alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.5



 	
  

 


SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


The following is a summary of
the currently effective compensation of the non-employee directors of Commtouch Software Ltd. (the
“Company”) for services as directors: 


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 •

 	
 Directors
 are granted stock options, with new directors receiving an initial grant of
 50,000 options and continuing directors receiving an “evergreen” option grant
 of 16,667 options. At the annual meeting in October 2009, shareholders
 approved a one-time increase of the evergreen option grant to 30,000 options.

 
	
  

 	
 •

 	
 Through 2008, directors did not receive cash
 compensation for their services. However, at the annual meeting in December
 2008, shareholders approved the payment of cash compensation, in addition to
 the stated options compensation, according to the following: 

 






	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 1.

 	
 NIS
 31,700 base annually per director, as linked to the applicable Israeli
 consumer price index, payable in four equal installments at the beginning of
 each calendar quarter; and 

 
	
  

 	
 2.

 	
 NIS
 1,590 per director per face to face Board or committee meeting or NIS954 (60%
 of NIS 1590) in case of telephonic participation at such meeting, payable at
 the beginning of each calendar quarter following the quarter during which a
 Board member participated in a meeting. No separate per meeting compensation
 will be paid for committee meetings that are held on the same day immediately
 prior or subsequent to a Board meeting. In that event, a Board and committee
 meeting will be considered one meeting.

 
	
  

 	
 3.

 	
 For
 non-Israeli based directors, the amounts set forth will be paid in United
 States dollars, according to the representative rate of exchange published by
 the Bank of Israel on the date of payment.

 


Other than the foregoing option grants, cash compensation and
reimbursement of expenses, the Company does not compensate its non-employee
directors for serving on its board of directors.
##### 



Exhibit 23.2
 (RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LOGO)

    
    FAX (713) 651-08491100 LOUISIANA
    SUITE 3800
    
    HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218
    
    TELEPHONE (713) 651-9191
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
  -s- RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. 
 1200, 530 8TH AVENUE, S.W.
    
    CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 3S8
    
    TEL (403) 262-2799
    
    FAX (403) 262-2790621 17TH STREET, SUITE 1550
    
    DENVER, COLORADO 80293-1501
    
    TEL (303) 623-9147
    
    FAX (303) 623-4258
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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the Report) of Moventis Capital, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2006, Walter Kloeble, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



|                         |                        
|------------------------ | -----------------------
|                         |                        
|Dated: November 10, 2006 | /s/ WALTER KLOEBLE     
|                         | Walter Kloeble,        
|                         |                        
|                         | Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Dr. KariStefansson, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of deCODE genetics, Inc.; and

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Kari  Stefansson  |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   |   | Kari Stefansson            |
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer   |

 

Dated: April 4, 2008

 

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Olive Jean Lawrence v. Cheryl Page

Appellate case number: 01-16-00133-CV

Trial court case number: 445,145

Trial court: Probate Court No 1 of Harris County

Date motion filed: October 28, 2016

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Huddle 

Date: December 6, 2016
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


The Board of Directors
Guitar Center, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-88677, 333-88675 and 333-26257) on Form S-8 of Guitar Center, Inc. of our
report dated February 9, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Guitar Center, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and 1999, and
the related consolidated statements of earnings, retained earnings, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999,
and related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1999,
annual report on Form 10-K of Guitar Center, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP


Los Angeles, California
March 28, 2000
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1329

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ivan Avalos Espinoza

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

 ____________

 Submitted: November 21, 2023

Filed: November 30, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Following his guilty plea to a drug offense, Ivan Avalos Espinoza (Avalos)

appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motions challenging the search of two cell

phones.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying Avalos’s request for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware,

438 U.S. 154 (1978), as he failed to show that information necessary to the finding

of probable cause had been intentionally or recklessly omitted from the warrant

application. See United States v. Short, 2 F.4th 1076, 1077, 1080 (8th Cir. 2021)

(denial of Franks hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion; to merit a hearing,

defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing that the warrant affiant

deliberately or recklessly omitted information necessary to the finding of probable

cause).

We also conclude that the district court did not err in denying Avalos’s motion

to suppress, as there was a fair probability that evidence of drug trafficking would be

found on the phones. See United States v. Holly, 983 F.3d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 2020)

(in reviewing denial of a motion to suppress, district court’s legal conclusions are

reviewed de novo); see also United States v. James, 52 F.4th 1035, 1038 (8th Cir.

2022) (probable cause to support search is present when there is fair probability that

evidence of crime will be found in particular place); United States v. Eggerson, 999

F.3d 1121, 1127 (8th Cir. 2021) (it was reasonable to infer that cell phones found at

a location associated with drug trafficking and on the person of an individual

associated with drug trafficking had a fair probability of containing evidence of the

crime).

1The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Michael D.

Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

-2-
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-3-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains consolidated summary financial information extracted from
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            58,486,000
<SECURITIES>                                      94,583,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 156,114,000
<PP&E>                                             8,210,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (2,509,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   166,497,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             32,465,000
<BONDS>                                                9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              38,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       115,235,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     166,497,000
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 111,186,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (104,621,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (104,621,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (104,621,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (3.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (3.18)



</TABLE>
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 Acrongenomics, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ron Lizée, Chief Financial Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  November 14, 2005

By: /s/ Ron Lizee

Name: Ron Lizée

Title:   Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, Gabriel B. Vegh, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cardima, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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 report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:  March 31, 2005
# C_2016187EN.01000101.xml

| 26.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8002 — Apollo Management/Açoreana Seguros)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 187/01)

On 20 May 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8002. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8002. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 99.22

News Release
May 26, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE REPORTS RESULTS OF THE SHAREHOLDER MEETING

Carpinteria, CAMay 26, 2000Turbodyne Technologies Inc. (EASDAQ:TRBD) reported
today the results of the vote of shareholders on the proposals put to vote at today's shareholders meeting.

Daniel
Geronazzo and Dr. Friedrich Goes were elected as Class II directors, serving a term until 2002. Wendell R. Anderson, Dr. Sadayappa Durairaj and Professor
Dr. Peter Hofbauer were elected as Class III directors, serving a term until 2003. Turbodyne Technologies Inc.'s 2000 Stock Incentive Plan was approved by the shareholders. The proposed
increase of the authorized number of shares of Common Stock from 60,000,000 to 99,000,000 shares was approved by the shareholders. Turbodyne's shareholders ratified the appointment of McGowan
Guntermann as the independent certified public accountants of Turbodyne.

Turbodyne
Technologies Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines plus the development and
manufacturing of high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies Inc.'s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the European business
location is Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:
Corporate Communications, Peter Weichselbraun (800) 566-1130
VP Group FinanceInvestor Relations, Ken Fitzpatrick (800) 566-1130
European Investor Relations, Markus Kumbrink +49-69-975-44-665

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Xinhua  China  LTD.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Xianping Wang,  President and Chief Executive  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, to 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.


Date: February 16, 2009



                                       By: /s/ XIANPING WANG
                                           _____________________________________
                                               Xianping Wang
                                               President/Chief Executive Officer
#### Sarah J. Creshull, Appl’t, *v.*Catherine Mallen, Impld., etc., *Resp’t.*

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed January*25, 1887.)

Appeal — Record oh — Stipulation as to.

Upon an appeal to the general term of the city court of Brooklyn from an order made at the special term of that court granting a motion made by the defendant for a new taxation of costs, a memorandum containing an extrac't from the judgment and the defendant’s costs as taxed by the clerk was endorsed by the attorneys for the parties “ approved and assented to as and for papers on appeal.” This order having been affirmed by the general term it was further appealed to the court of appeals. The papers referred to in the notice of appeal and in the special term order were not before the court of appeals. *Held,*the appellant being the same as in the court below the me*632morandum might he presumed to contain all considered by her counsel as material to present the question intended to he raised, and that showing nothing which alone or with the other matter in the appeal book made the appellant’s objection intelligible, the order appealed from should be affirmed,

*P. V. R.*Stanton, for appl’t; *Morris*Pearsall, for resp’t.

Per Curtam.

-On the twenty-first of July, 1886, the plaintiff gave notice to the clerk of the city court of Brooklyn, and to Messrs. Morris & Pearsall, attorneys for the defendant, that she appealed to the court of appeals from an order of the general term of the city court, winch affirmed an order of the special term of that court, granting a motion made by the defendant for a new taxation of costs. It was made, as the order recites, upon all the papers in the action, and directed that the defendant be allowed, in addition to her costs as taxed by the clerk, |30 for a trial fee, and $10-additional because the trial occupied more than two days. The plaintiff appealed to the general term, where the order was affirmed.

The papers referred to in the notice and in the special-term order as papers in the case are hot before us. It appears, however, as claimed by the appellant, that on the twenty-sixth of May, 1886, before the hearing of the appeal at general term, a brief memorandum, containing an extract from the judgment, and the defendant’s costs as taxed by the clerk, was indorsed by the attorneys for the respective parties in these words: “ Approved and assented to as and for papers on appeal.” The appellant here was the appellant in the court below. The memorandum may be presumed, therefore, to contain all that.in the opinion of her counsel was material to present the question intended to be raised. It shows nothing which,-standing by itself, or which with reference to any other matter on the appeal-book, makes the objection of the appellant- intelligible. We discover no reason why the order appealed from should not be affirmed.

Order affirmed, with costs of appeal in this court, to be paid by the appellant to the respondent’s attorneys.

All concur.