alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of RMS TITANIC, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending February 29, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2004, (the "Report"), we, the undersigned,
hereby certify, 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 our knowledge and
belief, 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/ Arnie Geller
-------------------------
Arnie Geller
Chief Executive Officer
June 14, 2004



/s/ Gerald Couture
-------------------------
Gerald  Couture
Chief Financial Officer
June 14, 2004
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEXAS TAX SOLUTIONS, LLC,

 Appellant,

v.

CITY OF EL PASO,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00126-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2014DTX0412)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, all costs in this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5. 

This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one person from serving as a director or officer of two competing corporations if                               ( print page 3541)                            two thresholds are met. Competitor corporations are covered by Section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the exception that no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The new thresholds, which take effect immediately, are $41,034,000 for Section 8(a)(1), and $4,103,400 for Section 8(a)(2)(A).                    

# DATES:

January 24, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher M. Grengs, (202-326-2612), Bureau of Competition, Office of Policy and Coordination.

*Authority:*15 U.S.C. 19(a)(5).                    

April J. Tabor,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-01215 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
Order entered Ma y 13 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 0024 9

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

SETH PIERCE , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. MC12

- B7508



### O RDER

The Court GRANTS appellee’s May 9, 2013 motion to extend time to file his brief only

to the extent that we ORDER appellee to file his brief by MAY 28, 2013

.
The appeal remains set for submission on June 7, 2013.

We DIRECT th e Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to

counsel for all parties.

/ s/ MICHAEL J. O’NEILL PRESIDING JUSTICE
Amendment #1 to Employment Agreement - James Wheat



 Exhibit 10.70 
 AMENDMENT #1 
 to 
 Employment Agreement 
 dated March 31, 2008 (the “Agreement”) 
 by and between 
 Rackable Systems,
Inc. (“Company”) 
 and 
 James Wheat 
 Effective as of the last date signed below, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

  

	 	1.	The definition of “Start Date” as set forth in the second sentence of the opening paragraph is hereby modified as follows: 

 “Your employment shall commence on April 21, 2008 (“Start Date”), at which time you will serve in an interim capacity,
becoming acquainted with the Company’s personnel, systems and processes. You will assume the role of Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) immediately upon the resignation of the Company’s current CFO from the position, the
exact date of which will be mutually determined once you are employed with the Company.” 
  

	 	2.	Section 1 of the Agreement entitled “COMPENSATION” is hereby modified to add the following subsection “d” as if it were made a part of the original
Agreement: 

 “d. Sign-On Bonus. You will be entitled to a one time sign-on bonus of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000) that will be paid on the first pay period following your first day of employment. This bonus is recoverable by the Company if you leave voluntarily or if you are terminated for cause within one year of your Start date. Therefore, you agree
to repay the bonus upon your last day of work should your employment terminate for reasons as stated above. The sign-on bonus will be subject to statutory deductions and withholdings.” 
  

	 	3.	Except as amended herein, the Agreement remains in full force and effect, without modification. 

  

									
	Rackable Systems, Inc.	 		 	
					
	By:	 	/s/    MARK BARRENECHEA	 		 		 	/s/    JAMES WHEAT
		 	Mark Barrenechea	 		 		 	James Wheat
		 	CEO and President	 		 		 	
					
		 	April 9, 2008	 		 		 	April 14, 2008
		 	Date	 		 		 	Date
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 on Form 10-Q of American Superconductor Corporation (the
Company) for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Gregory J. Yurek, Chief Executive 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; and

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



|                 |  |  |  |                        
|---------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                 |  | 
|November 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    GREGORY J.
YUREK
|                 |  |  |  | Gregory J. Yurek       
|                 |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ELTRAX
SYSTEMS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         613,294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,652,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,008,959
<INVENTORY>                                  5,187,836
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,243,911
<PP&E>                                      13,985,554
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,342,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              73,020,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       46,720,169
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       238,086
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,008,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                73,020,933
<SALES>                                    129,312,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           129,312,327
<CGS>                                       76,682,416
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              123,120,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,363,483
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             3,567,868
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             738,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (9,813,617)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,482
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (9,838,099)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (9,838,099)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.41)


</TABLE>
#### Carleton WRIGHT v. STATE of Arkansas

696 S.W.2d 306

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered September 9, 1985

*Carleton*C *Wright*and *Kenneth G. Fuchs,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Carleton C. Wright, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Kenneth C. Fuchs, admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964.

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Purtle, J., not participating.
DJI Aspire 1 Specifications

DJI Phantom 2 Vision+

Specifications
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 24.1
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

         The undersigned, acting in the capacity or capacities stated with their
respective names below, hereby constitute and appoint DAVID FREMED AND HARRY
RUBIN, and each of them severally, the attorneys-in-fact of the undersigned with
full power to them and each of them to sign for and in the name of the
undersigned in the capacities indicated below the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Infogrames, Inc. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, and any and all
amendments thereto.

