alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.32

                             [LETTERHEAD OF OPENTV]

September 5, 2001

James Brown
[Personal Residence Address]

Dear James:

OpenTV is pleased to confirm your new position as General Manager OpenTV
Interactive and EVP Corporate Development. You will continue reporting into
James Ackerman, CEO. You will work at our facility located in Mountain View, CA.
Of course, OpenTV may change your position, duties, and work location from time
to time, as it deems necessary.

Your new base salary will increase to $245,000 annually ($10,208.33 per regular
pay period), with an effective date of October 1, 2000. Your target annual bonus
will remain at 35%. This bonus will be subject to the attainment of individual
and company-based goals. In addition, you will continue to receive all of the
benefits that you presently enjoy with OpenTV.

Subject to approval by the Board of Directors, you will be granted an option to
purchase 40,000 shares of OpenTV Corp.'s Class A Common Stock under the
Company's 1999 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan. The per share exercise price of
the option will be equal to the per share fair market value of the common stock
on the date of grant, as determined by the Board of Directors. The option will
be evidenced by the Company's standard stock option agreement. So long as you
continue in service with the Company, the option will vest with respect to 25%
of the option shares upon completion of one year of service with the Company and
with respect to the balance in 36 successive equal monthly installments upon
your completion of each additional month of service thereafter.

If you agree to the terms of this offer, kindly sign and return this letter to
me by September 14, 2001.


Sincerely,
OpenTV

/s/ Mark Meagher

Mark Meagher
Vice President Finance and Administration



Employee Signature:  /s/ James Brown
                    --------------------------------
                     James Brown

Date:
      ----------------------------------------------
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 2, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2421

Lower Tribunal Nos. F02-9709 & F02-16327

________________

Kevin Jordan,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge.

Kevin Jordan, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD COLLINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2049 MCE PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNOR

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al., ORDER

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In light of the complexity of

the legal issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice require

appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d

952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s March 15, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is granted.

2. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order

on David Porter, Assistant Federal Defender.

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 05/04/06 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

2

4. Petitioner’s counsel shall contact the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements for

copies of documents in the file.

5. A status conference is set for August 3, 2006, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 25. 

5. All parties shall appear at the status conference by counsel.

6. Fourteen days prior to the conference, the parties shall file and serve status

reports which address the timing and order of the following matters:

a. Discovery and investigations;

b. Anticipated motions;

c. The need for and timing of an evidentiary hearing;

d. Enumeration and resolution of unexhausted claims; and

e. Possible future amendments to the pleadings.

The parties are advised that failure to timely file a status report may result in sanctions.

DATED: May 2, 2006.

12

coll2049.110a

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 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

1

 If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendant, then

plaintiff must serve documents on that attorney and not on the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUTUILA F. TUVALU, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1724 DFL KJM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. DISCOVERY ORDER

 /

Defendants Wilson, Gomez, Terhune, Roe, Woodford and Runnels have answered

the complaint. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-36, discovery shall

proceed as follows:

1. Discovery requests shall be served by the party seeking the discovery on all

parties to the action.1 Discovery requests shall not be filed with the court except when required

by Local Rules 30-250(a), 33-250(c), 34-250(c) and 36-250(c);

2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five days after the

request is served;

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 55 Filed 04/12/06 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

2

3. The parties are cautioned that filing of discovery requests or responses, except

as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a

recommendation that the action be dismissed or the answer stricken;

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a), defendants may depose

plaintiff and any other witness confined in a prison upon condition that, at least fourteen days

before such a deposition, defendants serve all parties with the notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(b)(1); and

5. If disputes arise about the parties' obligations to respond to requests for

discovery, the parties shall comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 5-134, 5-135, 6-136, 7-130, 7-131, 7-132, 11-

110, 43-140, and 78-230(m) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California; unless otherwise ordered, Local Rule 37-251 shall not apply. 

Filing of a discovery motion that does not comply with all applicable rules may result in

imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to denial of the motion.

DATED: April 11, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

tuva1724.440

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 55 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 2
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



I, Samuel F. Occhipinti, Chief Financial Officer of Solomon Technologies,
Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| |  | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ SAMUEL F. OCCHIPINTISamuel F. OcchipintiChief Financial OfficerAugust 19, 2004
No. 58980.

protests 243555-K, etc. (New York).

