alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.16





 Exhibit 10.16 

SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 

Independent non-employee directors of Mastech Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) will receive an
annual retainer fee of $48,000 in 2019, other than the Chair of the Audit Committee who will receive an annual retainer fee of $52,000 in 2019. In addition, independent non-employee directors of the
Company are eligible to participate in the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Stock Incentive Plan”). On January 30, 2018, our independent non-employee directors each
received a restricted share grant under the Stock Incentive Plan of 8,460 restricted shares, which shares vest over a three-year period. 
 Non-independent directors of the Company will not receive any compensation for their service as directors of the Company. 

All of the Company’s directors are reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with attending Board of Directors and
committee meetings.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

L.M., the mother, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2181

[ November 27, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Moses Baker, Jr.

, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2014

- DP

- 300835

- XXXX

- MB

.

David J. Joffe of Joffe Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum of Children 's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children and Families

.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha Costas Valley, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division of Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahas see, for I.M. and D.B., the children.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C.J., M AY and F ORST
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
*

The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United States Chief District Judge for the Western

District of Michigan, sitting by designation. 

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0138n.06

Filed: February 22, 2005

No. 04-5400

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

DANA BROOKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Before: RYAN and COOK, Circuit Judges; BELL, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Dana Brooks appeals the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of social

security disability benefits. After hearing oral argument and reviewing the record, the parties’

briefs, and the applicable law, this court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served

by a panel opinion and affirms the district court’s decision for the reasons well stated in Chief

District Judge James Todd’s opinion.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1608 

To include the county of Mohave, in the State of Arizona, as an affected 

area for purposes of making claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2011 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To include the county of Mohave, in the State of Arizona, 

as an affected area for purposes of making claims under 

the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mohave County Radi5 ation Compensation Act of 2011’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1608 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE 

2 COMPENSATION ACT. 

3 Section 4(b)(1)(C) of the Radiation Exposure Com4 pensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended by insert5 ing ‘‘Mohave,’’ after ‘‘Apache,’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31(a)**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**
I, Gregory B. Kalush, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Interphase Corporation (the “Company”);  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theAudit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors:
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.         Date: March 18, 2005   Signature: /s/ Gregory B. Kalush               Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6562

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARY A. JOHNSON, a/k/a Chub, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-63-R, CA-97-290-R) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Johnson , Nos. CR-93-63-R ; CA-97-290-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.67

                               AMENDMENT TO THE
                                 MERISEL, INC.
                        1991 EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN
                                 (As Amended)


     The Merisel, Inc. 1991 Employee Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") shall be
amended as follows, effective on the 16th day of January, 1997:

          1. Section 10 of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following
sentence, immediately succeeding the second sentence of Section 10:

       Upon any reorganization, merger or consolidation in which the Company is
       the surviving corporation, the Option Committee may, in its sole and
       absolute discretion, provide that each outstanding Option granted on or
       after January 16, 1997, shall be treated in the same manner and be
       subject to the same terms and conditions as could be the case if the
       Company were not the surviving corporation.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Instrument of amendment is executed this 16th day
of January, 1997.

                              MERISEL, INC.


                              By:/s/ DWIGHT A. STEFFENSEN
                                 -------------------------
                                 Name:  Dwight A. Steffensen
                                 Title: Chairman and CEO
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549
EXHIBIT 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE 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  VerticalBuyer, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2001 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Leslie  Kent,  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:

            (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.

      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:  July 2, 2004

                                              /s/Leslie  Kent
                                              -------------------------
                                              Leslie  Kent
                                              Chief  Financial  Officer


                                       11
<PAGE>
#### Fred HAMMERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28039.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1956.

*637No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the sale of beer in a dry area; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. . All-proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review., The judgment is. affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1514 

To limit United States assistance to Egypt unless Egypt is honoring its 

commitments under the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2011 

Ms. BERKLEY (for herself and Mr. ENGEL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To limit United States assistance to Egypt unless Egypt 

is honoring its commitments under the 1979 peace treaty 

between Egypt and Israel. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE 

4 TO EGYPT. 

5 No funds made available for assistance to Egypt may 

6 be obligated or expended unless the President determines 

7 and certifies to Congress that Egypt is honoring its com8 mitments under the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and 

9 Israel. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Roberto FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38404.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 16, 1965.

