alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 March 19, 2010
    By:
    /s/ A. J. KazimiA.J. KazimiChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.3

AMENDMENT NO. 1

	TO

	EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

          This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to Employment Agreement is hereby made and entered into as of this 23rd day of April, 2004, by and between Sierra Health Services,  Inc., a Nevada corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Employer") and	**Paul H. Palmer**		 (hereinafter referred to as "Employee").

          WHEREAS, the Employer and Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of **	December 1, 2001		; and
          WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend certain terms thereof on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and

          WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Employer have reviewed and approved this Amendment.

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

          1.      Article II, Paragraph 1, Term of Employment - Term of Agreement, is hereby deleted and replaced with the                     following sentence:
Unless earlier terminated by the mutual agreement of the parties hereto, this Agreement shall terminate at **December 31, 2005or, if Employee has become entitled to any benefit under Article VII due to termination of employment on or before **December 31, 2005, at such date as Employer has no further obligations to Employee under Article VII; provided, however, that the provisions of Article V and Article VI (and this clause of Article II) shall survive any termination of this Agreement.
          2.      Effective Date.  This Amendment shall be effective as of April 23, 2004.

          3.      Continued Effect.  Except as otherwise modified hereby, the Agreement shall 	continue in full force and                     effect.

	

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

 

SIERRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

 

BY:________________________________          Frank E. Collins          Senior Vice President, Legal and Administration

 

EMPLOYEE

 

BY:________________________________          Paul H. Palmer	

 ******
Amendment to Offer Letter, dated 5/10/2002 between Curis & Changgeng Qian



 Exhibit 10.6 
 CURIS 
 May 10, 2002 
 Changgeng Qian 

10 Riverview Circle 
 Wayland, MA 01778 
 Dear Chang, 
 I am pleased to inform you of your promotion
to Director. The terms of your promotion are outlined below: 
 Position: Director, Pharmacology 
 Effective Date: May 6, 2002 
 Rate of Pay: $10,833.33 per month to be reviewed as part of our performance review program. 
 Stock Options: You will
be granted an option to purchase additional shares of common stock of the Company. The number of shares will be determined by the Board of Directors and will be granted, subject to Board approval, at its next regularly schedule meeting. The stock
option vests over four years with 25% vesting on the first anniversary of the date of grant. The stock option then vests at 6.25% per quarter over the remainder of the vesting period. Vesting of stock options is contingent upon your continued
employment at Curis. The exercise price of the option will be established by the Board of Directors. 
 It should be understood by you that
your employment at Curis, Inc. is at all times on at “at will” basis, which means that it is not guaranteed for any specific period of time and may be terminated by you or by Curis at any time, with or without notice. The terms of your
employment will be interpreted in accordance with and governed by laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 
 If the terms of your
promotion are acceptable, please indicate your acceptance by signing both copies of this letter. Please return one copy to Holly Benke, Human Resources. 
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	/s/ LEE RUBIN
	Lee Rubin, Ph.D.
	Sr. Vice President, Research and CSO

 Agreed and accepted: 
  

	
	/s/ CHANGGENG QIAN
	Changgeng Qian

 Date: May 21, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of Laredo Investment Corp. as of September 30, 2000 and the related
statements of operations and cash flows from the nine months then ended and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              22
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      361
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   701
<PP&E>                                             476
<DEPRECIATION>                                      59
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,010
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                        (23)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,127
<SALES>                                          1,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,464
<CGS>                                            1,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (27)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (27)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (27)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IYM TECHNOLOGIES LLC

, Appellant

v.

RPX CORPORATION, ADV ANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Appellees

______________________

2019

- 1762

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017

- 01888.

______________________

Before L OURIE

, M OORE

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

RPX Corporation petitioned for inter partes review of
claims of 1

– 11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent 7,448,012, owned by IYM Technologies LLC. After that review, t he Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) held that claims 1

– 9, 11, 13, a nd 14 of the ’012 patent are unpatentable. See RPX Corp. v. IYM Techs. LLC , No. IPR2017

- 01888 (PTAB March 6, 2019). IYM appeals. Case: 19-1762 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2020IYM TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. RPX CORPORATION 2

In a separate appeal, w e recently affirmed a decision by the Board holding claims 1

– 14 of the same ’012 patent unpatentable. IYM Techs. LLC v. RPX Corp. , No. 19

- 1761 (Fed. Cir. March 9 , 2020).

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

Accordingly, t h is appeal is dismissed as moot in light
of our affirmance in IYM Techs. LLC v. RPX Corp. , No. 19

- 1761 (Fed. Cir. March 9 , 2020) , which invalidated all of the claims at issue in this appeal

.

