alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
a.1



    body {
      color:#000000;
      background-color:#FFFFFF;
    }
    a  { color:#0000FF; }
    a:visited { color:#800080; }
    a:hover { color:#008000; }
    a:active { color:#FF0000; }
    -->

  
  

PYROTEC, INC. 

A DELAWARE CORPORATION

125-E Wappoo Creek Drive

Suite 202A

Charleston, South Carolina 29412 

1-800-PYROTEC

www.pyrotecus.com


May 15, 2012



Jeremy Morgan

1133 Maryland Circle

Dowingtown, PA 19335


	RE:	ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS


Dear Mr. Morgan: 


	We are hereby inviting you to serve on the Board of Directors (the "Board") of PyroTec, Inc., a publicly traded entity incorporated in Delaware ("PyroTec").  Your acceptance of this invitation will be confirmed through execution of this correspondence below, and your execution of the enclosed Advisory Board Consulting and Compensation Agreement dated May 1, 2012 (the "Advisor Agreement").

	By executing this correspondence, and the Advisor Agreement, you are agreeing to comply with the duties of such an appointment under all applicable common laws, statutory laws, and rules and regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  Furthermore, you are agreeing to perform your advisory services consistent with the enclosed Bylaws of PyroTec.

	I am looking forward to a productive and long-term relationship.  Please feel free to contact our corporate counsel, Anthony R. Paesano at apaesano@paesanoakkashian.com or (248) 792-6886 with any questions.


Very truly yours,


/s/ John Burns


John Burns

Chief Executive Officer


Agreed:


/s/ Jeremy Morgan		

Jeremy Morgan


Enclosures

cc:	Anthony R. Paesano

	Board of Directors
#### Teresa LORENZ Plaintiff-Appellant v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON; EMC Mortgage Corporation Defendants-Appellees Southstar Funding LLC Defendant

No. 16-3716

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 14, 2017

Filed: July 28, 2017

Teresa Lorenz, Pro Se

Jared Matthew Goerlitz, Peterson & Fram, Saint Paul, MN, for Defendant-Ap-pellee The Bank of New York Mellon

Jared D. Kemper, Dykema *&*Gossett, Minneapolis, MN, Jill M. Wheaton, Dyke-ma & Gossett, Ann Arbor, MI, for Defendant-Appellee EMC Mortgage Corporation

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Teresa Lorenz appeals from an order of the District Court1 granting defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment in this removed action for breach of contract and slander of title, which arose from the sale and assignment of Lorenz’s home mortgage. After de novo review, we affirm for the reasons explained in the District Court’s thorough opinion.2 See Plymouth Cty. v. Merscorp, Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim); Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d *4531017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing de novo an order granting summary judgment); see also 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

. Because Lorenz failed to file with the District Court objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order denying in part leave to amend the complaint, that order is not properly before us. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Daley v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 893 n.9 (8th Cir. 2005).
heviex101.htm










Exhibit 10.1


 







  





1











  











  





2











  











  





3











  











  





4











  











  





5











  











  





6











  











  





7











  











  





8











  











  





9











  











  





10











  











  





11











  











  





12











  











  





13











  











  





14











  











  





15











  











  





16











  











  





17











  











  





18











  











  





19











  











  





20











  











  





21











  











  





22











  











  





23











  











  





24











  











  





25











  











  





26











  











  





27











  











  





28











  











  





29











  











  





30











  











  





31











  











  





32











  











  





33











  











  





34











  











  





35











  











  





36











  











  





37











  











  





38











  











  





39











  











  





40











  











  





41











  











  





42











  











  





43











  











  





44











  











  





45











  











  





46











  









 


 47
EXHIBIT 99.1

I,
Gregory A. Conley, Chief Executive Officer of Tanning Technology Corporation (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to this Amendment to the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2002 (the "Report"), that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

This
certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and not for any other purpose.

