alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1


                                 August 9, 1999


Corixa Corporation
1124 Columbia Street, Suite 200
Seattle, WA  98104


        REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-3 (FILE NO. 333-_____)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        We have examined the Registration Statement on Form S-3 to be filed by
you with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about August 9, 1999 (the
"Registration Statement") in connection with the registration under the
Securities Act of 1933 of shares of your common stock (the "Shares"), to be sold
by certain shareholders listed in the Registration Statement (the "Selling
Shareholders"). As your legal counsel in connection with this transaction, we
have examined the proceedings taken and are familiar with the proceedings
proposed to be taken by you in connection with the sale of the Shares.

        It is our opinion that the Shares, when sold by the selling shareholders
in the manner described in the Registration Statement, will be legally and
validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

        We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement and further consent to the use of our name wherever it appears in the
Registration Statement and in any amendment to it.

                                                   Sincerely,

                                                   VENTURE LAW GROUP
                                                   A Professional Corporation


                                                   /s/ VENTURE LAW GROUP



                                      II-6
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-133-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K/A, with the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement File No. 333-08717.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Seattle, Washington
June 1, 1999
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.2270 Thin-layer chromatography system for clinical use. ( a ) *Identification.* A thin-layer chromatography (TLC) system for clinical use is a device intended to separate one or more drugs or compounds from a mixture. The mixture of compounds is absorbed onto a stationary phase or thin layer of inert material (e.g., cellulose, alumina, etc.) and eluted off by a moving solvent (moving phase) until equilibrium occurs between the two phases.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9. Particular components of TLC systems, i.e., the thin-layer chromatography apparatus, TLC atomizer, TLC developing tanks, and TLC ultraviolet light, are exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180 of this chapter, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198 of this chapter, with respect to complaint files.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2309, Jan. 14, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.4200 Cardiopulmonary bypass accessory equipment. ( a ) *Identification.* Cardiopulmonary bypass accessory equipment is a device that has no contact with blood and that is used in the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit to support, adjoin, or connect components, or to aid in the setup of the extracorporeal line, e.g., an oxygenator mounting bracket or system-priming equipment.
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class I. The device is classified as class I if it does not involve an electrical connection to the patient. The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 870.9.
( 2 ) Class II (special controls). The device is classified as class II if it involves an electrical connection to the patient. The special controls are as follows: ( i ) The performance standard under part 898 of this chapter, and
( ii ) The guidance document entitled “Guidance on the Performance Standard for Electrode Lead Wires and Patient Cables.” The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 870.9.
[65 FR 19319, Apr. 11, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1290 Fatty acids test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A fatty acids test system is a device intended to measure fatty acids in plasma and serum. Measurements of fatty acids are used in the diagnosis and treatment of various disorders of lipid metabolism.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 21449, June 8, 1988; 66 FR 38787, July 25, 2001]
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Richard J.Baum, certify that:

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ebix.com, Inc.;

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | November 10, 2003 | /s/ Richard J. Baum     |   |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |              | Richard J. Baum         |
|   |              | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
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 on Form 10-KSB ("Form 10-KSB") of Smart-tek Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Perry Law, Chief Executive Officer 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:



(1)

The Form 10-KSB 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the

financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Perry Law

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

Perry Law

Chief Executive Officer

November 7, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Appellate case number: 01-22-00926-CV

Trial court case number: 37665

Trial court: 335th District Court of Washington County

On December 14, 2022, relator, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s October 14, 2022 order granting 

real party in interest, Tommy Dale Privett’s, motion to compel the deposition of a corporate 

representative of relator. Relator alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by 

compelling relator to present a corporate representative for deposition when the deposition 

is not proportional to the needs of the case, and requests that the Court grant a writ of 

mandamus directing the trial court to “vacate the order compelling the 

corporate-representative deposition.”

The Court requests a response to the petition for a writ of mandamus from real party

in interest. The response(s), if any, is due no later than twenty days from the date of 

this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Amparo Guerra_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __December 20, 2022_____
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7691 

To require the Chairperson of the Financial Stability Oversight Council to 

provide contingency plans for a disruption in the timing of payment 

on Treasury securities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2024 

Mr. DONALDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Chairperson of the Financial Stability Oversight Council to provide contingency plans for a disruption in the timing of payment on Treasury securities, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR A DISRUPTION IN 

4 THE TIMING OF PAYMENT ON TREASURY SE5 CURITIES. 

6 Not later than the end of the 180-day period begin7 ning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Chairperson 

8 of the Financial Stability Oversight Council shall issue a 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7691 IH

1 report to the Committee on Financial Services of the 

2 House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 

3 Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate containing— 

4 (1) contingency plans in the case of a disrup5 tion in the timing of payment on Treasury securi6 ties, including disruptions due to a systems failure, 

7 cyberattack, natural disaster, terrorist attack, the 

8 event that the debt of the United States Government 

9 (as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United States 

10 Code) reaches the statutory limit, or any other con11 tingency that could interrupt access to funding mar12 kets or could cause significant technical problems for 

13 the trading, clearing, and settlement of affected 

14 Treasury securities, including by causing delayed 

15 payments of interest or principal due on such securi16 ties; 

17 (2) recommendations of the Financial Stability 

18 Oversight Council for participants in the market for 

19 Treasury securities on overcoming, in the event of 

20 adverse contingencies, operational challenges the 

21 participants might face if payments on Treasury se22 curities are delayed; and 

23 (3) recommendations of the Financial Stability 

24 Oversight Council for making payments on Treasury 

25 securities held by domestic or foreign individuals or 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7691 IH

