alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.27

proteon                                            Proteon. Inc
--------                                           Nine Technology Drive
                                                   Wesborough, MA 01581-1799
                                                   508 / 898-2800


March 11, 1996


Mr. William T. Greer
53 South Street
Upton, MA 01568

Dear Tim:

It is my pleasure to offer you the position of Vice President Sales for North,
South and Latin America, reporting directly to me.

The terms of our agreement will be as follows:

-    BASE SALARY: You will receive an initial minimum annual base salary of
     $95,000, which will be reviewed annually, plus incentive and bonus
     compensation as described below.

-    INCENTIVE COMPENSATION: You will be eligible for $67,000, Incentive
     Compensation, without a cap, based on Sales Revenue performance.

-    BONUS: You will be eligible for an additional annual MIP bonus compensation
     of 40% of Base salary. ($38,000 annualized target on base salary of
     $95,000, for example). Payment of this bonus is based upon Proteon's
     Management Incentive Program.

-    STOCK: A recommendation will be made to the Compensation Committee that you
     receive an option to purchase 25,000 shares of stock which vest over a 4
     year period.

Tim, I look forward to the contributions you will make in your new role at
Proteon, and wish you great success. Please indicate your acceptance of this
offer by signing below. Please return one copy of the signed offer letter.

It is understood that the contents herein are confidential to both yourself and
Proteon.

Sincerely,


/s/ Daniel J. Capone, Jr.

Daniel J. Capone, Jr.
President and C.E.O.

Accepted by:                                 Start date:
            --------------------------------            -----------------------
                    William T. Greer
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Form 10-KSB of McIntosh Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the year ending December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), William K. Malone, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James P. Doyle, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his/her knowledge 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 results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ William K. MaloneWILLIAM K. MALONEChief Executive OfficerMarch 28, 2005/s/ James P. DoyleJAMES P. DOYLEChief Financial Officer andAccounting OfficerMarch 28, 2005




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

WORLD AWARD FOUNDATION 

INC., AMER GROUP LLC, AN 

BANG GROUP LLC, and AB 

STABLE GROUP LLC, 

Plaintiffs Below, 

Appellants, 

v. 

ANBANG INSURANCE GROUP 

CO. LTD., CBIRC, and BEIJING 

GREAT HUA BANG 

INVESTMENT GROUP CO. LTD., 

Defendants Below, 

Appellees. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 265, 2020 

§ 

§ Court Below: Court of Chancery 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ C.A. No. 2019-0605 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Submitted: September 8, 2020 

Decided: September 21, 2020 

ORDER

On August 11, 2020, this Court received from Tian Ge Zhou a notice of appeal 

from a Court of Chancery order and judgment entered on July 2, 2020. Under 

Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 

August 3, 2020. A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s 

appellate jurisdiction.1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the 

 

1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2

applicable time period to be effective.2 On August 24, 2020, the Senior Court Clerk 

issued a notice directing the appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be 

dismissed as untimely filed. On September 3, 2020, the Court received the certified 

mail receipt indicating that the notice to show cause had been delivered on August 

28, 2020. The appellants have not filed a response to the notice to show cause within 

the required ten-day period. Dismissal of this appeal is therefore deemed to be 

unopposed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) 

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice

 

2

 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31271]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacture, and Industrial 
Innovation; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Design, Manufacture, and 
Industrial Innovation--(1194).
    Date and Time: January 6, 2001, 8:00 am-5:30 pm.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Westshore Hotel, Tampa, FL.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Ronald Rardin, Program Directors, DMII, 
(703) 292-8330, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Unsolicited proposals as part of 
the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: December 1, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-31271 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
SECTION1350 CERTIFICATIONSEXHIBIT32
 

 
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002The undersigned certify that, to their knowledge, the Form 10-K of Wilmington Trust Corporation(“Wilmington Trust”) for 2006 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in that report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Wilmington Trust.         /s/ Ted T. Cecala    Ted T. Cecala   Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer            /s/David R. Gibson    David R. Gibson   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### RHODES v. STATE.

No. 20419.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 7, 1939.

