alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



|(1) | The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2004 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: September 28, 2005



/s/ Fred B. ParksFred B. ParksChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Todd E. PaulsonTodd E. PaulsonVice President and Chief Financial Officer
EX-10(q)






Exhibit 10(q)




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 is entered into as of this 22nd day of January, 2009 by and
between REGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation ( the “Company”) and ANTHONY A.
VASCONCELLOS (“Employee”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of December
28, 2007 (“Employment Agreement”), whereby the Company agreed to employ the Employee, and the
Employee agreed to serve, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company;
and



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth
herein;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which the parties hereby
acknowledge, the parties agree as follows:



     1. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall
have the same meaning as set forth in the Employment Agreement.



     2. Change of Control Definition. The parties hereby agree that the definition of
“Change of Control” set forth in the third full paragraph, first sentence of Section 2.6(c) of the
Employment Agreement is hereby amended to remove the clause at the end of such sentence beginning
with the phrase “it being understood and agreed ...” and to replace such phrase in its entirety
with the following new phrase:




“it being understood and agreed that a “sale of all or substantially all” of the Company’s
assets shall be deemed to have occurred if at any time after the date hereof through the 24
month anniversary of the date of termination of Employee’s employment with the Company, one
or more transactions occur in which assets of the Company are sold, transferred or otherwise
disposed of to one or more persons and such sold, transferred or disposed assets in the
aggregate provided more than 50% of the station operating income generated by the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2008.”



     3. Continuing Agreement. Except for the changes set forth in this Amendment No.1,
the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect without modification.



     4. Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts by the Company
and Employee.



[Signatures follow on next page]














 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the date set forth
above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:



REGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John H. Wyant
 	 
	 	 	John H. Wyant, Chairman of the Compensation  	 
	 	 	Committee of the Board of Directors 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:

 	 
	 	/s/ Anthony A. Vasconcellos
 	 
	 	Anthony A. Vasconcellos 	 
	 	 	 
	 




2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

- 2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 9, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with American Clean Skies Foundation

FROM: Jeff Alson , US EPA

TO: EPA Docket # EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0799

EPA staff met with representatives of the American Clean Skies Foundation on May 10, 2012.

The meeting was held at E PA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) headquarters

in Washington, D.C. with videoconferencing to OTAQ’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions

Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The meeting was requested by the American Clean Skies

Foundation to discuss its comments on the EPA/NH TSA Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse

Gas and CAFE Standards for Model Year 2017

- 2025 Light

- Duty Vehicles

.

Attached are materials that were distributed at the meeting by the American Clean Skies

Foundation.

American Clean Skies Foundation attendees were Gregory Staple and Chelsea Henderson

Maxwell (Partner, The Clark Group, representing American Clean Skies Foundation)

.

EPA attendees were Margo Oge, William Charmley, and Jeff Alson.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                      ONCOLOGIX TECH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
                          EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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  Oncologix  Tech,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2008, as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I
Anthony  Silverman,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  President  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                            /s/  Anthony Silverman
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Anthony Silverman
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 and President
     November 4, 2009
#### Home Telephone Company *v.*North Arkansas Highway Improvement District No. 2.

Opinion delivered June 24, 1929.

*876
      *H. A. Northcutt*and *Oscar E. Ellis,*for appellant.

*Coleman*& *Reeder*and *S. M. Casey,*for appellee.

McHaney, J.

This is the second appeal of this case. The facts are stated in the opinion in the former case, *North Arkansas Highway Improvement District No. 2*v. *Home Telephone Co.,*176 Ark. 553, 3 S. W. (2d) 307. To repeat briefly, appellant sued the Davis Construction Company in the Fulton Circuit Court to recover for damages done to its telephone line in building the highway being constructed in the district. The Davis Construction Company answered, and prayed that appellee be made a party defendant, and that, if a judgment be obtained against it, it have judgment against the district for a like sum. The court made an order making the district a defendant, and some land of service was had upon the district, and judgment was entered by default against it, and in favor of the Davis Construction Company. When it discovered that a judgment had been entered against it, it filed a motion to quash such judgment on the ground that it had not been properly served in the action, and that it could not be sued in Fulton County, by reason of the provisions of § 4, act 473, Acts of 1917, page 2181.