March 13, 2020

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 19-1762 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2020
Amendment to Technical Services Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 

 

			
		 	 International Business Machines Corporation
 Global Technical Services Council
 3039 Cornwallis Road Bldg 002/Rm 210

Research Triangle Park NC 27709-2195
 Attention:
Shyra Laws-Daniels - Phone (919) 486-2316


  

			
	Date:	  	September 19, 2011
		
	To:	  	CDI Corporation
		
	From:	  	Daniel Schaefer
		  	US Sourcing Manager, Technical Services
		  	Integrated Supply Chain
		
	Subject:	  	Amendment to Extend the Expiration Date of Technical Services Agreement Statement of Work #4908021177-005

 Dear Supplier, 

This letter serves as Amendment No. 006 to the above subject Agreement which the parties thereto do mutually agree to amend as follows: 

The parties agree to extend the Expiration Date of the SOW through the end of the year. The current language in Section 4.1 “Term”
of the SOW will be replaced with the following: 
 The term of this SOW shall begin on the Effective Date and shall remain in
effect until the later of December 30, 2011 (“Expiration Date”) or until Deliverables and Services are completed (“Term”). 
 Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the subject Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 The parties acknowledge that they have read this Amendment, understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. Further, they agree that this Amendment and the subject Agreement are the
complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties, superseding all proposals or other prior agreements, oral or written, and all other communications between the parties relating to this subject. 

Please have your authorized representative indicate acceptance thereof by signing both copies of the Amendment and returning both copies (via overnight
air) by September 23, 2011 to the attention of Shyra Laws-Daniels at the address above. 
  

									
	 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
 International Business Machines Corporation
 3039 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
	 		 	 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
 CDI Corporation
 17177 Preston Road Suite 300

Dallas, TX 75245

	By:	 		 		 	By:	 	
					
	/s/ Daniel J Schaefer	 	9/27/11     	 		 	/s/ Dirk A Dent	 	9/20/2011        
	  
	 		 	  

	Buyer Signature	 	Date	 		 	Supplier Signature	 	Date
			
	Daniel J. Schaefer	 		 	Dirk A Dent
	  
	 		 	  

	Printed Name	 		 		 	Printed Name
	US Sourcing Manager-Technical Services,	 		 		 	
	Integrated Supply Chain	 		 	EVP, CDI ITS
	  
	 		 	  

	Title & Organization	 		 		 	Title & Organization

 Very truly yours, 
 Daniel Schaefer 
 US Sourcing Manager, Technical Services
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2939 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on ε-caprolactone-2-ethyl-2- 

(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol polymer. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2012 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on εcaprolactone-2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol 

polymer. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ε-CAPROLACTONE-2-ETHYL-2- 

4 (HYDROXYMETHYL)-1,3-PROPANEDIOL POLY5 MER. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.25 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 ε-caprolactone-2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol 

9 polymer) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

10 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2939 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Parraguirre 

# CL Che P.3d 501, 507 (2009). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. C.J. Hardesty

' }- Q \ Ora

Douglas
Saitta 

# Pitien

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA Gibbons Pickering

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Terrence M. Jackson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2 (0) 1947A
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





I, Edward Hebert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Saratoga Resources, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Saratoga Resources, Inc.





| |        |                         
| | ------ | ------------------------
| | By:    | /s/ Edward Hebert       
| | Name:  | Edward Hebert           
| | Title: | Vice President  Finance
| | Date:  | November 23, 2009
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 3, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CAROL A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-3175

v. D. Kansas

CLAY COUNTY POLICE

DEPARTMENT; JOHNSON

COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT;

WYANDOTTE COUNTY POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 2:10-CV-02658-EFM-JPO)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

*

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.
On December 8, 2010, plaintiff-appellant Carol A. Williams filed a

complaint in federal district court alleging she was the victim of identity theft. 

Williams sought to have her “name clear[ed] and exsponged [sic].” Upon motion

of Defendants, the district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, concluding Williams had failed to demonstrate that the claims

asserted against Defendants arose under federal law. The court further concluded

Williams had failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and her complaint failed to

establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332;

Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding that the

requisite amount in controversy and the existence of diversity must be

affirmatively established in the pleading of the party seeking to invoke

jurisdiction). The district court also concluded the Johnson County Police

Department and the Wyandotte County Police Department are both subordinate

governmental entities that lack the capacity to sue or be sued. See Hopkins v.

