues owed in that month under a tribal lease.
( b ) With written permission authorized by tribal statute or resolution, a payor may recoup an overpayment against royalties or other revenues owed in that month under other leases for which that tribe is the lessor. A copy of the tribe's written permission must be furnished to ONRR for reporting recoupments. Call 1-888-201-6416 for instructions. Recouping overpayments on one allotted lease from royalties paid to another allotted lease is specifically prohibited.
( c ) Overpayments subject to recoupment under this section include all payments made in excess of the required payment for royalty, rental, bonus, or other amounts owed as specified by statute, regulation, order, or terms of an Indian mineral lease.
( d ) The ONRR Director or his/her designee may order any payor to not recoup any amount for such reasonable period of time as may be necessary for ONRR to review the nature and amount of any claimed overpayment.
[60 FR 3087, Jan. 13, 1995, as amended at 66 FR 45773, Aug. 30, 2001; 66 FR 50827, Oct. 5, 2001]
----

| (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 3, 2013 |  /s/ Ronald A. Duncan  |
|-------------------|----------------------------------|
|              | Ronald A. Duncan                 |
|              | Chief Executive Officer          |
|              | General Communication, Inc.      |

----
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1924 How will BSEE determine if my SEMS program is effective? ( a ) The BSEE, or its authorized representative, may evaluate or visit your facility(ies) to determine whether your SEMS program is in place, addresses all required elements, is effective in protecting worker safety and health and the environment, and preventing incidents. The BSEE, or its authorized representative, may evaluate any and all aspects of your SEMS program as outlined in this subpart. These evaluations or visits may be random and may be based upon your performance or that of your contractors.
( b ) For the evaluations, you must make the following available to BSEE upon request: ( 1 ) Your SEMS program;
( 2 ) Your audit team's qualifications;
( 3 ) The SEMS audits conducted of your program;
( 4 ) Documents or information relevant to whether you have addressed and corrected the deficiencies of your audit; and
( 5 ) Other relevant documents or information.
( c ) During the site visit BSEE may verify that: ( 1 ) Personnel are following your SEMS program,
( 2 ) You can explain and demonstrate the procedures and policies included in your SEMS program; and
( 3 ) You can produce evidence to support the implementation of your SEMS program.
[76 FR 64462, Oct. 18, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 20442, Apr. 5, 2013]
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0101 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 042 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
gthp_ex106.htm

EXHIBIT 10.6
  
 AMENDMENT #1 TO EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
  
 THIS AMENDMENT #1 to the Exchange Agreement (as defined below) (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of October 18, 2022, by and between GUIDED THERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Auctus Fund, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Holder”) (collectively the “Parties”).
  
 BACKGROUND
  
 A. The Company and Holder are the parties to that certain exchange agreement originally entered into by the Parties on September 1, 2022 (as amended from time to time, the “Exchange Agreement”); and
  
 B. The Parties desire to amend the Exchange Agreement as set forth expressly below.
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the execution and delivery of the Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
  
 1. Notwithstanding anything in the Exchange Agreement to the contrary, the effective date with respect to the issuance of the Securities (as defined in the Exchange Agreement) shall be October 11, 2022.
  
 2. This Amendment shall be deemed part of, but shall take precedence over and supersede any provisions to the contrary contained in the Exchange Agreement. Except as specifically modified hereby, all of the provisions of the Exchange Agreement, which are not in conflict with the terms of this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.
  
 [Signature page to follow]
  
 	 
	 1

	

	 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.
  
 	 GUIDED THERAPEUTICS, INC.
	 	Auctus Fund, LLC	 
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	 By:
	/s/ Gene S. Cartwright	 	By:	/s/ Lou Posner	 
	  Name: 
	Gene S. Cartwright	 	Name: 	Lou Posner	 
	  Title: 
	Chief Executive Officer	 	Title: 	Managing Director	 

  
 	 
	 2
#### § 1243.11 May I appeal the ONRR bond-approving officer's determination of my surety amount or financial solvency?

