alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.6

            AMENDMENT TO OVATION-TWAIN AGREEMENT OF OCTOBER 18, 2001

      1.    Original agreement remains in effect, except as revised below.

      2.    Ovation obligation of $150,000 remains in place, to be liquidated by
            Ovation at a minimum rate of $5000 per month, payable on the first
            day of each month.

      3.    If Ovation fails to make payment for two consecutive months, entire
            balance becomes in default and due and payable on the day following
            the due date of the second missed payment.

      4.    Twain will continue to work - temporarily, at Twain's sole
            discretion--in good faith and without additional retainer. Ovation
            will continue to pay out-0f-pocket expenses in accordance with the
            original agreement.

      5.    If Ovation defaults on its obligation to Twain under Paragraph 2.,
            above, Twain will have the right to license Ovation technology to
            any manufacturer for sales into Japan, the Republic of South Korea,
            and such other markets as may be subsequently agreed, at fair and
            reasonable cost. In such case, Twain will pay no fees to Ovation
            until Twain's net income from such licensing arrangements have
            exceeded the amount of Ovation's residual obligation to Twain, plus
            accumulated interest at current commercial bank rates. Ovation will
            fully and freely support Twain in any licensing activities,
            including provision of necessary documentation and technical advice.

For Ovation: /s/ William H. Zebuhr   For Twain Associates: /s/ William L. Givens
             ---------------------                         --------------------

       Date: April 4, 2003           Date: April 4, 2003
             ---------------------         --------------------------


                                       1
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 10
Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas City

## Filings received during the week ending November 1, 2008

|Filer                        | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                          
|---------------------------- | ----------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|LAKESIDE HOLDING CORPORATION | * 3A1       | Lakeside Holding Corporation, to become a bank holding company through the acquisition of 100 percent of the voting shares of Lakeside State Bank, both in Oologah, Oklahoma.                                                     | Newspaper:11/24/2008Federal Register:11/20/2008
|Newspaper:                   | 11/24/2008 
|Federal Register:            | 11/20/2008 
|LINDOE, INC.                 | * 3A3       | Lindoe, Inc., Ordway, Colorado, to acquire 51 percent of the voting shares of Southern Colorado National Bancorporation, Inc., Pueblo, Colorado and thereby indirectly acquire Southern Colorado National Bank, Pueblo, Colorado. | Newspaper:11/24/2008Federal Register:11/06/2008
|Newspaper:                   | 11/24/2008 
|Federal Register:            | 11/06/2008 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 1-7, PageID.36 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 1-7, PageID.37 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 1-7, PageID.38 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 1-7, PageID.39 Filed 03/23/15 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 1-7, PageID.40 Filed 03/23/15 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 1-7, PageID.41 Filed 03/23/15 Page 6 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAKISHA T. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STELLAR RECOVERY, INC. and 

COMCAST CORPORATION, and 

COMCAST OF DETROIT, LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 15-cv-11717 

Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III 

Hon. Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub 

DEFENDANT, STELLAR RECOVERY, INC’S, NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL 

AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW, Defendant, Stellar Recovery, Inc. (“Stellar”), by and through its 

undersigned counsel, and hereby files this Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority in support of 

Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Supporting Memorandum of Law [DE 

44], and attaches a true and correct copy of the United States District Court, Northern District of 

Georgia’s Order [DE 65] on the Parties’ respective Motions for Summary Judgment [DE 34, DE 

37] entered on August 12, 2016 in the case styled, Colette Jenkins v. mGage, LLC, et al., Case No. 

1:14-cv-02791-WSD, as attached hereto.

One of the main issues in the instant case and Defendant Stellar Recovery, Inc.’s pending 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is whether an ATDS was used in calling the Plaintiff. In 

Colette Jenkins v. mGage, LLC, et al., the Court granted Summary Judgment in Defendant’s favor, 

concluding that as “human intervention discredits that a communication system is an 

ATDS...[and] the uncontested evidence shows human intervention was required to send each text 

message...[Plaintiff’s] claims fail as a matter of law because [s]he failed to establish a genuine 

2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM Doc # 56 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1665
issue for trial with respect to whether the [texts] were [sent] using an ATDS, a necessary element 

of [her] claims.” Id. at 18-19. Important to this conclusion regarding human intervention by the 

Court was the fact that Defendant’s employees had to navigate a website and log in to the platform 

and click send. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant Stellar Recovery, Inc. hereby requests that this Court consider 

this case, which was decided after Defendant filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as 

supplemental authority in support of their motion.

Dated this 6th day of September, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Alison N. Emery

Alison N. Emery

Assurance Law Group

3731 Hendricks Avenue

Jacksonville, FL 32207

904-497-4904 (phone)

904-458-8979 (fax)

alison@assurancelawgroup.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Alison Emery, Counsel for Stellar Recovery, hereby certify that on September 6, 2016 I 

electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court for the United States District 

Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, using the ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the attorneys of record. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Alison N. Emery 

Alison N. Emery

2:15-cv-11717-SJM-MKM Doc # 56 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1666
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MARTIN BOOKER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 15-cv-12345 

vs. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

CHRISTOPHER T. BURNETT, et al., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS (ECF #28)

 On June 30, 2015, Plaintiff Martin Booker (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint 

against Defendants Christopher Burnett (“Burnett”), Bowling Green Freight, Inc. 

