alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.72


 


	
   

  	
  July 2, 2003

  



 


 


	
  Arnold S. Bloom

  c/o Russ Berrie and Company, Inc.

  111 Bauer Drive

  Oakland, NJ 07436

  



 


Dear Arnold:


 


As you know, the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized the
exploration of a possible sale of the Company, although no decision to effect a
sale has been made and there can be no assurance that it will occur or as to
the timing thereof.


 


The Board of Directors believes that your continued service as an
executive and effective participation in the exploration of a possible sale is
important to the Company.  Accordingly,
the Board of Directors has determined that if an unaffiliated purchaser
acquires substantially all of the Company’s outstanding stock or assets through
a negotiated transaction on or before December 31, 2003, and you remain
employed by the Company through the consummation of that transaction, you will
be awarded a special bonus of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars
($150,000).  (If for any reason you are
not employed by the Company when the sale is consummated, you will not be
entitled to any payment under this letter.)


 


The bonus contemplated above is in addition to any other compensation
to which you may be entitled from the Company. 
Nothing in this letter alters any of the terms of your employment with
the Company or creates any obligation on the part of the Company to retain you
as an employee.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Angelica Berrie

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Angelica Berrie

  Chief Executive Officer
#### Maitland E. BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20193.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 7, 1963.

*405Maitland E. Brown, pro. per.

T. Gary Cole, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Barefoot Sanders, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and CONNALLY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced in the following three separate cases: (a) a one count indictment charging bail jumping in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. 3146; (b) an information charging the interstate transportation of an altered American Express money order in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 2314; and (c) a two count indictment charging forgery of signature on postal money orders in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 500. The three cases were heard at the same time with appellant’s understanding and consent. After a detailed, full and complete explanation by the court of the appellant’s rights, including the right to counsel and the punishment authorized, the appellant voluntarily waived counsel and entered guilty pleas in each case. The appellant thereafter filed three different motions to vacate sentence, and a motion for a show cause order, and finally the motion now under consideration captioned “Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence”.

The appellant makes no complaint as to the sufficiency of the one count indictment charging bail jumping or the two count indictment charging forgery of signature of U. S. Postal Money Orders. He does attack the sufficiency of the information on the apparent theory that an information or indictment must set out the forged document verbatim. Such is not the rule. Conklin V. Cozart, 5 Cir., 1946, 158 F.2d 676; United States v. Starks (DC NY 1946) 6 F.R.D. 43. Further, it is well settled that a sentence is not subject to collateral attack simply on the ground that there is a defect in the information or indictment unless it can be said as a matter of law that the information or indictment, under any reasonable construction, does not charge an offense. Gregori v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 47; Alm v. U. S., 8 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 604. As heretofore stated, the information in this case is not defective as a matter of law. The appellant makes a further assertion that the forgery of a U. S. Postal Money Order is not a federal offense for which he could be tried in the United States District Court. Obviously, such a contention is without merit. 18 U.S.C.A. § 500.

We find no basis for any of the appellant’s contentions. The judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Cogenco International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
W. Brenman, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Date: August 9, 2004                    /s/ David W. Brenman
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       David W. Brenman, President
                                       Principal Executive Officer,
                                       Principal Accounting Officer,
                                       Principal Financial Officer and Director
## EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) by FCCC, Inc. (the
Registrant), I, Bernard Zimmerman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Registrant, hereby certify that:

|1. | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of
Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 
| | 
| | 

| | Name: Bernard Zimmerman                     
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: July 31, 2006

---
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 Quarterly Report of Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc., (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
      S. Kendall, Chairman and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U. S.
      C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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/
      Robert S. Kendall





Robert
      S.
      Kendall


Chairman
      and Treasurer


July
      20,
      2007
# C_2017144EN.01000802.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer

(Case C-484/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order - Concept of ‘court’ - Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ - Authentic instrument))

(2017/C 144/10)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Referring court

Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ibrica Zulfikarpašić

Applicant:

Defendant: Slaven Gajer

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.

| 2. | Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a writ of execution adopted by a notary, in Croatia, based on an ‘authentic document’, and which has not been contested may not be certified as a European Enforcement Order since it does not relate to an uncontested claim within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a writ of execution adopted by a notary, in Croatia, based on an ‘authentic document’, and which has not been contested may not be certified as a European Enforcement Order since it does not relate to an uncontested claim within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

