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

                                                                    Exhibit 10.5


                           Wire One Technologies, Inc.
                                 225 Long Avenue
                           Hillside, New Jersey 07205

                                                          As of January 1, 2003

Mr. Christopher Zigmont
c/o Wire One Technologies, Inc.
27 Roulston Road
Windham, NH 03087

Dear Chris:

         This letter, when accepted by you, shall constitute an amendment to the
employment agreement (the "Agreement"), dated January 2, 2001, as amended to
date, between Wire One Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") and you. The Company
and you hereby agree as follows:

         1. The Company has requested that, to contribute to an improvement in
the Company's financial condition and for no other reason, you agree, as an
amendment to paragraph 2(a) of the Agreement, to reduce your base salary
compensation thereunder so as to be payable at the rate of $190,000 per annum
during the period commencing as of the date hereof through December 31, 2003. In
consideration of the agreement by several other of the Company's executives to
salary reductions similar in nature, you hereby agree to the salary reduction
set forth in the preceding sentence.

         2. Except as modified hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and
effect.


                                       Yours very truly,

                                       WIRE ONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                       By: /s/
                                           ------------------------------------

ACCEPTED:

/s/
--------------------------
Christopher Zigmont
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CUSTODIAN
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anza Innovations, Inc. , a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Mark Zouvas , sole remaing officer director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), 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.
 
 Dated: September 11, 2003
 
 
 /s/Mark Zouvas
 Mark Zouvas
 sole remaing officer director
Di ‘Camping

Zuni Mountains _

= = — =o ra
| ZuOz be NYT 8 _ooKeW MEN
| _- _[ ssomro mo aeinen

104 [PUOREN e102)
youlsig Jebuexy
JojKey, yuNoWy
dew esp
@1D1YAA JO}OW

VICINITY MAP

‘prowierrious
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00069-CV

CARLOS ARMENTA, Appellant

V.

TDCJ, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08-C-1870-202

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carlos Armenta filed a notice of appeal from what he described in his notice as a 

summary judgment signed May 23, 2013. The district clerk informed him that the clerk’s record 

would be prepared and filed when arrangements were made for payment, as appellant is not 

indigent. The record was due July 22, 2013. On August 26, we sent a letter to Armenta warning 

him that, if he did not, within ten days, provide this Court with a response showing that he was 

pursuing the appeal and making an effort to obtain the record, his appeal would be subject to 

dismissal for want of prosecution.1

 We received a reply from Armenta September 5. He did not 

indicate that he was making any effort to obtain or file the record. Based on his comments, we 

conclude that he has decided not to pursue the appeal.

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 12, 2013

Date Decided: September 13, 2013

 1

See TEX. R. APP. P 42.3(b), (c).
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

### **INSWEB CORPORATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of InsWeb Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,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) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

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

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to InsWeb Corporation, and will be retained by InsWeb Corporation andfurnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| **/s/ HUSSEIN A. ENAN**               | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------|------------|
| Hussein  A. Enan                      |       |
| Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |       |
| Dated:  May 12, 2008             |       |
|                                  |       |
|                                  |       |
| **/s/ KIRAN RASARETNAM**              | ** ** |
| Kiran  Rasaretnam                     |       |
| Chief  Financial Officer              |       |
| Dated  : May 12, 2008            |       |

 

----
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 Key Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David M. Camp,
Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/  David M.
Camp


David M.
Camp


President
and Chief Executive Officer


December
11, 2009
Squire Sanders (US) LLP

1200 19th Street, NW

Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20036

O +1 202 626 6600

F +1 202 626 6780

squiresanders.com

Edward W. Sauer

T +1 202 626 6641

edward.sauer@squiresanders.com

37 Offices in 18 Countries

Squire Sanders (US) LLP is part of the international legal practice Squire Sanders which operates worldwide through a number of separate legal

entities.

Please visit squiresanders.com for more information.

