alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 annual report on Form 10-K of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended April 3, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nicholas Konidaris, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Nicholas Konidaris               
|Nicholas Konidaris                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer

June 15, 2010

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
First Amendment to Senior Management Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 SENIOR MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 WHEREAS, Huron Consulting Group LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”) has entered into an
Senior Management Agreement, effective as of May 13, 2002 (the “Agreement”) with Gary E. Holdren (the “Executive”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to amend the Agreement; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2004, as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby restated in its entirety, as follows: 

  

	 	2.1	Base Salary 

  
 As consideration for the services of Executive hereunder, during the Employment Period, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base salary of eight
hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) (the “Base Salary”), payable in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll practices as in effect from time to time. The Chairman shall perform an annual review of Executive’s
compensation based on Executive’s performance of his duties and the Company’s other compensation policies, provided that Executive’s Base Salary, as increased from time to time, shall not be reduced without Executive’s written
consent. The term Base Salary shall include any changes to the Base Salary from time to time. 
  

	2.	The Agreement is hereby amended by adding a new Section 11.15, as follows: 

  

	 	11.5	Other Matters. 

  
 Following the effectiveness of an initial public offering of the common stock of Huron Consulting Group Inc., references to determinations to be made by
the Parent Board with respect to the compensation of Executive shall be deemed to be references to the compensation committee of the Parent Board. In addition, to the extent that Executive is, at any time during the Employment Period, serving as the
Chairman, references to determinations to be made by, or the authority of, the Chairman, shall be deemed to refer instead to the compensation committee of the Parent Board, or, in the discretion of the Parent Board and consistent with applicable law
and regulations, to the Parent Board itself. 
  

	3.	This First Amendment and the Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and all questions concerning the construction, validity, interpretation and performance of
this First Amendment and the Agreement shall be governed by, the laws of the State of Illinois without giving effect to provisions thereof regarding conflict of laws. 









	4.	Except as specifically set forth in this First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and, as amended by this First Amendment, is hereby ratified and
confirmed by the Company and the Executive. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment as of the dates written below. 
  

	
	THE COMPANY:
	
	HURON CONSULTING GROUP LLC
	
	 /s/ Kathleen Johnston

	 By: Kathleen Johnston

	 Its: Vice President

	 Date: May 6, 2004

	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Gary E. Holdren

	 Gary E. Holdren

	 Date: May 6, 2004
EXHIBIT 10.3

Silverthorne Production Company
Inter-American Telecommunications Holding Corporation
2008 Second Avenue, #108
Seattle, Washington, USA 98121
1-206-320-8502o  1-206-320-8420 faxo  email:  telkiosk@aol.com



October 5, 1999


Mr. Darrell H. Hughes
9930 N.E. 197th Street
Bothell, Washington 98011
Fax 1-425-3408

Dear Darrell:

         It is my pleasure to extend to you this offer of  employment  on behalf
of    Silverthorne    Production    Company    ("SLTH")    and    Inter-American
Telecommunications  Holding Corporation ("ITHC"). We hereby offer you employment
for a guaranteed term of three years to serve as Chief Executive Officer of both
ITHC and SLTH, and to stand for election as Chairman of the SLTH and ITHC Boards
of Directors.

         Our offer consists of the following:

         Annual salary                 = $125,000
         ITHC shares signing bonus     = 500 shares of ITHC common (5% of
                                         authorized)
         ITHC shares 1st year bonus    = 500 shares of ITHC common (5% of
                                         authorized)
         SLTH options                  = 400,000  shares at $0.46
         4 weeks annual paid vacation

         In addition SLTH will provide a comprehensive benefit package including
medical  and dental plan that you and Dave Lucas will  develop,  a 401K plan and
provide for life insurance  coverage.  As you shall determine  certain personnel
may require an automobile or reimbursement for use thereof.

         Please  advise  us relative  to this offer at your  earliest  possible
 convenience.

         Sincerely,

         /s/Jimmy L. Boswell
         -------------------
         Jimmy L. Boswell
         President, COO


<PAGE>
| Name                                                               |  Jurisdiction                     | Percentage Owned |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------|
|  Sichuan Apollo Solar Science & Technology Co., Ltd.      |  People’s Republic of China |             | 100 | %  (Owned by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc.) |
|  Sichuan Xinlong Tellurium Industry & Technique Co., Ltd. |  People’s Republic of China |             | 100 | %  (Owned by Sichuan Apollo Solar Science & Technology Co., Ltd) |
|  Sichuan Shimian Dadu River Mining & Metallurgy Co., Ltd. |  People’s Republic of China |             | 100 | %  (Owned by Sichuan Xinlong Tellurium Industry & Technique Co., Ltd) |

----
#### Claude MORTON, Appellant, v. Ernestine HUMBER, Appellee.

No. 4041.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Jan. 21, 1966.

