alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.25
 Stephen Scott
Group General Counsel and Company Secretary
    
    (VODAFONE LOGO)27 July 2005
 Mr Andy Halford
    
    Our Ref:
    
    SRS/je/3713The Oxdrove House
    
    Direct line:
    
    +44 1635 673915Burghclere
    
    Direct fax:
    
    +44 1635 580761BerkshireRG20 9HJ
  INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS
    (i)
    
    The Company will provide funds to cover costs as incurred by you in defending legal
proceedings brought against you in your capacity as, or as a result of your being or having
been, a Director of the Company including criminal proceedings and proceedings brought by the
Company itself or an Associated Company;(ii)
    
    The Company will indemnify you in respect of any proceedings brought by third parties,
including both legal and financial costs of an adverse judgment brought against you in your
capacity as, or as a result of your being or having been, a Director of the Company; and(iii)
    
    The Company will indemnify you for liability incurred in connection with any application
made to a court for relief from liability, where the court grants such relief.
  (i)
    
    Unsuccessful defence of criminal proceedings, in which instance the Company would seek
reimbursement for any funds advanced;(ii)
    
    Unsuccessful defence of an action brought by the Company itself or an Associated Company,
in which instance the Company would seek reimbursement for any funds advanced:
 Vodafone Group Plc




---



##### 



(iii)
    
    Fines imposed by regulatory bodies;(iv)
    
    Fines imposed in criminal proceedings; and(v)
    
    Liability incurred in connection with any application under Section 144(3) or (4) of the
Companies Act 1985 (acquisition of shares by innocent nominee) or section 727 of the Companies Act
1985 (general power to grant relief in case of honest and reasonable conduct), where the court
refuses to grant you relief, and such refusal is final. (For reference, a summary of these sections
is appended to this letter).
      
  /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
    
    Date 27 July 2005
 2




---



##### 



APPENDIX
 Section 144(3) and (4) Companies Act 1985
  Section 727 Companies Act 1985
  3
Exhibit 99.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the  Form 10-QSB/A Quarterly Report of WorldHealth Alternatives, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended May31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), theundersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

September 30, 2002

By: /s/ Edward G. SiceloffEdward G. Siceloff, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer
Draft oil MACT floor spreadsheet 

 Bill Maxwell 

 to: Cortney_Higgins 

 03/04/2011 03:40 PM 

 Cc: RobertJ Wayland 

 

Floor analysis_Oil_030411.xlsx 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450
## 			NCBC director delivers keynote address at senior seminar for counterproliferation-focused U.S. Army officers		

		Print	
    - 
    -    					Published: 25 March 2021				 

*Article by ODNI Strategic Communications*

 

Dr. Alan MacDougall, director of the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center, spoke with a group of senior U.S. Army officers who specialize in nuclear and counter-WMD efforts during a U.S. Army Nuclear and Countering WMD Agency professional development seminar on Feb. 2.

 

The group of about 50 Lieutenant Colonels in Functional Area 52, or FA52, comprise the senior ranks of the Army’s nuclear and WMD enterprise.

 

In his keynote remarks, MacDougall highlighted NCBC’s history and evolving role in coordinating the Intelligence Community’s counterproliferation efforts to the present day.

 

He also emphasized USANCA’s sustained strength in educating, training and developing the functional area in the counterproliferation space, the impact of these senior officers and their expertise throughout the U.S. Army and the interagency, and the necessity for strategic thinkers, integrators, and implementers in the counterproliferation and counter-WMD communities.

 

“Our adversaries are investing heavily in the WMD landscape and one of the ways we keep pace is by keeping requisite counter-WMD knowledge in our armed services, particularly in our Army,” said MacDougall. He provided examples of the positive impacts that the FA52 community has provided to the Intelligence Community on counter-WMD space from his perspective as director of NCBC, including coordinating strategic planning and posturing the IC to curb proliferation of WMD, which was also echoed by the National Intelligence Manager for Counterproliferation.

 

MacDougall also fielded several questions from the group related to how new technologies might challenge the counterproliferation community, the priority level of counterproliferation in intelligence, and the future for the community with the new administration. He assured the group that counterproliferation has always been and will remain a top priority for the U.S. and that the IC’s ability to provide assessments on proliferation networks and capabilities is always in high demand. MacDougall highlighted the need to develop and retain professionals focused on counterproliferation in the years to come.