May 30, 2012

Ms. Angelia Ames

Docket Operations

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Docket OST-2012-0082

Application of Miami Air International for an Emergency Exemption

Dear Ms. Ames:

I am writing to you as counsel to Alaska Airlines, Inc. (“Alaska”) in response to the application of

Miami Air International cited above. Under most circumstances Alaska would object to an application

for an exemption from the prohibition in Part 212.3 (l) regarding intra-Alaska passenger charters.

However, since the requested exemption is to provide highly specialized passenger lift for Shell's

important Beaufort Sea oil exploration program, one which Alaska strongly supports, Alaska does not

object subject to two conditions which comport with Miami Air's described operation:

(i) The exemption should be granted for a period of not more than 179 days duration; and

(ii) Miami Air International's charter operation should be limited to contracting with Shell

Offshore, Inc. and/or Northern Aviation Services, Inc. for the operations described in the

application.

Sincerely yours,

Edward W. Sauer

Cc: jamestello@earthlink.net (Miami Air International)

recohn@hhlaw.com (Peninsula Airways)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard J. Westin, Chief Executive Officer of Agemark Corporation (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

         (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which
         this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully
         complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

Dated: February 13, 2003                     /s/  RICHARD J. WESTIN
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Richard J. Westin
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                      -17-
You are here: EPA Home Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention & Toxics Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) IUR Data 

# Non-confidential 2006 IUR Reco rds by Chemic al, including Manufacturing, Processi ng and Use Information Search Results CAS: 3194-55-6 Chemical Name: Cyclododecane, 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromoAggregated National Production Volume: 10 to < 50 million lbs National Chemical Information * Production Volume (aggregated): 10 to < 50 million lbs Maximum Concentration (at Manufacture or Import site): Greater than 90% Physical Form(s): Dry Powder, Pellets or Large Crystals Number of Manufacturing, Processing, and Use Sites (aggregated)**: 100 to 999 Number of Reasonably Likely to be Exposed Industrial Manufacturing, Processing an d Use Workers (aggregated)**: 1000 or greater Was Industrial Processing or Use Information Reported? Yes Was Commercial or Consumer Use Information Reported? Yes Type of Processing Industrial Sector (Based on NAICS) Industrial Function CBI CBI CBI Processing--incorporation into article Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing Flame retardants Processing--incorporation into article Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing Other Processing--incorporation into article Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills Flame retardants Processing--incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing Flame retardants
Commercial/Consumer Product Category Maximum Concentration in Related Consumer/Commercial Product Category Intended for Use in Children’s Products in Related Product Category Fabrics, textiles and apparel 1% - 30% No Rubber and plastic products Less than 1% No Rubber and plastic products 1% - 30% No CBI CBI CBI

* CBI - Confidential Business Information N/A - Not Applicable NRO - Not Readily Obtainable

** NOTE: Data may be greatly underestimated. Please see Ov erview of 2006 TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (PDF) (3 pp, 51K, About PDF ) for more detail.

Begin a New Search 

## Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Version 6.0. Last updated on May 12, 2010 http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/2006_iur_natlcheminfo.cfm?id=4486 

# Pa g e 1 of 1 IUR Data | Inventor yUpdate Reportin g(IUR) | US EPA

6/1/2011 htt p ://cf p ub.ep a. g ov/iursearch/2006

_iur

_

natlcheminfo.cfm?id=4486
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J AK E HE ND E R S ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. D E R R A L G . A D A M S , e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 56302 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 6 -cv -0 1 5 5 4 -JM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e f f r e yT . M i l l e r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jake H enders on appeal s f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdenyi ng hi s F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 59 m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on c ha l l e ngi ng the di s m i s s a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2253, and w e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED OC T 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 56302 2 H e n d e r s o n c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g h is m ot i on, w hi c h w e c ons true a s am ot i on f orr e l i e f f r om f i na l j udgm e ntba s e d on F e d e r a l R u le o f