David D. Foster, Underwood, Wilson, Sutton, Heare & Berry, Harlow Sprouse, Amarillo, for appellant.

Jerry R. Hollingsworth, Amarillo, for appellee.

GRISSOM, Chief Justice.

Mrs. Humber bought a house from Mr. Morton. The first time she built a fire in the fireplace the house caught fire because of an unsealed void in the fireplace which caused an up-draft in the attic. The house was damaged but not destroyed. She sued for damages. Mrs. Humber alleged breach of an implied warranty of fitness of the fireplace and that Morton was negligent in allowing an unsealed void to remain in the fireplace, which created an up-draft in the attic and proximately caused the fire. She alleged the difference between the cash market value of her house immediately before and after the fire was $10,000.00 for which she sued. Issue five inquired what *832amount of money would reasonably compensate Mrs. Humber for damages caused by the fire. The jury answered $14,000.00. Such submission of the damage issue was objected to as improper under plaintiff’s pleading of $10,000.00 difference in market value before and after the fire and, further, because the issue submitted was not pleaded. The damages found in answer to this issue was $14,000.00. The damages alleged was $10,000.00. Judgment was rendered against Mr. Morton for $10,000.00 and he has appealed.

Morton’s objection to the submission of said issue should have been sustained. Contrary to appellee’s contention, submission of issue S cannot be sustained upon the theory that, although not pleaded, it was tried by consent. Appellant properly objected to its submission. Our Supreme Court has held that although an appellant does not object to testimony relative to an issue not pleaded if he objects to its submission on some tenable ground he cannot be held to have impliedly consented to a trial thereof without pleadings. Harkey v. Texas Employers' Insurance Association, 146 Tex. 504, 208 S.W.2d 919, 922.

The court erred in submitting said issue over appellant’s objection. The jury was thus permitted to find appellee’s damages without regard to her pleadings and without instructions from the court and it did find $4,000.00 more damages than ap-pellee even claimed. The error was manifestly harmful to appellant. South Plains Ready Mix, Inc. v. McDermett, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.2d 575, 577; Dallas Railway and Terminal Company v. Strickland Trans portation Company, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 901; Crain v. West Texas Utilities Company, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 512, 514, (Ref. N.R.E.) Tinney v. Williams, Tex.Civ. App., 144 S.W.2d 344, 346; Lone Star Gas Company v. Holifield, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W.2d 282, 285; Burns v. Lamb, Tex.Civ. App., 312 S.W.2d 730, 734. All other points are overruled. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
#### STARR COUNTY, Texas, Appellant, v. J. C. GUERRA, Appellee.

No. 12936.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 14, 1955.

Gerald Weatherly, Rio Grande City, for appellant.

Sam H. Burris, Alice, for appellee.

W. O. MURRAY, Chief, Justice.

This suit was instituted by Starr County against J. C. Guerra in' the District Court of Starr County as Cause No. 3017, seeking a temporary injunction, and upon final hearing a permanent injunction, ordering the defendant to desist and refrain from attacking or questioning an agreed judgment in Cause No. 3002, styled Starr County, Texas v. J. C. Guerra, rendered in the District Court of Starr County on May 18, 1955.

The trial court sustained appellee’s plea, of “Another Action Pending” and dismissed the cause,, from . which judgment. Starr County has prosecuted this appeal.

Appellee’s plea of “Another Action Pending” was based upon the fact that on May 31, 1955, thirteen days after judgment had been rendered in Cause No. 3002,. appellant- filed ,a motion for a new trial, and therefore that cause was still pending in the District Court of Starr County. Rule 329-b,, Texas Rules of, Civil Procedure, subd. 1, provides that a motion for new trial must-be filed within ten days after the judgment is rendered., The filing of a motion for new trial on the thirteenth day after the rendition of judgment was a nullity and of no-*305force or effect. Forrest v. Beynon, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 355; Rule 329-b, supra. There being no motion for a new trial filed .within the prescribed time, the judgment became final thirty days after it was rendered. Rule 329-b, T.R.C.P. Cause No. 3002 was not a pending cause when the plea of “Another Action Pending” was filed on July 7, 1955.

The trial court erred in sustaining appel-lee’s plea of “Another Action Pending” and dismissing this causé. Accordingly, the judgment will be reverséd and the cause remanded for further action not inconsistent with this opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 11881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03095]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: February 15, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
February 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 46 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-182, CP2024-188.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-03095 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Amendment to Secured Revolving Convertible Promissory Note Agreement


EXHIBIT 10.6(a)




THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE




SECURED REVOLVING CONVERIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE




This Second Amendment To The Secured Revolving Convertible Promissory Note (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of September 27, 2016 by and between GelTech Solutions, Inc. (the “Borrower”) and Michael L. Reger (the “Lender”). 




