alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w5






Exhibit 10.5




FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONFIDENTIAL LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR 

NINTENDO DS



THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“First Amendment”) amends that certain Confidential License Agreement for
Nintendo DS dated May 1, 2005 between Nintendo of America Inc. (“Nintendo”) and Majesco
Entertainment Company (“Licensee”) (“Agreement”).




RECITALS



WHEREAS, Nintendo and Licensee entered into the Agreement;



WHEREAS, the Agreement currently expires on April 30, 2008, and the parties now desire to extend
the Term (as such term is defined in the Agreement) of the Agreement as set forth below.




AMENDMENT



NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:





	1.	 	The definition of “Term” as set forth in Section 2.20 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in
its entirety and replaced with the following;
	 
	 	 	“ ‘Term’ means six (6) years from the Effective Date.”
	 
	2.	 	The Term of the Agreement shall now expire on April 30, 2011.
	 
	3.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This
First Amendment may be signed in counterparts, which together shall constitute one original
First Amendment.
	 
	 	 	Signatures provided by facsimile shall be the equivalent of originals.




This First Amendment shall be effective as of April 30, 2008.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this First Amendment.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	NINTENDO:	 	LICENSEE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Nintendo of America Inc.	 	Majesco Entertainment Company	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ James R. Cannataro
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Jesse Sutton	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name: James R. Cannataro
	 	 	 	Name: Jesse Sutton	 	 
	 

	 	Its: EVP, Administration
	 	 	 	Its: CEO
Exhibit 32.1



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



In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of RDC  International,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, John
Harkola, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ John Harkola
John Harkola
Chief Executive Officer
(or the equivalent thereof)

August 14, 2003
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4042 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the employer wage 

credit for employees who are active duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2009 

Mr. KLEIN of Florida (for himself, Mr. CLAY, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. WELCH, 

Mr. SIRES, Mr. PETERS, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. 

BOCCIERI, Mr. HODES, Mr. SHULER, Mr. ALTMIRE, Ms. BEAN, Mr. 

SPACE, Mr. BOREN, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. MAFFEI, Mr. ADLER of New 

Jersey, Mr. BARROW, Mr. COURTNEY, Mrs. DAHLKEMPER, Mr. 

DELAHUNT, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. JONES, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. ELLSWORTH, 

Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. DENT, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mrs. 

MCMORRIS RODGERS, and Mr. MCGOVERN) 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 extend 

the employer wage credit for employees who are active duty. 

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 ‘‘Small Business and 

5 Military Family Assistance Act of 2009’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4042 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR EM2 PLOYEES WHO ARE ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS 

3 OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 45P of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to employer 

6 wage credit for employees who are active duty members 

7 of the Uniformed Services) is amended by striking ‘‘De8 cember 31, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall apply to payments made after Decem11 ber 31, 2009. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
14321

#### STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. GEORGIA POWER CO.

(186 S. E., 926)

Before GrEEnE, J-, Oconee,

September, 1934.

*Messrs.*Colquitt, Parker, *Troutman & Arkwright*and *Hughs & Hughs,*for appellant,

*237*Messrs. John M. Daniel, Attorney General, J. Ivey Humphrey*and *M. J. Hozvgh, Assistant Attorneys General, R. T. Jaynes, W. C. Mann*and *S. M. Wolfe,*for respondent,

June 29, 1936.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Carter.

This case, the State of South Carolina, as plaintiff, against the defendant, Georgia Power Company, a corporation, commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Oconee County, is an action for recovery of certain. penalties alleged to be due the State of South Carolina by the defendant, and the case comes to this Court on appeal from an order in the cause issued by his Honor, Judge G. B. Greene, dismissing the defendant’s motion for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the substituted service of the summons and complaint on the defendant.

The decree of Judge Greene is a very strong decree, but, in our opinion, the case is controlled by the recent case of *Dyar v. Georgia Power Company,*173 S. C., 527, 176 S. E., 711, the opinion in which case was filed a few days after *238the decree prepared by Judge Greene in the case at bar; the facts in the case at bar being substantially the same as the facts in the case of *Dyar v. Georgia Power Company, supra.*The opinion in that case, therefore, forecloses the questions presented in the case at bar.

The exceptions are therefore sustained, the order appealed from reversed, and the motion of the defendant to quash and set aside the service is granted.

Mr. Chief Justice StabeEr and Messrs. Justices Bon-ham, Baker and FishburnE concur.
Case: 3:17-cv-00334-TMR Doc #: 14-19 Filed: 04/16/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 303
Record of Telephone Conversation 

Name: Greg Dawsey 

Address: CAE Simuflite, Dallas. A certificated 14 CFR 142 Training Center. 

Phone: 972-456-8000 

Date: January 2, 2014 

Description: Questions concerning exemption 1 0039 

My name is Willis H. Power, Aviation Safety Inspector employed at the 142 CMO, SW-33, 

Irving Texas. (214) 277-8469 

12/31/2013, I received a call from Jeffrey Smith, AFS-810 requesting assistance in clarifying 

provisions to exemption 10039 that had been requested by CAE Simuflite in their renewal 

application package. Specifically paragraph 22 of the exemption request concerning log book 

endorsements as it pertains to CE-501 and CE-551 Cessna Citation jets and paragraph 23 as it 

pertained to administering a written or oral test at the end of the ground school required by 

exemption 10039. 

