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

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Ben J. Lipps, 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/ Ben J. Lipps
----------------------------
Ben J. Lipps
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2003
csgs-ex1053c_7.htm



EXHIBIT 10.53C

 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

 

This Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement is made and entered into on the 1st day of January, 2021, among CSG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("CSGS"), a Delaware corporation, CSG SYSTEMS, INC. ("Systems"), a Delaware corporation, and KENNETH KENNEDY (the "Executive").  CSGS and Systems collectively are referred to in this Amendment No. 3 Employment Agreement as the "Companies". 

*  *  *

WHEREAS, the Companies and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated March 1, 2016 (the "Employment Agreement"), as previously amended by Amendments 1 and 2; and 

 

WHEREAS, the Companies and the Executive desire to further amend the Employment Agreement as set forth in this Amendment No. 3 to reflect the Executive’s new title; 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the agreements of the parties contained in this document, the Companies and the Executive agree as follows: 

 

1.Effective immediately, Section 1. Employment and Duties of the Employment Agreement is amended in its entirety so as to read as follows: 

 

1.   Employment and Duties.  Each of the Companies hereby employs the Executive as Chief Operating Officer (COO) and President - Revenue Management and Digital Monetization (RMDM) throughout the term of this agreement and agrees to cause the Executive from time to time to be elected or appointed to such corporate office and position.  The duties and responsibilities of the Executive shall include (a) the duties and responsibilities of the Executive's corporate office and position referred to in the preceding sentence which are set forth in the respective bylaws of the Companies from time to time and (b) such other duties and authorities consistent with the Executive's corporate office and position referred to in the preceding sentence and this agreement which the Board of Directors of CSGS (the "Board") or the Chief Executive Officer of CSGS from time to time may assign to the Executive.  If the Executive is elected or appointed as a director of CSGS or Systems or as an officer or director of any of the respective subsidiaries of the Companies during the term of this agreement, then he also shall serve in such capacity or capacities but without additional compensation.

 

2.As amended by this Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement, the Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect according to its terms. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has caused this Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement to be executed as of the date first set forth above. 

 

CSG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

a Delaware corporation 

 

By: /s/ Rolland B. Johns     /s/ Kenneth Kennedy

Rolland B. Johns, Chief Financial Officer     Kenneth Kennedy

 

 

CSG SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation

 

By: /s/ Rolland B. Johns

Rolland B. Johns, Chief Financial Officer
#### PUBLIC ROAD.

Petitioners for a public road are not proper commissioners.

In the matter of a road return in Kent county.

On the petition of sundry persons, praying an order to change the course of a certain public road, and a return changing the road accordingly; it was excepted to this return, that four of the five freeholders appointed were petitioners for the road, and therefore not impartial.

The return was set aside for this cause.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ESI AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,770,980
<SECURITIES>                                 5,315,806
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,731,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,806,965
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,230,438
<PP&E>                                       5,408,709
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,426,976)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,577,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,530,778
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       101,952
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,877,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,577,986
<SALES>                                      9,597,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,597,193
<CGS>                                        6,292,409
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,292,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,817,891
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             378,609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,728,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,728,656)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.23)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                   JOHNSTON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(In thousands except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
===========================================================================================================================

The weighted average number of common and common share equivalents on a primary
basis are as follows:

                                                          FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED            FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                          --------------------------            -------------------------
                                                          OCTOBER 2,      OCTOBER 3,            OCTOBER 2,       OCTOBER 3,
                                                            1999             1998                 1999              1998
                                                            ----             ----                 ----              ----

<S>                                                    <C>              <C>                  <C>               <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding                 10,722             10,743              10,722            10,743

Shares issued from assumed exercise of
        incentive stock options (1)(2)                        ---                ---                 ---               ---

Shares issued from assumed exercise of
        nonqualified stock options (1)(2)                     ---                ---                 ---               ---
                                                       ----------         ----------         -----------       -----------