Any decision on your surety amount under subpart B or your financial solvency under subpart C is final and is not subject to appeal.
COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III

VICE CHANCELLOR

STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: April 12, 2023

Date Decided: April 12, 2023

Stephen E. Jenkins, Esquire

F. Troupe Mickler, Esquire

ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.

500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19899

Joseph O. Larkin, Esquire

Matthew P. Majarian, Esquire

Rupal K. Joshi, Esquire

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

One Rodney Square

P.O. Box 636

Wilmington, Delaware 19899

Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire

Tyler J. Leavengood, Esquire

Jaclyn C. Levy, Esquire

Michael C. Gorski, Jr., Esquire

Lucille E. Wiesner, Esquire

POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP

1313 N. Market Street

Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

Bradley R. Aronstam, Esquire

S. Reiko Rogozen, Esquire

Roger S. Stronach, Esquire

ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP

Hercules Plaza

1313 North Market Street, Suite 1001

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Andrew H. Sauder, Esquire

DAILEY LLP

1201 N. Orange St., Suite 7300

Wilmington, DE 19801
1

Re: Atallah, et al., v. Malone, et al., C.A. No. 2021-1116-SG

Dear Counsel:

This matter is before me on all Defendants’ motion to dismiss. This is a 

derivative action involving an alleged controller that arises out of a complex 

contractual scheme. As a result, it will require some consideration before I can issue 

a comprehensive written opinion. 

Nonetheless, the motion to dismiss by Defendants Michael A. George and 

Evan D. Malone (the “Non-Committee Directors”) under Rule 12(b)(6) and In re 

Cornerstone was not opposed by Plaintiffs in their answering brief or at oral 

argument.1 Upon review of the complaint, I find that no sufficient pleading has been 

made as to these two director defendants under Cornerstone.

The Non-Committee Directors are not alleged to be interested in the 

transactions at issue or to have acted in bad faith. I assume for the purposes of this 

letter opinion that neither of these directors were independent of Defendant John C. 

Malone but, as such, the Non-Committee Directors were excluded from the special 

committees of the board that took the actions at issue. They are not alleged to have 

acted to advance John Malone’s self-interest (or those of his co-Defendant, Gregory 

B. Maffei). Thus, the complaint fails to state a cause of action under Cornerstone. 

1

In re Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. S’holder Litig., 115 A.3d 1173 (Del. 2015).
2

The Non-Committee Directors should not be left in this action pending my 

decision on the remaining motions. Accordingly, I dismiss them here.

To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO 

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Vice Chancellor
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2004-14T2
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-14T2


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.


/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                       Dated: March 29, 2005
------------------------

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Mark Wong                                  Dated: March 29, 2005
-------------

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
#### City of Chicago, appellee, v. Sam Rosen, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,688.

Suit against City of Chicago. Judgment for city. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. D. P. Trude, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed for failure of appellant to file record.

See City v. Salmitsky, 210 Ill. App. 159.

Opinion filed June 25, 1923.

No appearance for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Per Curiam.
#### Nissim Tawil, Respondent, v. Eisenberg & Co., U. S. A. Agency, Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered on February 27, 1962, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Lighthouse Landings, Inc. and Subsidiaries as and for
the three months ended March 31, 2000 is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000          MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         575,704              199,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,575                4,259
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               776,479              957,880
<PP&E>                                      13,464,583           14,264,644
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,386,220            1,381,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,209,526           15,032,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,286,039            1,678,878
<BONDS>                                              0                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                    0
<COMMON>                                        60,678               32,508
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,918              482,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,209,526           15,032,162
<SALES>                                        682,325              721,408
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               682,325              721,408
<CGS>                                          850,029              576,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  303,474              268,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             333,126              319,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (804,304)            (443,258)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                  464
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (804,304)            (443,722)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0             (22,967)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                    0
<CHANGES>                                            0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (804,304)            (455,618)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)                (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)                (.14)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Raymond O’Riordan, Appellant, v John Klein, as County Executive of Suffolk County, et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 24, 1977, affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see *Matter of Geyer v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Comm.,*51 AD2d 571, 572). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and Gulotta, JJ., concur.