alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of Chatsworth Acquisitions I, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Les Bates certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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: May 22, 2012
/s/ Les Bates

Les Bates

Principal Financial Officer
#### §§ 4287.137-4287.144 [Reserved]
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 Report of Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for
the period from January 27, 2005 (Inception) through March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:




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.





/s/ DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Sole
      Member of the Board of Directors
              Dated:
      October 8, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Dated:
      October 8, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              Dated:
      October 8, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Principal
      Accounting Officer
              Dated:
      October 8, 2008




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of




Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Investors Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date:  February 11, 2008
    /s/ Kevin CummingsKevin CummingsPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
exv10w1







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.1




SECOND EXTENSION AGREEMENT





     THIS SECOND EXTENSION AGREEMENT made effective the 30th day of April, 2009 by and between
DIGITAL AUDIO CORPORATION (“Company”) and DRI CORPORATION (formerly Digital Recorders, Inc.)
(“Holder”).



     WHEREAS, on April 30, 2007 Company and Holder entered into a $344,184.50 Promissory Note that
called for four (4) annual principal payments of $86,046.12 due beginning April 30, 2008
(“Promissory Note”);



     WHEREAS, the second principal payment is due from the Company to the Holder on April 30, 2009;



     WHEREAS, the Company has requested an extension of ninety (90) days in which to pay said
second principal payment;



     WHEREAS, the Holder agrees to allow said ninety (90) day extension with interest to continue
as set forth in the Promissory Note; and



     WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the second payment of principal due on April 30, 2009 as
set forth herein.



     NOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration of Ten Dollars and other mutual promises and premises
made herein, the parties agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	The second principal payment due under said Promissory Note shall be extended
until July 30, 2009.
	 
	 	2.	 	In all other respects, the terms and provisions of the Promissory Note are
ratified and confirmed.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Second Extension Agreement the day and year
first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	DIGITAL AUDIO CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By  	/s/ DONALD E. TUNSTALL, JR.
 	 
	 	 	Donald E. Tunstall, Jr., Vice President 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	DRI CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By  	/s/  DAVID L. TURNEY
 	 
	 	 	David L. Turney, President 	 
	 	 	 	 



 









 






	 	 	 	 	 




     The undersigned guarantor joins in this Second Extension Agreement for acknowledgment purposes
as of the 30th day of April, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	DOLPHIN DIRECT EQUITY PARTNERS, LP

 	 
	 	By:  	Dolphin Advisors, LLC
 	 
	 	 	Its managing general partner 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	                     Dolphin Management Inc.
 	 
	 	 	Its managing member 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	                          /s/ PETER E. SALAS
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Peter E. Salas 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President
*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 circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-60077

Summary Calendar

RAY ALEXANDER GILBERT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

VERSUS

JAMES V. ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT, 

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:93-CV-525-LN)

May 15, 1997

Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ray Alexander Gilbert, Mississippi state prisoner # 69516,

appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Gilbert argues that his counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by failing to raise a speedy-trial defense

on his behalf. He further alleges that, as a result of this
2

failure, his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary.

A valid guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects,

including an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the

ineffective assistance claim affects the voluntary nature of the

plea. Smith v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 677, 682 (5th Cir. 1983). If a

defendant enters a guilty plea on the advice of counsel, whether

the plea was voluntary and knowing turns on whether the advice

rendered was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys

in criminal cases. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985). To

prove ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove

that his counsel’s performance was both deficient and prejudicial

to him. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In

the context of a guilty plea, the defendant must show that, but

for his counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and

would have insisted upon going to trial. Hill, 474 U.S. at 57-

58; Joseph v. Butler, 838 F.2d 786, 791 (5th Cir. 1988).

The record shows that Gilbert was facing a life sentence for

murder, a 20-year sentence for parole violations, and a 30-year

sentence for possession of cocaine. Gilbert’s counsel testified

that he thought the proposed plea agreement was a good deal. He

further indicated that, in his judgment, a speedy trial defense

was unlikely to succeed and would only jeopardize the proposed

plea agreement. Counsel’s advice that Gilbert accept the

proposed plea agreement was a strategic choice that was within
3

counsel’s professional judgment. “Strategic choices made after

thorough investigation of facts and law are virtually

unchallengeable”. Black v. Collins, 962 F.2d 394, 401 (5th Cir.

1992). Gilbert has shown neither deficiency nor prejudice as

required by Strickland. The district court’s dismissal of

Gilbert’s petition for habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.

Finally, the interests of justice do not require appointment

of counsel for Gilbert. See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d

494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED.
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order

September 28, 2005

128366

RAYMOND PIGG, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

GENERAL STEEL ERECTORS, INC., and LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants,

and

SUPER CAR WASH SYSTEMS EAST, INC., and FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, ABZ STEEL FABRICATION, TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, and McDONALD'S (UNINSURED), Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/ Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

SC: 128366 COA: 258414 WCAC: 03-000368

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 22, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l 0919 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 28, 2005
Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30083]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; Reducing HIV Risk.
    Date: December 6, 2010.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Enid Light, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental 
Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 
6132, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20852-9608. 301-443-3599. 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ffaf3f6f8f7ebdff2fef6f3b1f1f6f7b1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1570797c727d615578747c793b7b7c7d3b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>.

