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


 


 


January 31, 2014


 


Hojabr Alimi


[Address]


 


Dear Hoji:


 


This letter references
and incorporates by such reference in its entirety the terms of your March 21, 2013 employment agreement with Ruthigen, Inc., Oculus’
currently wholly owned Delaware subsidiary, as filed with the SEC as an exhibit to the Ruthigen Form S-1 (the “Employment
Agreement”). Under your leadership as Ruthigen Chairman and CEO, Ruthigen is intended to have an initial public offering
(an “IPO”). Please be advised that this is confirmation that the Special Transaction Committee of Oculus Innovative
Sciences, Inc. (“STC”) has determined as follows with regard to certain of the severance benefits set forth in your
Employment Agreement. If (i) an IPO does not occur , (ii) you cease being employed by Ruthigen because Ruthigen is bankrupt or
otherwise insolvent, and (iii) Ruthigen severance benefits are due to you under the Employment Agreement but Ruthigen lacks the
financial resources to pay same, then Oculus will (x) pay you $385,000 in the manner set forth in the last sentence of Section
5.3(b)(i) of the Employment Agreement (the “Oculus Severance Payment Obligation”); provided that the Oculus Severance
Payment Obligation is expressly subject to the same terms and conditions as apply to Ruthigen’s payment thereof as set forth
in the Employment Agreement. If there is any amendment or modification to the Employment Agreement as filed with the SEC after
the date hereof of which Oculus does not specifically approve in writing, the Oculus Severance Payment Obligation shall immediately
be void and no longer in effect.


 


Please acknowledge
your agreement to the foregoing by signing in the space below for your signature and return same to me no later than January 31,
2014.


 


Sincerely,


 


 


 /s/ Jim
Schutz                          


Jim Schutz


President and CEO


Oculus Innovative Sciences, Inc.


 


I agree to the foregoing.


 


 


/s/ Hojabr Alimi                      


Hojabr Alimi
|   | EXHIBIT 32.2 |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|

|   | Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

| Solely for purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned, Vice President, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Principal FinancialOfficer and Principal Accounting Officer of Louisiana Food Company (the “Company”), hereby certify that: |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), fullycomplies 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 andresults of operations of the Company. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: February 22, 2011. | LOUISIANA FOOD COMPANY |   |
|--------------------------|------------------------|--------|

| By: | /s/ WADDELL D. LOFLIN |   |
|-----|-----------------------|--------|

|   | Waddell D. Loflin, Vice President, Acting Chief FinancialOfficer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal AccountingOfficer |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Louisiana Food Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 The Singing Machine Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yi Ping
Chan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: January 3, 2005               /s/ Yi Ping Chan
                                    -----------------------------

                                    Yi Ping Chan
                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                    Chief Operating Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)
----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the licensing of railway undertakings (codified version)’

(COM(2004) 232 final — 2004/0074 (COD))

(2004/C 302/09)

On 27 April 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 June 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Chagas.

At its 410th plenary session (meeting of 30 June 2004) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 160 votes in favour and ten abstentions:

Brussels, 30 June 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

----

(1)OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 70 — EESC opinion: OJ C 393 of 31.12.1994, p. 56.

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7127

STEPHEN HENRY SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary of NC Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-05-15-5-BO) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 6, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Henry Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Stephen Henry Smith, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Clayton Ernest COX v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 44579.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 18, 1967.

Ben F. Horan, Water Valley, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
F 12.31.2013 Exhibit 10-O-9






Exhibit 10-O-9




Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Award Metrics for 2014




On February 12, 2014, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved the specific performance goals and business criteria to be used for purposes of determining any future performance-based restricted stock unit final awards for the 2014 performance-year for participants, including executive officers, under the Company's shareholder-approved 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008).  


For all participants, the Corporate performance criteria to be used for 2014 under the plan include attaining specified levels of:


		
	•
	Automotive Revenue (20%)




		
	•
	Automotive Operating Margin* (30%)




		
	•
	Ford Credit Profit Before Tax (10%)




		
	•
	Automotive Operating-Related Cash Flow* (20%)




		
	•
	Quality (20%)




Based on business performance results for 2014 against the targeted levels established for each metric, the Compensation Committee will determine the percentage of the target award that is earned, which could range between 0% and 100% depending on actual performance achieved relative to the target levels.  The maximum performance level that can be achieved for any single metric for the 2014 Performance Unit grants is 200%; however, the maximum amount of Restricted Stock Units that can be earned as a Final Award is limited to 100% of the target award. 


* Excludes special items
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (33-317553) of Watson Wyatt & Company of our report dated
August 4, 2000, relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Washington, D.C.
September 28, 2000
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 this Quarterly Report of WTTJ Corp, on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending June 30, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kris Kottmeier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) Such Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ending June 30, 2014, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and June 30, 2014 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of WTTJ Corp.  July 27, 2015By:/s/ Kris KottmeierKris KottmeierChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 389

To require preemployment drug testing of prospective Federal employees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Post Office and Civil Service, House Administration, and

the Judiciary

A BILL

To require preemployment drug testing of prospective

Federal employees.

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

3 SECTION 1. PREEMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING.

4 All applicants for employment in the Federal Govern5 ment shall be subject to preemployment drug testing.

6 SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS.

7 Regulations to carry out section 1 shall be issued not

8 later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act

9 as follows:
2

•HR 389 IH

1 (a) LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.—With respect to ap2 plicants for employment in the legislative branch,

3 such regulations shall be issued by each House of

4 Congress or in the case of other entities within the

5 legislative branch, by the appointing authority of

6 each such entity.

7 (b) JUDICIAL BRANCH.—With respect to appli8 cants for employment in the judicial branch, such

9 regulations shall be issued by the Administrative Of10 fice of the United States Courts.

