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

                                LEHMAN BROTHERS


                                                              February 14, 2003



Westport Energy LLC
c/o Westport Investments Limited
Lyford Manor
Lyford Cay
P.O. Box N-7776 Nassau, Bahamas

Dear Sirs:

     Pursuant to the underwriting agreement (the "Underwriting Agreement") dated
December 10, 2002 among Westport Resources Corporation (the "Company") and the
underwriters listed therein, for the limited purpose described in the second
paragraph of this letter, Lehman Brothers Inc. hereby releases you from your
lock-up letter agreement delivered pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement.

     The foregoing release is effective solely with respect to the transfer of
up to 11,000,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock (the "Shares"). Your
agreement pursuant to the aforesaid letter agreement shall, except as aforesaid,
remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

                                LEHMAN BROTHERS INC.


                                By:  /s/ Emma Bailey
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Emma Bailey
                                     Title: Vice President
#### Glenn P. SPENCER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 50583.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1977.

Theodore E. Mack, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

*866Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. Certiorari was granted, without argument, based on apparent decisional conflict. Upon further consideration of the matter and review of the record, we have determined that the cited decision presents no direct conflict as required by Article ■ V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, Acting C. J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ„ concur.
No. 9528.

#### The Cleveland, Terminal & Valley Railroad Co. *v.*Carran.

(Decided November 27, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Summit County.

*Messrs. Allen, Waters & Andress,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Stuart & Stuart,*for defendant in error.

*599Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida; John Wulff, Thomas M. Wohl, David R. Keating, Albert Montella and Robert Anderson, as and constituting the members of the City Commission of the City of Hollywood; and Richard J. Sharp, George Conti, Pat Vinci, Donald E. Stonebraker, Jr., Fred Hunter, Guy Cato, Maxine Tanis, Dr. Howard Fuerst and Opal Mills, as and constituting the members of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Hollywood, Appellants, v. The HOLLYWOOD BEACH HOTEL COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; Ben Tobin; and The Hollywood Beach Hotel Development Co., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-229.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 21, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# L_2005285EN.01004301.xml

| 28.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 285/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 285/43

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1773/2005

of 27 October 2005

fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005 of 2 September 2005 on a special intervention measure for oats in Finland and Sweden for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland or Sweden to all third countries with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.

| (2) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 21 to 27 October 2005, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005, the maximum refund on exportation of oats shall be 24,98 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 October 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 October 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 228, 3.9.2005, p. 5.

3

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2947-2948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oregon 
State University of Corvallis, Oregon, an exclusive license to the 
variety of blackberry described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial 
No. 12/660,189, ``Blackberry Plant Named `Onyx','' filed on February 
22, 2010 and to the variety of red raspberry described in U.S. Plant 
Patent Application Serial No. 13/199,578, ``Red Raspberry Plant Named 
`Vintage','' filed on September 2, 2011.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
(301) 504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's rights in these 
plant varieties are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive 
license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and 
conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive 
license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of 
this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives 
written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the 
license would not be consistent with the

[[Page 2948]]

requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-1102 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1 – CEO
Certification








ROYAL INVEST
INTERNATIONAL CORP.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Royal Invest
International Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry Gruenbaum, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 as of and for
the period covered by the Report.








By: /s/ Jerry
Gruenbaum


Jerry
Gruenbaum, CEO





June 15,
2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 ("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 required by Section 906, has been
provided to Royal Invest International Corp., and will be retained by Royal
Invest International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
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