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 23, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-30083 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
16.206-2 Application.

A fixed-ceiling-price contract with retroactive price redetermination is appropriate for research and

development contracts estimated at the simplified acquisition threshold or less when it is established

at the outset that a fair and reasonable firm fixed price cannot be negotiated and that the amount

involved and short performance period make the use of any other fixed-price contract type

impracticable.

(a) A ceiling price shall be negotiated for the contract at a level that reflects a reasonable sharing of

risk by the contractor. The established ceiling price may be adjusted only if required by the

operation of contract clauses providing for equitable adjustment or other revision of the contract

price under stated circumstances.

(b) The contract should be awarded only after negotiation of a billing price that is as fair and

reasonable as the circumstances permit.

(c) Since this contract type provides the contractor no cost control incentive except the ceiling price,

the contracting officer should make clear to the contractor during discussion before award that the

contractor’s management effectiveness and ingenuity will be considered in retroactively

redetermining the price.

Parent topic: 16.206 Fixed-ceiling-price contracts with retroactive price redetermination.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:91cr5014LAC

CLARENCE WILLARD WOMBLE

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on July 25, 2006 

Motion/Pleadings RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION UNDER

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 60(B)(4) 

Filed byDEFENDANT Pro Se on 7/14/2006 Doc.# 706

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 25th day of

July, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED. Untimely. In light of response Court

reaffirms its order of July 6, 2006 (doc 705). 

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:91-cr-05014-LC-MD Document 707 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT EVAN WEBB,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:03cv272-MCR/WCS

COMPATH, INC.

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Fifth Report and

Recommendation. The Plaintiff has previously been furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections. Pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made a de novo determination of

those portions to which an objection has been made.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should

be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's Fifth Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The Clerk shall enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant

in the amount of $69,935.00.

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2005.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00272-MCR-WCS Document 73 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 1
#### James Walker, Sr., as Executor of Georgia A. Christie, Deceased, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 46605.)

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims entered January 23, 1968. The State appeals only from that portion of the judgment which awarded damages for the appropriation of parcel No. Ill, an irregularly shaped parcel, 3.78 acres in area, located near the Sacandaga Reservoir in the Town of Mayfield, Pulton County. A portion of this parcel had been developed for use as a trailer and campsite while the remaining area, adjacent to State Route 30, was wooded and at intervals hilly with steep rocky ledges and inaccessible from the highway. Both appraisers, although disagreeing on the precise extent of development, did value the developed and undeveloped portions separately. Claimant’s appraiser employing an income capitalization approach, which was totally rejected by the court, arrived at a value of approximately $8,860 per acre for the campsite property and by relying on a more conventional comparable sales approach assigned a value of $500 per acre for the undeveloped portion which he termed “roadside land”. The State’s appraiser, on the other hand, testified to a value of $2,000 per acre for the developed land and $800 per acre for the undeveloped land. The court found a single value of $2,500 per acre for each of the 3.78 acres taken and, accordingly, awarded damages in the amount of $9,450. The State is correct in contending that the court erred in failing to separately value the developed and undeveloped portions. The court’s uniform treatment of tfie appropriated parcel disregards not only the obvious physical, topographical features of the two distinct areas but also the testimony of both appraisers who carefully segregated the two areas in appraising the property and- assigned markedly different values to each. The only evidence in the record is that the two areas differ in value considerably and they should have been treated accordingly by the court.. We note in passing that no finding was made with respect to the extent of the developed area, a disputed item,which must be resolved by the trial court. In view of the acknowledged unsuitability of most of the appraisal evidence presented, a new trial is directed in order to afford the parties an opportunity to present further evidence on the issue of damages. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, without costs'. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and 'Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.
#### MISHKIND FEINBERG CO. v. SIDOWRSKY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by *1130the Mishkind Feinberg Company against Louis Sidowrsky.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 10.35

March 25,
2002

(Sent via Fax (714-573-3494)

Larry Batina
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
Naturade, Inc.
14370 Myford Rd.
Irvine, CA 92606

Re:
Waiver

Dear
Larry,

Agreement: The Credit and Security Agreement signed and dated January 27, 2000 and amended.

Wells
Fargo Business Credit, Inc. has decided to waive our default rights through December 31, 2001 under the Agreement with respect to the breach of Section 6.12
and 6.13, Minimum Book Net Worth Plus Subordinated Convertible Debt and Minimum Net Income.

For
waiving the above covenants Wells Fargo Business Credit, Inc. will charge Naturade $1,000.

Please
note, that the above waiver applies only to the specific instance described above. It is not a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same provision of the Agreement, nor is it a
waiver of any breach of any other provision of the Agreement.

Except
as expressly stated in this letter, we reserve all of the rights, powers and remedies available to us under the Agreement and any other contracts or instruments signed by you,
including the right to cease making advances to you and the right to accelerate any of your indebtedness, if any subsequent breach of the same provision or any other provision of the Agreement should
occur.

Sincerely,

/s/
Tom Makowski

Tom
Makowski
Portfolio Manager
Wells Fargo Business Credit, Inc.

---