alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


November 2, 2004


Mr. Dennis J. Keller
1155 35th Street
Oak Brook, IL 60523

Dear Dennis:

This letter confirms your re-election and continuation of the office and
position of Chairman of the Board of Directors of DeVry Inc. ("DeVry"), and
relinquishment of your title and duties as Co-Chief Executive Officer of DeVry,
effective July 1, 2004, as you proposed and as mutually agreed by the Board of
Directors and you on June 22, 2004. Your duties and responsibilities as Chairman
shall be modified to include those specific duties and responsibilities set
forth in the minutes of that Board meeting, as well as such other duties as the
Board and you from time to time agree. The office and position and these duties
for DeVry are in accordance with Section 1 of your 2002 Employment Agreement
with DeVry and DeVry University, Inc., dated as of July 1, 2002, and the by-laws
by DeVry.

No change is contemplated to the term of your employment, which will continue
until June 30, 2005 and thereafter, as provided in Section 3(a) of your 2002
Employment Agreement, or your subsequent succession to Senior Advisor status as
provided under Section 4 of your 2002 Employment Agreement and your Senior
Advisor Agreement with DeVry and DeVry University, Inc. also dated July 1, 2004.

Effective July 1, 2004, you base salary shall be an annual rate of $646,088,
which amount shall be your "base salary" provided under Section 5(a) and for all
other purposes under your 2002 Employment Agreement.

In all other respects, your 2002 Employment Agreement is affirmed, ratified and
continued, as modified hereby.

Please signify your agreement by your signature below. We are delighted with
your new role and look forward to many continuing years of your active
contributions to DeVry's success.

Sincerely,


-----------------------------               ---------------------------
Thurston Manning, Chairman                  Dennis J. Keller
Compensation Committee
DeVry Inc. Board of Directors
Quasi-Point Source Emissions 

Appendix A3 - Quasi-Point Sources.doc 

No quasi-point source emission sources are located in Cecil County, Maryland.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 232

Expressing the sense of the Congress in honoring the crew and passengers

of United Airlines Flight 93.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 20, 2001

Mr. FLETCHER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress in honoring the crew

and passengers of United Airlines Flight 93.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of war were committed

against the United States, killing and injuring thousands

of innocent people;

Whereas these attacks were directed at the World Trade Center in New York, New York, and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., which are symbols of the Nation’s economic

and military strength;

Whereas United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked by terrorists

as part of these attacks;

Whereas while Flight 93 was still in the air, passengers and

crew, through cellular phone conversations with loved
2

•HCON 232 IH

ones on the ground, learned that other hijacked airplanes

had been used in these attacks;

Whereas during these phone conversations several of the passengers indicated that there was an agreement among the

passengers and crew to try to overpower the hijackers

who had taken over the aircraft;

Whereas it is believed that it was this effort to overpower the

hijackers that caused Flight 93 to crash in southwestern

Pennsylvania, short of what is believed to have been its

intended target: Washington, D.C.; and

Whereas the crash resulted in the death of everyone on board

the aircraft: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) on September 11, 2001, the passengers and

4 crew of hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 possibly

5 averted the use of that aircraft in a further terrorist

6 attack on the United States by attempting to over7 power the hijackers;

8 (2) the United States owes its deepest gratitude

9 to the passengers and crew of Flight 93, and ex10 tends its condolences to the families and friends of

11 Captain Jason Dahl, First Officer Leroy Homer,

12 flight attendants Lorraine G. Bay, Sandra W. Brad13 shaw, Wanda A. Green, Ceecee Lyles, Deborah A.

14 Welsh, and passengers Christian Adams, Todd

15 Beamer, Alan Beaven, Mark Bingham, Thomas Bur-
3

•HCON 232 IH

1 nett, William Cashman, Georgine Corrigan, Joseph

2 Deluca, Patrick Driscoll, Edward Felt, Jane C.

3 Folger, Colleen Fraser, Andrew Garcia, Jeremy

4 Glick, Kristin Gould, Lauren Grandcolas, Donald

5 Greene, Linda Gronlund, Richard Guadagno,

6 Toshiya Kuge, Hilda Marcin, Waleska Martinez, Ni7 cole Miller, Louis J. Nacke, Donald Peterson, Mark

8 Rothenberg, John Talignani, Honor Elizabeth

9 Wainio, and 9 passengers whose families wish them

10 to remain anonymous; and

11 (3) a memorial plaque to these victims should

12 be placed on the grounds of the Capitol, and a copy

13 of the wording of the plaque, together with a copy

14 of this resolution from the Congressional Record,

15 should be sent to a designated survivor of each vic16 tim.

Æ
[No. 13657-4-III.

Division Three.

July 25, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Keith J. Rogers, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Walla Walla County, No. 84-1-00164-7, Yancey Reser, J., entered October 11, 1993. *Dismissed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Munson and Schultheis, JJ.
#### Gene Larue BRINER, Appellant, v. Babette Ruth BRINER, Appellee.