C iv il P r o c e du r e 6 0 ( b ) . See Straw v. B ow en , 866 F . 2d 1167, 1171- 72 (9th C i r. 19 89 ). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tdeni ed H e nde r s on’ s m ot i on be c aus e hi s a l m os ttw o- y e arde l aybe f or e f i l i ng the m ot i on w a s n o t r e a s o n ab le . See F ed . R . C i v . P . 6 0 (c) (“A m o t i o n u n d er R u l e 6 0 (b ) m u st be m ade w i thi n a re as on abl e t i m e . . . . ”) ; In re H am m er , 9 4 0 F .2 d5 2 4 , 5 2 6 ( 9 th C i r. 19 91 ) ( ho l di ng thati tw as no tan abuse of di sc re t i on t o fi nd an un excuse d tw o - y e ard e layu n r e a s o n ab le ) . A FFI R M ED .
#### Frank MARKO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-874.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 10, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; E. Summers Sheffey, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

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

| September                18, 2006 |   | /s/                Zhenggang Wang            |
|-----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                              |   | Zhenggang                Wang                |
|                              |   | Chairman                of the Board &   |
|                              |   | Chief                Executive Officer       |
|                              |   | (Principal                Executive Officer) |
|                              |   |                                         |
|                              |   | /s/                Jian                Liu   |
|                              |   | Jian                Liu                      |
|                              |   | Chief                Financial Officer       |
|                              |   | (Principal                Financial Officer) |

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Larry Joe PHILLIPS.

No. 60498.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 6, 1977.

In re: Larry Joe Phillips applying for remedial writs.

Writ denied. Petitioner has an adequate remedy by appeal. His complaint regarding the refusal to set bail was considered and disposed of upon a previous application in No. 60,455.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PATRICK LAMONT SIMS, )

Petitioner, )

v. ) C.A. No. 04-381 Erie

)

JAMES F. SHERMAN, )

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was received by the Clerk of Court on

December 30, 2004, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and

Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 8], filed on 

February 23, 2006, recommended that the instant petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file

objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail at FCI McKean, where he is

incarcerated, and on Respondent. Petitioner was subsequently granted an extension until April 6,

2006, to file objections [Doc. No. 11]. No Objections have been filed. After de novo review of the

petition and documents in the case, together with the report and recommendation, the following

order is entered:

AND NOW, this 10th Day of April, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DISMISSED, for lack of jurisdiction 

The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter [Doc. No. 8], dated

February 23, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the court.

 

SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Susan Paradise Baxter

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

 all parties of record.nk

Case 1:04-cv-00381-SJM-SPB Document 12 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 1
FPL’s proposed schedule with NMFS’ comments

8/31/12 FPL provides EPA the BA for submittal to NMFS for review

9/14/12 Meeting with EPA, NMFS, and FPL to discuss the BA

10/1/12 NMFS sends EPA a Request for Additional Information (RAI)

10/8/12 Meeting with EPA, NMFS, and FPL to discuss the RAI 

10/29/12 FPL provides EPA the RAI Response for submittal to NMFS for review

11/12/12 Meeting with EPA, NMFS, and FPL to discuss the RAI Response

11/22/12 NMFS determines the BA is “complete”; if necessary EPA enters formal 

consultation; statutory clocks start for NMFS and EPA

4/10/13 Statutory timeline date for NMFS to issue a Biological Opinion (if necessary)

5/1/13 Potential target date for EPA to issue the final GHG permit to FPL

11/21/13 Statutory deadline date for EPA to issue the GHG permit for PEEC (assumes 

BA “complete” 11/22/12)

NMFS’ Suggested Schedule

8/31/12 FPL provides EPA the BA for submittal to NMFS for review

10/1/12 NMFS sends EPA a Request for Additional Information (RAI)

