alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 


Michael
T. Flavin, PhD


Chief
Executive Officer


Advanced
Life Sciences, Inc.


1440
Davey Rd.


Woodridge,
IL.  60517


 


December 21,
2007


 


Dear
Dr. Flavin:


 


Let
this letter serve as an amendment to The Leaders Bank existing Line of Credit
facility to Advanced Life Sciences, Inc. under the following terms and
conditions:


 


	
  Amount:

  	
   

  	
  $4,000,000

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Term:

  	
   

  	
  24
  Months. Principal shall be due and payable in one lump sum on Maturity Date
  (see below). The line of credit will include a revolving feature to it. In
  addition, the Leaders Bank hereby agrees to waive all rights to call this
  debt upon Demand except if an event of default exists as described in the
  loan documents.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Maturity

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
   

  	
  January 1,
  2010

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Interest

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Rate:

  	
   

  	
  Leaders
  Bank Prime minus .75%, floating with a floor of 6.25% and a ceiling of 8%.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Other:

  	
   

  	
  All
  other terms and conditions (collateral, covenants, and subordinations) shall
  remain substantially the same as the terms agreed to in the current loan
  agreement scheduled to mature on 1-1-2008.

  



 


If
this amendment is acceptable to you, please indicate your approval by signing
in the space provided below.


 


Sincerely,


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  .

  
	
  /s/
  James E. Lynch

  	
   

  	
  Michael
  T. Flavin

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  James
  E. Lynch

  	
   

  	
  Michael
  T. Flavin, Ph.D.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  President &
  CEO

  	
   

  	
  Advanced
  Life Sciences, Inc.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  The
  Leaders Bank

  	
   

  	
  Chief
  Executive Officer
Anthony J. GAINES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0214

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
This document is the final compliance stack test report for the main engines of the

Development Driller 1 (or DD1 ), dated May 17, 2013, for testing conducted March 31

– May 1, 2013. Due to it s large size , th is document was not uploadable; however, it may be obtained via download by contacting Art Hofmeister at h ofmeister

. art@epa.gov or (404) 562

- 9115.
Calvictor H. MOORE, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-3182

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed October 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Cedrick BARRINER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2597

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
exv10w4



 





Exhibit 10.4




HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES, INC.

DISCRETIONARY BONUS POLICY

(Effective November 26, 2007)



Purpose and Establishment. Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (the “Corporation”) establishes this
Discretionary Bonus Policy (the “Policy”) to provide incentive compensation to eligible employees
of the Corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates who exceed expectations, consistently
exhibit superior performance, and/or make unique individual contributions to the overall success of
the Corporation. Awards of bonus payments under this policy will be made on a discretionary basis,
subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation
Committee”) as set forth below.



Eligibility for Bonus Payment. Each full-time and each part-time employee of the Corporation, or
of a subsidiary or an affiliate of the Corporation, who has completed any applicable initial
probationary period and who has a satisfactory performance rating and consistently meets
expectations may be eligible to receive a bonus payment. However, this Policy does not give any
employee a right to receive a bonus payment. In determining whether an eligible employee should be
paid a bonus and the amount of such bonus, the Compensation Committee shall review the
Corporation’s financial status and the employee’s performance and individual contributions to the
overall success of the Corporation.



Timing of Bonus Payments. Bonus payments may be made from time to time, or for any period of time,
in the discretion of the Compensation Committee or its delegate. Unless provided otherwise in a
written agreement between the Corporation and the employee, an employee shall not have a vested
right in any bonus payment until the amount is paid to such individual and the Compensation
Committee shall have full discretion to reduce or eliminate any previously declared bonus amount
for any or no reason prior to payment thereof. In the event that the Compensation Committee
determines that one or more bonuses shall be paid based on a performance period of twelve months
duration or longer, such bonuses (or any pro-rated bonus payable in conjunction with that
performance period), if earned and not otherwise reduced or eliminated in the Compensation
Committee’s discretion, shall be paid after the close of the performance period and by no later
than two and one-half months after the close of the calendar year in which the performance period
ends unless it is administratively impracticable to do so, and such impracticability was
unforeseeable, in which case the bonuses shall be paid as soon as practicable thereafter or the
amounts have been deferred by the eligible employee in accordance with applicable laws.