Date:
April 24, 2003

| |  | /s/GREGORY A. CONLEYGregory A. Conley Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

I,
Katherine L. Scherping, Chief Financial Officer of Tanning Technology Corporation (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to this Amendment to the Registrant's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

This
certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and not for any other purpose.

Date:
April 24, 2003

| |  | /s/KATHERINE L. SCHERPINGKatherine L. Scherping Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated February 12, 2000, included in this Form 10-K,
into Agency.com, Ltd.'s previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement File
No. 333-92309. It should be noted that we have not audited any financial
statements of the company subsequent to December 31, 1999 or performed any
audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


                                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


New York, New York
March 29, 2000
#### Howard Newlin et al., Assignees, etc., Appellants, *v.*Darius Lyon, Sheriff, etc., Respondent.

(Argued April 10, 1872 ;

decided April 16, 1872.)

After it is shown to the satisfaction of the court or referee that an assignment was entered into by the assignor and assignee, with a common purpose of defrauding the creditors of the former, his acts and declarations after the assignment are competent evidence against the parties thereto, not to show the formation of the common purpose, but to prove its execution, extent and effect.

When the assignor continues in possession of the assigned property, his acts and declarations while in actual possession may be given in evidence as part of thé *res gesta.*

A party excepting to the conclusions of law of a court or a referee is not held to the s.ame strict rule as in excepting to a charge. Where a charge is good in part and ill in part, the exception must point out the very part W'hich is ill, so that the court, having its attention specifically called to it, may have an opportunity to correct the error; but exceptions to conclusions of law come after the power to rectify has passed from the court or referee, and the reason for the strict rule in the former ease fails.

This is an action of replevin brought by plaintiffs as assignees of Hosea Ball to recover a quantity of stock and farming utensils. The defendant justified as sheriff of West-Chester county, by virtue of certain judgments and executions against the assignor, claiming that the assignment was fraudulent and void as against creditors. Upon the trial the referee allowed proof of the acts and declarations of the assignor after the assignment, but while he remained in possession of the property, to which plaintiff excepted. The referee found the *662fraud as set up in the answer. His second conclusion of law was:

*“*2d. The defendant is entitled to judgment for the return of the property taken from him by the plaintiffs in this action, or the value thereof, which is assessed at $10,000, in case a return thereof cannot be had and damages for taking and withholding the same, besides his costs in this action.”

Plaintiffs excepted generally “ to the second conclusion of law.”

The amount of the various executions in defendant’s hands, with interest, was $2,020.13. The judgment was for the full value of the property, in case return could not be had.

*Samuel A. Noyes*and *Samuel Hand*for the appellants.

*N. G. Moak*for the respondent.

Eolgeb, J.,

reads opinion for reversal and new trial, unless defendant stipulates to reduce the recovery to $2,020.13, with interest from August 1, 1869, and if so reduced, judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

Allen, Q-boveb, Peokham and Sapallo, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas G. Wiggans, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
                  indicated.

Date: December 2, 2003

/s/ Thomas G. Wiggans
-------------------------------------
Thomas G. Wiggans
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kolen Kalani KAIMANA, Defendant-Appellant,

No. 16-1328

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 8, 2017

Robert M. Brown, Paul Farley, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Meredith B. Esser, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This matter is before us on Appellee’s *Unopposed Motion for Summary Affirmance.*The United States moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s sentencing determination in this case in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017). Appellant Kolen Kalani Kaimana does not oppose the motion.