1 entities if the debt of the United States Government 

2 (as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United States 

3 Code) reaches the statutory limit, extraordinary 

4 measures are exhausted, and incoming Federal re5 ceipts are insufficient to make timely payments on 

6 all incoming due debt obligations. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5460 Haptoglobin immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A haptoglobin immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the haptoglobin (a protein that binds hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment in red blood cells) in serum. Measurement of haptoglobin may aid in the diagnosis of hemolytic diseases (diseases in which the red blood cells rupture and release hemoglobin) related to the formation of hemoglobin-haptoglobin complexes and certain kidney diseases.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 63 FR 59227, Nov. 3, 1998]
EX-10.13(C)



 Exhibit 10.13(C) 

[AMENDMENT FOR EXECUTIVES WITH EXTENDED OPTION EXERCISE PERIODS] 

[date] 
 [Full Name] 

Re: Amendment of Your Option Exercise Period 

Dear [First Name]: 
 This letter amends the
Severance Agreement between you and Yahoo! Inc. (the “Company”) dated [date], as amended (your “Severance Agreement”). To the extent you hold outstanding stock options granted or assumed by the Company (your “Options”),
the award agreements that govern your Options are also being amended as described below. 
 Your Severance Agreement currently provides
that, upon a termination of your employment that triggers severance benefits under the agreement, your outstanding and vested Options will remain exercisable for a period of six months (the “Extended Exercise Period”). However, following
the closing of the transaction contemplated by the Company’s Stock Purchase Agreement with Verizon Communications Inc. (the “Closing”), applicable law will prohibit the Company from maintaining any outstanding stock option awards
(after a limited grace period). 
 Accordingly, effective as of the Closing, your Severance Agreement and the award agreements evidencing
your Options are hereby amended to provide that your outstanding Options will remain exercisable in accordance with their terms for a period of up to ninety (90) days following the Closing (or, if earlier, until the expiration of the maximum
term of the Option) and, to the extent not exercised by the last day of such exercise period, will terminate at the close of business on such day. 

Except as expressly set forth above, this letter does not otherwise modify any other terms of your Severance Agreement or your Option award
agreements. If this letter accurately sets forth our agreement with respect to the foregoing matters, please sign below and return a copy of this letter to me. 

Sincerely, 

YAHOO! INC. 

[Name] 

[Title] 
 Acknowledged and
Agreed: 

			
		
	By:	 	 
		 	[FULL NAME]
### NUMBER 13 - 13 - 00 280 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF C. G.B.R., A CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 206 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Leonardo Ruiz , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the
206 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number F

- 3483

- 08

- D . Appellant has filed a n amended unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that he no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opini on that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

.2

P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. PER CURIAM
D eli vered and filed the 24th day of October , 20 13

.
Letter of Credit signed by the President of Exber, Inc


  EXHIBIT 10.01
 El Cortez Hotel
 600 E. Fremont
 P.O. Box 680
 Las Vegas, Nevada
89125
 LETTER OF CREDIT
 August 1, 1998
 Exber, Inc. hereby
makes available to the Union Plaza Hotel & Casino a line of credit in the amount of $1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) to be used for normal operating requirements as needed.  Extensions of credit under this agreement will be combined with
the first mortgage note held by Exber, Inc.

	 /s/ JOHN D. GAUGHAN
 	  
 
	 
 	  
 
	 John D. Gaughan, President
 Exber, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         638,984
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,931
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               710,008
<PP&E>                                       5,985,732
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,167,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,543,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          303,287
<BONDS>                                      1,306,202
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,933,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,543,050
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,480,467
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  967,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               696,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                717,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            717,643
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   717,643
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   119.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   119.61
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3640 Endosseous dental implant. ( a ) *Identification.* An endosseous dental implant is a prescription device made of a material such as titanium or titanium alloy that is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore a patient's chewing function.
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class II (special controls). The device is classified as class II if it is a root-form endosseous dental implant. The root-form endosseous dental implant is characterized by four geometrically distinct types: Basket, screw, solid cylinder, and hollow cylinder. The guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-Form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments” will serve as the special control. (See § 872.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.)
( 2 ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is classified as class II if it is a blade-form endosseous dental implant. The special controls for this device are: ( i ) The design characteristics of the device must ensure that the geometry and material composition are consistent with the intended use;
( ii ) Mechanical performance (fatigue) testing under simulated physiological conditions to demonstrate maximum load (endurance limit) when the device is subjected to compressive and shear loads;
( iii ) Corrosion testing under simulated physiological conditions to demonstrate corrosion potential of each metal or alloy, couple potential for an assembled dissimilar metal implant system, and corrosion rate for an assembled dissimilar metal implant system;
( iv ) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible;
( v ) Sterility testing must demonstrate the sterility of the device;
( vi ) Performance testing to evaluate the compatibility of the device in a magnetic resonance (MR) environment;
( vii ) Labeling must include a clear description of the technological features, how the device should be used in patients, detailed surgical protocol and restoration procedures, relevant precautions and warnings based on the clinical use of the device, and qualifications and training requirements for device users including technicians and clinicians;
( viii ) Patient labeling must contain a description of how the device works, how the device is placed, how the patient needs to care for the implant, possible adverse events and how to report any complications; and
( ix ) Documented clinical experience must demonstrate safe and effective use and capture any adverse events observed during clinical use.
[69 FR 26304, May 12, 2004, as amended at 79 FR 34625, June 18, 2014]
#### Carol C. Lowe *v.*Morton E. Lowe

*Sigmund L. Miller,*on the motion.

Submitted November 21

decided November 25, 1969

The motion by the plaintiff for an extension of time in which to file a motion to reargue the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.