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


Contract #1-19868214-11




Amendment #11
to the Yahoo! Publisher Network Contract #1-19868214
Effective Date: April 24, 2009, as amended (the “Original Agreement”)


THIS AMENDMENT #11 to the Original Agreement (“Amendment #11”) is effective as of January 15, 2016 (“Amendment #11 Effective Date”) by and between Inuvo, Inc. (“Publisher”), on the one hand, and Yahoo! Inc., Yahoo! Singapore Digital Marketing Pte. Ltd. and Yahoo! EMEA Limited, on the other hand. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Original Agreement. 


In consideration of mutual covenants and conditions, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Publisher and Yahoo hereby agree as follows:


1.Section 2 of Amendment #8 to the Original Agreement is hereby deleted, and the End Date on the first page of the Service Order to the Original Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with “July 24, 2016”.


2.The Affiliate Agreement (as defined in Amendment #8 to the Original Agreement) expired as of April 24, 2015. For the avoidance of doubt, and for purposes of clarity, notwithstanding the expiration of the Affiliate Agreement, the parties agree that the automatic termination provision set forth in Section 2(b) of Amendment #8 to the Original Agreement was not triggered by the expiration of the Affiliate Agreement, and the Original Agreement was and remains in full force and effect from the Start Date through and including the date hereof.


3.Except as expressly set forth herein, the Original Agreement will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.  


4.In the event of a conflict between any of the terms and conditions of the Original Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Amendment #11, the terms and conditions of this Amendment #11 shall govern.


5.This Amendment #11 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which when executed shall be deemed to be an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.




[Signatures on next page]








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused their duly authorized representatives to enter into this Amendment #11 effective as of the Amendment #11 Effective Date.



1
YAHOO CONFIDENTIAL


Contract #1-19868214-11




	
		
	INUVO, INC.
	YAHOO! INC.

	 
	 

	By: /s/ Don W. Barrett, III
	By: /s/ Ian Weingarten

	 
	 

	Name: Don W. Barrett, III
	Name: Ian Weingarten

	 
	 

	Title: COO
	Title: SVP, Corporate Development & Partnerships

	 
	 

	Date: 1/18/16
	Date:  January 22nd, 2016 

	 
	 

	 
	YAHOO! EMEA LIMITED

	 
	 

	 
	By: _________________________________

	 
	 

	 
	Name: _______________________________

	 
	 

	 
	Title: ________________________________

	 
	 

	 
	Date: _________________________________

	 
	












2
YAHOO CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2022 (the “Report”) of SuRo Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Allison Green, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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


/s/ Allison GreenName: Allison GreenDate: May 5, 2022
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19485]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies 
Integrated Review Group; Health Services Organization and Delivery 
Study Section.
    Date: September 24-25, 2018.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Wyndham Grand Chicago Riverfront, 71 East Wacker Drive, 
Chicago, IL 60601.
    Contact Person: Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3164, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 806-0009, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c4e5e4342584958454247495b46416c4f5f5e02424544024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfddcdd0d1cbdacbd6d1d4dac8d5d2ffdccccd91d1d6d791d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; PAR Panel: Development of Appropriate Pediatric Formulations 
and Pediatric Drug Delivery Systems.
    Date: October 5, 2018.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Paek-Gyu Lee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4201, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 613-
2064, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f131a1a0f183f1c0c0d5111161751181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="167a737366715675656438787f7e38717960">[email protected]</span></a>.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: August 31, 2018.
Sylvia L. Neal,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-19485 Filed 9-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 of TMX Finance LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Donald E. Thomas, Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:



|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (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 Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/    DONALD E.
THOMAS
|Donald E. Thomas       
|Chief Financial Officer

May 27, 2011
#### B.F. GOODRICH COMPANY, Own Risk, Petitioner, v. Charles E. EASLEY and the Workers’ Compensation Court, Respondents.

No. 70378.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 18, 1990.

HARGRAVE, Chief Justice.

During the pendency of this appeal, this Court decided *Coy v. Dover Corp.,*773 P.2d 745 (Okla.1989), which articulated a reasonably prudent person test which applies to the statute of limitations for cumulative trauma workers’ compensation claims. THE COURT FINDS, from a review of the record and briefs submitted in this case, that the *Coy*decision is disposi-tive of the issue presented.

Rule 1.201 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases provides that “[i]n any case in which it appears that a prior controlling appellate decision is dispositive of the appeal, the court may summarily affirm or reverse, citing in its order of summary disposition this rule and the controlling decision.” Okla.Stat. tit. 12, chap. 15, app. 2 (Supp.1983).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the opinion of the Court of Appeals and the orders of the Workers’ Compensation Court are vacated. The case is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Court for application of *Coy’s*reasonably prudent person test.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 18th DAY OF September, 1990.

HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS and ALMA WILSON, JJ., concur.

OPALA, V.C.J., concurs in result.

KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., dissent.

