alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                         MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                            CERTIFICATION PERSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C Section 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, (the "Form 10-Q") of Mackinac
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Eliot R. Stark, Executive Vice President of the Issuer, certify that:

     (1)  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Issuer.


Eliot R. Stark
-------------------------------------
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
May 12, 2006


                                                                             37.
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 07, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A1972. ALDO CASTILLO-GARCIA v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On May 23, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a 

brief no later than June 03, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 07, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
**Exhibit 10.19**

 

 

April 11, 2003

 

Lee McGrath

CFO

Versant Corporation

6539 Dumbarton Circle

Fremont, CA 94555

 

Re: Amendment to the Loan and Security Agreement ("Agreement")dated April 18, 2002

 

 

Dear Lee,

 

Per our discussions, this letter will confirmthat Pacific Business Funding ("Bank") a division of CupertinoNational Bank will extend the maturity date of it's Loan and Security Agreementto Versant Corporation from April 18, 2003 to July 18, 2003.

 

Borrower will pay Lender a fee of $6,250 forthis extension.

 

All other terms and conditions granted toeach party in the Loan and Security Agreement ("Agreement"), exceptedas specifically noted above, shall remain the same.

 

Please call with any questions or sign belowacknowledging the above.

 

Best regards,

 
| /s/ Mike Hansen          |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Senior Vice President    |   |
| Pacific Business Funding |   |

 

 

Agreed to:

 
| By:   | /s/ Lee McGrath         |   |
|-------|-------------------------|--------|
| It's: | Chief Financial Officer |   |
| Date  | April 11, 2003          |   |

 

----
#### Robert M. LEVINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-833.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Vaughn J. Rudnick, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
1

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen

In the Matter of Uber, Inc.

Matter No. 1523082

January 19, 2017

I dissent from the complaint against Uber and the settlement resolving that complaint

because the monetary settlement of $20 million is not tied to an estimate of consumer harm. 

Consumer protection enforcers ought to ask and answer two basic questions: How, and 

by how much, were consumers harmed by the alleged violations? Answering these questions 

helps ensure consumer protection enforcement is calibrated to the consumer injury and therefore 

protects consumers without deterring beneficial commercial activity. 

Instead, the settlement sought partial disgorgement of Uber’s profits, even though that

remedy is inappropriate for a non-fraudulent enterprise that significantly benefits consumers, 

including drivers.1

 The result: a settlement uncalibrated to the consumer injury that may deter 

beneficial commercial activity.

Using consumer harm as a measure, my best estimate is that the complaint’s alleged 

violations regarding median annual earnings claims,2 hourly earnings claims,3 and certain 

financing claims may have at most caused consumer injury that is a small fraction of today’s 

settlement. And Uber’s “best financing available” claims about its Vehicle Solutions Program 

likely benefited consumers and should not be part of the complaint.

While I understand that companies have many considerations when they reach a 

settlement, I feel it is my duty to oppose settlements detached from the consumer harm alleged. 

The $20 million settlement entered today far exceeds the best estimate of actual consumer harm

and I cannot support it. 

 1 In just the last quarter of 2014, drivers on the Uber platform earned more than $650 million. 

https://newsroom.uber.com/in-the-drivers-seat-understanding-the-uber-partner-experience/. In 2015, drivers earned 

more than $3.5 billion. https://newsroom.uber.com/driver-partner-survey/. And riders also have benefited from the 

platform.

2 The complaint suggests that the sole acceptable description of earnings potential is the median earnings of all 

participants. Complaint para. 22. Yet “median earnings” is one of many ways to summarize a range of possible 

earnings. Indeed, for opportunities where earnings vary based on the effort of the participant, a simple median could 

disguise the true range of possibilities. This could hinder consumers searching for opportunities that match their 

ambition and limit companies’ ability to recruit and retain participants. I support further inquiry into this earnings 

claim issue and the related issue of “up to” advertising claims.

3 The complaint’s estimate of hourly earnings unjustifiably excludes incentives and promotional payments. These 

dynamic pricing mechanisms help Uber manage supply and demand on the platform and are a significant part of 

driver earnings. Including these payments substantiates many of Uber’s allegedly unsubstantiated hourly earnings 

claims.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                            THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
                            1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN
                                      OF
                           SFBC INTERNATIONAL, INC.