#### F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The motion to dismiss was granted.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RONALD L. GANTT, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 50, 37 CMR 314

No. 19,986

May 19, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Paul V. Melodía,*and *Captain John Kagel*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Peter S. Wondolowski, Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick,*and *Captain Maurice Jay Kutner*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The decision of the board of review is affirmed. United States v Simpson, 17 17 USCMA 44, 37 CMR 308.
Before the First Division,

April 26, 1961

No. 65515.

#### American Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/13227, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Olivee, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

GUARANTEE 
 Warner Music
Group Corp. (the “Guarantor”) hereby unconditionally guarantees WMG Acquisition Corp.’s 4.875% Senior Secured Notes due 2024 (the “Dollar Notes”) and 4.125% Senior Secured Notes due 2024 (the “Euro
Notes” and, together with the Dollar Notes, the “Notes”) issued pursuant to the Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2012 (the “Secured Notes Base Indenture”), by and among WMG Acquisition Corp., a
Delaware corporation, as issuer (the “Issuer”), the guarantors party thereto (the “Guarantors”), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee (the “Trustee”) and Credit Suisse AG, as Notes
Authorized Agent and as Collateral Agent, as supplemented by (i) in the case of the Dollar Notes, the Sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 18, 2016 (the “Sixth Supplemental Indenture”), by and among the
Issuer, the Guarantors and the Trustee and (ii) in the case of the Euro Notes, the Seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of October 18, 2016 (the “Seventh Supplemental Indenture”), by and among the Issuer, the
Guarantors and the Trustee. The Secured Notes Base Indenture, as supplemented by the Sixth Supplemental Indenture and the Seventh Supplemental Indenture with respect to the relevant Notes, is referred to herein as the “Indenture”.

 The obligations of the Guarantor pursuant to this Guarantee and the Indenture are expressly set forth in Article Ten of the Secured Notes
Base Indenture, and reference is hereby made to the Indenture for the precise terms and limitations of this Guarantee. 
 Capitalized terms
used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Indenture. 
 [Signatures on Following Pages] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Warner Music Group Corp. has caused this Guarantee to be signed by a duly
authorized officer. 
  

							
	DATED: October 18, 2016	 		 	
		 		 	WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP.
				
		 		 	By:	 	/s/ Paul Robinson
		 		 	Name:	 	Paul Robinson
		 		 	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, General
		 		 	Counsel & Secretary


  
 [Signature Page
to the Warner Music Group Guarantee]
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/29

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
## The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States District Judge f or the Eastern 1 

## District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals 

### FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4049

___________ Keithian L. Arnold, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Boatmen & s Trust Company, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 4, 1997 Filed: September 25, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Keithian L. Arnold appeals from the district court & s order dismissing 1 for failure to state a claim Arnold & s Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 198 1 employm ent discrimination action against Boatmen & s Trust Company. Upo n rev iewingthe record and the parties & briefs on appeal, we conclude th e district court & s judgment was correct. Accordingly,

## -2-

we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 48515.

#### Protests 992993-G, etc., of W. X. Huber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The plaintiff offered the testimony of two witnesses, one a purchasing agent employed by a company dealing principally in seeds, and selling, among other things, rakes, who stated that he invented and patented the rake at bar in 1938, for use principally in small orange groves to rake up leaves, and that a metal rake would dig into the soil, whereas a bamboo rake does not, also, that it does the work more rapidly, takes up the leaves in large quantities, does not clog or require frequent cleaning, and differs from ordinary bamboo rakes in that it has a square end instead of a bow end, the square end permitting every tooth on the fan of the rake to contact the ground. He also testified that they are sold to seed houses, hardware houses, hardware stores, nurseries, and farm and garden supply houses, that he had seen them used in perhaps a dozen cases on an avocado ranch, on poultry and rabbit farms, and on lawns. The second witness was a manufacturing chemist, specializing in insecticides in connection with which his firm maintains an experimental farm on which are citrus and avocado trees and vegetables, that they use rakes such as the exhibit in this ease and recommend them for cleaning up leaves and refuse. The defendant produced no ‘witnesses but in its brief stated that *Wonham, Inc.*v. *United States,*20 C. C. P. A. 198, T. D. 45982, was controlling, and that the rake at bar is of the same general class of merchandise as the so-called bow-shaped rake. The court, however, did not agree with this contention. Defendant also cited *United States*v. *C. J. Tower & Sons*(26 C. C. P. A. 1, T. D. 49534) regarding *eo nomine designation.*The court was of the opinion that it was established by the record, at least *'prima facie,*that the article at bar is an implement chiefly used for agricultural purposes, and stated that the term “agricultural implements” is not an *eo nomine*designation but is a term of general designation, but believed that the rule cited by defendant from said decision that “we must determine that meaning in accordance with its proven chief use on and prior to the date when the language which is being interpreted was used by Congress” is equally adapted to such a term as to an *eo nomine*designation. Following *Green*v. *United States,*8 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 599, as to whether the rule cited is applicable to a case where the merchandise was not in existence and not known in the trade at the time of the passage of the tariff act, the court held that the rakes in question are agricultural implements within the meaning of that term as used in paragraph 1604. The claim for free entry was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 10.3