In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Varian Semiconductor Associates, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended July 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Executive Vice President, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                                   
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2005 |  | /s/    ROBERT J.
HALLIDAY                                                         
|                      |  | Robert J. Halliday Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Date,"LT Real Average (10> Yrs)"
03/06/2024,2.00
03/05/2024,2.00
03/04/2024,2.08
03/01/2024,2.07
02/29/2024,2.12
02/28/2024,2.15
02/27/2024,2.19
02/26/2024,2.16
02/23/2024,2.14
02/22/2024,2.21
02/21/2024,2.20
02/20/2024,2.19
02/16/2024,2.18
02/15/2024,2.18
02/14/2024,2.20
02/13/2024,2.22
02/12/2024,2.16
02/09/2024,2.15
02/08/2024,2.14
02/07/2024,2.10
02/06/2024,2.08
02/05/2024,2.12
02/02/2024,2.04
02/01/2024,1.93
01/31/2024,2.02
01/30/2024,2.07
01/29/2024,2.07
01/26/2024,2.13
01/25/2024,2.14
01/24/2024,2.15
01/23/2024,2.12
01/22/2024,2.07
01/19/2024,2.07
01/18/2024,2.09
01/17/2024,2.07
01/16/2024,2.07
01/12/2024,2.00
01/11/2024,2.03
01/10/2024,2.07
01/09/2024,2.05
01/08/2024,2.03
01/05/2024,2.08
01/04/2024,2.02
01/03/2024,1.95
01/02/2024,1.98
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 56151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28669]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-337-803]


Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Determination: 
Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 29, 1979.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Frederick or Kris Campbell, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement II, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0186, 
or (202) 482-3813, respectively.

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is postponing the 
preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of 
fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile. The deadline for issuing the 
preliminary determination in this investigation is now no later than 
January 8, 1998.
    On July 2, 1997, the Department initiated an antidumping 
investigation of fresh Atlantic salmon from Chile. The notice stated we 
would issue our preliminary determination on November 19, 1997.
    On October 17, 1997, pursuant to section 733(c) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended, the Coalition for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade and 
certain individual members thereof, the petitioners, requested that the 
Department postpone until January 8, 1998, the issuance of the 
preliminary determination in this investigation. The petitioners' 
request for postponement was timely, and the Department finds no 
compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, we are postponing the 
deadline for issuing this determination until no later than January 8, 
1998.
    This extension is in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 353.15(d).

    Dated: October 23, 1997.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-28669 Filed 10-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
EXHIBIT 21.1



List of Subsidiaries



The following table sets forth certain information concerning the principal subsidiaries of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated:



|                                        |  |                                            
|--------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Name                                    |  | State or OtherJurisdiction of Incorporation
|Sunrise Telecom Broadband, Inc.         |  | Georgia, U.S.A.                            
|Sunrise Telecom Pro.Tel Division S.r.l. |  | Italy                                      
|Sunrise Telecom Broadband Corp.         |  | Nova Scotia, Canada                        
|Taiwan Sunrise Telecom Company Limited  |  | Taiwan                                     



The names of certain
subsidiaries have been omitted because such unnamed subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate, would not constitute a significant subsidiary as that term is defined in Regulation S-X.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40196

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALEXANDER CHRISTOPHER EDMO,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 815

Filed: December 31, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with three years 

determinate, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Alexander Christopher Edmo pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance 

(methamphetamine). Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Edmo to a 

unified term of six years, with three years determinate. Thereafter, Edmo filed an Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Edmo 

now appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive 

sentence and declining to retain jurisdiction.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 
2

1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). 

The decision whether to retain jurisdiction is also a matter within the sound discretion of 

the district court. State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). 

The primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court to obtain 

additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative potential and 

is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2005). 

There can be no abuse of discretion if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to 

conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. Id. 

Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that 

the district court abused its discretion either in sentencing or in declining to retain jurisdiction. 

Therefore, Edmo’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Alan SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1229.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 25, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
        connection with the quarterly report of SES Solar Inc. (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
        “Report”), I, Jean-Christophe Hadorn, 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.
  Date:
                  May 15, 2008
              By:
              /s/
                  JEAN-CHRISTOPHE HADORNJean-Christophe
                  Hadorn
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
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



In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Varian Semiconductor Associates, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended April 1, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Dated: May 11, 2005 |  |  |  | /S/    ROBERT J.
HALLIDAY                                      
|                    |  |  |  | Robert J. Halliday                                             
|                    |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
No. 00-674.

#### Jones *v.*Bayer Corp.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a California corporation, Petitioner, v. Melba I. CORY, as Surviving Widow of Fay C. Cory, Deceased, Respondent. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a California corporation, Petitioner, v. Melba I. CORY, as Executrix of the Estate of Fay C. Cory, Deceased, Respondent.

Nos. 44119, 44120.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 31, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 279 So.2d 104.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Donald M. TANNER v. STATE.

No. 38039.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 217 So.2d 920.