alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Directors and Shareholders
of Elan Corporation, plc

We have audited the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets of Elan Corporation, plc and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and other
comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2004. These Consolidated Financial
Statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these Consolidated
Financial Statements based on our audits.

We conducted
our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the Consolidated Financial Statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the Consolidated Financial
Statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe
that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the Consolidated Financial Statements
referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial position of Elan Corporation, plc and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the consolidated
results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
("U.S. GAAP"). Also, in our opinion, the
related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.

In
the fiscal years prior to 2004, the Company prepared its financial
statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted
in Ireland ("Irish GAAP"), and presented in a
footnote to such financial statements a reconciliation of
shareholders' equity and net income under Irish GAAP to
shareholders' equity and net income under U.S. GAAP. As disclosed
in Note 2, "Restatements", to the
Consolidated Financial Statements, shareholders' equity and net
loss under U.S. GAAP for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, as
previously disclosed, have been restated to reflect the correction of
an error in accounting for an insurance program that did not involve
risk transfer and an error in accounting for the income tax effect of
net operating loss
carryforwards.

/s/   KPMG                            

KPMG
 Dublin, Ireland
 April 8,
2005
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350
  1.
    
    The periodic report containing financial statements to which this certificate is an
exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
 2.
    
    The information contained in the periodic report to which this certificate is an
exhibit fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
   By:
    /s/ FRANCIS K. CHANFrancis K. ChanExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                     32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CEO

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund IV,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kimberly A. Springsteen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.


/s/ Kimberly A. Springsteen
-------------------------------------
Kimberly A. Springsteen
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2006
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

The following list sets forth subsidiaries ofSuccessories, Inc. (an Illinois corporation) and the jurisdiction in which eachsubsidiary is organized. Successories, Inc. owns 100% of the securities of eachsubsidiary.

 
| **NAME**                        |   |     | **JURISDICTION** |
|---------------------------------|--------|----------|------------------|
|                            |   |     |
| Successories of Illinois,  Inc. |   | Illinois |
|                            |   |     |
| Celex Successories, Inc.        |   | Canada   |

 

 

----
exv10w26



 






Exhibit 10.26




SALARY INFORMATION FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS




     The table below provides information regarding the salary of each named executive officer of
XenoPort, Inc. (“XenoPort”) as of March 31, 2005. All other compensation arrangements between
XenoPort and each of its named executive officers are referenced in the Registration Statement on
Form S-1, as amended (File No. 333-122156), in the section entitled “Management.”



	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive Officer	 	Salary	 
	Ronald W. Barrett
	 	$	310,000	 
	William G. Harris
	 	$	247,000	 
	Mark A. Gallop
	 	$	225,000	 
	Kenneth C. Cundy
	 	$	220,000	 
	William J. Dower
	 	$	200,000
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carson Robert YEAGER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-3331

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 26, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1976.

Edward J. David, Fayetteville, N. C., for defendant-appellant.

Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., William R. Northcutt, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, GEWIN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Carson Robert Yeager appeals from his conviction on two counts of making false declarations to a grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a).

Yeager’s principal argument is that his testimony before the grand jury should have been suppressed in the perjury trial because he was not given a Miranda1 warning prior to the grand jury testimony. A *Miranda*warning was required, he contends, because he was a “putative defendant” at the time he gave the grand jury testimony.

We held our decision on this issue pending the Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *United States v. Mandujano,*496 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir. 1974), because the *Mandujano*case involved the same issue as presented here by Yeager. On May 19, 1976, the Supreme Court reversed *Mandujano,*holding that in a perjury prosecution a defendant may not use the privilege against self-incrimination as the basis for suppressing the very grand jury testimony that prompted the perjury charge. *United States v. Mandujano,*- U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 1768, 48 L.Ed.2d 212 (1976). The defendant in *Mandujano*was not entitled to suppression of his grand jury testimony even though he may have been a “putative defendant” and was not given a full *Miranda*warning:

> [A] witness sworn to tell the truth before a duly constituted grand jury will not be heard to call for suppression of false statements made to that jury. . Assuming, *arguendo,*that respondent was indeed a “putative defendant,” that fact would have no bearing on the validity of a conviction for testifying falsely.