**LETTER OF INTENT					AMENDMENT NO. 1**

          This Letter of Intent Amendment No. 1 is dated as of April 30, 2008, by and between Hybrid Dynamics Corporation, (the “**Company**”) and Mark Klein (“**Klein**”), individually and on behalf of Delaware American Motors, LLC (“**DAMLLC**”) and Delaware American Motors, Inc. (“**DAM**”) (the Company, Klein, DAMLLC and DAM collectively referred to as the “**Parties**”).				          WHEREAS, the Company and Klein have previously entered into a Letter of Intent dated as of April 2, 2007 (“**Original Agreement**”); and				          WHEREAS, because certain conditions have not yet been satisfied, the Company and Klein desire to extend the Closing Date as set forth in the Original Agreement.				          NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows.				          1.       All terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Original Agreement.				          2.       The parties desire to extend the Closing Date for the transactions contemplated in the Original Agreement to May 31, 2008.  				          3.       The Parties further agree to extend the date set forth in Section 14 of the Original Agreement to May 31, 2008.  				          4.       Other than as provided for herein, the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.				          5.       This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by facsimile, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute a single instrument.				          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date written hereof.				                                                                                          **HYBRID DYNAMICS CORPORATION**                                                                                          By:   ____________________________________				                                                                                          Name: Paul Ressler, President				                                                                                          **MARK KLEIN**                                                                                          _________________________________________				                                                                                          Mark Klein, individually and on behalf of DAMLLC				                                                                                          and DAM:

----

 

****
(V.D. 101)

#### Astra Trading Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 781678.

(Decided October 15, 1959)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Astra Trading Corp.*v. *United*States, 40 Cust. Ct. 530, Abstract 61848, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States concerning the merchandise referred to in the attached Schedule A, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which, in *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisment separately according to the value of each class of articles.

> 2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers, in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, is the unit price as shown in the attached Schedule A, in United States currency, less the proportionate share of non-dutiable charges as *453found by tbe appraiser plus tbe proportionate cost of cases and packing as invoiced tbe foreign value of sucb or similar merchandise being no bigber.

> 3. Tbe case is abandoned as to merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule A, and may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I hold that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the unit prices (in United States currency) as shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, less the proportionate share of nondutiable charges, as found by the appraiser, plus the proportionate cost of cases and packing, as invoiced.

As to all other merchandise, except that hereinabove identified, the case is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 23(a)


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-8506 on Form S-8 effective September 25, 1986; in Registration Statement No.
33-25931 on Form S-8 effective December 28, 1988; in Registration Statement No.
33-6880 on Form S-8 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 effective
December 22, 1989; in Registration Statement No. 33-32783 on Form S-8 effective
January 11, 1990; in Registration Statement No. 2-72249 on Form S-3 as amended
by Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to Form S-16 effective January 17, 1990; in
Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement No. 33-6880 on Form S-8
effective April 9, 1990; in Registration Statement No. 33-32783 on Form S-8 as
amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 effective April 9, 1990; in
Registration Statement No. 33-47680 on Form S-8 effective May 5, 1992; in
Registration Statement No. 2-72249 on Form S-3 as amended by Post-Effective
Amendment No. 4 to Form S-16 effective April 7, 1994; in Registration Statement
No. 33-29493 on Form S-8 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 effective
September 27, 1994; in Registration Statement No. 33-62671 on Form S-8 effective
September 15, 1995; in Registration Statement No. 33-62669 on Form S-8 effective
September 15, 1995; in Registration Statement No. 333-26197 on Form S-8
effective April 30, 1997; and in Registration Statement No. 333-80777 on Form
S-8 effective June 16, 1999 of Irwin Financial Corporation of our report dated
January 24, 2000 relating to the financial statements, which appear in this
Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Dated: March 20, 2000


                                      110