Bruce Graham, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for theft of an automobile over the value of $50. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

On the night of April 2, 1937, Mrs. Newbury drove her automobile to a point near the post office, parked it and went inside to mail a letter. While she was gone someone stole her car. She immediately reported the matter to the police department. In the latter part of August, her car was found in the possession of Solon Stanley. Stanley testified that he purchased the car from Guy Cox in the month of April. Cox acquired it from Williams and Williams had purchased it from thq appellant. The automobile in question was definitely identified as the one stolen from Mrs. Newbury. Appellant -did not testify in his own behalf. His defensive theory was that of mistaken identity of the automobile alleged to have been stolen, and he offered some testimony in support of his theory. Thus an issue of fact was raised, which was submitted to the jury under an appropriate instruction and which they decided adversely to appellant’s contention.

By bill of exception number one, appellant complains of certain remarks made by the District Attorney in his closing argument to the jury. The remarks are set out at length in the bill. Appellant interposed a general objection to said remarks, some of which were unquestionably proper. Those deemed to have been im*317proper were not specifically objected to. Hence the bill of exception is insufficient. See Gray v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 481, 5 S.W.2d 518; McVicker v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 598, 272 S.W. 166. Furthermore, the remarks seem to have been a proper reply to the argument of counsel for appellant, and no request was made by appellant for an instruction to the jury to disregard any specific part thereof.

The remarks complained of in bill of exception number two were based upon evidence and seem to have been' a proper and legitimate deduction therefrom. Consequently no error is shown.

Bill of exception number three also complains of certain remarks made by the district attorney. This bill is qualified by the trial court and as qualified fails to show error.

All other matters complained of by appellant .have been considered by us and are deemed to be withoht merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court. '
EXHIBIT 32.2

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of ActiveCore  Technologies,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
each of the undersigned herby certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  in his
capacity as an officer of the Company, 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 results of  operation of the
Company.

Date:    December 22, 2004       By: /S/ Brian MacDonald
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Brian J. MacDonald
                                     Chairman and Acting Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ActiveCore Technologies,
Inc.  formerly IVP  Technology  Corporation  and will be retained by  ActiveCore
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-3396

_____________________________

RANDY WALKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Kevin J. Carroll, Judge.

September 26, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Randy Walker, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1958 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require Internet-based, 

real-time responses to requests to verify taxpayer income for legitimate 

business purposes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 16, 2017 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 

Internet-based, real-time responses to requests to verify 

taxpayer income for legitimate business purposes, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘IRS Data Verification 

5 Modernization Act of 2017’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1958 IS

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION FOR 

2 THIRD-PARTY INCOME VERIFICATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury or 

4 the Secretary’s delegate (referred to in this section as the 

5 ‘‘Secretary’’) shall implement a program to ensure that 

6 any qualified disclosure— 

7 (1) is fully automated and accomplished 

8 through the Internet; and 

9 (2) is accomplished in as close to real-time as 

10 is practicable. 

11 (b) QUALIFIED DISCLOSURE.—For purposes of sub12 section (a), the term ‘‘qualified disclosure’’ means a disclo13 sure under section 6103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 

14 of 1986 of returns or return information by the Secretary 

15 to a person seeking to verify the income of a taxpayer for 

16 a legitimate business purpose who has represented to the 

17 Secretary that such person will comply with the require18 ments of section 6103(p)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code 

19 of 1986. 

20 (c) USER FEE.— 

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall assess 

22 and collect a fee for disclosures described in sub23 section (a) at such rates as the Secretary determines 

24 are sufficient to recover the costs related to imple25 menting the program described in subsection (a) not 

26 later than 5 years after such costs are paid or inVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:25 Oct 17, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1958.IS S1958

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1958 IS

1 curred. Such costs shall include the costs of any nec2 essary infrastructure or technology. 

3 (2) DEPOSIT OF COLLECTIONS.—Amounts re4 ceived from fees authorized by paragraph (1) shall 

5 be deposited as an offsetting collection in, and cred6 ited to, the account through which funds are made 

7 available to carry out the activities described in sub8 section (a). 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tracy Moore, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Píncus, J.), rendered December 3, 1987, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was given his *Miranda*warnings and was asked, "Do you 'wanna’ speak to me?” The defendant’s negative response invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent but not his Sixth Amendment right to counsel *(see, People v Gamble,*129 AD2d 470, *affd*70 NY2d 885). Some hours later, and upon his own initiative, the defendant stated that he wished to talk to the police and volunteered a statement. Since the defendant’s right to remain silent had been *464"scrupulously honored” by the police in the interim, his subsequent voluntary statement was properly admitted into evidence *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436, 479; *Michigan v Mosley,*423 US 96; *People v Ferro,*63 NY2d 316, *cert denied*472 US 1007).