State, 702 P.2d 311, 316 (Kan. 1985); Mays v. Wyandotte Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,

419 F. App’x 794, 795 n.2 (10th Cir. 2011) (“The Wyandotte County Sheriff’s

Department lacks capacity to be sued in its own name.”). 

This court reviews the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de

novo. See U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani, 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999). 

Based on our review of the record, the pleadings, and the arguments asserted by

Williams in her appellate brief, we conclude the district court did not err when it

-2-
dismissed Williams’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For

substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its Order dated June 8,

2011, we affirm the dismissal of Williams’s complaint. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

-3-
* 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. 97-60290

Summary Calendar

____________________

JULIO ALEJANDRO MUNOZ-TORRES,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A34-142-575)

_________________________________________________________________

January 14, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Alejandro Munoz-Torres was convicted for an offense

relating to a controlled substance and conceded deportability on

that basis. He petitions, however, for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals decision rejecting his appeal from an order of

deportation. 

As conceded by petitioner, this court lacks jurisdiction to

review that decision. See Okoro v. INS, 125 F.3d 920, 924 (5th
- 2 -

Cir. 1997); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). (Therefore, the Government’s

motion to supplement the record is DENIED as unnecessary.)

PETITION DISMISSED
Attendee Report GoToWebinar

Webinar Name Webinar ID

Commercial HVAC, WH, and CRE 

Working Group: Alternative Efficiency 

Determination Methods (Wednesday 

Session)

300061736

Actual Start Date/Time Actual Duration (minutes) 

May 15, 2013 07:14 AM EDT 470

Total Attended

34

Session Details

First Name Last Name Email Country Address City State Organization Zip Code

Viktor Anderson US 888 E. Porter Rd. Muskegon MI CRM 49441

Rodney Beever US 491 E. princess St. York PA United CoolAir Corp. 17403

Brian Buynacek US 138 Ashwood Lane Orchard Park NY Emerson 14127

Steven Cousins US One Coca-Cola Plaza Atlanta GA The Coca-Cola Company 30313

Laura Degitz US 1801 K St NW washington, DC DC Navigant 20001

Jim del Toro US 6304 Thompson Road Syracuse NY Carrier Corporation 13057

Jeff Differt US 1118 S Neenah Ave Sturgeon Bay WI Hatco Corporation 54235

Jeremiah Freeman US doe Washington DC New West Technologies, LLC 22042

Luke Hall-Jordan US 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

(6205J)

Washington DC EPA 20460

bruce helft US 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento CA California Energy Commission 95814

bruce hierlmeier US 110 n. oakridge north prairie WI zero zone 53153

Larry Howington US 1925 Ruffin Mill Road Colonial Heights VA Commercial Refrigeration 23834

Diane Jakobs US 5600 Old Greenwood Road Fort Smith AR Rheem Heating and Cooling 72917

brian jeanes US 908 HWY 15 North New Albany MS Master-Bilt Products 38652

Athar Khan US 491 East Princess St York PA United CoolAir Corp 17403

Ping Kumpanon US 6655 W. Sahara Ave Las Vegas NV DNVKEMA 89146

Bill Larson US 891 cty rd u hudson WI Norlake,Inc. 54016

John McLaughlin US 4900 Tech. Blvd Auburn NY McQuay International 13021

David Mecadon US 539 Dunksferry Road Bensalem PA National Comfort products 19020

General Information
Mark Menzer US 11112 Chessington Reston VA Intertek 20194

John Morris US 539 Dunksferry Rd Bensalem PA Continental Refrigerator 19020

Wes Roan US 1914 Randolph Drive Bryan OH Bard Manufacturing Co., Inc. 43506

Jason Sands US One Delfield Drive Covington TN The Delfield Company 38019

Stephen Schaefer US 618 Hwy 74 South Peachtree City GA Hoshizaki America 30269

Ron Shebik US 12999 St. Charles Rock Road Bridgeton MO Hussmann Corporation 63044

Mike Stem US 1809 10th Street Plano TX Intertek 75074

Peter Strait US 1516 9th Street Sacramento CA California Energy Commission 95814

mvuala suami CA 580 Booth ottawa ON NRCAN K1A 0E4

Knute Svenson US 1200 19th St NW Washington DC Navigant 20036

Eric Truskoski US 200 Lafayette St. Middleville MI Bradford White Corporation 49333

Tom Walsh US 4900 Tech Park Blvd Auburn NY Daikin McQuay 13021

kevin washington US 3600 w lake ave glenview IL illinois tool works 60026

Andrew Welch US PO Box 1592-361A York PA Johnson Controls 17405

Michael Woodford US 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500 Arlington VA AHRI 22201