alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.5

                               ARS NETWORKS, INC.

         The undersigned  hereby agrees that for a period commencing on the date
hereof and expiring on the  termination  of the Equity Line of Credit  Agreement
dated March ___, 2001,  between ARS Networks,  Inc., (the "Company") and Cornell
Capital Partners,  L.P., (the "Investor") (the "Lock-up Period"),  he, she or it
will not,  directly  or  indirectly,  without the prior  written  consent of the
Investor,  issue,  offer,  agree or offer to sell, sell, grant an option for the
purchase  or sale of,  transfer,  pledge,  assign,  hypothecate,  distribute  or
otherwise  encumber  or dispose of except  pursuant  to Rule 144 of the  General
Rules and  Regulations  under the  Securities Act of 1933, any securities of the
Company, including common stock or options, rights, warrants or other securities
underlying,  convertible into, exchangeable or exercisable for or evidencing any
right to purchase or subscribe for any common stock (whether or not beneficially
owned by the undersigned), or any beneficial interest therein (collectively, the
"Securities").

         In  order  to  enable  the  aforesaid  covenants  to be  enforced,  the
undersigned  hereby  consents  to the  placing of legends  and/or  stop-transfer
orders with the transfer agent of the Company's  securities  with respect to any
of the  Securities  registered in the name of the  undersigned  or  beneficially
owned by the undersigned,  and the undersigned hereby confirms the undersigned's
investment in the Company.

Dated: _______________, 2001.

                                    Signature


                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Mark Miziolek
                                    Address:
                                            ------------------------------------

                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    City, State, Zip Code:


                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Print Social Security Number or Taxpayer
                                    I.D. Number
**AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE 

DONALD D. DANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:10-CV-124

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT

OF REHABILITATION AND

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

[] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have

been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the

February 27, 2012 Order, the Court ADOPTED AND

AFFIRMED the Report and Recommendation. Judgment is

entered in favor of the defendants. 

Date: February 27, 2012 James Bonini, Clerk

 s/Betty L. Clark 

 Betty L. Clark/Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:10-cv-00124-ALM-NMK Doc #: 121 Filed: 02/27/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

AVI STERN

,

Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL KORETSKY

, ROSEANNE KORETSKY, ALLEN M. SILK, as Trustee of the Jamie Koretsky Irrevocable Trust, and ALLEN M. SILK, as Trustee of the Rachael Koretsky Irrevocable Trust

, JAMIE POSNER,

CLARE POSNER and THE OAKS AT BOCA RATON PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 18

- 862

[ August 9, 2018 ]

Appeal of non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; James Nutt , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502017CA001107XXXXMB

.

Cory Carano of Cory S. Carano, P.A., Delray Beach, for appellant.

Anthony S. Adelson of Adelson Law Firm, Hallandale Beach, for appellees Michael Koretsky, Roseanne Koretsky, and Allen M. Silk.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, C.J., W ARNER and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15752-15753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5958]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 09/79-0454]


Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption 
Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of 
Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 
160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection

[[Page 15753]]

with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under 
Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute 
Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') 
Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Emergence Capital Partners 
SBIC, L.P., proposes to provide equity financing to DVDPlay, Inc. 
(``DVDPlay''), 695 Campbell Technology Parkway, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 
95008. The financing is contemplated to fund the ongoing operating 
needs of the business.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P., and 
Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., all Associates of Emergence Capital 
Partners SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of DVDPlay, and 
therefore DVDPlay is considered an Associate of Emergence Capital 
Partners SBIC, L.P., as detailed in Sec.  107.50 of the Regulations.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for 
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416.

    March 12, 2007.
Jaime Guzm[aacute]n-Fournier,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. E7-5958 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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, Robert R. Millard, Chief Financial Officer of Angies List, Inc., certify that (i) the annual report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Angies List, Inc.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/S/    ROBERT R.
MILLARD     
|Robert R. Millard            
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
|                             
|March 15, 2012               
|Date
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 860 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 860

   To establish new ZIP Codes for certain communities, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2023

  Mr. Diaz-Balart (for himself, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Steil, Mr. 
   Calvert, Mr. Buck, and Mrs. Torres of California) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To establish new ZIP Codes for certain communities, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHING NEW ZIP CODES.

    Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the United States Postal Service shall designate a single, unique ZIP 
Code for each of the following communities:
            (1) Miami Lakes, Florida.
            (2) Hollywood, Florida.
            (3) Village of Somers, Wisconsin.
            (4) Village of Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin.
            (5) Village of Caledonia, Wisconsin.
            (6) Eastvale, California.
            (7) Castle Pines, Colorado.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First MarbleheadCorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, John A. Hupalo Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: February 8, 2007 |   | /s/ JOHN A.  HUPALO                                            |   |
|------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   | John A. Hupalo                                                 |
|                         |   | *Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation andwill be retained by The First Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SECor its staff upon request.

1

----
RASHARD T. ROUISE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4956

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed February 9, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James O. Shelfer , Judge

.

Rashard T. Rouise, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, RAY, and KELSEY , JJ., CONCUR

.
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 Auscrete Corporation (the “Company’) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, John Sprovieri, Chief Executive Officer and 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated this 14th day of April, 2016.








/s/John Sprovieri/s/John SprovieriChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Case No. 7,986.

#### The LADY STIRLING.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 614.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Nov., 1864.

Prize — Violation of Blockade.

Vessel and cargo condemned for an attempt to violate the blockade.

In admiralty.

1

 [Reported by Samuel Blatchford, Esq.]

BETTS, District Judge.

The above-named steamer was captured as prize, October 28, 1864, by the United States vessels-of-war Calypso and Eolus, on the Atlantic Ocean, off Wilmington, North Carolina, and was reported to this district for adjudication. Such proceedings were thereupon taken in court, upon the libel filed against her, and the processes and acts authorized by the laws of prize and the rules and usages of prize practice, that judgment final, on default of all appearance or defence in respect to the vessel, tackle and cargo, was rendered against the same, as prize of war. A large mass of desultory papers were taken from the prize vessel, mostly relating to other voyages and ships, and brought before the court through the prize commissioner's office, together with the depositions collected by those officers under the interrogatories in preparatorio in this suit. But no document relating to the ownership, voyage, or employment of the vessel, at the time of her arrest, was «produced in court, the proof being clear that all papers of that kind were thrown overboard and destroyed by the master during the chase of the prize. The master, the first mate, and the chief engineer of the ship on the voyage in the prosecution of which she was captured, were carefully examined upon the standing interrogatories, and I think they have entitled themselves to the credit of having, in their testimony, given an unreserved and uncolored representation of the facts attendant upon the adventure she was endeavoring to carry out when she was arrested.

The master, Donald Cruikshank, was appointed at London, in August, 1864, master of the steamer Lady Stirling, then being built and fitted out by Thomas Stirling Begbie, residing there, on a contemplated voyage from London to Halifax, destined to Nassau, N. P., by the way of Wilmington, North Carolina. The owner of the Lady Stirling, her master and crew, all well knew, at the time, of the existence of the war, and of the efficient blockade of the port of Wilmington, North Carolina, and that the present voyage was specially destined to evade that blockade. The master proves these facts by his testimony, and the records of this court show that the same master had been, two years previously to the commission of the offence now charged, in command of another large English merchant vessel, purposely fitted out and employed with his knowledge and agency, *to*evade the blockade of the Rebel ports, and which was captured and condemned for ac? tually violating the blockade of the port of Charleston, South Carolina. This case dues not require further comment, in justification of a judgment condemning the vessel and cargo as lawful prize. Decree accordingly.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5737] 

*Summary:*                     Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Oudry's Painted Menagerie”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, California, from on or about May 1, 2007, until on or about September 9, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

*For Further Information Contact:*                     For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                 

      ( print page 15177)    
Dated: March 26, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E7-5899 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
July 31, 1939

No. 41877.

Suit 4204.

#### Ropa *Co.*v. *United States.*

Abstract 39340 affirmed.
#### Alfred Lawrence *et al.,*Appl’ts, *v.*Nicholas H. Freeland *et*al., Resp’ts.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

Villages—Water commissioners—Board are sole arbiters as to SOURCE 03? WATER SUPPLY.

