alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 814.100 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This subpart H implements sections 515A and 520(m) of the act.
( b ) The purpose of section 520(m) is, to the extent consistent with the protection of the public health and safety and with ethical standards, to encourage the discovery and use of devices intended to benefit patients in the treatment or diagnosis of diseases or conditions that affect or are manifested in not more than 8,000 individuals in the United States per year. This subpart provides procedures for obtaining: ( 1 ) HUD designation of a medical device; and
( 2 ) Marketing approval for the HUD notwithstanding the absence of reasonable assurance of effectiveness that would otherwise be required under sections 514 and 515 of the act.
( c ) Section 515A of the act is intended to ensure the submission of readily available information concerning: ( 1 ) Any pediatric subpopulations (neonates, infants, children, adolescents) that suffer from the disease or condition that the device is intended to treat, diagnose, or cure; and
( 2 ) The number of affected pediatric patients.
( d ) Although a HUD may also have uses that differ from the humanitarian use, applicants seeking approval of any non-HUD use shall submit a PMA as required under § 814.20, or a premarket notification as required under part 807 of this chapter.
( e ) Obtaining marketing approval for a HUD involves two steps: ( 1 ) Obtaining designation of the device as a HUD from FDA's Office of Orphan Products Development, and
( 2 ) Submitting an HDE to the Office of Product Evaluation and Quality (OPEQ), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), or the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), as applicable.
( f ) A person granted an exemption under section 520(m) of the act shall submit periodic reports as described in § 814.126(b).
( g ) FDA may suspend or withdraw approval of an HDE after providing notice and an opportunity for an informal hearing.
[61 FR 33244, June 26, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 59220, Nov. 3, 1998; 73 FR 49942, Aug. 25, 2008; 79 FR 1740, Jan. 10, 2014; 82 FR 26349, June 7, 2017; 85 FR 18442, Apr. 2, 2020]
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 Annual Report of Astea International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zack Bergreen, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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

















/s/Zack BergreenZack BergreenChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)March 24, 2011
#### § 7.12 Guaranty.

In case of the giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in section 303(c)(2) or (3) of the act, each person signing such guaranty or undertaking shall be considered to have given it.
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

(Chief Executive Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certifies that:



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



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



|               |  |  |  |                         
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------
|August 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/     Richard M. Frank
|               |  |  |  | Richard M. Frank        
|               |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.3


 


[The Coca-Cola Company Letterhead]


 


 


April 27, 2017


 


Mr. Mark Randazza


Atlanta, Georgia


 


 


Dear Mark,


 


We are delighted to confirm your new position as Vice President,
Assistant Controller and Principal Accounting Officer, Job Grade 17, with an effective date of May 1, 2017. You will report to
Robin Moore. The information contained in this letter provides details of your new position.


 


		·	Your principal place of assignment will be Atlanta,
Georgia.



 


		·	Your annual base salary will remain unchanged at $402,600.




 


		·	You will continue to be eligible to participate in
the annual Performance Incentive Plan. The target annual incentive for a Job Grade 17 is 45% of annual base salary. The actual
amount of an incentive award may vary and is based on individual performance and the financial performance of the Company. Awards
are made at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors based upon recommendations by Senior Management. 
The plan may be modified from time to time. 



 


		·	You will continue to be eligible to participate in
The Coca-Cola Company’s Long-Term Incentive program. Awards are made at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors based upon recommendations by Senior Management. You will be eligible to receive long-term incentive awards
within guidelines for the job grade assigned to your position and based upon your personal performance, Company performance, and
leadership potential to add value to the Company in the future. As a discretionary program, the award timing, frequency, size and
mix of award vehicles are variable. 



 


		·	If you have not done so already, you are required
to enter into the Agreement on Confidentiality, Non-Competition, and Non-Solicitation, as well as the Agreement Covering Inventions,
Discoveries, Copyrightable Material, Trade Secrets, and Confidential Information, effective immediately (enclosed).



 


		·	This letter is provided as information and does not
constitute an employment contract.



 









    	 



     


    

Mr. Mark Randazza


April 27, 2017


Page 2 of 2


 







Mark, I feel certain that you will continue to find challenge, satisfaction
and opportunity in this role and as we continue our journey during this important time.