No. 88-0070.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 3, 1988.

John C. Rayson of Sherman & Rayson, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Nancy Little Hoffmann of Nancy Little Hoffmann, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Stephen M. Bell, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss appellant’s untimely appeal from the trial court’s order rendered on November 5, 1987. The trial court’s retention of jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and costs did not affect the finality of the order. *See General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd. v. Kellin,*391 So.2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and *Morand v. Stoneburner,*516 So.2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), *review denied,*525 So.2d 879 (Fla.1988).

We affirm the trial court’s order granting attorney’s fees.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael James BROWN, a/k/a Desperado, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79CA0784.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Dec. 11, 1980.

*110J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., R. Michael Mullins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

R. Douglas Buckles, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

STERNBERG, Judge.

The defendant, Michael James Brown, appeals his convictions of second degree kidnapping and aggravated robbery. We affirm.

One James Shook was a hitchhiker who accepted a ride with Brown. Seated in the front seat of Brown’s pickup between Brown and another, Shook became apprehensive about continuing the journey in their company and asked Brown to stop so that he could get out of the truck. Brown refused. Shook then tried to grab the wheel to pull the truck over, but did not succeed. Over Shook’s protests, Brown turned off the highway and headed another direction over back roads. When Brown eventually stopped the truck all three men got out of the vehicle. Shook ran around to the back of the pickup where he met Brown and drew a gun, aimed at Shook, and threatened his life. Although Brown did not demand money, Shook threw him his wallet. Brown removed $120. Shook subsequently tried to get away by getting into a passing truck, but got out of that car when shots were fired and Brown blocked the road. Shook later managed to escape.

Brown contends that, because Shook voluntarily entered the truck, the prosecution failed to prove lack of consent, an essential element of second degree kidnapping. We disagree. To sustain a conviction of second degree kidnapping, the prosecution must establish that the victim was seized and transported without his consent, § 18-3-302(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), but it is not necessary to show that the involuntariness exists from the beginning of the transaction if subsequently the victim is forcibly detained. *People v. Camden,*16 Cal.3d 808, 129 Cal.Rptr. 438, 548 P.2d 1110 (1976).

Here, there was testimony that Shook was restrained from leaving the truck when it turned off the road in a direction contrary to his destination and his efforts to get away once the truck stopped were thwarted. From this evidence a jury could have inferred that the initial consent *111had expired; therefore, denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal was proper. *People v. Montano,*195 Colo. 420, 578 P.2d 1053 (1978).

Brown also maintains that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of aggravated robbery. Section 18-4-301(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). However, Shook’s testimony, if credited by the jury, established that Brown took Shook’s money under circumstances demonstrating a felonious taking by intimidation through use of a deadly weapon. *See People v. Goff,*187 Colo. 103, 530 P.2d 514 (1974). Thus, the trial court did not err in refusing to grant the motion for judgment of acquittal on this charge. *People v. Montano, supra.*

Judgment affirmed.

COYTE and BERMAN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 227 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.227
                                    Agreed to September 26, 2001        

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                          Concurrent Resolution

Whereas all Americans are united in condemning, in the strongest 
  possible terms, the terrorists who planned and carried out the 
  attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and in 
  pursuing all those responsible for these attacks and their sponsors 
  until they are brought to justice and punished;

Whereas the Arab-American, South Asian-American, and American Muslim 
  communities are a vital part of the Nation;

Whereas on September 12, 2001, in a mass for the Nation and the victims 
  of the terrorist hijackings and attacks, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, 
  the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., reminded all Americans in prayer 
  that ``we must seek the guilty and not strike out against the 
  innocent or we become like them who are without moral guidance or 
  direction'';

Whereas the heads of State of several Arab and predominantly Muslim 
  countries have condemned the terrorist attacks on the United States 
  and the senseless loss of innocent lives; and

Whereas vengeful threats and incidents of violence directed at law-
  abiding, patriotic Americans of Arab or South Asian descent, 
  particularly the Sikh community, and adherents of the Islamic faith 
  have already occurred: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
        (1) declares that in the quest to identify, bring to justice, 
    and punish the perpetrators and sponsors of the terrorist attacks 
    on the United States on September 11, 2001, that the civil rights 
    and civil liberties of all American, including Arab-Americans, 
    American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia, should be 
    protected; and
        (2) condemns any acts of violence or discrimination against any 
    Americans, including Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and 
    Americans from South Asia.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David M. Sankaran, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.



|                   |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                                                  
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 7, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    DAVID M.
SANKARAN                                                                         
|                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | David M. Sankaran                                                                                
|                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer ofGFI Group Inc.**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Gooch, Chairman andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  May 16, 2005

 
| /s/ Michael  Gooch                                             |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael  Gooch  Chairman of the Board  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Ida Swain, Rowena Cary, Theodosia E. Dosher, Maggie Piver, Etta West and John R. Register as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of John Prigge, Deceased, Appellants, v. The London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Company, a Corporation, Appellee.

