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



Exhibit 10.7



AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made this 4th day of January, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Andrew Blount, an individual resident of the State of California (the “Executive”), and RealPage, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Employer”), having its principal place of business in Carrollton, Texas.
WHEREAS, Executive and Employer entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated December 11, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Executive and Employer now wish to amend the Employment Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements set forth below, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1.  Amend Section 6(b), in its entirety to read as follows:
Relocation.    Executive shall commence working full-time at Employer’s headquarters office no later than March 1, 2016. Employer will provide a one-time relocation package for Executive’s actual expenses incurred in relocating to the Dallas area of up to $80,000, inclusive of applicable taxes, in accordance with the standard terms and conditions of the RealPage Leadership Relocation Policy.”
2.  Except as set forth herein, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, intending to be legally bound, have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement on the date set forth above.


REALPAGE, INC.


By: /s/ Stephen T. Winn            
Name:  Stephen T. Winn
Title:    Chief Executive Officer


EXECUTIVE: 


/s/ Andrew Blount            
Andrew Blount
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 

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

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 of Crimson Exploration Inc. (the “Issuer”).  The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

 

| Date:

  | November 16, 2009

              |   |
|---------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|          | /s/ Allan D. Keel                     |   |
| Name:         | Allan D. Keel                         |   |
| Title:        | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|          |                                  |   |
|          |                                  |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

(1)    The accompanying Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, 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
accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:   November 4, 2004

| |  | /s/   Marti Morfitt                                | 
| |  | -------------------------------------------------- | 
| |  |                                                   
| |  | Marti Morfitt, President & Chief Executive Officer | 

Date:   November 4, 2004

| |  | /s/   Samuel E. Reinkensmeyer                                                           | 
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |  |                                                                                        
| |  | Samuel E. ReinkensmeyerVice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer | 

---
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4420 Electrosurgical device for over-the-counter aesthetic use. ( a ) *Identification.* An electrosurgical device for over-the-counter aesthetic use is a device using radiofrequency energy to produce localized heating within tissues for non-invasive aesthetic use.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Non-clinical performance data must demonstrate that the device meets all design specifications and performance requirements. The following performance characteristics must be tested: Over-heating, power accuracy radiofrequency, pulse cycle, waveform, pulse duration, and device characterization parameters.
( 2 ) Label comprehension and self-selection performance evaluation must demonstrate that the intended over-the-counter users can understand the package labeling and correctly choose the device for the indicated aesthetic use.
( 3 ) Usability performance evaluation must demonstrate that the over-the-counter user can correctly use the device, based solely on reading the directions for use, to treat the indicated aesthetic use.
( 4 ) Clinical performance evaluation must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use to achieve the intended aesthetic results.
( 5 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 6 ) Instructions for cleaning the device must be validated.
( 7 ) Performance data must be provided to demonstrate the electromagnetic compatibility and electrical safety, including the mechanical integrity, of the device.
( 8 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 9 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) Warnings, precautions, and contraindications to ensure the safe use of the device for the over-the-counter users.
( ii ) A statement that the safety and effectiveness of the device's use for uses other than the indicated aesthetic use are not known.
( iii ) A summary of the clinical information used to establish effectiveness for each indicated aesthetic usage and observed adverse events.
[81 FR 42244, June 29, 2016]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8), pertaining to the Ribi Immunochem Research, Inc. 1986 Stock Option Plan,
the Ribi Immunochem Research, Inc. 1996 Director Option Plan and the Ribi
Immunochem Research, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, of Corixa Corporation of: (i)
our report dated February 22, 1999 with respect to the financial statements of
Anergen, Inc. included in Current Report on Form 8-K of Corixa Corporation
dated August 9, 1999; and (ii) our report dated February 6, 1998 except for the
second paragraph of Note 1, as to which the date is December 21, 1998 with
respect to the financial statements of Anergen, Inc. included in Current Report
on Form 8-K of Corixa Corporation dated February 12, 1999, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle, Washington
October, 21, 1999
# C_2014129EN.01002201.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/22

---

Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Advertising articles)

(Case T-41/14)

(2014/C 129/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd (Ra'anana, Israel) (represented by: B. Brisset, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clapbanner Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 October 2013 given in Case R 981/2012-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 October 2013 given in Case R 981/2012-3;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘advertising articles’ — registered under No 1684325-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design lacked novelty (Article 5 CDR) and individual character (Article 6 CDR)

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal and dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4, 5 and 6 CDR.