11 (c) EXECUTIVE BRANCH.—With respect to ap12 plicants for employment in the executive branch,

13 such regulations shall be issued by the President.

14 SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

15 As used in this Act, the term ‘‘preemployment drug

16 testing’’ means testing for controlled substances (as such

17 term is defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Sub18 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6))) on applicants for employ19 ment with the Federal Government.

20 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

21 This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of

22 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6115

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRYL SCOTT, a/k/a Kojak,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cr-00429-JKB-3)

Submitted: June 23, 2021 Decided: July 14, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Scott, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darryl Scott appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for 

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and twice denying 

reconsideration. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release 

for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). 

Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Scott, No. 1:16-cr-00429-JKB-3 (D. 

Md. July 17, 2020; Aug. 4, 2020; Dec. 18, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Peggy MYERS v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.

No. 46982.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 29, 1973.

James G. McIntyre, Jackson, for appellant.

Wise, Carter, Child, Steen & Caraway, Jimmie B. Reynolds, Jr., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Russel D. Moore, Judge.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and SMITH, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 19, 2009

s1112 

# Order

November 19, 2009

139281

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139281 COA: 281531 Wayne CC: 07-07927-01 KENNETH MAURICE ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 28, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY



### , C.J., would grant leave to appeal.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3693

[Report No. 103–456]

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse under

White United States Courthouse’’.construction in Denver, Colorado, as the ‘‘Byron
IB

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3693

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse under construction in Denver, Colorado, as the ‘‘Byron White United

States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse being constructed

5 through renovation of the old post office building in Den6 ver, Colorado, shall be known and designated as the

7 ‘‘Byron White United States Courthouse’’.

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the court-
2

•HR 3693 EH

1 house referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref2 erence to the ‘‘Byron White United States Courthouse’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 12, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 23.2

                                AUDITOR'S CONSENT




We have issued our report dated May 23, 2002 (except for Note 3 as to which the
date if July 14, 2003) , accompanying the consolidated financial statements and
schedule included in the annual report of The Singing Machine Company, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2003. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement of The Singing Machine Company, Inc. on Form S-8 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on September 13, 2002 (File No.
333-99543) and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2001 and amended with Post Effective
Amendment No. 1 filed with the SEC on September 13, 2002 (File No. 333-59684).




/s/ SALBERG & COMPANY, P.A.
---------------------------
SALBERG & COMPANY, P.A.
Boca Raton, Florida
July 15, 2003
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3778

To terminate funds for congressional parking attendants and to charge for

parking.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1994

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To terminate funds for congressional parking attendants and

to charge for parking.

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 shall be cited as the ‘‘Congressional Parking

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATE FUNDS FOR PARKING ATTENDANTS.

7 No funds shall be appropriated for congressional

8 parking attendants or administering congressional parking

9 attendants beginning in fiscal year 1995.
2

HR 3778 IH

1 SEC. 3. MARKET RATES SHALL BE CHARGES FOR CONGRES2 SIONAL PARKING.

3 Members of Congress, staff, and visitors shall be

4 charged market rates for parking within the buildings and

5 parking lots in the Capitol Hill complex.

Æ
MCY-2013.12.31-EX 10.30






EXHIBIT 10.30
MERCURY GENERAL CORPORATION BOARD FEES




	
			
	 
	PRIOR FEES
	NEW FEES

	Director Compensation - Board Fee
	$4,000 per quarter
	$4,000 per quarter

	Director Compensation - Meeting Attendance
	$4,000 per meeting held in person or telephonically 
lasting 1 hour or more
	$4,000 per meeting held in person or telephonically 
lasting 1 hour or more

	 
	$500 per meeting held telephonically lasting less 
than 1 hour
	$500 per meeting held telephonically lasting less 
than 1 hour

	 
	 
	 

	Audit Committee 
	 
	 

	Meeting Attendance (Chair)
	$3,500 per meeting
	$5,000 per meeting

	Meeting Attendance (Non Chair)
	$2,500 per meeting
	$3,000 per meeting

	Annual Retainer (Chair)
	$4,000
	$5,000

	 
	 
	 

	Compensation Committee 
	 
	 

	Meeting Attendance (Chair)
	$500 per meeting
	$2,000 per meeting

	Meeting Attendance (Non Chair)
	$500 per meeting
	$1,500 per meeting

	Annual Retainer (Chair)
	$2,500
	$4,000

	 
	 
	 

	Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee 
	 
	 

	Meeting Attendance (Chair)
	$1,500 per meeting
	$1,500 per meeting

	Meeting Attendance (Non Chair)
	$1,000 per meeting
	$1,000 per meeting

	Annual Retainer (Chair)
	$1,500
	$2,000

	 
	 
	 

	Investment Committee 
	 
	 

	Meeting Attendance (Chair)
	$1,500 per meeting
	$2,000 per meeting

	 
	 
	 

	Lead Director - Annual Retainer
	$10,000
	$15,000
<PAGE>   1


                                                                       EXHIBIT 7

                       GRUPO IUSACELL CELULAR S.A. DE C.V.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                 (THOUSANDS OF CONSTANT DECEMBER 31, 2000 PESOS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    1996             1997           1998            1999               2000
                                    ----             ----           ----            ----               ----
<S>                               <C>            <C>             <C>              <C>                <C>
Adjusted earnings (A)              183,748        (1,003,823)     (1,178,786)      889,948             74,609

Total fixed charges (B)            689,746           449,962       1,300,585       343,081            518,957

Earnings less fixed charges       (505,998)       (1,453,785)     (2,479,372)      546,867           (444,348)

Ratio (A)/(B)                       0.2664                 0               0        2.5940             0.1438
</TABLE>






                                      E-122