 


 


Sincerely,


 





	/s/ Kathy N. Waller	 



Kathy N. Waller


 


	c:	Executive Compensation
	 	GBS Executive Services



 


 


I, Mark Randazza, accept this offer:


 


 



	Signature:  	/s/ Mark Randazza	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Date: 	April 27, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      75,245,089              75,245,089
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,176                  71,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            75,464,021              75,464,021
<PP&E>                                       2,252,807               2,252,807
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,019,833)             (1,019,833)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,286,119              78,286,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,835,702               2,835,702
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        19,121                  19,121
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,657,761              37,657,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,286,119              78,286,119
<SALES>                                      1,193,868                 733,262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,193,868                 733,262
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,593,412               3,977,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,004                  59,991
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,033,988               1,016,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,467,536)             (4,320,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,467,536)             (4,320,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,467,536)             (4,320,478)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.44)                   (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)                   (.28)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.2.1

FIRST AMENDMENT  TO  BY-LAWS  OF  BALLANTYNE OF OMAHA, INC.

The By-Laws of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is hereby amended as follows:

1.ARTICLE IIBOARD OF DIRECTORS.    The following Section 2A are hereby added to this Article:



2.ARTICLE IVOFFICERS, Section 1,Generally, is amended to read as follows:



3.ARTICLE IVOFFICERS, Section 2, Chairman of the Board, is hereby deleted in its entirety.

DATED
as of the 12th day of December, 2001.

|    |  | BALLANTYNE OF OMAHA, INC.             
|--- |  | --------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/JOHN WILMERSJohn Wilmers, President

---



Attest:

Brad
French, Secretary

I
hereby certify that the above Amendment to the By-Laws of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc., was approved by the Board of Directors of the corporation at a meeting of the
Board held on the 12th day of December, 2001.

DATED
at Omaha, Nebraska, this 12th day of December, 2001. Brad French, Secretary

| |  | /s/BRAD FRENCHBrad French, Secretary
| |  | ------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.36


[FORM OF]
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
(Farmer Bros. Co. / [Executive Last Name])
_________________________________________________________________________
This First Amendment to the Change in Control Severance Agreement (“Amended Agreement”) is made and entered into as of [date of signature] between FARMER BROS. CO., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and [EXECUTIVE FULL NAME] (“[Executive Last Name]”), who agree as follows:
WHEREAS the Company and [Executive Last Name] are parties to a Change in Control Severance Agreement (“Agreement”) dated [Date of Change in Control Severance Agreement];
WHEREAS the parties desire to amend the Agreement to clarify certain rights and obligations of the parties to that Agreement;
The parties agree that the Agreement is amended to including the following paragraph:
Nothing contained in this Amended Agreement or the Agreement is intended to or shall be construed as prohibiting [Executive’s Last Name] from voluntarily communicating with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) about possible violations of law or from accepting a Commission whistleblower award.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
COMPANY:                FARMER BROS. CO.,
a Delaware corporation




By:                        
Michael H. Keown
President and Chief Executive Officer




[EXECUTIVE FULL NAME]:
By:                        
[Executive Full Name]
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-10762

Richard Louis Butler, Jr.,

Plaintiff—Appellant ,

versus

E. Holmes, Assistant Warden ; N. Davis, CMI ; Captain Reitsma; Mrs. Kline; James V. Allred Unit,

Defendants—Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:18-CV-161

Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: *
Richard Louis Butler, Jr., Texas pr isoner # 2123250, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various defendan ts, challenging the conditions of his confinement at the Allred Unit. Following initial screening, the district court dismissed Butler’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 29, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10762 Document: 00516259197 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2022No. 21-10762

2 because he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Butler has now filed a motion for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal to challenge this ruling. By moving in this court to proceed IFP, he is challenging the district court’s cert ification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith because, for th e reasons relied upon in the order of dismissal, Butler will not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Before this court, Butler argues that he is financially eligible to proceed IFP, and he makes no challeng e to the district court’s conclusion that he failed to state a claim for relief. His failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis constitutes an abandonment of such claims. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty . Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The appeal is without arguab le merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it
is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a
claim and the dismissal as frivolous of this appeal each count as a strike under § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson , 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015). Butler is warned that if he ac cumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; A PPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. Case: 21-10762 Document: 00516259197 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
Exhibit 11.0



LEVEL 8 SYSTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENTS



                                   1996        1995        1994
PRIMARY:
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES  6,076,013   4,314,106   2,911,863