Appellant interposed a demurrer to the motion to quash, which the court sustained, and the district appealed to this court, which resulted in a reversal, and the case was remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings in accordance with law and not inconsistent with the opinion.

Mandate was taken out and filed in the lower court, and appellant thereupon filed a response to the motion to quash, to which the appellee interposed, and the court sustained, a demurrer. On the former appeal, the court said: ‘ ‘ The court was without jurisdiction to bring the highway district into court in Fulton County, its domicile, being fixed by law in Izard County, and service being required to be had in all suits against it by service had on the commissioner of that county. Section 4, act 473 of the Acts of 1917.”

*877Upon an examination of the response in connection with the opinion of this court in the former appeal, we think the demurrer to the response was properly sustained. This court expressly held that the Pulton Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to bring the highway district into its court, under the authority of the act creating the district, and there is no showing that the commissioners voluntarily entered the appearance of the district in the action so as to give the Pulton Circuit Court jurisdiction, even though it be conceded that they could do so. Moreover, appellant is in no position to complain at the action of the court in quashing the judgment against the district in favor of the Davis Construction Company. True, it has garnished the district on its judgment against Davis, but that would not authorize appellant to resist a motion to quash a judgment obtained by the Davis Construction Company against the district.

We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00484

- CV

In the Estate of Roosevelt Green Sr., Deceased

On Appeal from the County Court of Matagorda County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR18

- 0026

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observan ce. October 28, 2021
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dolly Wadsworth EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6495

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Dolly Wadsworth Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Russell Pender, Stephen Aubrey West, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dolly Wadsworth Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Evans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
John GAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4938

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CHARLES P. DANIELS AND IMRAN DALVI,

Petitioners

v.

ATLANTIC COMMUNITY BANKERS BANK 

AND JON EVANS,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 593 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
AMENDMENT TO ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE FINANCING AGREEMENT

    


    This AMENDMENT, dated as of November
24, 2008, is by and between DESKTOP ACQUISITION SUB, INC. D/B/A INTERCLICK, INC.
(“Client”) and CRESTMARK COMMERCIAL CAPITAL LENDING LLC
(“Crestmark”).

    


    RECITALS

    


    A.           Client
and Crestmark (the “Parties”) are parties to a certain Accounts Receivable
Financing Agreement, dated as of November 12, 2008 (the
“Agreement”).

    


    B.           The
Parties have agreed to amend the Agreement pursuant to the terms
hereof.

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
premises, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

     

    AGREEMENT

    


    
      1.           Amendment of
Agreement.  Section 1.18.2 is hereby deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the following:

    

    


    1.18.2  or
any portion thereof, for which payment has not been received by Crestmark, for
any reason, within one-hundred five (105) days of the date of
invoice;

     

    2.           Effect of this
Agreement.  Except as modified pursuant hereto, the Agreement
is specifically ratified, restated and confirmed by all parties thereto as of
the date hereof.  To the extent of any conflict between the terms of
this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall
control.

    


    3.           Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken
together shall constitute one agreement, provided that, this
Amendment shall not become effective until all counterparts hereof have been
executed by all parties hereto.

    


    The parties hereto have caused this
Amendment to be duly executed and delivered by their respective officers
thereunto duly authorized as of the date first above written.

    


    
      
        
          	 
      	
                  DESKTOP
      ACQUISITION SUB, INC.

                
	 
      	
                  D/B/A
      INTERCLICK, INC.

                
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                  BY: 

                	
                  /s/ Michael Mathews

                
	 
      	 
      	
                   MICHAEL
      MATHEWS, CEO

                
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                  CRESTMARK
      COMMERCIAL CAPITAL LENDING LLC

                
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                  BY: 

                	
                  /s/ Patrick M. Haney

                
	 
      	 
      	
                   PATRICK
      M. HANEY, President
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52783-52784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7999]

In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of the Jaish-e-
Mohammed, (JEM and Other Aliases), as a Foreign Terrorist Organization 
Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled pursuant 
to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (``INA''), and in consultation with 
the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that 
the circumstances that were the basis for the

[[Page 52784]]

2008 determination to maintain the designation of the aforementioned 
organization as a foreign terrorist organization have not changed in 
such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the 
national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of 
the designation.
    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization, 
pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be 
maintained.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

     Dated: August 16, 2012.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-21424 Filed 8-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.12

    Loan
Agreement (Short-Term)

    Contract
No. 0140 (2008)

    Borrower:
Dalian Chuming Food Co. Ltd.