*611SUMMERS, Justice,

dissenting:

I would withdraw the Order granting certiorari and let the Court of Appeals opinion control the case.
q-ex1056_2053.htm



 

Exhibit 10.56

 

DESCRIPTION OF INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Quintiles Transnational Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) revised its Independent Director Compensation Policy, which is applicable to those directors who (i) are not an employee of the Company or (ii) have not been designated by a shareholder group pursuant to the Amended and Restated Shareholders Agreement dated February 5, 2015 (an “Independent Director”), to incorporate compensation for the Chair of the Board, effective as of January 1, 2016.

Consistent with the current Independent Director Compensation Policy, each Independent Director will receive an annual cash retainer of $65,000, paid quarterly, and meeting fees of $2,250 for attendance (either in person or via teleconference) at each meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and any Board committees on which he or she serves. The Company will also pay the chair of its Audit Committee an additional $25,000 annual retainer, paid quarterly, and pay those directors who serve as chairs of its other Board committees an additional $20,000 annual retainer, paid quarterly. The Company will also reimburse reasonable travel expenses and other out-of-pocket costs incurred in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings by each of the Independent Directors. 

Under the Independent Director Compensation Policy, each Independent Director is eligible to receive an initial equity grant upon joining the Board and an annual equity grant for continued service on the Board.  Each grant will have an aggregate economic value of $200,000, with 75% of the grant value delivered in the form of stock options and 25% of the grant value delivered in the form of restricted stock units (subject to such limitations in value or grant size imposed by the Company’s 2013 Stock Incentive Plan).  The initial grant will vest over three years and the annual grant will vest over one year. 

In recognition for leading the Board, an annual cash retainer of $125,000 will be paid quarterly to the Chair of the Board in addition to the retainer for serving on the Board.  Also an additional annual grant for the Chair of the Board will have an economic value of $125,000 with 75% of the grant value delivered in stock options and 25% of the grant value delivered in the form of restricted stock units (subject to such limitations in value or grant size imposed by the Company’s 2013 Stock Incentive Plan). The annual grant for the Chair will vest over one year.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3621 — SAGEM/SNECMA)

(2005/C 63/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
~u~allu~ T~ibe af Indians 


Michael A. Bussell, Director 

Office of Water and Watersheds 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3140 

Re: 	 Denial of 401 Certification by the Puyallup tribe ofIndians under Clean Water 

Act (CWA) Section 401 for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) General Permit for Point Source Discharges from the 

Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in Indian Country 

Dear Director Bussell: 

As required under Section 40 I ofthe Clean Water Act, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians has 

been requested by EPA to certify point source discharges to waters ofthe United States 

overlying tribal trust lands from the application of pesticides. We understand the 

Pesticides General Permit (PGP) includes regulation from the application ofbiological 

and chemical pesticides that leave a residue and covers the following use patterns: 

mosquito and other flying insect pest control, aquatic weed and algae control, aquatic 

nuisance animal control, and forest canopy pest control. 

Upon review ofthe Draft Pesticide General Permit published on June 4,2010,40 C.F.R. 

124.53(C)(1) and supporting documentation, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians denies 401 

certification. The Tribe will require individual 40 I certifications for all discharges 

subject to the PGP. 

Thank you for your consideration of our position regarding 401 WQ Certification to 

EPA's Pesticides General Permit. 

Sincerely, 

Char Naylor, 

Puyallup Tribe, 

Water Quality Program Manager 

JAN 1 	12011 

3009 E. Portland Ave. • Tacoma, Washington 98404 • (253) 573-7800
#### Susan Charney, Respondent, v North Jersey Trading Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley S. Ostrau, J.), entered April 19, 1990, which granted plaintiffs motion for vacatur of a judgment which had dismissed the complaint, and order of the same court (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered on or about May 24, 1990, which on reargument denied an earlier motion by the corporate defendant to dismiss the complaint and vacate a *lis pendens,*unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this declaratory judgment action to settle a dispute over ownership of certain shares in a closely held corporation, the question is whether the corporate defendant, a necessary party, should be precluded by its purely nominal standing from asserting the substantive defense of statute of limitations.

A motion to dismiss on such ground was initially denied, then granted on reargument, then denied again on subsequent reargument, with the court never reaching the substantive issue.

We find no persuasive precedent for denying a necessary party the right to raise such an affirmative defense. While it would have been preferable for plaintiff to have provided her evidence in the form of an affidavit on the merits, we find the record sufficiently indicative of an acknowledgement of her claim throughout the period of limitation, even to the very threshold of commencement of this action. We reject the inflexible approach that the cause of action for a declaratory judgment accrues at the moment one party learns that the claimed ownership of her stock certificates might be in dispute *(cf., Vanderbilt v Vanderbilt,*28 AD2d 861). What occurred in 1982 appears to have been a momentary family squabble over plaintiff’s right to her inheritance, amid the news that her widowed father (defendant Fried) was about to remarry. Even where a justiciable controversy may already be in existence, the limitation period on commencement of a declaratory judgment action should not begin until the right to bring an action for coercive relief accrues (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac If 3001.19). As those commentators have elsewhere indicated (Weinstein-Korn-Miller, CPLR Manual § 19.02 [d]), "[I]n most cases in which declaratory judgment is sought there has been no injury which gave rise to a claim for coercive relief; rather, the parties are in disagreement about their *391respective legal rights. To hold that the existence of disagreement triggers the statute of limitations would be unwise because it would encourage litigation which could prove unnecessary with the passage of time.”