Interpretation. The Corporation intends for this Policy to be interpreted and construed to comply
in all regards with the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
Mark Andrew KALINA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1328

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,903,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,916,841
<PP&E>                                         505,993
<DEPRECIATION>                               (147,717)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,275,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,332,602
<BONDS>                                        522,802
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,723
<COMMON>                                        12,798
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,400,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,275,117
<SALES>                                        243,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          324,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,739
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (269,659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (269,659)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (269,659)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with this Annual Report of National Golf Emporium, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Bryan Sawarynski, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




1.
            Such Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2009,
      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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
      ending September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of National Golf
      Emporium, Inc.




Date:
      November 13, 2009




By:
                /s/
      Bryan SawarynskiBryan
      SawarynskiChief
      Financial Officer
Patrick DWYER & Mary Dwyer, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. HOME CORPORATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5038

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Leroy R. GADSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-923

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Betty Heasley PORTERFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1841

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50240.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2004.

Decided May 19, 2004.

Orlando Gutierrez, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Shereen J. Charlick, Esq., San Diego, CA, for D efendant-Appellant.

Before: BROWNING, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Jose Luis Garcia appeals the district court’s imposition of a 16-level sentencing enhancement, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii), to his sentence for attempted unlawful entry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We review the district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo, *United States v. Bonilla-Montenegro,*331 F.3d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.2003), and its factual findings for clear error, *United States v. Riley,*335 F.3d 919, *781925 (9th Cir.2003). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

The district court correctly found that the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that Garcia suffered a 1978 conviction for Battery Upon a Peace Officer, *see Bonilla-Montenegro,*331 F.3d at 1049, and, therefore, correctly enhanced Garcia’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). That a Notice of Appeal was filed and that there are marks on the Court Action form does not mean that the government failed to meet its burden to prove the previous conviction. The official records do not show any reversal on appeal.

We review Garcia’s argument that the time limitations in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e) apply to sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 for plain error because he raises it for the first time on appeal. *See Riley,*335 F.3d at 925. There was no error in not applying the § 4A1.2(e) time limitations because the temporal limitations in § 4A1.2 do not apply to § 2L1.2. *See United States v. Lara-Aceves,*183 F.3d 1007, 1013-14 (9th Cir.1999), *overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*247 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). The changes in the guidelines since *Lara-Aceves*are not material.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

MEMORANDUM

Date: July 30, 2012

Subject: EPA – EMI – Felman Corporation Teleconference Summary (July 6, 2012)

From: Beth Friedman, EC/R Incorporated

To: Conrad Chin, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02)

I. Introduction:

A conference call was held on July 6, 2012 to discuss the comments and analysis submitted 

by Eramet Marietta (EMI) to EPA on July 2, 2012. The submittal consisted of a cover letter;

a report and supporting appendices, “Technical Comments to Alternative Approach to 

NESHAP Subpart XXX Compliance --- November 23, 2011 Proposed Rule,” prepared by 

QSEM Solutions, Inc. and a copy of a September 2010 test report. They also submitted a CD 

containing modeling files that were prepared to assess the impacts of the proposed changes to 

baseline and controlled emissions. The plants also submitted a summary presentation. The 

purpose of the call was to ensure that EPA clearly understands the proposal so that the 

upcoming July 16, 2012 meeting between the industry and EPA is as productive as possible.

II. Participants:

Eramet Marietta: Jeff McKinney

Felman Production, Inc.: John Konrady, Shawn McCutchan

Environ: Russell Kemp

Beveridge & Diamond: Amy Lincoln

Jones Day: John Rego

Policy Navigation Group: Troy Hillier

EPA/OAQPS: Conrad Chin, Chuck French, Stef Johnson, Darcie Smith

EC/R Incorporated (Contractor for EPA): Beth Friedman

Attachments:

Letter and attachments to Conrad Chin and Chuck French, EPA from John Rego, Jones Day. 

July 2, 2012. Evaluation of a Fugitive Emissions Control Strategy and Proposal to Address Data 

Deficiencies.