-U.S.-, 96 S.Ct. at 1789, 48 L.Ed.2d at 226. *Mandujano*controls here.

We have examined Yeager’s remaining contentions and have found them without merit.

AFFIRMED.

1

. *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 128581 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128581 COA: 257760 Wayne CC: 91-003888 CLARENCE FRAZIER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 7, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p1024 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.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. 73,265

EX PARTE WESLEY JOSEPH HOGAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM COLLIN COUNTY

The opinion was deliveredper curiam.

OPINION

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to

Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of theft. Punishment was assessed at

twenty years imprisonment. This conviction was affirmed, Hogan v. State. No. 05-94-01055-

CR (Tex. App.— Dallas, delivered August 31, 1995, no pet.).

Applicant contends, inter alia, that he was denied an opportunity to file apro se

petition for discretionary review because his appellate attorney did not timely advise him as to

his right to pursue discretionary. The trial court has entered findings offact that Applicant was
not timely advised of his right to pursue apro se petition for discretionary review.

In Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), we held that for counsel

to render effective assistance on appeal, he, or she, must notify the client the case has been

affirmed and that the client can pursue discretionary review on his own.

Applicant is entitled to relief. The proper remedy in a case like this is to return

Applicant to the point at which he can file a petition for discretionary review. He may then

follow the proper procedures in order that a meaningful petition for discretionary review may

be filed. For purposes of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all time limits shall be

calculated as if the Court of Appeals' decision had been rendered on the day the mandate of

this Court in this cause issues. We hold that should Applicant desire to seek discretionary

review, he must take affirmative steps to see that his petition is filed in the Court of Appeals

within thirty days after the mandate of this Court has issued.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional and Pardons and Paroles Divisions.

PER CURIAM

DELIVERED: December 16, 1998

DO NOT PUBLISH

Holland, J., not participating.

A True Copy

T?oy C.Bennett, Jr., Clerk CourtTot Criminal Appeals^Texas

By*( Deputy
#### UNION SIMPLEX TRAIN CONTROL CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellant, v. GENERAL RAILWAY SIGNAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 7093.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1939.

Theodore W. Miller, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Hugh M. Morris, of Wilmington, Del., and Clifton V. Edwards, of New York City, for appellee.

Before MARIS, CLARK and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The decree of the District Court is affirmed for the reasons satisfactorily set forth in the opinions of Judge Nields, D. C, 23 F.Supp. 667, D. C, 26 F.Supp. 325.
CERTIFICATION OF THE CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Paul T. Anthony, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Auxilio, Inc. (the
"Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual
Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

4. Auxilio's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14) for the registrant and have:

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
            material information relating to the registrant, including its
            consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within
            those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
            report is being prepared;

      b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
            and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
            of this Annual Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)    presented in this Annual Report my conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my
            evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

      a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
            identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
            internal controls; and

      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
            internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes
in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Dated:  April 14, 2005


/s/ Paul T. Anthony
-----------------------------
Paul T. Anthony,
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**WRITTENSTATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, theundersigned Chief Financial Officer of Liquidmetal Technologies (the “Company”),hereby certifies, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A(Amendment No. 1) of the Company for the quarter ended September 30,2004, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Young Ham                       |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Young Ham, Chief  Financial Officer |
| July 20, 2006                  |

 

----
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 January 6, 2012 
 GameStop Corp. and GameStop Inc. 