1

---
**Exhibit 31(b)****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**I, Thomas N. Tipton, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interphase Corporation (the “Company”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theAudit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors:(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 14, 2005 Signature: /s/ Thomas N. Tipton, Jr.         interim Chief Financial Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2362 

To reduce the duty on certain golf club components. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2007 

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce the duty on certain golf club components. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN GOLF CLUB COMPONENTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 95 of the Harmonized 

5 Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by strik6 ing subheading 9506.39.00 and inserting in numerical se7 quence the following new subheadings and superior text 

8 thereto, with such superior text having the same degree 

9 of indentation as the article description for subheading 

10 9506.32.00, as in effect on the day before the date of the 

11 enactment of this Act: 

‘‘ 9506.35 Parts of golf clubs ...........................

9506.35.10 Golf club driver heads ................. 2.2% No change No change 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2362 IH

9506.35.20 Other parts of golf clubs ............. 4.9% No change No change 

9506.39 Other ............................................... 4.9% No change No change ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### Alexander Stewart, Plaintiff, *v.*Henry Hilton, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

April, 1899.)

1. Ejectment — Evidence of attorney’s authority to sue.

In ejectment the defendant may, under sections 1512 and 1513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, compel the plaintiff's attorneys to file and serve written evidence of their authority to sue.

*2.*Same — Payment of costs of prior similar action required.

Where the plaintiff, claiming as heir-at-law, has already been defeated in another action of ejectment brought to recover another piece of realty belonging to his alleged ancestor, his present action of a similar nature' will be stayed until he has paid the costs of the former action and interest thereon.

Motion to compel plaintiff’s 'attorneys to produce written evidence of their authority to bring suit, and also to stay proceedings until costs in a previous action have been paid.

Russell & Holmes, for motion.

Hart *&*Hopkins, opposed.

Truax, J.

This is an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff as an heir-at-law of the late Alexander T. Stewart, to recover from the defendant possession of the building known as the Stewart Building, which was owned by said A. T. Stewart at the time of his death. The plaintiff, as such heir-at-law, has heretofore brought another action in ejectment against the defendant to recover possession of another piece of property, in which action, after a trial by a jury, he was defeated. The defendant now moves that the court compel the plaintiff’s attorneys to produce written evidence *240of their authority to commence such action, file such evidence in court and. serve a copy thereof on defendants attorneys. This motion is authorized by sections 1512 and 1513 of the Code of Civil. Procedure, and should he granted, and the proceedings of the plaintiff should be stayed until'such -evidence is

The defendant also moves that the proceedings of the plaintiff in this.action be stayed until he shall have paid the costs in the action in which he was defeated and interest thereon. The rule staying proceedings in an action of" ejectment until the costs of a former action of ejectment have been paid, has been enforced in such actions from the earliest time, and this is so,, although the particular piece of property involved in the second - action of ejectment is different from that involved in the first.' It was said by Lord Kenyon, in Keene v. Angel, 6 T. R. 640, that the only question in the case is whether the second ejectment is in substance brought to try the same title, if so, the rule is, of course, to s^tay the proceedings until the costs of the former ejectment have been paid. This rule has been frequently followed, both in England and this country, upon the ground that the power to stay proceedings in an. action is one of equitable cognizance over suitors to prevent a multiplicity of actions and harassing and oppressive litigation. Barton v. Speis, 73 N. Y. 133; see also Doe v. Thomas, 4 Ad.,& Ell. 348; Doe v. Howland, 10 id. 761; Tyler on Ejectment (ed. 1870), p. 596.

Motion granted, with $10 costs'to abide the event.

Motion granted, with $10 costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2311 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2311

                  For the relief of Grace Dufia Gana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2007

 Mr. Ramstad introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Grace Dufia Gana.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR GRACE DUFIA GANA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Grace Dufia Gana shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Grace Dufia Gana enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Grace Dufia Gana, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Grace Dufia 
Gana shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 
privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.115 Access to financial records. ( a ) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may request from a financial institution the names and addresses of its customers. Each such request, however, shall include a certification that the information is necessary for the proper administration of benefits programs under the laws administered by the Secretary, and cannot be obtained by a reasonable search of records and information of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
( b ) Information received pursuant to a request referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall not be used for any purpose other than the administration of benefits programs under the laws administered by the Secretary if the disclosure of that information would otherwise be prohibited by any provision of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3401 through 3422).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5319)
[58 FR 32445, June 10, 1993]