alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.6

INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT  Officer of Carreker Corporation

This Indemnification Agreement (this "Agreement") dated as
of                        , is between Carreker Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and the undersigned officer of the Company (the "Indemnitee"), with reference to the following facts:

The
Indemnitee is currently serving as an officer of the Company and the Company desires that the Indemnitee continue in such capacity. The Indemnitee is willing, under certain
circumstances, to continue serving as an officer of the Company.

Section 145
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, under which law the Company is organized, empowers a corporation to indemnify a person serving as a director,
officer, employee or agent of the corporation and a person who serves at the request of the corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture,
trust or other enterprise, and such Section 145 and the bylaws of the Company specify that the indemnification set forth in said Section 145 and in the bylaws, respectively, shall not be
deemed exclusive of any other rights to which those seeking indemnification may be entitled under any bylaw, agreement, vote of stockholders or disinterested directors or otherwise.

In
order to induce the Indemnitee to serve as an officer of the Company, the Company hereby agrees to indemnify the Indemnitee as follows:



---



INDEMINIFICATION
AGREEMENT                                        
                                          
                  Page:  2

---



INDEMINIFICATION
AGREEMENT                                        
                                          
                  Page:  3

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed and signed as of the day and year first above written.

| | CARREKER CORPORATION, INC.
| | --------------------------
| | By:                       
| |                           
| | Printed Name:             
| |                           
| | Title:                    
| |                           
| | INDEMNITEE                
| | By:                       
| |                           
| | Printed Name:             
| |                           
| | Title:                    
| |                           

INDEMINIFICATION
AGREEMENT                                        
                                          
                  Page:  4

---

QuickLinks
No. 47778.

#### Protests 940901-G, etc., of Olivier Straw Goods Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance wdth stipulation of counsel that the hats in question are the same as those involved in Abstract 47291 the protests were sustained.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                    ----------------------------------------


In connection with the Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-KSB of Non-Invasive Monitoring
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended July 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Allan F. Brack, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 and 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, as amended; and

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

Dated:  October 29, 2002
                                 /s/ Allan F. Brack
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 Allan F. Brack, Chief Executive Officer
Amendment to the Employment Agreement between the Company and Mr. Junkroski



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is made by and between Neutral Tandem, Inc. (the “Company”) and Robert M. Junkroski (the “Executive”). This Amendment is made as of
January 21, 2008. 
 BACKGROUND 
 1. The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated May 9, 2006 (the “Agreement”). 
 2. The
parties wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the following change. 
 THE AGREEMENT 
 The parties agree as follows: 
 1.
Definitions. All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment have the same meanings given to those terms in the Agreement. 
 2.
Amendment and Restatement of Section 2.1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 Effective as of January 1, 2008, the Executive shall receive for all services rendered under this Agreement an annualized base salary of $252,000, subject to federal and state withholding requirements, payable in accordance with the
Company’s usual payroll practices. Such salary shall be adjusted no less than annually at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board, but in no event will the base salary be reduced. 
 3. Section References. Section titles used in this Amendment have no substantive meaning and are not a part of the parties’ agreement.

 4. Successors and Assigns. This Amendment is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of the
parties. 
 5. Entire Agreement. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is and will remain in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms and constitutes the legal and binding obligations of the Company and Executive. This Amendment, including the Agreement, is the complete agreement of the parties and supersedes any prior agreements or
representations, whether oral or written, with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment. 
 The Company and Executive have executed this Amendment as
of the date first set forth above. 
  

									
	 Neutral Tandem, Inc.
	 		 	Robert M. Junkroski
					
	 By:
	 	  
	 		 	By:	 	  

	 Name:
	 	  
	 		 		 	
	 Title:
#### Glenn Edward BEALL v. Sandra Faye BEALL.

No. 49214.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 2, 1977.

Downey & Jennings, John H. Downey, Jackson, for appellant.

Harry L. Kelley, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hinds County; Betty B. Tucker, Chancellor.

Before INZER, P. J., and SUGG and LEE, JJ.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GILLESPIE, C. J., PATTERSON, P. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.
# C_2014395EN.01002001.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning

(Case C-452/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 2, 5 and 7 - Right to compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight - Length of delay - Concept of ‘arrival time’))

(2014/C 395/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Germanwings GmbH

Respondent: Ronny Henning

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘arrival time’, which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, refers to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

---
1 Filed 9/25/14 P. v. Chavez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and pa rties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for pu blication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered publi shed for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sutter)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. MANUEL CHAVEZ, JR., Defendant and Appellant. C068666
(Super. Ct. Nos. CRF102980, CRM110632)

