alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The
Board of Directors
BakBone Software Limited:

We consent to the inclusion of our report dated October 12, 2001, with respect to the balance sheets of BakBone Software Limited (formerly NetVault Limited) as of
February 29, 2000, December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related profit and loss accounts and cash flow statements for the two-month period ended February 29, 2000 and
the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, which report appears in the registration statement on Form 20-F of BakBone Software Incorporated.

/s/
KPMG Chartered Accountants

Southampton, England
November 15, 2001

1

---

QuickLinks
From: cumm1252@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Timothy Cummings

Colorado Springs, CO 80920
No. 526.

#### Sherbert *v.*Verner et al., members of South Carolina Employment Security Commission, et al.

*William D. Donnelly*for appellant.

*Daniel R. McLeod,*Attorney General of South Carolina, and *Victor S. Evans,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Probable jurisdiction noted.
Coös,

Dec. 1, 1914.

#### Fred G. Parsons, *Adm’r. v.*Clara A. Roby.

Petition, for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with real estate alleged to be charged with the debts of the plaintiff’s intestate, and for instructions as to whether the debts might be considered a charge upon the real estate if the intestate intended to make them so. Upon a trial of the facts it was found *601that there was no evidence that the intestate had such an intention, and the petition was dismissed subject to exception. The plaintiff also excepted to the refusal to grant him an *ex parte*hearing. Transferred from the April term, 1914, of the superior court by *Sawyer,*J.

*Horace J. Holden,*for the plaintiff.

*Thomas F. Johnson*and *Drew, Shurtleff, Morris & Oakes,*for the defendant.

Peaslee, J.

This proceeding involves the same property the title to which was in litigation between the same parties in *Day*v. *Roby, ante,*144. The administrator of Volney Day’s estate now seeks to prevent Mrs. Roby from disposing of the property, upon the ground that it is charged with the payment of Volney’s debts. As the plaintiff failed to prove the allegation upon which his claim depended, his petition was rightly dismissed. No brief has been filed in support of the plaintiff’s exceptions, and no error has been found in the rulings of the superior court. The claim that it was the plaintiff’s right to have the defendant’s rights curtailed without opportunity to make objection on her part is not entitled to serious consideration.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
Revised draft of Toxics Rule preamble 

 Bill Maxwell 

 to: Cortney_Higgins 

 03/15/2011 09:20 PM 

 Bcc: Kevin Culligan, RobertJ Wayland 

 

Cortney -- 

Here is a revised Toxics Rule preamble and redline vs. the 03/10/2011 

version. 

Thanks. 

E.O.12866TheToxicsRule2060-AP-52Proposal031511.doc Redline 031511 vs. 031011.doc 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450
#### William L. Fraleigh, Respondent, v. George H. Pride and another, Appellants.

Order reversed on the ground that the issue us to the release should be tried before accounting ordered.
Appendix G 255

Appendix G:

TRAIL MARKINGS AND SIGNS

Recommended auto tour/original route sign incorporating uniform marker.
256 APPENDIXES/GLOSSARY/A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Recommended site directional sign on auto tour route.
No. 318, Misc.

#### Swanson *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Julia P. Cooper*for the United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: rvdipinto@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:58:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Randy DiPinto

Clovis, CA 93611
BOOLE & BABBAGE, INC.

                                  Exhibit 11.1

                 SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)


                                                     Years ended September 30,
                                                     -------------------------
                                                    1997       1996        1995
                                                    ----       ----        ----
PRIMARY
   Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding during the year            18,474     17,711     17,023
   Incremental common shares attributable
      to exercise of outstanding options
      (assuming proceeds would be used to
      purchase treasury stock)                       1,621      1,499      1,442
                                                   -------    -------    -------
Total shares                                        20,095     19,210     18,465
                                                   =======    =======    =======

Net income                                         $13,469    $11,457    $13,123
                                                   =======    =======    =======

Net income per share                               $  0.67    $  0.60    $  0.71
                                                   =======    =======    =======

FULLY DILUTED
   Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding during the year            18,474     17,711     17,023
   Incremental common shares attributable
      to exercise of outstanding options
      (assuming proceeds would be used to
      purchase treasury stock)                       1,856      1,554      1,542
                                                   -------    -------    -------
Total shares                                        20,330     19,265     18.565
                                                   =======    =======    =======

Net income                                         $13,469    $11,457    $13,123
                                                   =======    =======    =======

Net income per share                               $  0.66    $  0.59    $  0.71
                                                   =======    =======    =======
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-13-00294- CV
Sergio G ardea, Appellant

v. GM AC Mor tgage, LLC Successorby Merge r to G MAC M ortgageCorporat ion, Its Successor and/or Assigns, Ap pellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 4 O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY NO. 12- 1552 -CC4, HO NORAB LE JO HN MCM ASTER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On April 10, 2014, this Court sent notice to Serg io Gar dea that his brief was overdue and that his appe al wo u l d b e d i smissed for want of prosecution if he did respond to this Court by April 21, 2014. To date, Gar dea has not responde d to the Court’s notice. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appe al for w ant of prose cution. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.3(b), ( c).

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Goodwin, and F ield Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: May

7, 2014
EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                                    ------------

TEXT MARKED BY [* * *] HAS BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL
TREATMENT AND WAS FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.