COMMON STOCK EUIVALENTS            ---         88,898     177,795

COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS
  PURSUANT TO SAB TOPIC 4D         ---        374,754     749,508

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON
  AND COMMON EQUIVALENT
  SHARES                        6,076,013   4,777,758   3,839,166


FULLY DILUTED:
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON
  SHARES                        6,076,013   4,314,106   2,911,863

COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS           ---         88,898     177,795

COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS
  PURSUANT TO SAB TOPIC 4D         ---        374,754     749,508

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON
  AND COMMON EQUIVALENT
  SHARES                        6,067,013   4,777,758   3,839,166
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6428

KEVIN RAY SCHRUBB, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD A. YOUNG; GEORGE E. DEEDS; MAGGIE

WATKINS; SUSIE COX,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-495-R)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Ray Schrubb, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting in

part and denying in part Appellees' summary judgment motion. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICHAEL R. LANGE, AND SKY ROBOTICS, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

MARK A. LITMAN, AND MARK A. LITMAN & 

ASSOCIATES, P.A.,

Defendants-Appellees,

 

AND

 

IPC EAGLE, INC.,

Defendant.

______________________ 

2012-1565

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Minnesota in No. 11-CV-2387, Judge Donovan 

W. Frank.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

Before DYK, MAYER, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R
2 MICHAEL R. LANGE v. MARK A. LITMAN

On March 11, 2013, appellees Mark A. Litman and 

Mark A. Litman & Associates filed a motion seeking 

reversal without oral argument and a remand with instructions to dismiss the plaintiff’s malpractice claims for 

lack of jurisdiction. Appellants Michael R. Lange and Sky 

Robotics, Inc., opposed. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gunn v. 

Minton, 568 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1059 (2013), we conclude 

that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the malpractice claims at issue. We vacate the district court’s 

decision and remand to the district court. On remand the 

district court shall dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint for 

lack of jurisdiction.

 FOR THE COURT

 

March 27, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk

 

cc: Paul A. Sortland, Esq.

Charles E. Lundberg, Esq.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm), as its relates to Aerial Communications,
Inc. and Subsidiaries, included in or made a part of this registration
statement.


                                        /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Chicago, Illinois
December 28, 1999
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Stegman and Company

GRAPHIC

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board
of Directors and Stockholders
First Mariner Bancorp
Baltimore, Maryland

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-60961, 333-60963, 333-60967, 333-107669,
333-114073 and 333-122464) on Form S-8, (No. 333-107670) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-67854) on
Form S-2 of First Mariner Bancorp (the "Company") of our reports dated March 6, 2008, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of the Company as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of the Company.

|                                   |  |                      
|---------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|                                   |  |                      
|                                   |  | /s/ Stegman & Company
|Baltimore, Maryland
March 13, 2008 |  |                      

---



QuickLinks
CHILDREN

COVERAGE TO CARE >>> Prevention

Put Your Health First

Get the preventive services that are right for you!

Take advantage of these and other services available at no cost to you 

under most health coverage.

Developmental screening and Autism screening

Blood pressure screening

Depression screening 

Developmental screening

Obesity screening and 

counseling

Oral health risk assessment, 

including fluoride 

supplements for some 

children

Height and weight 

measurements

Lead screening for at-risk children

Vision screening

Immunization Vaccines:

• Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis

• Haemophilus influenza type B

• Hepatitis A &B

• HPV

• Inactivated poliovirus

• Influenza (Flu Shot)

• Measles, Mumps, Rubella

• Meningococcal

• Pneumococcal

• Rotavirus

• Varicella (Chicken Pox) COST TIP

Most preventive services are covered 

at no cost. However, if you receive 

additional services, you may be billed. 

Ask your provider’s office or plan to 

explain any charges.

For additional resources and a full list of the preventive services covered at no cost sharing 

under most health plans, please visit go.cms.gov/c2c.

CMS Product No. 11946

September 2017
#### Jerryl L. Keane *v.*John D. Cucurello et al.

*Jerryl L. Keane,*pro se, on the motion.

*Jerryl L. Keane,*pro se, on the amendment.

Submitted December 3

decided December 3, 1969

Submitted December 2

decided December 3, 1969

The motion by the plaintiff for a reruling on her request for a transcript in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.

The request by the plaintiff entitled “Amendment to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Re-Ruling on Transcript and Motion to Re-Argue the Defendant’s Motion to Deny the Appeal” is denied.