An entry of appeal stating that tbe appeal is taken “to tbe January Term, A. D. 1905, of tbe Supreme Court of tbe -State of Florida,” sufficiently indicates that tbe first day of said term is tbe return day.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

*398The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

*A. W. GocJcrell & Son,*for motion.

*A. E. King, contra.*

Carter, J.

The appellee moves to dismiss this appeal upon the ground, *among*others, that the return day is not designated with sufficient certainty in the entry of appeal, so that the record of such entry will give this court jurisdiction over the person of the appellee. The entry states that the appeal is taken “to the January Term, A. D. 1905, of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida.” This language means that the appeal is taken to the first day of the January term as no particular day of the term is mentioned (Nicholls v. Marshall, 10 La. O. S. 110; Hare v. Niblo, 4 Leigh (Va.) 359; Gas Company v. Wheeling, 7 W. Va. 22), and.as thus construed it is sufficient, as the appeal was entered and recorded in July, 1904, and seeks to review a decree rendered prior to that date. In Garrison v. Parsons, 41 Fla. 143, 25 South. Rep. 336, we said: “The return day must be * * * to the first day of * * * * the next succeeding term of this court after the entry of appeal,” and it is argued that this language requires an express declaration in the entry’that the appeal is taken to the first day of the term. We "think it must appear from the recorded entry, that the appeal is taken to the first day of the term, but the' form of the statement is immaterial so long as language is used which clearly conveys that idea. The language here used is suf*399ficient for that purpose and there is no inconsistency between the prfesent decision and the ruling in the case referred to.

Without further discussion of the motion, we are of opinion that it should be denied and it will be so ordered.

Whitfield. C. J., and Taylor; Hocker and Shackle-ford, JJ., concur.

Cockrell, J., being disqualified, took no part in the decision. •
Exhibit 10.8(b)


Schedule of Secured Convertible Notes (new financings) issued by NCT Group, Inc.
             to Carole Salkind and Outstanding as of August 15, 2005



                                                                    Conversion
     Issue Date           Due Date            Principal               Price
     ----------           --------        -----------------           -----
      02/16/05            08/16/05        $       400,000            $0.0184
      03/08/05            09/08/05                390,000            $0.0180
      03/29/05            09/29/05                390,000            $0.0180
      04/14/05            10/14/05                390,000            $0.0130
      04/26/05            10/26/05                390,000            $0.0110
      05/16/05            11/16/05                350,000            $0.0123
      06/10/05            12/10/05                350,000            $0.0100
      06/24/05            12/24/05                576,000            $0.0160
      07/26/05            01/26/06                350,000            $0.0100
      08/08/05            02/08/06              5,000,000            $0.0100
                                          -----------------
                                          $     8,586,000
                                          =================
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T EP I FANI A H ERNA ND EZ - VI TE , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 12- 72216 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 292- 117 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E pi f ani aH e rnande z - V i t e , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e ope n r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs ba s e d on i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a lof 

# FI LED OC T 01 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 72216 2 am o tio n to r e o p e n . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g H e rn an d e z - V ite ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n a lle g in g in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l w h e r e s h e f

a ile dto c o m p lyw ith the thres ho l d requi re m ent s of M atte rof L oz ada , 19 I. & N . D ec . 63 7 (B IA 19 88 ), and the a l l e ge d i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e w a s notpl a i n on the f a c e of the a d m in is tr a tiv e r e c o r d . See R e y es v . A s h c r o

ft, 35 8 F . 3d59 2, 59 6-99 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). I n l i ghtof

thi s di s pos i t i on, w e do notr e a c h H e rnande z - V i t e ’ s r e m a i ni ng c o n te n tio n r e g ar d in g h e re lig ib ilityf o ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of New Frontier Media, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Weiner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18
U.S.C.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)
and 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/ Michael Weiner
------------------------------------
Michael Weiner
Chief Executive Officer
June 14, 2005
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 67

To authorize representation of Secretary of the Senate in the case of Bob

Schaffer, et al. v. William Jefferson Clinton, et al.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 17, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize representation of Secretary of the Senate in

the case of Bob Schaffer, et al. v. William Jefferson

Clinton, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Bob Schaffer, et al. v. William Jefferson Clinton, et al., C.A. No. 99–K–201, pending in the

United States District Court for the District of Colorado,

the plaintiffs have named the Secretary of the Senate as

a defendant; and

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend officers of the Senate in civil actions relating to

their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
2

SRES 67 ATS

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed

2 to represent the Secretary of the Senate in the case of

3 Bob Schaffer, et al. v. William Jefferson Clinton, et al.

Æ