(“Bowling Green”), and FCC Equipment Financing, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), 

seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained arising out of a motor vehicle 

accident involving Defendants. (See Compl., ECF #1.) 

On March 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of 

Defendant Burnett and a representative of Defendant Bowling Green (the “Motion”). 

(ECF #28.) In the Motion, Plaintiff (1) showed that he timely requested that 

Defendant Burnett and a representative of Defendant Bowling Green appear for 

deposition; (2) attested that, “[t]o date, Defendants have not been produced for 

deposition, nor has defense counsel rescheduled Defendants’ depositions for a specific 

date”; and (3) requested that the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable 

2:15-cv-12345-MFL-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 04/13/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 153
expenses incurred in obtaining this Order, including attorney fees. (See id. at 1-2, Pg. 

ID 138.) Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion. 

The Court has reviewed the Motion and has determined that Plaintiff is entitled 

to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is 

GRANTED.

1

 Defendant Burnett and a representative from Defendant Bowling 

Green shall make themselves available for depositions on dates and times that are 

convenient for Plaintiff not later than May 4, 2016. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs is 

GRANTED. By no later than April 25, 2016, Plaintiff shall file with the Court proper 

documentation supporting the amount claimed for the fees and costs incurred in 

connection with obtaining this Order. By not later than May 2, 2016, Defendants may 

file written objections to the amount of fees and costs Plaintiff seeks. The Court will 

then enter an order confirming the final amount of fees and costs awarded to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 13, 2016 

 

1

 The Court recognizes that the discovery cutoff date for this action was April 7, 

2016, but grants the Motion nonetheless. 

2:15-cv-12345-MFL-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 04/13/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 154
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on April 13, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

 

2:15-cv-12345-MFL-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 04/13/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 155
§ 56.30-25 Flared, flareless, and compression fittings. ( a ) This section applies to pipe fittings that are mechanically connected to pipe by such means as ferrules, flared ends, swaging, elastic strain preload, crimping, bite-type devices, and shape memory alloys. Fittings to which this section applies must be designed, constructed, tested, and marked in accordance with ASTM F1387 (incorporated by reference, see § 56.01-2). Previously approved fittings may be retained to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( b ) Flared, flareless and compression fittings may be used within the service limitations of size, pressure, temperature, and vibration recommended by the manufacturer and as specified in this section.
( c ) Flared, flareless, and compression type tubing fittings may be used for tube sizes not exceeding 50 millimeters (2 inches) outside diameter within the limitations of applicable standards and specifications listed in this section and § 56.60-1.
( d ) Flareless fittings must be of a design in which the gripping member or sleeve must grip or bite into the outer surface of the tube with sufficient strength to hold the tube against pressure, but without appreciably distorting the inside tube diameter. The gripping member must also form a pressure seal against the fitting body.
( e ) For fluid services, other than hydraulic systems, using a combustible fluid as defined in § 30.10-15 of this chapter and for fluid services using a flammable fluid as defined in § 30.10-22 of this chapter, flared fittings must be used; except that flareless fittings of the nonbite type may be used when the tubing system is of steel, nickel copper or copper nickel alloy. When using copper or copper zinc alloy, flared fittings are required. (See also § 56.50-70 for gasoline fuel systems, § 56.50-75 for diesel fuel systems, and § 58.25-20 of this subchapter for hydraulic systems for steering gear.)
[CGD 95-027, 61 FR 26000, May 23, 1996; 61 FR 35138, July 5, 1996, as amended by USCG-1999-5151, 64 FR 67180, Dec. 1, 1999; USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58460, Sept. 29, 2000]
§ 4.40-3 Relationship to Coast Guard marine investigation regulations and procedures. ( a ) The Coast Guard's responsibility to investigate marine casualties is not eliminated nor diminished by the regulations in this subpart.
( b ) In those instances where the National Transportation Safety Board conducts an investigation in which the Coast Guard also has responsibility under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 63, the proceedings are conducted independently but so as to avoid duplication as much as possible.
[CGD 76-149, 42 FR 61200, Dec. 1, 1977, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51195, Sept. 30, 1997]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

