alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document


CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED

UNDER 17 C.F.R. SECTIONS 200.83 AND 230.496 


 
 

EXHIBIT 10.17    
  


 
 

AMENDMENT OF DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT    
  


        This Amendment (the "Amendment") of the Distribution Agreement effective June 1, 1999 by and between MEDIA GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
("Media") and HOOVER'S, INC. ("HOOVER'S") (the "Distribution Agreement") is made by and between Media and HOOVER'S as of this 11th day of January, 2002. Upon the execution of this Amendment,
this Amendment will be binding upon Media and HOOVER'S. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings specified in the Distribution Agreement. Media and HOOVER'S hereby
agree as follows: 


	1.
	Amendments. The Distribution Agreement is hereby amended as follows:



	(a)
	Section 12
of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the term of the Distribution Agreement will be extended for a period of three (3) months, through
August 31, 2002, with the existing terms and conditions (including without limitation the monthly payment of [*] of "net revenue" as provided in Section 4(a)) to
remain in full force and effect during such extension period. 
	(b)
	HOOVER'S
shall have the right to terminate the Agreement at any time between June 1, 2002 and August 31, 2002 by providing Media with at least thirty (30) days'
prior written notice of its intention to terminate the Agreement; provided that the parties acknowledge that HOOVER'S right to continue to use the Media data in existing non-electronic
hard copy, physical products and those non-electronic hard copy, physical products under preparation, as provided in Section 12, shall continue for a period of twelve
(12) months following the date of such termination. 
	(c)
	The
parties acknowledge that the terms and conditions as provided in the Distribution Agreement may be replaced by a new agreement to be entered into between the parties following
June 1, 2002. 









	2.
	Effect. The provisions of this Amendment will control over any inconsistent provisions of the Distribution Agreement. Except as
specifically amended as set forth above, all other rights and obligations of the parties set forth in the Distribution Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 



By
signature below, Media and HOOVER'S have each caused this Amendment to be executed as of the 11th day of January, 2002. 



	MEDIA GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

111 N. 4th

Richmond, Virginia 23219	 	HOOVER'S, INC.

5800 Airport Rd.

Austin, Texas 78752
	

By:	

	
 	

By:	


	

Name:	

	
 	

Title:	


	

Title:	

	
 	

Date:	


	 	 	 	 	 







[*]
Indicates that material has been omitted and confidential treatment requested therefor. All such material has been filed separately with the Commission pursuant to
Rule 406. 









QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.17


AMENDMENT OF DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sigmund Diaola JAMES, a/k/a Sig, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7191

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Sigmund Diaola James, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WYNN'and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sigmund Diaola James seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 James 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*
#### Raymond Charles JACKSON, Plaintiff-appellant v. Bryan COLLIER, Michael Roesler; Dale R. White; Dale L. Dawson; Jacqueline J. Sanders, Defendants-appellees

No. 15-40894

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 13, 2017

Raymond Charles Jackson, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Raymond Charles Jackson, Texas prisoner # 1570860, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (e)(2)(B)(1). According to Jackson, the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to properly install and monitor the condition of 30-year-old duct-work in the Officer’s Dining Room. According to Jackson, he was working in the Dining Room when the ductwork suddenly came loose and struck him in the head, causing a large wound. We grant Jackson’s motion to file a supplemental memorandum in support of his motion and have considered the supplemental memorandum outlining his arguments for appeal.

Jackson has failed to allege facts showing that the defendants were aware of facts from which they could infer that the ductwork was dangerous and that they did, in fact, draw the inference. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); *Gobert v. Caldwell,*463 F.3d 339, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, Jackson does not advance his case with his barebones assertion of a prior similar “kind of incident,” of unspecified cause and resulting in unspecified injury. *See id.*Aside from'conclusory, and therefore insufficient, assertions of knowledge, Jackson has presented only a complaint of negligence. *See Marsh v. Jones,*53 F.3d 707, 711-12 (5th Cir. 1995). Jackson has shown no error in the district court’s dismissal of his claim. *See Samford v. Dretke,*562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009).

For the reasons set forth above, we deny the motion to proceed IFP on appeal. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). We likewise deny Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel. *See Ulmer v. Chancellor,*691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). We dismiss the appeal as frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

This court’s dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Jackson is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

*326MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT GRANTED; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Hemelt, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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/ William J. HemeltWilliam J. HemeltExecutive Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer & Treasurer
 Dated May 10, 2005 - 29 -
NO. 07-03-0146-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D APRIL 11, 2003

______________________________ MICHAEL R. PALOMIN,

Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 286 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F HOCKLEY CO UNTY; NO. 89-10-3257; HON. ANDY KUPPER, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMPBE LL, JJ. Appellant Mi chael R. Palomin a ttempts to appeal pro se from the denial of his request for forensic DN A testing. The order deny ing his r equest w as signed on September 5, 2002. The document, which we interpret as his notice of appeal, was filed with this court
on March 24, 2003. Furthermore, we interpret it as a notice of appeal since it is entitle d “Motion for Leave to F ile Out of Time Appea l” and evinces appellant’s d esire to appeal the trial court’s r uling. See Palma v . State , 76 S.W.3d 638, 641 (Tex. App.–Cor pus Christi 2002, pet. ref’d) ( stating that a le tter from Palma to t he court cler k asking i f he had an appell ate attorney and an appeal bond sufficie ntly ev inced a desir e to appea l and ,1 Because we have d eterm ined that we do not have jur isdi cti on over a ppell ant’ s appeal , hi s “Moti on

