alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fergco Letter



 Exhibit 10.15 
 cmcdemus@clear-point.com 
 DIRECT DIAL: 215-997-7710 X. 101

 June 25, 2008 
 VIA UPS, OVERNIGHT
DELIVERY 
  

															
	Chris Ferguson	  		  		  		  		  		  		  	
	  
	  		  		  		  		  		  		  	
	  
	  		  		  		  		  		  		  	

 Dear Chris: 
 I am writing in reference to that certain Second Amended and Restated Promissory Note, dated March 31, 2008, payable by ClearPoint Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) in the original principal amount of $300,000 (the
“Note”). By way of this letter, the Company is notifying you that, effective June 20, 2008, it has, in accordance with Section 1 of the Note, exercised the Maturity Date Extension (as defined in the Note). As a result, the
new Maturity Date for the Note is March 31, 2010. The Company exercised the Maturity Date Extension in connection with its recent loan transaction with ComVest Capital, LLC, whereby the Company received a $9 million term loan and $3 million
revolver. 
 As required by Section 3 of the Note, I have enclosed a second Warrant for 45,000 shares of Company Common Stock,
exercisable from June 20, 2008 until March 31, 2011 at an exercise price of $1.55. 
 Feel free to call me with any questions.

  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 CLEARPOINT RESOURCES, INC.

	
	 Christopher D. McDemus

	 Senior V.P. & General Counsel


 Encl.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dale E. Messick, Interim President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to 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.

This certification accompanies this Report to which it
relates, shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|/S/ DALE E. MESSICK                                                        
|Dale E. Messick                                                            
|Interim President and
Chief Operating Officer
(principal executive officer)

November 15, 2010
Case No. 8,458.

#### In re LODER.

[4 Ben. 328.] 1

District Court, E. D. New York.

Oct., 1870.

Discharge — Principal Debtor — Endorser.

Where the discharge of a bankrupt was opposed by creditors, holding notes of a third party endorsed by the bankrupt, on the ground that his discharge was not assented to by a majority of his creditors, under the 33d section of the bankruptcy act. as amended by the act of .Tuly 27, 1868 [15 Stat. 227]: *Held,*that the bankrupt was not a “principal debtor” to such creditors within the meaning of the act. and that, as the discharge of the bankrupt was assented to by a majority of his creditors, in number and value, excluding the holders of such endorsements, he was entitled to his discharge.

[Cited in Re Badenheim, Case No. 716.]

[In the matter of Lewis B. Loder, a bankrupt. See Case No. 8,457.]

BENEDICT, District Judge.

Lewis B. Lo-der, a bankrupt, moves for his discharge, under the provisions of the bankruptcy act. The discharge is opposed by certain of his creditors, who constitute a majority in number and value of the creditors who have proved claims, and who rely upon the 33d section of the act, amended by the act of July 27, 1868, as the foundation of their opposition.

The claims of these opposing creditors are all of one description, namely, the endorsement by the bankrupt of promissory notes made by a third party, duly protested, and notice of non-payment duly given, so as to fix the liability of the endorser.

The bankrupt contends that such endorsements do not constitute him a principal debtor to the holders of the protested notes, within the meaning of the 33d section as amended, and that he is entitled to his discharge, upon the written consent of a majority in number and value of the claims proved, excluding the claims of the contestants.

I am of the opinion, that the position taken by the bankrupt is correct. When the whole scope of the bankruptcy act is considered, it appears quite manifest, that it was not the intention of the act, to require of the debtor, as a condition to his discharge, the consent of creditors whose debts arise solely out of his endorsement of the notes of a third party. The words “principal debtor,” as used in the 33d section, are to be taken in their ordinary legal acceptation, and do not include such an endorser.

The liability of an endorser, is secondary to that of the maker, who is the principal debtor, and the character of the obligation remains unchanged, notwithstanding it may have become fixed by demand, and notice of non-payment.

Accordingly, I am of the opinion, that the bankrupt is entitled to his discharge.

[For further decisions in Re Loder, see Case No. 8,459.]
No. 42889.

#### Protests 769314-G, etc., of Aboarab Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                       TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Zaki Rakib, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:

        (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Date: November 14, 2002                 By: /s/ Zaki Rakib
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Zaki Rakib
                                            Chief Executive Officer
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

MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR.,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1797-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

 CLAIR TESKE, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 11, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. No party 

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01797-GEB -JFM Document 43 Filed 02/27/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 11, 2006 are adopted in full;

2. The June 24, 2005 motion of defendants Teske and Miller to dismiss is denied;

3. The June 27, 2005 motion of defendants Blankenship and Johnson to dismiss

is denied;

4. Defendants shall answer plaintiff’s amended complaint within ten days from

the date of this order.

Dated: February 24, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01797-GEB -JFM Document 43 Filed 02/27/06 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILSONS LEATHER DIRECT, INC.;

dba WILSON'S LEATHER OUTLET,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. CIV-S-04-1771 MCE/KJM

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

defendants, the court has determined that this case is settled.