01/02/2014, I contacted Greg Dawsey, lead training manager for the Citation programs at CAE 

Simuflite, Dallas. I discussed paragraph 22 and 23 of the exemption renewal request submitted 

by CAE. It was suggested by me and in collaboration with AFS-810 that the items and 

limitations contained in paragraph 22 and 23 would be better suited for implementation in the 

approved 142 training curriculum via a revision rather than a conditional part of exemption 

10039. Mr. Dawsey agreed that CAE would rescind their request to have paragraph 22 and 23 

added to the current 10039 exemption. However, Mr. Dawsey also stated during this 

conversation that CAE had an additional request not contained in the original package that they 

intended to submit for consideration and inclusion in the renewed 10039 exemption as follows. 

The current 10039 exemption does not have a provision to allow credit for recent CE-500 

ground school completion of an initial or recurrent course CE-500 course. The CE-500 type 

rating is required as a prerequisite to enrollment in the single pilot exemption course. Therefore, 

a person who wishes to obtain a CE-500 type rating followed by a single pilot authorization 

under exemption 10039 must complete CE-500 ground school, flight training and pass the 

practical test prior to the issuance of a CE-500 type rating. This same individual must then 

complete the same CE-500 ground school that was required for the initial type rating including 

an addition portion as it applies to single pilot CRM to meet the current requirements of the 

exemption. CAE requests incorporation of a provision in exemption 10039 allowing credit for 

that portion of the CE-500 ground school already completed for the initial type rating provided 

the airman completed the ground school not more than 30 from the first day of training in the 

single pilot exemption course. (The airman will be required to complete that portion of ground 

school as it pertains to single pilot CRM and exemption specific items}. 

01/02/2014 Jeffrey Smith and Margaret Morrison were briefed via phone on the contents of this 

discussion with Greg Dawsey, CAE Simuflite, Dallas.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF OMNIPOINT CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 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-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         215,029
<SECURITIES>                                    46,827
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,490
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               344,657
<PP&E>                                         195,168
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (8,317)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,419,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,342
<BONDS>                                        477,503
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           510
<OTHER-SE>                                     133,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,419,472
<SALES>                                            531
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   531
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               100,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (126,930)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (126,930)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (126,930)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.71)


</TABLE>
#### John Cecil CASH and Bobbie CASH, His Wife *v.*Harvey H. CASH, et al

79-226

616 S.W. 2d 13

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered May 26, 1981

*Holloway & Haddock, by:James W.*Haddock, for appellants.

*Gibson Law Office,*by: *Charles S. Gibson,*for appel-lees.

John I. Purtle, Justice.

The chancellor overruled appellants’ motion to restrain the sale of certain lands which had been ordered sold in an earlier decree. This appeal is from the overruling of the motion to restrain said sale. Appellants contend the court erred in overruling the motion because there was no order appointing a successor commissioner who was conducting the salé and further that there was an appeal pending. We do not find error in either contention.

The original decree in which the sale of this property was ordered sold was entered on October 5, 1978. Appellees gave notice of appeal and subsequently obtained an extension of time within which to file the record. However, they never perfected the appeal but instead proceeded to order the land sold in compliance with the original decree. Appellants filed a motion to restrain the sale, and the motion was overruled after a hearing. This appeal is from the order overruling the motion to restrain the sale of the land. The order was interlocutory in nature and was in no manner a *33final appealable order. *Boyett*v. *Boyett,*269 Ark. 36, 598 S.W. 2d 86 (1980); Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule. 2. Therefore, having no final order before us, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Orchid BioSciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                                                                 
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2004 |  | /S/ PAUL J. KELLY, MD                                                                                           
|                      |  | Paul J. Kelly, MD Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                                         
|                      | 
|Dated: August 6, 2004 |  | /S/ MICHAEL E. SPICER                                                                                           
|                      |  | Michael E. Spicer Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)



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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Velocity Express Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vincent A. Wasik, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ VINCENT A. WASIKVincent A. WasikChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 15, 2007


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Velocity Express Corporation and will be retained by Velocity Express
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**ZORAN CORPORATION**

**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 Annual Report of Zoran Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, KarlSchneider, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Zoran Corporation and will be retained byZoran Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 
|                  | /s/ Karl Schneider                 |   |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                  | Karl Schneider                     |
|                  | Senior Vice President, Finance and |
| Dated: March 14, 2006 | Chief Financial Officer            |

 

----
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 Quintek Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Robert Steele, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. 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 and 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
      Quintek Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Quintek Technologies, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





Date:
                February 20, 2007
            By:*/s/
                ROBERT STEELE*Robert
                SteeleChief
                Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-4417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CYNTHIA CHAPMAN REAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-144) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* While Appellant's history with alcohol is not as severe as that of the appellant in Wesley , we are not prepared to say that the district court's imposition of the condition was an abuse of discretion. 2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's revocation of her probation imposed for conspiracy to defraud through the use of forged and counterfeit instruments. We affirm. Appellant contends that the alleged violations: (1) are not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) are insufficient to justify a revocation of probation; or (3) are related to a condition of probation which is itself an abuse of discretion. Addressing thefirst two claims, our review reveals sufficient evidence to conclude that the alleged violations did in fact occur and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's probation for the stated reasons. Addressing the final claim, Appellant argues that requiring a total abstinence from alcohol as a condition of probation is an abuse of discretion and her violation of this condition cannot beused to justify the revocation. We find this argument to be unconvincing. See United States v. Wesley, 81 F.3d 482 (4th Cir. 1996) (finding that requiring abstinence from alcohol as a condition of supervised release does not constitute an abuse of discretion where the appellant has a history of alcohol abuse). * Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order revoking Appellant's probation. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-3 tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Ezcomm, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Peter Braun, as
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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, to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


By:  /s/ Peter Braun
-----------------------

Peter Braun
President, CEO and CFO
August 31, 2004