Marvin Foster (on appeal only), Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary with two prior felony convictions alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life.

The sole question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses Sendejo and Mendoza, who were both under indictment for the offense in question, and who the Court instructed the jury were accomplice witnesses. Their testimony was that the offense occurred in the afternoon. One set the time at 3:00 and the other at 3:30. The witness Diaz testified that he arrived at the scene and saw a man walking away from the tavern carrying a case of beer which he put down when the witness called to him. He was unable to identify appellant as being the man in question. He testified that he remained at the tavern some 30 minutes until he was able to get word to the tavern operator, Nava, and that thereafter Nava and the police arrived. Nava testified that he was notified about the burglary at 3:00 p. m.

Other than the accomplices, the only witness who placed appellant anywhere near the tavern was the beer salesman, Cadriel, who stated that he saw appellant and accomplice Sendejo outside the tavern at 10:30 a. m. on the day in question.

*886The State was able to corroborate the accomplices as to several of their other activities during the day, but was unable to corroborate their testimony so as to put appellant at the scene at the time all the State’s witnesses testified that the tavern was burglarized, and the case of beer taken.

Under the rule announced in Alexander v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 460, 274 S.W.2d 81, and Dalrymple v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 366 S.W.2d 576, we find the evidence insufficient to corroborate the accomplice witnesses.

We do not agree with the State that appellant’s attempt to get two witnesses to testify that they had seen him at a certain location on the day in question constitutes a declaration sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice witnesses and which tends to connect the appellant with the offense committed.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
1997 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-23-1997

United States v. Martin

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 96-7373

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"United States v. Martin" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 137.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/137
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

96-7373 

 USA v. MARTIN 

The following modifications have been made to the Court’s 

opinion issued on 6/18/97 in the above-entitled appeal and will 

appear as part of the final version of the opinion: 

 Page 2, paragraph 4, line 1: 

please replace the word “days” with the word 

“months” 

/s/ P. Douglas Sisk, 

 Clerk 

Date: June 20, 1997
EXHIBIT 31

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Kexi Xu, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Jointland Development
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of September 30, 2005; and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
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

<PAGE>

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. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  November 22, 2005


/s/ Kexi Xu
---------------------
Kexi Xu,
President, CEO, & CFO
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1613 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1613

To amend title VI of the Clean Air Act to make a restriction on the use 
of class II substances inapplicable to certain fire suppression agents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2011

Mr. Heck (for himself, Mr. Matheson, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren 
of California, and Mr. Heller) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title VI of the Clean Air Act to make a restriction on the use 
of class II substances inapplicable to certain fire suppression agents.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fire Protection Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. FIRE SUPPRESSION AGENTS.

    Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7671d(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding the following new paragraph after paragraph 
        (3):
            ``(4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire suppression 
        agent for nonresidential applications in accordance with 
        section 612(c).''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32**




**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 eRoomSystem Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David
      A. Gestetner, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), President
      and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer) of
      the
      Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






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




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











By:
                /s/ David A. Gestetner
            
            President,
                Chief Executive Officer and
              Chief
                Financial Officer
            
            August
                  3, 2006David
                A. Gestetner
            
            (Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal
              Financial
                and Accounting Officer )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

VICTOR M. RIOS, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-2399

LT Case No. 2019-304751-CFDB

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed November 15, 2022

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Volusia County, 

Karen A. Foxman, Judge.

Victor M. Rios, Monticello, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) In connection with the Annual Report of McRae Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for
the fiscal year ending July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Marvin G. Kiser, Sr., Vice President of Finance of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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. /s/ Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.Marvin G. Kiser, Sr.Vice President of Finance
 June 24, 2005 45