Weighted average number of common and common
        equivalent shares outstanding as adjusted          10,722             10,743              10,722            10,743
                                                       ==========         ==========         ===========       ===========



Net loss                                               $   (2,686)        $      140         $    (6,338)      $    (1,363)
                                                       ==========         ==========         ===========       ===========

Net loss per common share:

        Basic and diluted                              $     (.25)        $      .01         $      (.59)        $    (.13)
                                                       ==========         ==========         ===========         =========

===========================================================================================================================
</TABLE>

(1)      Shares issued from assumed exercise of options included the number of
         incremental shares which result from applying the "treasury stock
         method" for options.

(2)      For the three months and nine months ended October 2, 1999 and October
         3, 1998, common shares from assumed exercise of stock options are not
         presented as they were either antidilutive due to net losses or
         immaterial.

                                      23
# C_2020103EN.01003601.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/36

---

Action brought on 10 February 2020 — Abitron Germany v EUIPO — Hetronic International (NOVA)

(Case T-75/20)

(2020/C 103/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Abitron Germany GmbH (Langquaid, Germany) (represented by: T. Matschke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hetronic International, Inc. (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark NOVA — EU trade mark No 13 711 718

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2019 in Case R 521/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare EU trade mark NOVA No 13 711 718 as invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare EU trade mark NOVA No 13 711 718 as invalid;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 10-KSB OF CSB FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRITY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,687
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             988
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     16,987
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         27,299
<ALLOWANCE>                                        165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,534
<DEPOSITS>                                      36,586
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                 52
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  48,534
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,164
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  971
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   118
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,253
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,642
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,642
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,611
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  54
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    356
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         245
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       245
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.56
<LOANS-NON>                                        198
<LOANS-PAST>                                       187
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   117
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       43
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  165
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                96
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             69
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

Deloitte &
    Touche                      ------------------------------------------------
                                Deloitte & Touche LLP  Telephone: 604) 669-4466
                                Suite 2100             Facsimile: (604) 685-0395
                                1055 Dunsmuire Street
                                P.O. Box 49279
                                Four Bentall Centre
                                Vancouver, British Columbia
                                V7X 1P4



             CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  to  the  Registration
Statement  on Form S-8  (Registration  Number  333-06616)  of our  report  dated
February 25, 1999 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of MDSI
Mobile Data  Solutions  Inc.  and its  subsidiaries  as of December 31, 1997 and
1998,  which report is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MDSI Mobile
Data Solutions Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS


Vancouver, British Columbia
March 30, 1999
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 703

To provide for pilot programs conducted by the Federal Prison Industries

to test the feasibility of meeting the need for increased employment

of Federal prisoners by producing items, for the private market, in

conjunction with private United States firms, that would otherwise be

produced by foreign labor.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mr. WOLF (for himself, Mr. HYDE, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, and Mr. PAYNE of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for pilot programs conducted by the Federal

Prison Industries to test the feasibility of meeting the

need for increased employment of Federal prisoners by

producing items, for the private market, in conjunction

with private United States firms, that would otherwise

be produced by foreign labor.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prison Inmate Train5 ing and Rehabilitation Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 703 IH

1 SEC. 2. PILOT PROJECTS.

2 (a) GENERALLY.—Federal Prison Industries shall

3 conduct pilot programs to test the feasibility of providing

4 increased employment for Federal prisoners by producing

5 items for the private market, in conjunction with private

6 United States firms, that would otherwise be produced by

7 foreign labor.

8 (b) AGREEMENTS WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY.—Fed9 eral Prison Industries may enter into agreements with pri10 vate industry in order to carry out this section.

11 (c) EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER

12 LAWS.—

13 (1) ITEMS PRODUCED MAY BE SOLD TO THE

14 PUBLIC.—An item produced in a pilot program

15 under this section is not subject to any restriction

16 imposed by law on the sale of items because they are

17 produced by prison labor.