WHEREAS, the Lender extended a secured revolving convertible line of credit to the Borrower as evidenced by a Secured Revolving Convertible Promissory Note dated February 13, 2015 in the principal balance of Four Million 00/100 Dollars ($4,000,000.00) (the “Note”), (all documents and agreements executed by the Borrower in connection with the Note are hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Documents”); 




WHEREAS, the Lender and Borrower agreed to increase the principal balance of the Note to Five Million and 00/100 Dollars ($5,000,000.00) by the First Amendment to the Secured Revolving Convertible Promissory Note dated April 5, 2016 (the “First Amendment”); and




WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested, and the Lender has agreed, to make further amendments to the Note. 




NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 




1. Any term not defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Note.  




2. The Note is amended by increasing the principal sum to Six Million and 00/100 Dollars ($6,000,000.00) (the “Maximum Amount”).  




3. The Borrower hereby represents and warrants to the Lender that:  




(a)

Each and every one of the representations and warranties set forth in the Loan Documents is true as of the date hereof and with the same effect as though made on the date hereof, and is hereby incorporated herein in full by reference as if fully restated herein in its entirety.  




(b)

No Default or Event of Default and no event or condition which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute such a Default or Event of Default, now exists or would exist.  











4. Except as set forth herein and amended and modified hereby, the Note and Loan Documents have not been amended or modified and remain in full force and effect except for the First Amendment increasing the principal sum to Five Million and 00/100  Dollars ($5,000,000.00).  




5. Borrower waives any offset defense or counterclaim Borrower may now have or may have in the future with regard to the Note and Loan Documents.  
















[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS ON NEXT PAGE]






































[SIGNATURE PAGE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SECURED REVOLVING CONVERIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE BETWEEN GELTECH SOLUTIONS, INC. AND MICHAEL L. REGER DATED FEBRUARY 15, 2015]




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered on the date first written above. 










			
	 
	BORROWER:


	 
	 
	 

	 
	GelTech Solutions, Inc.


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:

	 

	 
	 
	Michael Hull, Chief Financial Officer


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	LENDER:


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	Michael L. Reger
#### Jerry WATKINS, Appellant, v. Ruby McCLUSKEY, Appellee.

No. 3195.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Nov. 18, 1955.

*382Brooks, Fergus, Brooks & Robinson, Abilene, for appellant.

Guilford L. Jones, Big Spring, for appel-lee.

GRISSOM, Chief Justice.

Ruby McQuskey sued Jerry Watkins in Howard County on a note executed by Watkins. Watkins resided in Taylor County and filed a plea of privilege to be sued there. Watkins’ plea was overruled and he has appealed.

The note sued on is as follows:

*383

Plaintiff claimed the right to maintain suit in Howard County under the 5th exception to the general rule, stated in Art. 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1995, that suit must be brought in the county where the defendants reside. Exception 5 provides that if a person has contracted in writing to perform an obligation in a particular county, expressly naming such county, or a definite place therein, by such writing, suit upon or by reason of such obligation may be brought against him in said county. Exceptions to Article 1995 are strictly construed. They must be clearly established before a citizen can be deprived of the right to be sued in the county of his domicile. National Life Co. v. Rice, 140 Tex. 315, 167 S.W.2d 1021; Colorado County v. J. M. English Truck Line, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 357.

An examination of the note reveals that Watkins did not therein agree to pay the note at Big Spring. It- merely shows that he promised to pay the note to the order of Charlie Tune of Big Spring. Immediately under.Tune’s written name and address the printed .portion of the note directs that the “Dealer’s Name and Address” be stated. The payee’s name and address were written *384exactly as directed by said printed portion of the note. It purports to show only the name and address of the payee. The note does not contain an agreement by the maker to pay it at Big Spring. The printed word “at” follows the name and address of the payee, “at” is followed by a blank which was not filled and no place at which payment was to be made is stated. The printer of the note evidently intended that if the parties desired to provide for payment at a certain place that such place should be written into the note after the printed word “at”. This was not done. Exception 5 is not applicable and the plea of privilege should have been sustained. Nichols v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indemnity Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 279.

The judgment is reversed with instructions to transfer the case to Taylor County.

Reversed with instructions.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**






CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
      connection with the Quarterly report of Lion Capital Holdings, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Timothy T. Page, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
      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) 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.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.




Date:
                August 14,
                2007
            By:
            /s/ Timothy
              T.
              PageTimothy
              T. PageChief
              Executive Officer and
              Chairman of the Board of Directors
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR MERISEL, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              36,447
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      181,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18,549
<INVENTORY>                                        462,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   675,090
<PP&E>                                             102,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                      62,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     747,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              477,936
<BONDS>                                            131,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               801
<OTHER-SE>                                         281,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       747,111
<SALES>                                          4,048,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,048,972
<CGS>                                            3,807,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,807,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   211,628
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    14,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26,957
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (11,601)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           496
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (12,097)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     (3,744)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (15,841)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.48)



</TABLE>