         This Power of Attorney may be executed in multiple counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but which taken together shall constitute
one instrument.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
             SIGNATURE                                           TITLE(S)                                        DATE
             ---------                                           --------                                        ----
<S>                                    <C>                                                              <C>
       /s/  BRUNO BONNELL              Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief                     September 25, 2002
---------------------------------         Executive Officer (principal executive
           Bruno Bonnell                    officer) and Director


       /s/  DENIS GUYENNOT             Director and President, Chief Operating                          September 25, 2002
---------------------------------           Officer and Secretary
          Denis Guyennot

       /s/ JAMES ACKERLY               Director                                                         September 25, 2002
---------------------------------
           James Ackerly

       /s/ JAMES CAPARRO               Director                                                         September 25, 2002
---------------------------------
           James Caparro

       /s/  THOMAS A. HEYMANN          Director                                                         September 25, 2002
---------------------------------
         Thomas A. Heymann

       /s/  ANN E. KRONEN              Director                                                         September 25, 2002
---------------------------------
           Ann E. Kronen

       /s/  THOMAS MITCHELL            Director                                                         September 25, 2002
---------------------------------
          Thomas Mitchell

       /s/  THOMAS SCHMIDER            Director                                                         September 25, 2002
---------------------------------
          Thomas Schmider

       /s/  DAVID WARD                 Director                                                         September 25, 2002
---------------------------------
            David Ward
</TABLE>
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Southern District of Ohio

WALLAKE POWER SYSTEM, LLC

ENGINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

and

JERRY KOSNER

Engine Distributors, Inc. - Agent/Service of Process Information

c/o Michael A. Kulzer, Esq.

Kulzer & Dipadova, P.A.

76 Euclid Avenue

Haddonfield, NJ 08033

David Krueger, Esq.

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP

200 Public Square, Suite 2300

Cleveland, OH 44114

Case: 2:18-cv-00423-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 05/01/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 19
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case: 2:18-cv-00423-JLG-EPD Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 05/01/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 20
<PAGE>
 
                                                            Exhibit 10.10(l)
August 18, 1995

Mr. Peter Libassi
Chairman of the Board
Forstmann & Company, Inc.
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-2711

RE: Agreement for Financial Consulting Services

Dear Mr. Libassi:

This letter outlines the understanding between Jay Alix & Associates, a Michigan
corporation ("JA&A") and Forstmann & Company, Inc. (the "Company") of the
objectives, tasks, work product and fees for the engagement of JA&A to provide
financial consulting services to the Company.

JA&A hereby incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of the engagement
letter between JA&A and the Company, dated July 31, 1995, a copy of which is
attached, subject to the additions or modifications reflected herein.  By your
agreement to this letter, you hereby affirm the terms reflected in the July 31,
1995 letter.

OBJECTIVES
----------

In addition to the objectives previously stated, JA&A will:

  .  Assume the position of interim Chief Executive Officer and Board Member of
     the Company.

TIMING, FEES AND EXPENSES
-------------------------

The first paragraph on page 4 is replaced with:

    The fee for the services provided by Robert N. Dangremond as interim CEO and
    Board Member will be billed at a flat rate of $75,000 per month. Any
    assistance requested by the Company that falls outside the scope of our
    engagement or assistance that is required due to the workload will be
    approved by you in advance and will be billed at our hourly rates which are:

                       Principals                     $       430
                       Senior Associates              $265 - $300
                       Associates                     $215 - $250
                       Accountants and Consultants    $170 - $200
<PAGE>
 
Mr. Peter Libassi
August 18, 1995
Page 2


DIRECTORS' AND OFFICERS' INSURANCE
----------------------------------

In addition to the Indemnification provided for, since the Company has named
Robert N. Dangremond as an officer and director of the Company, the Company will
specifically include and cover Robert N. Dangremond under the Company's policy
for Directors' and Officers' Insurance.  The face amount of such policy must be
at least $5 million.  In the event the Company is unable to include Robert N.
Dangremond under the Company's policy, JA&A reserves the right to preclude
Robert N. Dangremond's service as an officer or director of the Company.

If these terms meet with your approval, please sign and return the enclosed copy
of this letter.


Sincerely yours,
JAY ALIX & ASSOCIATES


/s/ Robert N. Dangremond
Robert N. Dangremond
Principal



Acknowledged and Agreed to:

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FORSTMANN & COMPANY, INC.

By:   /s/ F. Peter Libassi
      
Its:    Chairman of the Board
      
Date:   August 29, 1995


Attachment
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 Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joseph P. Caruso, and I,
Paul S. Weiner certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our
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.
 
 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.
 
 
 Dated:
May 6, 2010
 
 
 
 By: /s/
Joseph P.
Caruso
 Joseph P.
Caruso
 President
and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 Dated:
May 6, 2010
 
 
 
 By: /s/
Paul S.
Weiner
 Paul S.
Weiner
 Chief
Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41008

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENRIQUE ORDUNA-PERALES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-893-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Orduna-Perales appeals the sentence imposed following the

revocation of his supervised release. Specifically, he challenges the district

court’s reimposition of a $100 special assessment.

We review revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3742’s “plainly

unreasonable” standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.

2011). A review of the transcript from the revocation hearing reflects that the

district court’s reimposition of the special assessment is contrary to the oral

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-41008 Document: 00512279847 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2013
No. 12-41008

pronouncement and evidence presented at the hearing. Therefore, as the

Government concedes, a conflict exists between the oral and written judgments. 

In such a case, the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. Martinez,

250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

modified to strike the reimposition of the $100 special assessment so that the

written judgment is in conformance with the oral pronouncement, and we affirm

the judgment as so modified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; see also United States v.

Hermoso, 484 F. App’x 970, 972–73 (5th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

2

 Case: 12-41008 Document: 00512279847 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2013