for the App ointm ent o f Attor ney” is m oot. 2 therefore, constituted a notice of appeal). Fo r the re asons set out, w e must dismissthe appeal for lack o f jurisdicti on. Atimely fil ed notice of appeal is esse ntial to inv oke our appella te jurisdi ction. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 ( Tex. Cr im. App. 1996). To be timely, a notice of appeal (in a criminal matter) must be filed within 30 days after the date sentence is im posed o r suspended in open court or withi n 90 days after the date sentence i s imposed o r suspended in open court if the defendant ti mely files a motion for new trial. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1) & (2). In a civil matter, the noti ce must be filed w ithin 30 days of the date the trial court sig ned the final order or judgment o r withi n 90 days if a t imely motion for new tri al is filed. Id. at26.1(a). And, while an appellate court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal, the notice and request for an extensi on must be filed w ithin 1 5 days of the original deadline for fili ng the notice of appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26. 3. Irres pect ive of whether or notappellant timely moved for a new trial after his request for DNA testin g was de n ied, th e document we dee m to be his notic e of appeal was unti mely. That is, it w

as filed long after 90 days l apsed from the date the or der was sig ned. Simi larly, his reques t to extend th e appellate deadline is also un timely by approximately three months. Thus, we have no jur isdiction ov er t he appeal. And, bec ause we cannot create jurisdiction where none exists, Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 20 9-10 ( Tex. C rim. App. 1998), we must dismissthe appeal. Id. at 210. 1
Per Cu riam Do not publish

.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Applied Graphics Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Fred Drasner, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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; 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/  Fred Drasner
                                          --------------------------------------
                                               Fred Drasner
                                               Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                               Executive Officer
                                               November 14, 2002



                                       30
Filed 6/13/13 In re D.J. CA2/5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FIVE 

In re D.J., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

 B242917 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. CK92457) 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

MICHELE B., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rudolph A. 

Diaz, Judge. Affirmed with directions. 

 Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and 

Tracey Dodds, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

 M.B., the mother of D.J., appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code sections 

300 and 361 dependency orders. The mother contends there was noncompliance with the 

Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. The Department of Children 

and Family Services agrees. We agree likewise. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 

Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471-472.) Upon 

remittitur issuance, the juvenile court is to comply with the with the federal Indian Child 

Welfare Act requirements and related state provisions. We need not reverse the 

dispositional order. (In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 187; In re Brooke C. 

(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, 385.). We leave the issue of what to do if a tribe asserts 

jurisdiction over the child in the good hands of the juvenile court. 

 The orders under review are affirmed and the cause is remanded for compliance 

with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

 TURNER, P. J. 

We concur: 

 KRIEGLER, J. 

 O’NEILL, J.*

 

*

 Judge of the Ventura County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from Balance Sheet,
Statement of Operations, Statement of Cash Flows and Notes thereto incorporated
in Part I of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          37,163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,742
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    511,824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               771,601
<PP&E>                                       3,263,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,494,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          624,586
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,819
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,353,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,494,971
<SALES>                                         61,937
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,937
<CGS>                                           29,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,600,070
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,504,708)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,504,708)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,504,708)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 on
Form 10-K of Fortress Investment Group LLC (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Daniel N. Bass, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Daniel N. Bass     
|Daniel N. Bass         
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 1, 2011          

This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

End of Filing
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 53 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 53

   Congratulating the people of the Republic of Sierra Leone on the 
        success of their recent democratic multiparty elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 23, 1996

Mr. Jeffords (for himself, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Simon, and Mr. Feingold) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Congratulating the people of the Republic of Sierra Leone on the 
        success of their recent democratic multiparty elections.

Whereas since 1991 the people of the Republic of Sierra Leone have endured a 
        horrific civil war that has killed thousands of individuals and 
        displaced more than half the population of the country;
Whereas for the first time in almost 30 years, the Republic of Sierra Leone held 
        its first truly democratic multiparty elections to elect a president and 
        parliament and put an end to military rule;
Whereas the elections held on February 26, 1996, and the subsequent runoff 
        election held on March 15, 1996, were deemed by international and 
        domestic observers to be free and fair and legitimate expressions of the 
        will of the people of the Republic of Sierra Leone;
Whereas success of the newly elected democratic government led by President 
        Ahmad Tejan Kabbah could have a positive effect on the West African 
        neighbors of the Republic of Sierra Leone; and
Whereas the historic event of democratic multiparty elections in the Republic of 
        Sierra Leone should be honored: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) congratulates the people of the Republic of Sierra 
        Leone for holding their first democratic multiparty 
        presidential and parliamentary elections in nearly 30 years;
            (2) encourages all people of the Republic of Sierra Leone 
        to continue to negotiate an end to the civil war and to work 
        together after taking the critical first step of holding 
        democratic elections in that country;
            (3) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to help 
        nations move toward freedom and democracy; and
            (4) further reaffirms that the United States is committed 
        to encouraging peace, democracy, and economic development on 
        the African continent.
                                 <all>
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 977

To correct certain references in the Bankruptcy Code.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 28 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To correct certain references in the Bankruptcy Code.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REFERENCE.

4 Section 1228 of title 11, United States Code, is

5 amended by striking ‘‘section 1222(b)(10)’’ each place it

6 appears and inserting ‘‘section 1222(b)(9)’’.

Æ