alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) on Form 20-F/A to the Annual
Report of DJSP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report,” and as amended by the Amendment, the “Amended
Report”), the undersigned, in his capacity and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:





1. The
Amended 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 Amended Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.











Date:
April 26, 2010





/s/ Kumar GursahaneyName:
              Kumar
      GursahaneyTitle:
              Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
      Officer)
Amendment No. 2 to Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 TO THE MATERIAL TRANSFER AND EVALUATION AGREEMENT

 between 
 Ceres, Inc. 
 and 

The Texas A&M University System 
 This Amendment No. 2 is made and entered into by and between Ceres, Inc. (“CERES”), a corporation with principal offices at Thousand Oaks, California, and The Texas A&M University
System (“SYSTEM”) of which Texas A&M AgriLife Research (“AGRILIFE”) is a member, both having principal offices in College Station, Texas, parties to the Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreement dated April 23, 2008 as
subsequently amended on April 23, 2011. 
 WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreement, as amended, (SYSTEM Internal Ref. No. MTA-001018)
regarding sorghum germplasm material (“MATERIALS”) which have not been formally released through the AGRILIFE Plant Review Committee; and 
 WHEREAS, thel Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreement, as amended, defined the term of the Agreement to remain in effect until November 1, 2012; and 

WHEREAS, CERES desires to continue its evaluation beyond the existing term so that it can provide information back to SYSTEM and AGRILIFE
regarding its potential commercial interest in MATERIALS; and 
 WHEREAS, SYSTEM agrees to extend the term of the Agreement to
November 1, 2013. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree that the Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreement of April 23,
2008, as subsequently amended, is hereby further amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	DELETE paragraph 4.01 in its entirety. 

  

	 	2.	ADD a new paragraph 4.01 as follows: 

  

	 	4.01.	Expiration. This Agreement, unless sooner terminated as provided herein, will remain in effect until November 1, 2013. 


EXCEPT as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Material Transfer and Evaluation Agreement dated April 23, 2008 remain
unchanged and in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 2 to become
effective on November 1, 2012 when executed below by the last signatory to this Amendment. 
  

											
	CERES, INC.	 		 		 	THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
				
	 /s/ Michael Stephenson
	 		 		 	 /s/ Brett Cornwell

	 By: Michael Stephenson
	 		 		 	Brett Cornwell
	 Title: Vice President of Operations
	 		 		 	Associate Vice Chancellor for Commercialization
	 Date: 1/3/2013
	 		 		 	Date: 1-3-2013
					
		 		 		 		 	TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH
				
	 /s/ Paul Kuc
	 		 		 	 /s/ Bill F. McCutchen

	By: Paul Kuc	 		 		 	Bill McCutchen
	Title: Chief Financial Officer	 		 		 	Executive Associate Director
	Date: 1/3/2013	 		 		 	Date: 1-8-2013

  
  

  

					
	 MTA-001018
	  	Page 1 of 1	  	Unreleased Germplasm (S4a)
From: pokeyisokeydokey@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:49:15 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,

David Rieck

Durham, CA 95938
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DONALD O. SALAVE’A,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON CORRECTION CENTER

RELIGIOUS PROGRAM,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5704FDB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Noted for March 31, 2006

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He

is proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter. This matter is before the court due to plaintiff’s failure to

respond to the court’s previous order to file an amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the

undersigned recommends plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

DISCUSSION

On January 12, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint or show cause why

this matter should not be dismissed. (Dkt. #8). Specifically, the court found plaintiff’s complaint deficient

Case 3:05-cv-05704-FDB Document 9 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

because: (1) he failed to allege facts showing how any individually named defendant caused or personally

participated in causing the harm alleged; and (2) he had not shown the alleged conduct deprived him of any

right, privilege or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or federal law. Plaintiff was warned

that should he fail to so respond by February 12, 2006, the court would recommend dismissal of this

matter. To date, however, plaintiff still has not responded to the order to show cause. 

CONCLUSION

Because plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause directing him to file an

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in his original complaint, the undersigned recommends the

court dismiss that complaint prior to service as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 72(b),

the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written

objections thereto. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those

objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit

imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the clerk is directed to set this matter for consideration on March 31,

2005, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 7th day of March, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05704-FDB Document 9 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-045 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
From: l9l2g3@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52:32 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,

Laura Graybill

Council Bluffs, IA 51501
From: hellobunny16@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:31:18 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,

Denise Dickenson

Cordova, TN 38018
From: erik_lawrence@merck.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:58:03 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,

Erik Lawrence

Houston, TX 77005
From: davencarrie@blackfoot.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:50:17 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,

David and Carrie Stewart

Trout Creek, MT 59874
No. 61524.

#### United Sales Company *v.*United States,

protests 270905-K/7328, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

Plaintiff having raised no objection, the motion was granted on the ground that the protests were prematurely filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

           <ARTICLE>                5
                  
           <S>                      <C>
           <PERIOD-TYPE>            9-MOS
           <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 FEB-28-1998
           <PERIOD-END>                      NOV-30-1997
           <CASH>                               7,066,665
           <SECURITIES>                                 0
           <RECEIVABLES>                      110,358,146
           <ALLOWANCES>                         5,712,000
           <INVENTORY>                            790,051
           <CURRENT-ASSETS>                   102,269,230
           <PP&E>                               2,436,442
           <DEPRECIATION>                         956,279
           <TOTAL-ASSETS>                     116,368,219
           <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               72,787,057
           <BONDS>                                      0
           <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
           <PREFERRED>                                  0
           <COMMON>                            22,158,114
           <OTHER-SE>                          21,142,719
           <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       116,368,219
           <SALES>                            143,170,178
           <TOTAL-REVENUES>                   153,942,095
           <CGS>                              134,589,915
           <TOTAL-COSTS>                      138,589,915
           <OTHER-EXPENSES>                     5,374,138
           <LOSS-PROVISION>                     2,396,523
           <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   4,418,880
           <INCOME-PRETAX>                      7,581,519
           <INCOME-TAX>                         2,706,420
           <INCOME-CONTINUING>                  4,875,099
           <DISCONTINUED>                               0
           <EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
           <CHANGES>                                    0
           <NET-INCOME>                         4,875,099
           <EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.90
           <EPS-DILUTED>                             0.90
                   


</TABLE>
From: vcalhoun@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:02:47 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,

Victoria Calhoun

Lemoore, CA 93245