The board of water commissioners elected pursuant to chap. 181, Laws 1875, and chap. 811, Laws 1885, are sole arbiters as to the source from, wh'ch to procure the water, and are not required to submit that question to the taxpayers.

*285Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint.

Action to enjoin defendants, who are the board of water commissioners of the village of Tarry town, from building the waterworks in certain lands near the village.

The former commissioners at first decided to locate the works on the Pocantico river, and submitted to the taxpayers the question whether they would bond the village for $100,000 for that purpose, but the scheme was defeated by an injunction obtained by the Pocantico Water Works Co. These defendants were afterwards elected and determined upon the location in question.

Plaintiffs claim that the location is undesirable, and that the defendants are acting in violation of law, in not having ascertained the probable cost and submitted to the taxpayers the question of appropriating the taxes for that purpose.

*M T. Lovatt,*for app’lts; *James S. Millard*and *Henry G.*Griffin, for resp’ts.

Barnard, P. J.

The defendants in this case are sued because their conduct as water commissioners did not suit the plaintiffs in their selection of a source of supply from which to get water for the village of Tarrytown. The authority to do the work complained of is found in chap. 181 of the Laws of 1875, and chap. 211 of the Laws of 1885, amending the first act. The acts named confer upon the said water commissioners the power to procure, by purchase or condemnation, a source of supply, and they are not required, by either of said' acts, to submit to the taxpayers the question as to from what source they should procure the water. The board are the sole arbiters of this question, and they decided to purchase the Brown & Storms or East View property, so-called, and have purchased the same and established the water works. The water commissioners acted entirely within the law, and that their judgment does not suit the plaintiffs does not make the conduct illegal.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs.
1

 District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

 

2Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 95-10945

___________________________

RUSSELL THOMAS JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

 DAVID WILLIAMS, ET AL.,

Defendant-Appellant,

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:93-CV-632-Y)

____________________________________________________

July 15, 1996

Before DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and FALLON, District Judge.1

PER CURIAM:2

Defendants, David Williams, J.A. Smedley, and Hank Pope appeal the district

court’s order dismissing their motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for

lack of appellate jurisdiction.

This court can exercise jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals only where the order

appealed from (1) “conclusively determine[s] the disputed question” and (2) “involve[s] a

claim of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action.” Mitchell v.

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 527 (1985). The district court in this case dismissed defendants’
2

motion for summary judgment as moot on the ground that defendants have not yet filed an

answer and, therefore, have not yet pled the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. 

The district court’s order does not determine whether the defendants in this § 1983 action

are entitled to qualified immunity and does not have the practical effect of requiring

defendants to proceed to trial or allowing broad-reaching discovery on the merits of the

plaintiff’s claim. It merely requires defendants to file an answer in which they plead the

affirmative defense of qualified immunity before they move for summary judgment on that

ground again. Because the district court’s order does not conclusively adjudicate any of

the defendants’ rights under qualified immunity, we have no jurisdiction to hear this

interlocutory appeal. The appeal is

 DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 10.2



LEASE ADDENDUM:

168 SOUTH PARK, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107

RENT:

The monthly rent for this property beginning March 1, 2001 to the end of term of
contract of May 31, 2002 will be $6,000 per month.

DEPOSIT:

The deposit for this property was increased to $6,000 from $4,200.

LATE FEES:

The late fees for this lease will be increased to $300.



/s/ Patrick Rylee                           /s/ Michael J. Kirsch
---------------------------                 -----------------------------
Patrick Rylee                               Michael J. Kirsch
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




Exhibit 10(a)  


April 19, 2001 


Board
of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company

2801 Highway 201 South

Birmingham, Alabama 35223 


Directors:



    We
hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal Matters" in the statement of additional information filed as part of post-effective amendment number 2
to the registration statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-94047) filed by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933. 













Sincerely,

SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP

By: /s/ DAVID S. GOLDSTEIN  








David S. Goldstein