s1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145548

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145548

COA: 308165

Wayne CC: 88

- 012266

- 02

REGINALD BELL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
§ 196.15-20 Hatches and other openings. ( a ) It shall be the responsibility of the master to assure himself that all exposed hatches and other openings in the hull of his vessel are closed, made properly watertight by the use of tarpaulins, gaskets or similar devices, and in all respects properly secured for sea before leaving protected waters.
( b ) The openings to which this section applies are as follows: ( 1 ) Exposed hatches.
( 2 ) Gangway and other ports fitted below the freeboard deck.
( 3 ) Port lights that are not accessible during navigation, including the dead lights for such port lights.
( c ) The master at his discretion may permit hatches or other openings to remain uncovered or open, or to be uncovered or opened for reasonable purposes such as ship's maintenance while the vessel is being navigated: *Provided,* That in his opinion existing conditions warrant such action.
( d ) In the event the master employs the discretionary provisions of this section after leaving port he shall cause appropriate entries to be made in the official log or equivalent thereof setting forth the time of uncovering, opening, closing or covering of the hatches or other openings to which this section applies and the circumstances warranting the action taken.
( e ) The discretionary provisions of this section shall not relieve the master of his responsibility for the safety of his vessel, equipment or persons on board.
§ 7.55 Cape Henry, VA to Cape Fear, NC. ( a ) A line drawn from Rudee Inlet Jetty Light “2” to latitude 36°50′ N. longitude 75°56.7′ W.; thence to Rudee Inlet Jetty Light “1”.
( b ) A line drawn from Bodie Island Light to latitude 35°49.3′ N. longitude 75°31.9′ W.; thence to Oregon Inlet Jetty Light.
( c ) A line drawn from Hatteras Inlet Light 255° true to the eastern end of Ocracoke Island.
( d ) A line drawn from the westernmost extremity of Ocracoke Island at latitude 35°04′ N. longitude 76°00.8′ W. to the northeasternmost extremity of Portsmouth Island at latitude 35°03.7′ N. longitude 76°02.3′ W.
( e ) A line drawn across Drum Inlet parallel with the general trend of the seaward, highwater shoreline.
( f ) A line drawn from the southernmost extremity of Cape Lookout to latitude 34°38.4′ N. longitude 76°40.6′ W.; thence to the seaward extremity of the Beaufort Inlet west jetty.
( g ) A line drawn from the seaward extremity of Masonboro Inlet north jetty to latitude 34°10.3′ N. longitude 77°48.0′ W.; thence to the beach in approximate position latitude 34°10′ N. longitude 77°49.4′ W.
[CGD 81-058, 50 FR 25230, June 18, 1985, as amended by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49224, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013]
‘CONRAD'S.

Tite Express &: Total Car Cate

4 WAL.

Ll reminder
Oil Service

S861
TIRE ROT

TOTAL TIRE
TTR

=

TOTAL

89.95



ale Type: C

Extended
To

WE FOUND BOTH
AND 3

ko you for choosing Co

Rews

Sales Tax:

Invoiced b

y BD. Vinee Invoice J

Punt’

TRORD SY

CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDG
-IMITED WARRGE

VEHIC
1D

Signatures Print Names

IF YOU ARE NOT ia
THE STORE LEADER,

ALL Kevin Pe
SEAR .
**Exhibit 11
INDEPENDENCE HOLDING COMPANY

Computation of Per Share Earnings

(In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)** **THREE MONTHS ENDED **MARCH 31, **2002 **2001**INCOME:  
 Net income
$
3,949 
$
4,061   **SHARES:  
 Weighted average common shares outstanding 
7,790  
7,878   **BASIC INCOME PER SHARE:  
 Net income per share
$
.51 
$
.52   **DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE   **USE OF PROCEEDS:  
 Assumed exercise of options
$
7,562 
$
6,242
 Tax benefit from assumed exercise of options
1,830 
850
 Repurchase of treasury stock at the average market  
  price per share of $17.85  and $13.29, respectively 
(9,392)  
(7,092)
 Assumed balance to be invested
$
- 
$
-   **SHARES:  
 Weighted average shares outstanding
7,790 
7,878
 Shares assumed issued for options
725 
658
 Treasury stock assumed purchased 
(526)  
(534)
 Adjusted average shares outstanding 
7,989  
8,002   **DILUTED INCOME PER SHARE:  
 Net income per share
$
.49 
$
.51
.**********************
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2529

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff Appellee

v.

Virginia Marie Hayes

Defendant Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: April 17, 2020

Filed: April 22, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Virginia Marie Hayes appeals after she pleaded guilty to a fraud offense

pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court1

1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
sentenced her to a term of imprisonment at the bottom of the advisory guidelines

range. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver and

challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Hayes entered into the

plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, her challenge to the

sentence falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice

would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702,

704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886,

889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, having independently reviewed the record

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for

appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-
# C_2012331EN.01002502.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the General Court of 4 September 2012 — Mische v Parliament

(Case T-642/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials - Distortion of the facts - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2012/C 331/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische and M. Velardo, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and S. Alves, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jensen and J. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament [2011] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Harald Mische shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Harald Mische shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament in the present proceedings.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---
#### Edward C. Pease, *Respondent, v.*William Kenny and another, *Appellants.*

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
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
 
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the
undersigned officer of Atrion Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to
such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.








Dated:
      November 4, 2009
            /s/
      Emile A.
      BattatEmile A.
      BattatChief
      Executive Officer










The foregoing certification is made
solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and not for any other
purpose.
















22
#### Frederick E. Illston and another, *Respondents, v.*Richard Parker, Appellant.—

Judgment affirmed, with costs.