Plaintiff acted with reasonable promptness after it became clear that a legal dispute had crystalized and judicial resolution would be required *(see, Sorrentino v Mierzwa,*25 NY2d 59). Although it would have been better practice for plaintiff to have detailed this to the court at an earlier date, we believe it should nonetheless have been clear to the court, even on the earlier motions, that the dispute in 1982 had not matured into a justiciable controversy. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 (the Report) of GSV Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael T. Moe, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Michael T. MoeName: Michael T. MoeDate:  May 10, 2016
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Neutra Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Cindy Morrissey, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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.  December 28, 2012/s/ Cindy MorrisseyCindy Morrissey, President,Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial and Accounting Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by 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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 20064

**Adams EMS, Incorporated,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Xavier Becerra,** Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services **,** Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC 4:18

- CV

- 1443

Before **Jones, Haynes,** and **Costa ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
The Department of Health and Human Services sought to recoup a $413,035 overpayment to Medicare provider Adams EMS. Adams , believing the government’s overpayment determination was based on improper sampling and extrapolation methods, contested the recoupm ent effort

* Pursuant to **5th Circuit Rule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Circuit Rule** 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 1, 2022

L yle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-20064 Document: 00516187025 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2022No. 21

- 20064

2 through two level s of administrative revie w. That review reduced the overpayment amount to $401,661. Adams continued to ap peal administratively and received a live hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Because of a large administrative backlog, the ALJ has not yet ruled
on Adams’ s appeal

. Adams asserts that HHS violated its due process rights by seeking to recoup the disputed funds without the benefit of the ALJ’s decision. We have already held that the first two levels of administrativ e review generally provide the “meaningful opportunities to be heard” that the Due Process
Clause requires. Sahara Health Care, Inc. v. Azar , 975 F.3d 523 , 530 (5th Cir. 2020)

. Absent a showing that “steps one and two, standing alone, fail to satisfy the constitutional requirement,” Adams is not entitled to additional predeprivation process. See i d . at 531. To Adams, the value of an ALJ hearing is the opportunity to present the live tes timony of a statistical expert. Indeed, “[t]he benefit of an in

- person hearing during the third step of review is to allow the decisionmaker to make credibility determinations.” Family Rehab.,
Inc. v. Becerra , 16 F.4th 1202, 1204 (5th Cir 2021). But giv en that the dispute here is only about extrapolation methods (Adams does not dispute that the reviewed claims were all overpayments), c redibility is not at issue

. Med

- Cert Home Care, L.L.C. v. Becerra , 19 F.4th 828, 830 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that
a liv e hearing was not required when provider sought a predeprivation ALJ hearing to present expert witnesses because the case did not turn on witness credibility ). Adams’s due process argument is foreclosed.

Also foreclosed is Adams’ s argument that the agency lacked statutory authority to recoup the contested overpayment. See Sahara Health , 975 F.3d

at 533

– 34.

We thus **AFFIRM**

**.** Case: 21-20064 Document: 00516187025 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2022
# DIA Director Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier honored in Australia

/ Published July 17, 2023
JOINT BASE ANACOSTIA-BOLLING , 
On July 17, DIA Director Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier was recognized for his distinguished service in strengthening the defense intelligence relationship between Australia and the United States with an Order of Australia award in Canberra, Australia.

Berrier received the honor from Australia Governor-General David Hurley in an Order of Australia investiture ceremony. The Order of Australia is an honor that recognizes Australian citizens and others for outstanding achievement and service.

“Lt. Gen. Berrier is a tireless supporter and advocate for the close working relationship with Australia’s Defence Intelligence Enterprise,” Hurley said. “His personal contributions and leadership have ultimately enhanced the Five Eyes intelligence relationships and materially contributed to the security of the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.”

Berrier’s award citation highlighted his leadership, dedication, and strategic foresight as DIA Director.

“During my time as director of DIA, I’ve been incredibly lucky to work beside my Australian counterparts to strengthen the Five Eyes partnership,” said Berrier. “I couldn’t be prouder to count Australia as an ally and a partner.”

DIA’s mission is to provide intelligence on foreign militaries to prevent and decisively win wars.

DIA officers are united in a common vision — to be the indispensable source of defense intelligence expertise for the nation. For 60 years, DIA has met the full range of security challenges faced by the United States. DIA intelligence officers operate around the world, supporting customers from forward-deployed warfighters to national policymakers