I.   Section 4 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

     4.   Eligible Employees and Others.
          -----------------------------

          (a)  ISOs may be granted to any employee of the Company or any Related
     Corporation.  Those officers and directors of the Company who are not
     employees may not be granted ISOs under the Plan unless they are employees
     of the Company or any Related Corporation.  Subject to compliance with Rule
     16b-3 and other applicable securities laws, Non-Qualified Options may be
     granted to any director (whether or not an employee), officer, employee or
     consultant of the Company or any Related Corporation.  The Committee may
     take into consideration a recipient's individual circumstances in
     determining whether to grant an ISO or a Non-Qualified Option.  Granting of
     any Option to any individual or entity shall neither entitle that
     individual or entity to, nor disqualify him from participation in any other
     grant.

          (b)  All directors of the Company who are not employees of the Company
     or Related Corporations shall automatically receive grants of 30,000 Non-
     Qualified Options (i) upon election or appointment to the Board if not a
     member of the Board at the time this Plan is adopted by the Board; (ii)
     after all Options previously granted have vested.  In addition, existing
     non-employee directors as of January 11, 2001, shall receive an additional
     grant of 15,000 Non-Qualified Options in order to equalize treatment of
     non-employee directors.

               (1)  The exercise price of all Options shall be fair market value
          on the date of grant as defined by Section 7.

               (2)  The Options shall vest in six equal increments of 5,000
          Options per director on June 30 and December 31 of each year provided
          that the director is still serving as a director of the Company.
          Provided, however, that 7,500 Non-Qualified Options issued to existing
          -----------------
          non-employee directors as of January 11, 2001 shall immediately vest.
          To the extent that any Options which have not been exercised do not
          vest, the Options shall lapse.

          (c)  All Options shall be exercisable for a period of 10 years from
     the date of grant, except where a shorter period is required by the Code
     for certain ISOs or where the board or committee selects a shorter period
     at the time of any discretionary grant.
#### Thomas C. ERBACH et al., Appellants, v. Margaret M. MacDONALD, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 73-737.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
1 

### Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 8:28 AM

To: Pallante - HC, Amy; Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: NHPA Consultation - Colorado Historic Preservation Office

Amy,

Thank you for your response. The materials were also sent on September 30 by postal mail to the following address. It

would be very helpful if you could ensure that when it arrives at your agency that it gets to the correct person. Again,

thanks.

Stefanie Baltzell

Archaeology & Historic Preservation

State of Colorado Histori c Preservation Office

1200 Broadway

Denver, CO 80203

************************************

Shaheerah Kelly

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3)

U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Region 9

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Pallante

‐ HC, Amy [mailto:amy.pallante@state.co.us]

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:21 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: Fwd: NHPA Consultation

‐ Colorado Historic Preservation Office



### Hello,

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, our office is not able yet to receive Section 106

consultations by email. Please send a har d copy of the Section 106 submission to:

Edward Nichols

State Historic Preservation Officer

History Colorado

1200 Broadway

80203

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Thank you,

Amy2 

### Amy Pallante

Intergovernmental Services Director

Colorado State Historic Preservation Office

History Colorado Center

1200 Broadway

Denver, CO 80203

303-866-4678

amy.pallante@state.co.us
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1





              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Smith-Gardner and Associates, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 (Registration No. 333-71669) of Smith-Gardner and Associates, Inc. of
our report dated January 21, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Smith-Gardner and Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999
and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations, redeemable
preferred stock and stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999 and the related
financial statement schedule, which report appears in the Company's 1999 Annual
Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 29, 2000
**Sample 4**

**ABC FUNERAL HOMESTATEMENT OF FUNERAL GOODS AND SERVICES SELECTED**

Charges are only for those items that you selected or that are required. If we are required by law or by a cemetery or crematory to use any items, we will explain the reasons in writing below.

Deceased: ________________________________________________________________________

Purchaser: ________________________________________________________________________

Address: _________________________________________________________________________

Tel. No. ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________ 				               ___________________

Date of Death					 	Date of Arrangements

Basic Services of Funeral Director and Staff and Overhead	$__________

Embalming	$__________

If you selected a funeral that may require embalming, such as a funeral with viewing, you may have to pay for embalming. You do not have to pay for embalming you did not approve if you selected arrangements such as a direct cremation or immediate burial. If we charged for embalming, we will explain why below.

Other Preparation of the Body

1. Cosmetic Work for Viewing	$__________

2. Washing and Disinfecting Unembalmed Remains	$__________

Transfer of Remains to the Funeral Home	$__________

Use of Facilities and Staff For Viewing	$__________

Use of Facilities and Staff For Funeral Ceremony	$__________

Use of Facilities and Staff For Memorial Service	$__________

Use of Equipment and Staff For Graveside Service	$__________

Hearse	$__________

Limousine	$__________

Casket	$__________

Outer Burial Container	$__________

Forwarding of Remains to Another Funeral Home	$__________

Receiving Remains from Another Funeral Home	$__________

Direct Cremation	$__________

Immediate Burial 	$__________

CASH ADVANCE ITEMS

We charge you for our services in obtaining: [specify relevant cash advance items].