Upon consideration, the motion is granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries**

 

EXHIBIT 32.1 

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2009 (this “report”), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the “registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge: 

1.         The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 

2.         The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant. 

 

|   | /s/ Gary S. RaymondGary S. RaymondPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2009 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

Ex-3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Delvico BORDEN, also known as James Delvoico Borden, also known as Earl Johnson, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-2571

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 4, 2017

Filed: May 25, 2017

Jim Lynn, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Delvico Borden, Pro Se

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Delvico Borden directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug charges. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging a sentencing enhancement, suggesting that the district court miscalculated the Guidelines imprisonment range, and arguing that Borden’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. Borden has filed a pro se brief making essentially the same arguments.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in applying the challenged sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080, 1087 (8th Cir. 2009) (failure to object at sentencing results in review for plain error that affects substantial rights); United States v. Menteer, 408 F.3d 445, 446 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (unob-jected-to facts in presentence report are deemed admitted). We further conclude that the district court did not plainly err in calculating the Guidelines imprisonment range, or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentencing decisions); Lovelace, 565 F.3d at 1087; see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Cb 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300*408(1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable Brian C, Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
ex10.2

 

 Exhibit 10.2
 

 REGEN BIO PHARMA INC.
 A wholly owned subsidiary of Bio matrix Scientific Group, Inc.
 

 

 May 16, 2012
 

 Vlad Bogin MD
 3233 Wildwood Drive
 Longview WA 98632
 

 Dear Vlad,
 

 This letter is a follow up to our previous discussion about the Scientific Advisory Board for Regen BioPharma, Inc (a wholly owned subsidiary of Bio Matrix Scientific Group, Inc.).
 

 The function of the Scientific Advisory Board is to review research directions that Regen BioPharma, Inc.  may undertake, determining those projects which may lead to future developments/advancements in the field of stem cell therapy. Other areas may be pursued as well, with advice from this advisory board.
 

 You will receive 200,000 shares of Bio Matrix Common Stock as consideration for participating in telephonic calls/conference calls and serving on Regen BioPharma, Inc.’s Scientific Advisory Board. The frequency and timing of such calls will be established on a mutually agreeable basis. 
 

 It is anticipated that members of the Scientific Advisory Board will potentially serve as primary research consultants to the Company as such projects are undertaken. Compensation for such projects will be either at the rate of $500 per hour or negotiated separately on a case-by-case basis between the Company and the researcher.
 

 Thank You for your consideration
 

 /s/ David R. Koos
 David R. Koos
 Chairman and CEO
  
  
 P.S.: Please sign this letter in your acceptance and fax back to me at 619-330-2328. Any usage of your name in any press releases will be submitted to you for review and comment before being released to the public.
 

 /s/ Vlad Bogin MD
 Vlad Bogin MD
  (date: 5/20/2012)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          55,351
<SECURITIES>                                    19,804
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          11,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,836
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,485
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,871
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,992
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (1,022)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,538)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,538)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     676
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,862)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Report of Pipeline Data Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSBA for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), MacAllister Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Donald Gruneisen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

|         |                                  |   |         |                                                                |
|--------------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:     | /s/ MacAllister Smith                 |   | By:     | /s/ Donald Gruneisen                                                |
| Name:   | MacAllister Smith                     |   | Name:   | Donald Gruneisen                                                    |
| Title:  | Chief Executive Officer and President |   | Title:  | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

Date: March 28, 2008

 [A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pipeline Data Inc. and will be retained by Pipeline Data Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]

 

 

 

71
ex10-10.htm




Exhibit 10.10

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 



5
#### James Earl BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES E BROWN AND ASSOCIATES, APC, a California Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56317

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

James Earl Brown, Pro Se

Lawrence Silver, Esquire, Attorney, Silver & Field, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Irma Gutierrez, Oscar Gutierrez, Estella Gutierrez, Lawrence Silver

Melinda Cantrall, Thomas Hurrell, Hur-rell Cantrall LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee David Mauphin

Tim Laske, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees US Attorney General, Mark E. Field, George H. King, Beatrice Herrera, M. Ramirez, Pat Gomez, Mariana R. Pfael-zer, Internal Revenue Service, Chris Sawyer

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*481MEMORANDUM **

James Earl Brown, a disbarred California attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his former law practice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Knievel v. ESPN,*393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action because Brown failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.