                         [SIGNATURE EYEWEAR LETTERHEAD]



February 9, 2007

Sean Anglim
Head of Operations
Laura Ashley Limited
27 Bagleys Lane
Fulham, London
SW6 2QA

Dear Sean:

Per our conversation, Laura Ashley confirms there is no minimum sales
requirement for the 2006/07 contract year.

     1.   For the 2006/07 contract year ending January 31, 2007, Signature will
          pay a royalty minimum of * * * (a final payment of * * * to be made
          March 19, 2007).

     2.   For royalty and administrative support in conjunction with building
          the brand, in respect of the year ending January 27, 2007, Signature
          will pay Laura Ashley * * * (three payments of * * * in May 07, August
          07, November 07, and the balance of * * * in January 08).

     3.   Signature also agrees to a fee of * * *, in respect of the year ending
          January 27, 2007, to be paid in March of 2007.

     4.   Signature and Laura Ashley agree to extend the license agreement until
          January 2010 under the following terms and conditions:

          a.)  Signature will pay Laura Ashley the greater of * * * royalty or
               the minimum royalty as outlined below:

          b.)  Year                 Minimum Royalty
               ----                 ---------------

               2007/06                   * * *
               2006/09                   * * *
               2009/10                   * * *
<PAGE>


Signature truly appreciates Laura Ashley's understanding in regard to the future
development of the Laura Ashley eyewear brand. We are excited to work together
to build a strong and profitable eyewear business in the years to come.

Please sign our memorandum of understanding and fax back to 310-330-270. If you
have any questions please call us at 9 am (PST) on Thursday.

Best,




Michael Prince                                    /s/ Sean Anglim
----------------------                            ------------------------------
CEO                                               Approved and Accepted
Signature Eyewear                                 Sean Anglim-Head of Operations
                                                  Laura Ashley Limited
From: wliput@tampabay.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:30:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course, I ask you to expand conscience protections

for any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious

objections. I strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans, especially

for drugs and devices that I oppose, because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and

Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers, and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the

strongest way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of

mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

W Liput

Valrico, FL 33596
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 Annual Report of ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Yip Kam Ming, Chief Financial 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 Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/ Yip Kam Ming



Yip Kam Ming,

 Chief Financial Officer

April 13, 2007
p130183.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0183

Focus Ready Draft 1/14/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV

PV (kg/yr): 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130183.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (11/06/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P2B3T1 Linear: P1B2T1 // Branched: P2B3T1.

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 2 ppb.)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

Page 2
p130183.eng

 

Page 3
p130183.eng

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0183

 

Page 4
p130183.eng

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0183

Page 5
p130183.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0183

 

Page 6
p130183.eng

Page 7
p130183.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0183

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8
p130183.eng

Page 9
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Signature Eyewear, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Prince, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (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/ Michael Prince
--------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
March 10, 2009
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 5 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, 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; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.








/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.


Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date: February 4, 2011
#### EX PARTE GEORGE.

No. 375.

Decided November 13, 1962.

*Arthur J. Mandell*for petitioner.

*Tom M. Davis*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for certiorari is granted. We vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas setting aside the original writ of habeas corpus issued by it on July 10, 1961, and remand the cause to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

American Oil Company was involved in a labor dispute with the National Maritime Union, which represented unlicensed crew members aboard company vessels. The union peacefully picketed a refinery operated by a subsidiary of American that had a valid collective bargaining agreement with the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union. Upon findings that the object of the National Maritime Union’s picketing of the refinery was to secure the disregard, breach or violation of the collective bargaining agreement by the refinery workers and their union, in violation of Art. 5154d, § 4, *73Vernon’s Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Ann., the subsidiary-obtained a temporary injunction from the Tenth Judicial District Court of Galveston County against picketing at the refinery. The injunction in express terms bound the petitioner, an official'of the National Maritime Union. Petitioner nevertheless picketed the refinery after publicly announcing his intention so to do, on the ground that he did not believe that the court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction. He was adjudged in contempt.

The only issue mooted on the habeas corpus proceeding was the jurisdiction of the District Court to issue the injunction. Under Texas law one may not be punished for contempt for violating a temporary injunction, as here, granted by a court having no' jurisdiction of the subject matter. *Ex parte Twedell,*158 Tex. 214, 309 S. W. 2d 834; *Ex parte Dilley,*160 Tex. 522, 334 S. W. 2d 425. The District Court was without jurisdiction if petitioner’s picketing was arguably prohibited or arguably protected by the National Labor Relations Act. “In the absence of the Board’s clear determination that an activity is neither protected nor prohibited or of compelling precedent applied to essentially undisputed facts, it is not for this Court to decide whether such activities are subject to state jurisdiction.” *San Diego Building Trades Council*v. *Garmon,*359 U. S. 236, 246. The Texas Supreme Court held that petitioner’s conduct was neither arguably prohibited nor arguably protected by the Act. 163 Tex.-, 358 S. W. 2d 590. We disagree. Even assuming, without deciding, that the picketing would not fall within the prohibitions of § 8 (b)(1)(A) or § 8 (b)(4)(i)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hold, in light of the District Court’s finding that American wholly owns the subsidiary and “directs'and controls all of . . . [its] activities,” that petitioner’s picketing was conduct at least arguably protected by § 7 of the Act.

*Vacated and remanded.*
#### Charlotte F. Wells, Appellant, v. August Lachenmeyer, Respondent.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*