A jury convicted defendant Manuel Chav ez, Jr., of two counts of second degree burglary and one count of vand alism and found true an alle gation that he had served a prior prison term. On July 1, 2011, defenda nt was sentenced to state prison for four
years. On appeal, relying on In re Kapperman (1974) 11 Cal.3d 542, defendant contends that limiting the application of the “2011 Realignment Legislati on” addressing public safety (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1), which requires sentencing to local county jails for a class of lower-level felons, such as defendant he rein, to defendants sentenced on or after2 October 1, 2011, violated principles of equal protection. Therefore, defendant concludes,
he is entitled to be rese ntenced under the Realignm ent Act. We disagree. Following the filing of the briefs in this case, we filed our opinion in People v. Lynch (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 353, expressly rejecting defendant’s argument. ( Id. at pp. 356, 360-361.) For the reasons stated th erein, we reject defendant’s contention.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

MURRAY , J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

HULL , J.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20905]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission to OMB for Review; Comment Request

July 30, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-0314.
    Form Number: IRS Forms 6466 and 6467.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Transmittal of Forms W-4 Reported Magnetically/
Electronically (Form 6466); and Transmittal of Forms W-4 Reported 
Magnetically/Electronically (Continuation) (Form 6467).
    Description: Under Regulation Section 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g), employers 
are required to submit certain withholding certificates (Form W-4) to 
the IRS. Transmittal Form 6466 and the continuation sheet, Form 6467, 
are submitted by an employer, or authorized agent of the employer, who 
will be reporting submissions of Form W-4 on magnetic/electronic media.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit 
institutions, Farms, Federal Government, State, Local or Tribal 
Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 20 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Quarterly.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 133 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Iternal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-20905 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002,  each  of  the  undersigned   officers  of  Hugo
International Telecom, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies that:

     1.   The  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB of the  Company  for the three
          months ended March 31, 2005 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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




By:           /S/ Kevin Kreisler
              ------------------------
                  Kevin Kreisler
                  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Date:             January 24, 2006


This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
No. 46531.

#### Protests 767651-G, etc., of Albers Bros. Milling Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

. Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 47738.

#### Protest 948927-G of Wing Duck & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is in all material respects the same as that the subject of *Wing Duck*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 133, C. D. 446). The claim that certain of the merchandise is not subject to the internal revenue tax was sustained.
John Morton Shannon P.Geo.


AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Limited,


Suite 1330, 200 Granville Street,


Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 1S4,










To the Board of Directors of Rubicon Minerals Corporation










I, John Morton Shannon, hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 of the technical report entitled “F2 Gold System - Phoenix Gold Project Bateman Township Red Lake, Canada Technical Report” dated effective August 8th 2011 (the “Technical Report”) and to extracts from, or a summary of, the Technical Report in the written disclosure contained in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2011 (the “AIF”), dated March 27, 2011.






Dated as of this 27th day of March 2012










Original Signed by






“John Morton Shannon”






John Morton Shannon P.Geo.


Principal Geologist and Group Manager Geology


AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Limited
No. 99-7843.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 99-7852.

#### Torres et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20706]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-167-007]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

July 31, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 28, 1997, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff revised sheet 
proposed to be effective June 1, 1997:

Second Revised Sheet No. 614

    On July 16, 1997, the Commission issued an Order regarding 
Columbia's compliance filing to implement the Gas Industry Standards 
Board's standards adopted by the Commission in Order No. 587. In the 
Order the Commission rejected the indemnification provision proposed in 
Columbia's Trading Partner Agreement, and directed Columbia to modify 
its tariff to reflect the same liability standards applicable to both 
EDM operations and Columbia's other equipment and operations.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20706 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-50863

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Esmeralda Vidales, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-818-1

Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Esmeralda Vidales has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Vidales has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 10, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50863 Document: 00515854440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2021
No. 19-50863

2

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 19-50863 Document: 00515854440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2021
# Exhibit 99.3

I, Douglas P. Wieten, the Vice President,  Finance;  Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of Bioanalytical  Systems, Inc., certify that (i) the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002, (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  Bioanalytical  Systems,  Inc. as of the dates and for the periods
set forth therein.

| | /s/ Douglas P. Wieten
Vice President, Finance;
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
January 28, 2003
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2013164EN.01001001.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v Xceed Holding Ltd.

(Case C-121/13)

2013/C 164/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft

Applicants:

Defendant: Xceed Holding Ltd.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

1

mutatis mutandis

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
  What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

mutatis mutandis

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
              ---------------------------------------------------
                                        



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Planar Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-82696, 33-82688, 33-90258 and 333-45191) on Form S-8 of Planar Systems, Inc.
and subsidiaries of our report dated November 2, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Planar Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
September 25, 1998 and September 26, 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended September 25, 1998, which report appears in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Planar Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries for the
year ended September 25, 1998.


/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Portland, Oregon
December 18, 1998
No. 43305.

#### Protest 187640-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Normandy lace similar to that involved in *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40) was held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
#### Inter-Ocean Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6942.

Entry No. 771574.

Invoice dated London, England, June 6, 1946.

Certified June 7, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 26, 1946.

(Decided March 3, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted! for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.