18 (2) DECISIONS TO PRODUCE NEW PRODUCTS

19 NOT SUBJECT TO INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT PROCE20 DURES.—Paragraphs (4) through (5) of section

21 4122(b) of title 18, United States Code, do not

22 apply with respect to decisions in a pilot program

23 under this section.

24 (3) APPLICATION OF COMPETITIVE PROCE25 DURES.—Contracts may be awarded by Federal
3

•HR 703 IH

1 Prison Industries under this section without using

2 competitive procedures otherwise required by law.

3 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The board of directors

4 of Federal Prison Industries shall include in its annual

5 report to the Congress—

6 (1) its findings on the results of the pilot pro7 grams conducted under this section; and

8 (2) recommendations as to whether to expand

9 this concept within the Federal prison system.

Æ
#### WARD *v.*WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

[App. No. 33,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided November 13, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion filed by Judge Evans in the lower court, the application of Amos E. Ward for leave to appeal from the order dismissing his second petition for post conviction relief from his imprisonment for forgery is hereby denied. The first application was denied *per curiam*in *Ward v. Warden,*222 Md. 595, *cert. den.*363 U. S. 816.

*Application denied.*
#### Cecil E. and Fannie J. HUGHES v. The CITY OF BATON ROUGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.

No. 53169.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: Parish of East Baton Rouge applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 270 So.2d 194.

Writ denied. No error of law. The Parish’s contention as to the liability of Barber Brothers under the hold harmless agreement is not before us for review, for the Parish did not apply for rehearing in the court of appeal as to the denial of recovery on such demand.
#### Herschel Lee DeLOACH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 69-519-69-528.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 1970.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and James L. DeMoully, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

The first nine of the foregoing ten appeals grew out of direct informations filed in the Pinellas County Circuit Court charging appellant Herschel Lee DeLoach with another not here joined with entering without breaking certain named outdoor pay telephone booths with intent to commit petit larceny. In the tenth appeal, Case No. 69-528, the same two defendants were charged with possession of burglarious tools designed for breaking open telephone units.

To each of the informations DeLoach filed motion to suppress the evidence on the ground of “unreasonable arrest, search and seizure”, and also filed separate motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense. All motions were in due course denied and, after first pleading not guilty, DeLoach later changed his plea to guilty as to each information. DeLoach was thereupon adjudged guilty upon each charge and sentenced to imprisonment. Later he filed a “Petition for Reconsideration of Sentence” and the Court accordingly reduced sentences in all except in Case No. 69-528 on appeal, as to which the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Notices of appeal were filed in all cases. However, to all intents and purposes, the appeals in all cases, except in No. 69-528, have been abandoned and should be now dismissed by this Court of its own motion.

The sole brief filed here is directed only to Assignment of Error No. 7, relating to denial of Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence in appeal case No. 69-528, the burglarious tool case. The sole argument in the brief in support of this assignment is a discussion of the “philosophy” of F.S. § 921.18, F.S.A., the indeterminate punishment statute and the discussion of that section by the Supreme Court of Florida in Carnley v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 118 So.2d 629, with emphasis on the “possibility for rehabilitation”.

But appellate Courts are concerned only with the legality of sentence, not the “philosophy” or the discretionary imposition of sentence confided to trial Courts. Presha v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 790; Darby v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 29; Davis v. State, Fla.1960, 123 *766So.2d 703; Le Prell v. State, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 18; Infante v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 542; Stanford v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 1.

A reviewing Court cannot disturb a sentence which is within the limits set by statute. The sentence in appeal No. 69-528 is within such limits and is therefore beyond reach of this Court.

The appeals in cases Nos. 69-519, 69-520, 69-521, 69-522, 69-523, 69-524, 69-525, 69-526 and 69-527 are severally dismissed *ex mero mo tu.*

The appeal in case No. 69-528 is affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.