10/8/12 Meeting with EPA, NMFS, and FPL to discuss the RAI 

10/29/12 FPL provides EPA the RAI Response for submittal to NMFS for review

11/5/12 EPA submits RAI Response to NMFS

11/19/12 NMFS completes review of RAI Response

11/120/12 Meeting with EPA, NMFS, and FPL to discuss the RAI Response

11/272/12 NMFS determines the BA is “complete”; if necessary EPA enters formal 

consultation; statutory clocks start for NMFS and EPA

4/110/13 Statutory timeline date for NMFS to issue a Biological Opinion (if necessary)

5/1/13 Potential target date for EPA to issue the final GHG permit to FPL

Comment [KB1]: Suggest one month for NMFS 

to review the BA and submit an RAI, if necessary. I 

would suggest deleting the meeting on 9/14. Please 

see revised schedule below.

Comment [KB2]: When is the response 

submitted to NMFS for review?

Comment [KB3]: This meeting may not be 

necessary. Once we receive the response, we will 

need at least 2 weeks to review it. Then, we can 

have a meeting to discuss. Please see revised 

schedule below.
11/21/13 Statutory deadline date for EPA to issue the GHG permit for PEEC (assumes 

BA “complete” 11/22/12)
Rob McKenna 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 

Ecology Division 

PO Box· 40117 • Olympia WA 98504-0117 • (360) 586-6770 

M·EMORANDUM 

DATE: 

TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

May 19,2008 

Mary Shaleen-Harisen 

Ecology HQ Water Quality Program 

Sonia Wolfman, Assistimt Attorney Gener~ Ecology Division, MS 40117 

Attorney General's Statement of Authority for Revised Underground 

Injection Control (VIC) Regulations 

In accordance wi~ Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300(h) et 

seq., as amended, and 40 C.ER. § 145.32(b)(1), under the laws of Washington State, the 

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has the authority to implement and enforce 

its UIC program, including amendments made to Ecology's rules in resp.onse to EPA's 1999 

revisions to the federal UIC program. · 

In addition, the state of Washington has not enacted any environmental audit privilege and/or 

immunity laws. 

The authorities cited below are contained in promulgated regulations that have been in full force 

and effect since February 3, 2006. They include revisions to Washington's existing approved 

UIC program which were made so that Washington's program would remam cons1stent with the 

new minimum federal requirements for state UIC programs. 1 These regulations are authorized 

by chapters 43.21A and 90.58 RCW. RCW 43.21A.445 authorizes Ecology "to administer all 

programs of Part C of the federal Safe Water Drinking Act." Chapter 90.48 RCW contains 

numerous references to Ecology's authority to ena.ct and enforce regulations to protect 

groundwater, including but not limited to RCW 90.48.030, .035, :037, and .080. 

1 The seope of this statement is limited to the 2006 revisions to Washington's UIC rules. For information 

regarding Ecology's authority to implement the UIC program as initially authorized, please see the Attorney 

General's statement dated February 28, 1984. 

CONFIDENTlAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVH.,EGED CO.MMUNICA TION 

DO NOT DISCLOSE 
Mary Shaleen-Hansen 

May 19,2008 

Page2 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 

WAC 173-218-010 Purpose. 

WAC 173-218-020 Policy enunciated. 

WAC 173-218-030 Definitions. 

WAC 173-218-040 UIC well classification including allowed and prohibited wells. 

WAC 173-218-050 Exemptions from UIC well status. 

WAC 173-218-060 Requirements to operatea UIC well. 

WAC 173"'218-070 Rule authorization and registration. 

WAC 173-218-080 The nonendangerment standard for UIC wells. · 

WAC 173-218-090 Specific requirements for Class V wells to meet the nonendangerment 

standard. 

WAC 173-218~ 100 UIC wells that automatically meet the nonendangerment standard. 

WAC 173-218-110 Permit terms and conditions if a UIC well is not rule authorized. 

WAC 173-218-120 Decommissioning a UIC well. 

WAC 173-218-130 Enforcement. 

SAW:ndh