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160,

dispositional documents are to be filed on or before October 3,

2005. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01771-MCE -KJM Document 17 Filed 09/14/05 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

2

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01771-MCE -KJM Document 17 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 2
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 Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Bo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:     July 6, 2011
By:
/s/ Liu BoLiu BoChief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)
No. 44020.

#### Protest 26959-K of Schranz & Bieber Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Nigga Chasers similar to those the subject of Abstract 42091. They were therefore held dutiable as fireworks at 12 cents per pound under paragraph 1515 as claimed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 8, 2021

No. 04-21-00427-CR

Christian Israel FRANKLIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR6244

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

A trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal has been filed in this appeal. 

The trial court has certified that the underlying criminal case “is a plea-bargain case, and the 

defendant has NO right of appeal.” 

We ORDER the trial court clerk to file an electronic clerk’s record within TEN DAYS of 

the date of this order containing the following documents:

1. all pre-trial orders and the related pre-trial motions;

2. the Court’s Admonishments, the defendant’s Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of 

Testimony, and any other stipulations, and all other documents relating to the 

defendant’s plea bargain;

3. the Judgment;

4. all postjudgment motions and orders;

5. the Notice of Appeal;

6. the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. the Criminal Docket Sheet.

We DIRECT the clerk of this court to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, 

the trial court clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in 

this appeal.

FILE COPY
All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
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

JOHN HARDNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1897 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction

filed October 7, 2005. Plaintiff requests that he be transferred from the maximum security

facility where he is now incarcerated (California State Prison-Lancaster) to a medium security

facility.

No defendants are located at California State Prison-Lancaster. Rather, all

defendants are located at California State Prison-Solano. Therefore, plaintiff is seeking

injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. This court is

unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 28 Filed 11/02/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s October 7, 2005,

motion for a preliminary injunction be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 11/01/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

hard1897.pi

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 28 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 50462.

#### Petition 6467-R of Armand Dumoulin (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was alleged in the petition “that the merchandise was not purchased in Canada, but was just rented for temporary use in the United States.” At the trial the petitioner testified that the invoice price represented the amount actually paid by him; that the trucks were second-hand; that the price paid was the only value existing in Canada for trucks like those imported; and that he knew of no other value. Government counsel stated that the report of a customs agent in this case indicated that the entry was apparently made with no intention to defraud. From an examination of the record and full consideration of the facts in the cáse the court was satisfied concerning the good faith of the petitioner. It was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or to misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted. 1
No. 59518.

protests 202285-K, etc. (Cleveland).

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

JAMES EDWARD BOWELL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2247 GEB GGH P

vs.

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On February 15, 2005, this action was transferred to the United States District

Court for the Central District of California. On April 15, 2005, petitioner filed a motion with the

court requesting that this action be re-opened because the Central District has not responded to

his filings.

All communication regarding this action must be sent to the United States District

Court for the Central District of California. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

petitioner’s April 15, 2005, motion to re-open is disregarded.

DATED: 5/17/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

bow2247.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02247-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 62573.

#### Amchina Fur Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 34868-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1643, *supra.*
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

Stipulation 1 861489v2 33863/0001 

ROBERT R. RUBIN, ESQ. (117428) 

McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC 

Attorneys at Law 

555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916.444.3900 

Fax: 916.444.8334 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DAVID S. SAVAGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID S. SAVAGE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. CIV.S-04-2316 WBS KJM 

STIPULATION TO TAKE 

DEPOSITION TESTIMONY 

BEYOND THE DISCOVERY 

DEADLINE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Counterclaim Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID S. SAVAGE and PHYLISS SAVAGE, 

Counterclaim Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, all the parties to this action hereby stipulate 

that deposition testimony may be taken up to and including November 14, 2005 at days and times 

mutually convenient to the parties. The parties agree this modest extension of the discovery deadline 

does not interfere in any way with the conduct of this proceeding or the resolution of any matter now 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-02316-WBS -KJM Document 23 Filed 10/12/05 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

Stipulation 2 861489v2 33863/0001 

pending before the Court. 

DATED: October 5 , 2005 

McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC 

Attorneys at Law 

By: _/s/ Robert R. Rubin ____________________ 

Robert R. Rubin 

Attorneys for Plaintiff David S. Savage 

DATED: October 5 , 2005 

McGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

By: _/s/ Richard A. Latterell__________________ 

Richard A. Latterell 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Attorneys for the United States of America 

DATED: September 29 , 2005 

/s/ Phyliss Savage 

Phyliss Savage, In Pro Per 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 7, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-02316-WBS -KJM Document 23 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.02**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION** **1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Essential Innovations Technology Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Kenneth G.C. Telford

Kenneth G.C. Telford 

Chief Financial Officer

April 24, 2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
No. 53005.

#### Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 135691-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of “Blood Platelets Extract,” similar in all material respects to the substance passed upon in *Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 156, C. D. 1147). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.