Moreover, the trial court’s *Sandoval*ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion. Despite the fact that the defendant’s prior theft offenses were similar in nature to the crime with which he was charged, their prejudicial effect was outweighed by their probative value since theft offenses are highly relevant on the question of a defendant’s credibility and willingness to further his self-interest at the expense of society *(see, People v Winfield,*145 AD2d 449; *People v Wendel,*123 AD2d 410; *People v Wright,*112 AD2d 179).

The defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is without merit *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POST APARTMENT HOMES, L.P. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,060,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                   1,228,647,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             191,632,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,063,141,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    510,637,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 485,327,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,063,141,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           138,194,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               70,682,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,722,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             44,385,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         44,710,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 93,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                44,617,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 120 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the alternative motor 

vehicle personal credit against the alternative minimum tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the 

alternative motor vehicle personal credit against the alternative minimum tax. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE PERSONAL 

4 CREDIT ALLOWED AGAINST ALTERNATIVE 

5 MINIMUM TAX. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 30B(g) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applica8 tion with other credits) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(2) PERSONAL CREDIT.—The credit allowed 

10 under subsection (a) (after the application of paraVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:16 Jan 10, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H120.IH H120

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 120 IH

1 graph (1)) for any taxable year shall not exceed the 

2 excess (if any) of— 

3 ‘‘(A) the sum of the regular tax liability 

4 (as defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax im5 posed by section 55, over 

6 ‘‘(B) the sum of the credits allowable 

7 under this part (other than subpart C, subpart 

8 H, and this section).’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph (A) 

10 of section 30C(d)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 

11 ‘‘sections 27, 30, and 30B’’ and inserting ‘‘sections 27 and 

12 30’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

15 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
# MDE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washin
g ton Boul e vard
• Baltimore MD 21230 410-537-3000

• 1-800-633-6101

• www

. mde.maryland

. g ov Larry Ho g an Governo

r Boyd Ruthe rfo rd Li e ut e nant G ov e rnor Mr
. Shawn M. Garvin Re g ional Admin

i strator (3RAOO) U . S . E nv i ronm e n ta l Prot e ction A ge ncy Re g ion 

### Ill 1650 A r ch Street Philadelphia, PA 

### 19103-2029 Dear Mr
. Garvin: April


### 1 3 , 2015

Ben Gru m bl es Secretary The purpose
o f th i s l e tter
i s to submit th e encJos e d Sta te Implem
e ntat i on Plan (SIP) Revis

i on 

### # 15-02 containing Maryland's updated Clean Ca r r e g ulations that r e flect the chan g es made to adopt the California Low E missions V ehi cle 

### III Pro gr am. The last updat e t o the Maryland re g ulations occurred on Mar c h 

### 03, 2014. This SIP Revision includes am e n dme nts to Re g ulation 

### .02 under COMAR 

### 26.11.34 Low Em i ssions Vehicle Pro g ram. Thou g h this pack a g e contains 

### all of the appropri
a te CaJiforni

a re g ulations, Maryland
is not submittin
g 

### § 2030 Liqu efie d Pet r oleum Gas or Natural 

### G as Retrofit Syst e ms from Division

3 , Cha p ter I , Article 5 of Title 13 of the California Code of Re g ulations, for app r oval as part o f Maryland's SIP. The Notice of Propos
e d Action was published in the Maryland Re g ist e r on December


### I, 2014. A public h e arin g was held on January 

### 7, 2015

. The action was adopted on January 

### 20,2015. The Not i c e of Final Act i on was published on February 

### 6, 2015 and the action became effective on February 

### 16, 2015. All required adm
i nistrat

i ve procedures were followed throu g hout the adoption process. 

### I ce rtif y that the el e ctronic copy of th is SIP subm

i ttal (compact
d i s k encJosed)
is an exact duplicate

o f the official hard copy. If you have any questions concernin
g this SIP action, please
f e e l fre e to call me at 

### (410) 537-3084 or Mr. G eor g e (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Mana g ement Administration,
at 

### (410) 537-3255. Benjam

i n 

### H. Grumbles Secretary Enclosu re cc : Mr. Geor ge (Tad) S. Abum Jr., D i recto r , Air and Radiation Mana g ement Administr

a tion 

### ~ R ecyc
l e d l' a p cr www

. md e .m a ryland. g ov

TTY U se rs I·KIKI· 7 3:i - 22.'iK V 1 a M a ry la nd R elay S er .,. icc