---
From: Jordan, Ronald To: Craig, Nathan D Cc: Flanders, Phillip ; Schroeder, Cuc ; Yan Zhuang ; Thomas Finseth ; Dan-Tam Nguyen Subject: Follow-up to the EPA-Duke Energy call about Miami Fort FGD data Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:11:25 AM Attachments: Questions for Miami Fort.docx

Good morning Nathan,

I’m following up on a few items from our June 2 nd call regarding the Miami Fort data. According to my notes, you’re checking into the following:

1. Confirm whether the research lab result for arsenic of 4.34 ug/L on 6/28/11 is a J-value. 2. Provide additional lab reports for the arsenic data you submitted (see question #5 of the attached file). 3. For arsenic data on 7/31/12 and 8/1/12, the data submitted with comments show nondetect at 10 ppb, while the spreadsheet provided in response to EPA’s data request shows nondetect at 20 ppb. Please confirm which RL is correct. 4. As I recall, during the call Duke staff suggested some of the arsenic data may have been analyzed at labs that are not certified. If so, please specify which data this applies to. 5. Please provide the lab report for the mercury result of 343 ng/L on 11/2/10. 6. Confirm whether the mercury result of 0.5 ng/L on 4/2/13 is nondetect (see question #12 of the attached file). 7. Please provide the lab report for total mercury on 9/1/09 and 9/21/09 (see question #14 of the attached file). 8. Confirm the dilution factor calculations for outfall 601 on 9/3/13 for units 7 & 8 (see question #18 of the attached file). 9. Please provide the additional lab reports for the mercury data you submitted (see question #20 of the attached file).

If possible, it would be great to wrap this up by the end of the week.

Regards, Ron

From: Jordan, Ronald Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:32 PM To: Craig, Nathan D Cc: Stenger, Jennifer A; Kennedy, William; Delis, Brandon; Schroeder, Cuc; Flanders, Phillip; Thomas Finseth; Dan-Tam Nguyen; Yan Zhuang Subject: Topics for EPA-Duke Energy call about Miami Fort FGD data

Nathan,

Please see the attached file containing topics we’d like to discuss during our call next Thursday.Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification in advance of the call.

Regards, Ron
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.9600 Potentiating media for in vitro diagnostic use. ( a ) *Identification.* Potentiating media for in vitro diagnostic use are media, such as bovine albumin, that are used to suspend red cells and to enhance cell reactions for antigen-antibody testing.
( 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 § 864.9.
[45 FR 60649, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 63 FR 59226, Nov. 3, 1998]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  738,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (19,655)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               760,461
<PP&E>                                       4,256,207
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,028,738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,101,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      (6,563,722)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,940
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,473,768)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (3,101,894)
<SALES>                                      1,645,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,645,045
<CGS>                                          665,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (1,990,310)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,537,120)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,882,385)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,882,385)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,882,385)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
§ 640.100 Immune Globulin (Human). ( a ) *Proper name and definition.* The proper name of this product shall be Immune Globulin (Human). The product is defined as a sterile solution containing antibodies derived from human plasma.
( b ) *Source material.* The source material of Immune Globulin (Human) shall be plasma recovered from Whole Blood prepared as prescribed in §§ 640.1 through 640.5, or Source Plasma prepared as prescribed in §§ 640.60 through 640.76.
( c ) *Additives in source material.* The source material shall contain no additives other than citrate or acid citrate dextrose anticoagulant solution, unless it is shown that the processing method yields a product free of the additive to such an extent that the safety, purity, and potency of the product will not be affected adversely.
[38 FR 32089, Nov. 20, 1973, as amended at 50 FR 4140, Jan. 29, 1985; 64 FR 26287, May 14, 1999]
EXHIBIT 32.2

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



     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of CEC  Entertainment,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 26, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 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/ Christopher D. Morris
                                            -----------------------------
                                            Christopher D. Morris
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            March 18, 2005



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to CEC  Entertainment,  Inc. and will be retained by CEC Entertainment,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00208-CR

TONY DEWAYNE CRAYTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1323670

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Tony Dewayne Crayton appeals from his conviction of murder and the resulting sentence 

of fifty years’ imprisonment. The reporter’s record in this matter was filed January 27, 2015, and 

the clerk’s record was filed March 26, making Crayton’s brief originally due April 27. This 

deadline was extended twice by this Court on the motions of Crayton’s appellate counsel, Martin E. 