Presentation to EPA. July 6, 2012. Overview of Eramet Marietta Inc. NESHAP Re-Analysis 

Submittal.
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that court of 22 October 2004 in the case of Ministero dell'Industria, Commercio ed Artigianato v Spa Lucchini Siderurgica

(Case C-119/05)

(2005/C 132/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth Chamber) (Italy) of 22 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 14 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ministero dell'Industria, Commercio ed Artigianato and Spa Lucchini Siderurgica on the following questions:

----
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3849 — IPR/Mitsui/Calpine UK)

(2005/C 173/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 7 July 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Changyou.com Limited (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alex Ho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2010 and results of operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.



/s/ Alex HoName:

Alex HoTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

February 28, 2011
Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Tiger Media, Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve Ye, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 19, 2013
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Steve Ye           
|                     |  | Steve Ye               
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

P. O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, California 95812 

March 4, 2011 

Transmittal 

of 

ARB Staff Rule Review Comments 

To: Mr. Sam Longmire 

 Air Pollution Control Specialist 

 Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District 

Telephone Number: (530) 274-9360 ext. 106 

e-mail: sam@myairdistrict.com 

From: Alex Krichevsky, (916) 324-6222 

e-mail: akrichev@arb.ca.gov 

The following rule, which is scheduled for a public hearing to be held by your District 

Board in April 2011, was received by us on January 21, 2011, for our review: 

Rule 228 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products 

We have reviewed the rule and have the comments on the following pages. We believe 

that our comments are important to the effectiveness and enforceability of Rule 228. 

If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mr. Jose Gomez, 

Manager of the Technical Development Section, at (916) 322-3984. 

Rule review comments are on the following page 
 Date: March 4, 2011 

Air Resources Board Staff Comments on 

Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District 

Rule 228 

Rule 228 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products 

1. General: The Air Resources Board understands the current rule amendments 

are intended to align the rule with federal RACT requirements and incorporate 

comments made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If the district is 

unable to address our comments in the current rulemaking, we request that they 

be considered the next time the rule is open for amendments. 

2. Section 3.1: We recommend that the district revise Section 3.1 VOC Content 

Limits with the following VOC limits. These lower limits have been implemented 

by South Coast AQMD in Rule 1107. Lowering the air dried VOC limits for these 

three specific categories will provide the district with the maximum VOC emission 

reduction benefits. 

Coating Category Air Dried 

Kg VOC/l 

Air Dried 

lb VOC/gal 

General Use, One-Component 0.28 2.3 

Prefab Architectural MultiComponent 0.34 2.8 

Prefab Architectural OneComponent 0.28 2.3 

3. Section 3.2: We recommend that the district revise Section 3.2 Alternate 

Emission Control with the following VOC limits to reflect the recommended 

changes to Section 3.1 shown above. 

Coating Category Air Dried 

Kg VOC/l 

Air Dried 

lb VOC/gal 

General Use, One-Component 0.40 3.35 

Prefab Architectural MultiComponent 0.54 4.52 
2

Prefab Architectural OneComponent 0.40 3.35
Wolfdy Gerald DOMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-0772

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 11, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



SEALE AND BEERS, CPAs
PCAOB & CPAB REGISTERED AUDITORS
www.sealebeers.com





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10K of Essense Water, Inc.,
of our report dated October 28, 2011 on our audit of the financial
statements of Essense Water, Inc. as of August 31, 2011 and 2010, and the
related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
years then ended August 31, 2011 and 2010 and since inception on January 29,
2009, and the reference to us under the caption "Experts."



/s/ Seale and Beers, CPAs
-------------------------

Seale and Beers, CPAs
Las Vegas, Nevada
November 3, 2011















             Seale and Beers, CPAs PCAOB & CPAB Registered Auditors
                 50 S. Jones Blvd Suite 202 Las Vegas, NV 89107
                     Phone: (888)727-8251 Fax: (888)782-2351
Robert F. OWENS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3029

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 14, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Annual Report of 3DX
Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending October 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger Janssen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(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.







|Date: February 13, 2015 | By:    | /s/  Roger Janssen            | 
|----------------------- | ------ | ----------------------------- | 
|                        | Name:  | Roger Janssen                
|                        | Title: | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        |        | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        |        | President, CEO and a director



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in
typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
Michael C. ESSIX, Appellant/petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1522

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2













CERTIFICATION OF 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 of Entest BioMedical, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tammy L. Reynolds, Chief Financial Officer 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 and belief:





(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.











Dated:  December 21, 2010                  /s/ Tammy L. Reynolds


Tammy L. Reynolds


Chief Financial Officer