Cemetery charges 	$__________

Crematory charges	$__________

Flowers 	$__________

Obituary notice	$__________

Death certificate	$__________

Music	$__________

                                                                                                    Total Cash Advance Items	$__________

TOTAL COST OF ARRANGEMENTS(including all services, merchandise, and cash advance items)	$__________

If any legal, cemetery, or crematory requirement has required the purchase of any of the items listed above, we will explain the requirement below:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Reason for Embalming:

_________________________________________________________________________________
|   |      Jimmy      C.H. Cheung & Co     Certified      Public Accountants     (A      member of Kreston International) |   | Registered      with the Public CompanyAccounting      Oversight Board |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 1607      Dominion Centre, 43 Queen’s Road East, Wanchai, Hong KongTelephone:      (852) 25295500    Fax: (852) 28651067Email               : jchc@krestoninternational.com.hkWebsite    :      http://www.jimmycheungco.com |   |  Kreston      International with offices in Europe,America,      The Middle Eas, The Far East andAustralia |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
EXHIBIT 10.28 - FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT


                       FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT

     This First Amendment to Lease Agreement (the "First  Amendment") is made on
January 24, 2001,  between Toubin Realty II, LLC, having offices located at 4000
Route 9 South,  Morganville,  New Jersey  07751,  hereinafter  designated as the
Landlord;  and Geoworks  Corporation,  having a mailing  address of 960 Atlantic
Avenue, Alameda, California 94501, hereinafter designated as the Tenant.

     On or about  November  21,  2000,  Landlord  and  Tenant  executed  a Lease
Agreement whereby Tenant will lease approximately 20,000 billable square feet to
be  known  as  Building  B  behind  the  Grosso  Building  at 50  Route 9 North,
Morganville, New Jersey, as more particularly described in the Lease.

     Landlord and Tenant hereby amend their Lease  Agreement to reflect that the
Tenant's correct corporate name is "Geoworks Corporation",  not "Geoworks, Inc."
as set  forth  in the  Lease.  Except  to the  extent  modified  in  this  First
Amendment,  all other terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement remain in full
force and effect.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties hereto are executing this First Amendment
to Lease Agreement on the date first written above.

WITNESS:                                      Toubin Realty II, LLC, Landlord


//Shari Blinn//                               By: //Jerome Toubin//
------------------------------                    ------------------------------
                                                  Jerome Toubin, Managing Member

                                              Geoworks Corporation, Tenant

                                              By: //David Pepe//
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  David Pepe, Vice President
#### Cora Leigh PRUITT and Burt Pruitt, husband and wife, Petitioners, v. Hugh WHELCHEL, d/b/a Game Trail Riding Ranch, Respondent.

No. 39709.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 13, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 233 So.2d 851.

DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS and BOYD, JJ., dissent.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0997 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-CE-044-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Ventura County

~ Air Pollution Control District 669 CounFy Square Drive te1805/645-1400 Michael Villegas Venlura, Californio 93003 fox 805/645-1444 Air Pollution Control Officer www.vcopcd.org February 10, 2014
Michael Guzzetta Rule Evaluation Section Emission Assessment Branch Stationary Source Division Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 RE: Revisions to Rule 54, Sulfur Compounds, and Revisions to Rule 42, Permit Fees
Dear Mr. Guzzetta: Enclosed you will find the recent adoption of revisions to Rule 54 and revisions to Rule 42, which were adopted by our Board on January 14, 2014. I am attaching a clean copy and strikeout underline copy of Rule 54 and a clean copy and strikeout underline copy of Rule 42. These rules were amended at the same time because the revisions to Rule 54 affect the calculation of excess emission fees, and it was necessary to clarify the related section of Rule 42 to maintain consistency between the two rules. The revisions to Rule 54 and Rule 42 affect sulfur dioxide emissions from processes such as combustion and mineral processing, including up to 185 penmitted sources in the county. I am also including the Certified Minuted Board Letter, CEQA Transmittal Letter, Hearing Notice, Completeness Checklist, Rule Evaluation Form, and Staff Report. Please submit Amendments to Rule 54 and Rule 42 submittal package as an amendment to the State Implementation Plan. If you have any comments or questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 645- 1407.

Sincerely, 

# I ~ Tyler S. Harris Air Quality Engineer



# ~
#### Robert L. STEPHENS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION and Cornelius L. Reagan, Respondents.

No. 69-767.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 8, 1970.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.