c/o Abraham J. Colman 
 Reed Smith LLP

 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 
 Ladies and
Gentlemen: 
 This letter is in response to a letter from Felicia Y. Yu of Reed Smith LLP, as counsel to GameStop Corp. and GameStop Inc.
(together, “GameStop”), to SoundBite Communications, Inc. (“SoundBite”), requesting that SoundBite indemnify GameStop in relation to the litigation entitled Karayan v. GameStop Corp. and GameStop, Inc., Case
No. 11-cv-1777 LAB (the “Litigation”). 
 SoundBite agrees that it will indemnify GameStop pursuant to Attachment 6,
Section 5 (the “Indemnification Section”) of the Master Pricing Agreement dated November 1, 2009 between SoundBite and GameStop Inc., in relation to the “opt-out confirmation text” Sub-Class as defined in paragraphs 22
and 23 of the Class Action Complaint dated August 10, 2011. In relation to the general “prior express consent” Class, as defined in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Class Action Complaint, or any finding of liability based in whole or in
part on a lack of prior express consent, SoundBite will assume the defense, but reserves its rights to seek, among other things, indemnification and/or contribution from GameStop to the extent that any fees and costs (which are not de minimis) are
incurred related to the defense of that Class, and/or any liability is found or settlement is agreed to in relation to that Class or a lack of prior express consent. SoundBite understands that GameStop reserves its rights concerning any argument
that it may have as to SoundBite’s obligation to indemnify GameStop for that Class. Further, pursuant to sub-sections i and ii of the Indemnification Section, SoundBite also objects to the payment of any attorney’s fees or costs that were
incurred while the Litigation was not under its direction or control. SoundBite understands that GameStop reserves its right concerning any arguments it may have as to SoundBite’s obligation to cover these fees and costs. 

Pursuant to sub-section ii of the Indemnification Section, SoundBite will take sole control over the defense and/or settlement of the Litigation.
SoundBite has selected Cooley LLP to act as counsel in defense of the Litigation. SoundBite understands that, at this time, GameStop will not be providing for its separate defense at its own expense pursuant to sub-section iii of the Indemnification
Section. SoundBite also understands that GameStop has agreed to work cooperatively with SoundBite’s chosen counsel as provided for in sub-section ii of the Indemnification Section. SoundBite’s agreement to accept the indemnification
request is premised on GameStop executing the engagement letter with Cooley being delivered contemporaneously herewith. 
  

			
	 Sincerely,
  

SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert C. Leahy
		 	 Robert C. Leahy, Chief Operating Officer
 and Chief Financial Officer
#### STAPLES v. STATE.

No. A-11738.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 21, 1953.

*935W. H. Cooper, Anadarko, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Mitchell Staples was charged in the county court of Caddo County by information with “driving an automobile upon the State Highway while intoxicated.” He was tried before a jury, convicted, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25.00. Appeal has been perfected to this court.

The record and petition in error was filed herein on March 29, 1952. A brief was due not later than April 29, 1952 but no brief has to date been filed. Nevertheless the case was set on our docket for oral argument for September 17, 1952, but no one appeared.

We have read the record and find that the question of defendant’s intoxication was supported by ample evidence on behalf of the State, though the defendant denied intoxication and sought to so show by witnesses at trial. We find no error in the record.

We have often held that where defendant appealing from judgment of conviction files no brief and presents no argument, that this court will ascertain whether the evidence supports the verdict, examine the information, instructions excepted to and' judgment, and affirm the judgment if no material error is apparent, Hulsey v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 332, 169 P.2d 771.

The judgment of the county court of Caddo County is accordingly affirmed.

JONES and B.RETT, JJ., concur.
#### PAINEWEBBER REAL ESTATE SECURITIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.G. MEYER & CO. and Donald G. Meyer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 501, Docket 93-7452.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 28, 1993.

Decided Nov. 9, 1993.

George W. Clark, Huntington, NY (Joseph D’Elia, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

George 0. Guldi, Westhampton Beach, NY (Thomas T. McVann, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before LUMBARD, VAN GRAAFEILAND and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by Judge Wood in the district court. *See PaineWebber Real Estate Securities, Inc. v. D.G. Meyer & Co.,*835 F.Supp. 116 (1993).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-23-059]

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

United States International Trade Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

January 10, 2024 at 11:00 a.m.

# PLACE: 

Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS:

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agendas for future meetings: none.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Commission vote on Inv. No. 701-TA-686 (Final) (Brass Rod from India). The Commission currently is scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on February 1, 2024.

5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.

The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 27, 2023.

Sharon Bellamy,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-28825 Filed 12-27-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P