 

NCBC has a historically strong relationship with USANCA and this engagement continued to forge the valuable and mutually beneficial partnerships between the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Army.

 

For the U.S. Army officers in attendance, this seminar is a critical career development step to becoming senior leaders in the counterproliferation community.
No. 09-9179.

#### Daniel L. Spuck, Petitioner v. Thomas Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania, et al.

559 U.S. 1095, 130 S. Ct. 2374,

176 L. Ed. 2d 772,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3523,

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 347 Fed. Appx. 727.
#### Anthony J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellant, v. Ruth R. WALTER and John B. Walter, Appellees.

No. 21897.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 8, 1965.

Robert V. Zener, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., William 0. Murray, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., for appellant.

Guy Bonham, San Antonio, Tex., for appellees.

Before BROWN and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and KILKENNY,* District Judge.

*

 Of the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the district court’s decision granting the appellee disability benefits as provided for in § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g). The court set aside the Secretary’s finding that appellee was not disabled within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 416(i) and 423(c) (2) on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence and concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record of a medically determinable impairment which rendered her unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. We agree.

There was ample positive proof of disability in the testimony of appellee’s personal physician, Dr. Allin, that she was suffering from a severe case of angina pectoris which was precipitated by mild physical exertion. This testimony was bolstered by the uncontradicted statements of laymen that appellee was experiencing pain and shortness of breath. On the other hand, the reports of the physicians on which the Secretary relied were of a purely negative nature and their findings were inconclusive. These doctors did not dispute the correctness of Dr. Allin’s diagnosis, but merely stated that their limited examination of appellee did not reveal the existence of a *157disabling condition. In these circumstances, we cannot say the Secretary’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                             CERTIFICATE 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 Falcon Natural Gas Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Massimiliano  Pozzoni,  Principal  Financial  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:

      (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 respect,  the financial  condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

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


/s/ Massimiliano Pozzoni
-----------------------------------
Name:  Massimiliano Pozzoni
Title: Principal Financial Officer
Date:  January 23, 2006
STATE of North Carolina v. Mario Donye GULLETTE, Defendant.

No. COA19-43

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 16, 2019

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 on Form 20-F of Tomkins plc (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James Nicol, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John Zimmerman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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/ James Nicol        
|By:                     |  | James Nicol   
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|/s/ John Zimmerman     
|By:                     |  | John Zimmerman
|Chief Financial Officer

April 30, 2008

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as 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.

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.
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 Lease Equity Appreciation Fund I, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Crit S. DeMent, Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Crit S. DeMent                                   
|                        |  |  |  | Name: Crit S. DeMent                                 
|                        |  |  |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner
Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Younglin Du, Chief Executive Officer, and President, of Dahua, Inc. (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, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2011 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(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/Younglin Du, CEO and PresidentDate: June 2, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Prosano, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 55]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J.), rendered May 7, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of kidnapping in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (three counts) and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 25 to 50 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of pre-arrest delay was properly denied. The court properly found that this motion, made on the eve of trial and limited to events occurring prior to the commencement of the criminal action, was untimely *(see, People v Ramirez,*243 AD2d 734, *lv denied*91 NY2d 878, 929). The court also properly found that, in any event, the pre-arrest delay was not unconstitutional *(see, People v Singer,*44 NY2d 241; *People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442). The delay in arresting defendant was satisfactorily explained by the difficulty of the investigation, which was hampered by defendant’s use of aliases *(see, People v Lesiuk,*81 NY2d 485, 491).

*330The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting carefully limited cross-examination of defendant’s wife on matters directly affecting her credibility that also suggested prior criminal activity on the part of defendant. The matters in question were not unduly prejudicial.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
Exhibit 10.5





EXHIBIT 10.5




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO




GENERATIONS HOLDING, INC. 2008 STOCK PURCHASE AND OPTION PLAN




This Amendment No. 1 to the Generations Holding, Inc. 2008 Stock Purchase and Option Plan (the
“Plan”) by Ancestry.com Inc. (formerly known as Generations Holding, Inc. and referred to herein as
the “Company”) is effective February 10, 2011.