    Business
License No. : DICE No.2102002111023

    Legal
Representative: Fengqin Ma

    Address:
Quanshui Village, S Guanling Town, Ganjingzi District, Dalian
116031

    Account
Info: Bank of China, Liaoning Branch

    Account
#:

    Tel:
86716585 Fax: 86716686

    Lender:
Bank of China, Liaoning Branch

    Legal
Representative/Officer: Jianhong Wang

    Address:
9 Zhongshan Square, Dalian

    Tel:
82586901 Fax: 82586779

    The
interest shall be paid quarterly. The 20th day of the last month of a
quarter is the expiry date of interest and the 21st day is the payment
date.

    


    1. Amount
of loan: 14,000,000 RMB

    2. Term
of loan: 11 months

    3. Use of
loan: revolving fund

    4.
Interest:

    (a) Fixed
interest rate: 7.326% (annual)

    (b)
Interest=loan x number of days x daily interest rate

    (c) Daily
interest rate=annual interest rate/360

    5.
Interest payment date:

    6. The
borrower shall receive all the loan within 30 days after 11/18/2008

    7.
Penalty

    (a)
Penalty of overdue repayment: agreed interest rate + 50%

    (b)
Penalty of other usage: agreed interest rate + 100%

    8. Date
of repayment: 10/17/2009

    9. Amount
of repayment: 14,000,000 RMB

    10.
Guaranty agreements:

    (a)
Mortgage contracts entered by the borrower and Dalian Chuming Group Co. Ltd.
(“guarantor”)

    i.
Contract No. 024 (2005)

    ii.
Contract No. 025 (2005)

    iii.
Contract No. 044 (2006)

    iv.
Contract No. 017 (2007)

    v.
Contract No. 023 (2007)

    (b)
Mortgage contract entered by the borrower and Dalian Mingxing Livestock Co. Ltd.
(“guarantor”)----Contract No. 018 (2007)

    (c)
Mortgage contract entered by the borrower and Fengqin Ma and the co-owner of her
property (“guarantor”)----Contract No. 037 (2007)

    (d)
Mortgage contract entered by the borrower and Huashan Shi and the co-owner of
his property (“guarantor”)----Contract No. 038 (2007)

    11.
Signing date: 11/18/2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                             229
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,771
<INVENTORY>                                     61,325
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,417
<PP&E>                                          66,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          142,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,357
<SALES>                                        135,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,136
<CGS>                                           91,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,066
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    206
<INCOME-TAX>                                        71
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                135
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.12


OGE Energy Corp.
Director Compensation
Compensation of non-management directors of OGE Energy Corp. (the "Company") in 2018 included an annual retainer fee of $225,000, of which $100,000 was payable in cash in quarterly installments and $125,000 was deposited in the director's account under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan and converted to 3,028 common stock units based on the closing price of the Company's Common Stock on December 11, 2018. In 2018, the non-management directors did not receive additional compensation for attending Board or committee meetings but were instead paid a quarterly cash retainer that was increased from the previous year. The lead director received an additional $25,000 cash retainer in 2018. The chair of the Audit Committee received an additional $15,000 cash retainer in 2018. The chair of each of the Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees received an additional $12,500 annual cash retainer in 2018. Each member of the Audit Committee also received an additional annual retainer of $5,000. These amounts represent the total fees paid to directors in their capacities as directors of the Company and Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company in 2018. 


Under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan, non-management directors may defer payment of all or part of their quarterly cash retainer fee, which deferred amounts in 2018 were credited to their account as of the quarterly scheduled payment date. Amounts credited to the accounts are assumed to be invested in one or more of the investment options permitted under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan. In 2018, those investment options included a Company Common Stock fund, whose value was determined based on the stock price of the Company's Common Stock. When an individual ceases to be a director of the Company, all amounts credited under the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan are paid in cash in a lump sum or installments.  In certain circumstances, participants may also be entitled to in-service withdrawals from the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan.


On December 4, 2018, the Compensation Committee met to consider director compensation. At that meeting, the Compensation Committee increased the annual equity retainer, noted above, credited on December 11, 2018, from $110,000 to $125,000.