Braddy, resulting in the most recent due date of June 17, 2015. Braddy has now filed a third 

motion seeking an additional extension of Crayton’s briefing deadline.

We have reviewed the third motion to extend time as well as the appellate record, and we 

find no compelling information to convince us that this brief requires more time to prepare. The 

motion to extend time to file Crayton’s appellate brief is overruled.

We order Braddy to file Crayton’s appellate brief with this Court on or before July 8, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: June 23, 2015
§ 820.72 Inspection, measuring, and test equipment. ( a ) *Control of inspection, measuring, and test equipment.* Each manufacturer shall ensure that all inspection, measuring, and test equipment, including mechanical, automated, or electronic inspection and test equipment, is suitable for its intended purposes and is capable of producing valid results. Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures to ensure that equipment is routinely calibrated, inspected, checked, and maintained. The procedures shall include provisions for handling, preservation, and storage of equipment, so that its accuracy and fitness for use are maintained. These activities shall be documented.
( b ) *Calibration.* Calibration procedures shall include specific directions and limits for accuracy and precision. When accuracy and precision limits are not met, there shall be provisions for remedial action to reestablish the limits and to evaluate whether there was any adverse effect on the device's quality. These activities shall be documented. ( 1 ) *Calibration standards.* Calibration standards used for inspection, measuring, and test equipment shall be traceable to national or international standards. If national or international standards are not practical or available, the manufacturer shall use an independent reproducible standard. If no applicable standard exists, the manufacturer shall establish and maintain an in-house standard.
( 2 ) *Calibration records.* The equipment identification, calibration dates, the individual performing each calibration, and the next calibration date shall be documented. These records shall be displayed on or near each piece of equipment or shall be readily available to the personnel using such equipment and to the individuals responsible for calibrating the equipment.
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.1800 Withdrawal-infusion pump. ( a ) *Identification.* A withdrawal-infusion pump is a device designed to inject accurately drugs into the bloodstream and to withdraw blood samples for use in determining cardiac output.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5180 Fecal calprotectin immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A fecal calprotectin immunological test system is an *in vitro* diagnostic device that consists of reagents used to quantitatively measure, by immunochemical techniques, fecal calprotectin in human stool specimens. The device is intended for*in vitro* diagnostic use as an aid in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), specifically Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, and as an aid in differentiation of IBD from irritable bowel syndrome.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for these devices is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Fecal Calprotectin Immunological Test Systems.” For the availability of this guidance document, see § 866.1(e).
[71 FR 42598, July 27, 2006]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0465. SHEDRICK ROSS v. THE STATE.

A jury found Shedrick Ross guilty of armed robbery, aggravated assault,

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, conspiracy to commit

armed robbery, and possession of tools for the commission of a crime, and this Court

affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. Ross v. State, 281 Ga. App. 891 (637 SE2d

491) (2006). In 2017, Ross filed an extraordinary motion for new trial, asserting that

newly discovered evidence required a new trial and claiming that his sentence was

void because the State failed to properly allege and prove his prior convictions.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied Ross’s motion, and he filed a notice of

appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

As an initial matter, an order denying an extraordinary motion for new trial

must be appealed by application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7);

Balkcom v. State, 227 Ga. App. 327, 329 (489 SE2d 129) (1997). However, a direct

appeal may lie from an order denying or dismissing a motion to vacate or correct a

void sentence, but only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is,

in fact, void. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg

v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void

sentence generally are limited to claims that – even assuming the existence and

validity of the conviction for which the sentence was imposed – the law does not

authorize thatsentence, most typically because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment

for which the applicable penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569,

572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). Here, Ross does not argue that his sentence exceeds

the mostsevere punishment allowed, but that the State failed to follow the appropriate

November 09, 2017
procedure in seeking recidivist punishment. But such a claim does not amount to a

claim that the subsequent recidivist sentence is void. See id. at 572-573 (2); accord

Ward v. State, 299 Ga. App. 63, 64-65 (682 SE2d 128) (2009). 

Because Ross failed to file an application for discretionary review, as required

to appeal the denial of his extraordinary motion for new trial, and failed to raise a

colorable void-sentence claim, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/09/2017