W I T N E S S E T H:




WHEREAS, the Company previously adopted the Plan for the benefit of eligible service
providers;



WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12 of the Plan, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”)
may amend the Plan at any time;



WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to clarify that the Compensation Committee of
the Board, as the administrator of the Plan, has the authority to adjust, modify and amend the
terms of outstanding Options (as defined in the Plan) and any other awards granted under the Plan,
including, but not limited to, the ability to accelerate vesting and/or exercisability of
outstanding Options and any other awards granted under the Plan; and




WHEREAS, the Board has approved of this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan.




NOW, THEREFORE, effective February 10, 2011, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



1. Section 1 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new sentence to the end
thereof:




“In the event a provision in an agreement evidencing an Option or any other award
granted under the Plan is inconsistent or conflicts with the provisions of the Plan, the
provisions of the Plan will govern and prevail.”



2. The first paragraph of Section 5 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new
clause (f) thereto immediately following clause (e) and designating the existing clause (f) as a
new clause (g):




“, (f) to adjust, modify or amend Options or any other awards granted under the
Plan in any manner (subject to the applicable Participant’s written consent with respect
to any adjustment, modification or amendment that has a material adverse effect on the
Participant),”



[Signature Page to Follow]



 


 









 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Amendment
No. 1 to the Plan as of the day and year set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ANCESTRY.COM INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ William C. Stern
 	 
	 	 	William C. Stern 	 
	 	 	Title:  	General Counsel
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Leo Franklin FORESTER, Appellant.

No. 9753.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 7, 1965.

Decided May 20, 1965.

*686Edward R. Green, Winston-Salem, N. C. (Fred G. Grumpier, Jr., and White, Crumpler, Powell, Pfefferkorn & Green, Winston-Salem, N. C., on brief), for appellant.

William H. Murdock, U. S. Atty. (William W. Goodrich, Asst. Gen. Counsel for Food and Drugs, and Joanne S. Sisk, Atty., U. S. Dept, of Health, Education, and Welfare, on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BRYAN, Circuit Judge, and LEWIS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

A trial to the District Court, without a jury, upon an eight-count information resulted in each instance in the conviction of Leo Franklin Forester for violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, §§ 503(b) (1) (B) and S01(k), 21 U.S.C. §§ 353(b) (1) (B) and 331(k). Offering no evidence for himself or objection to the prosecution’s proof, defendant stood in the trial court upon a motion ' to dismiss the information for the unconstitutionality of § 503(b) (1) (B) because of vagueness and uncertainty. The Court denied the motion, adjudged Forester guilty and sentenced him to one year imprisonment, with suspension of the last six months during probation of five years. We find no error in the trial or judgment. United States v. 2600 State Drugs, Inc., 235 F.2d 913 (7 Cir. 1956), cert. den. 352 U.S. 848, 77 S.Ct. 68, 1 L.Ed.2d 59 (1956).

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23



<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement of
FMS Financial  Corporation  on Form S-8 (File No.  33-24340) of our report dated
February 10, 1997 on our audits of the consolidated  financial statements of FMS
Financial  Corporation  and  Subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for
each of the three years in the period ended  December 31, 1996,  which report is
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
-------------------------------
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.





2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 28, 1997
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**RAHMIR VENABLE,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 419 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 2nd day of December, 2015, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-30224

Summary Calendar

MARCELETTE JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED; DAN PACKER,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-4111-R)

September 18, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In December 1996, Marcelette Jackson ("Jackson") sued her

employer, Entergy Operations, Inc. ("Entergy"), and her supervisor,

Dan Packer, alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimination and

retaliation under Title VII and various state causes of action.

The conduct which she complained of occurred between 1992 and 1994

and Jackson did not initiate any proceedings before the EEOC within
2

300 days of the conduct complained of. Entergy and Packer filed

motions for summary judgment on the grounds that her Title VII

claims were not timely filed and her state law claims were barred

by state limitations. The district court granted such motions for

summary judgment and Jackson appeals. 

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply briefs, the

record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district court in its Order and Reasons

filed under date of March 4, 1998, we affirm the final Judgment

entered under date of March 4, 1998.

AFFIRMED.
No. 09-1113.

#### Jeffrey W. Bader, Petitioner v. Lloyd Blankfein, et al.

560 U.S. 905, 130 S. Ct. 3287,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1186,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4003.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 356 Fed. Appx. 471.