alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document


 




Blue Calypso, Inc.


19111 North Dallas Pkwy Suite 200


Dallas, TX 75287


 




November 4, 2011


 


CEOcast, Inc.


317 Madison Avenue, Suite 1621


New York, NY 10017


Attention: Administrator


 


Re: Termination of Consultant Agreement


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to that certain Consultant Agreement, dated September 1, 2011, between Blue Calypso, Inc., (the “Company”), and CEOcast, Inc. (“CEOcast”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Consultant Agreement”).  The Company and CEOcast hereby terminate the Consultant Agreement, effective as of the date hereof.  Without limiting the generality or effect of the immediately preceding sentence, from and after the execution and delivery of this Letter Agreement, the parties hereto shall have no further rights or obligations of any kind under the Consultant Agreement.  Furthermore, the Company and CEOcast do hereby release and forever discharge each other and their respective officers, directors, shareholders, affiliates, agents and employees, collectively and individually, of, from and for any and all claims, proofs of claim, demands, contracts, obligations, liabilities, suits, actions and causes of action, at law or at equity, known or unknown, liquidated or unliquidated, asserted or unasserted, based on or arising out of the Consultant Agreement.  All terms, conditions, rights and obligations under the Consultant Agreement shall be rendered null and void ab initio.


 


This Letter Agreement may be executed in two or more identical counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other party; provided that a facsimile signature shall be considered due execution and shall be binding upon the signatory thereto with the same force and effect as if the signature were an original, not a facsimile signature.


 


This Letter Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




  





  











  






 



	 	
Very truly yours,







BLUE CALYPSO, INC.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	 	 
	 	 	Name:	 
	 	 	Title:	 
	 	 	 	 









 



Acknowledged and Agreed


as of this ___ day of November, 2011


 


CEOCAST, INC.


 







 


By:_______________________________


     Name:


     Title:


 




  





  











  






 


EXHIBIT A


 


SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT


 


[Attached]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,440
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,100
<OTHER-SE>                                    (22,440)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (22,090)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,090)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.001)


</TABLE>
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 Global Beverages, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2010 (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date:  May
      27, 2010
                      /s/Lawrence LichterLawrence
      Lichter, Chief Financial Officer
---

Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION











In connection with the Annual Report of PDC 2004-A Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify pursuant to § 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 Registrant.








/s/ Richard W. McCullough

July 31, 2009Richard W. McCulloughChief Executive OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner/s/ Gysle R. Shellum

July 31, 2009Gysle R. ShellumChief Financial OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner





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 required by Section 906, has been provided by the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2785 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. CASEY 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 zinc 

dimethyldithiocarbamate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ZINC DIMETHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.13.97 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2015’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2785 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 10-363V

Filed: May 3, 2013

Not for Publication

*************************************

LARRY STOELZING, *

 *

Petitioner, * Attorneys’ Fees & Costs Decision

v. * Based on Stipulation of Fact

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Ronald C. Homer, Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Lara A. Englund, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On May 2, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner’s counsel asserts that 

petitioner did not incur any costs in pursuit of his petition.

Petitioner filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs on April 10, 2013. During 

informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items. Based on these objections, 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master's action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims's website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

petitioner now amends his request for attorneys’ fees and costs and requests $38,500.00 in 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Respondent does not object to the reduced amount. The undersigned 

finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $38,500.00, representing 

reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a check payable 

jointly to petitioner and Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C. in the amount of $38,500.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2013 /s/ Laura D. Millman 

 Laura D. Millman

Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 2 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 3 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 4 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 5 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 6 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 7 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 8 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 9 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 10 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 11 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 12 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 13 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 14 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 15 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 16 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 17 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 18 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 19 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 20 of 21
Case 19-19182-RAM Doc 79 Filed 10/08/19 Page 21 of 21
ex10u1a.htm


FIRST AMENDMENT


to the


AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM STOCK OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT PLAN







This amendment is made to the American Electric Power System Stock Ownership Requirement Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2010 by a document dated December 23, 2009 (the “Plan”).







1.      Section 2.4 (Applicable Tax Payments) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to formally incorporate into the Plan the provisions found in Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-3(j)(4)(xi) in addition to those found in Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-3(j)(4)(vi), to read as follows:







2.4  ”Applicable Tax Payments” means the following types of taxes that AEP may withhold and pay that are described as follows:








	
  

	
(a)

	
Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax imposed under Code Sections 3101, 3121(a) and 3121(v)(2) that apply to an amount deferred under the Plan before the amount is paid or made available to the Participant (the “FICA Amount”);













	
  

	
(b)

	
State, local, or foreign tax obligations arising from participation in the Plan that apply to an amount deferred under the Plan before the amount is paid or made available to the Participant (the “State, Local, or Foreign Tax Amount”);













	
  

	
(c)

	
Income tax at source on wages imposed under Code Section 3401 or the corresponding withholding provisions of applicable state, local and foreign tax laws as a result of the payment of the FICA Amount or the State, Local, or Foreign Tax Amount; and













	
  

	
(d)

	
The additional income tax at source on wages attributable to pyramiding Code Section 3401 wages and taxes;












provided, however, that the total Applicable Tax Payments may not exceed such limits as may be applicable to comply with the requirements of Code Section 409A.







2.      The parenthetical in the first sentence of paragraph (i) of Section 5.3(b) of the Plan is hereby replaced with the following:







“(reduced, however, to the extent of the amount deferred would otherwise exceed an amount that allows for the current payment of Applicable Tax Payments)”







3.           In all other respects, the terms of the Plan are ratified and confirmed







American Electric Power Service Corporation has caused this First Amendment to the American Electric Power System Stock Ownership Requirement Plan to be signed as of this 28th day of January, 2011.


















	  	
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By  /s/  Genevieve A. Tuchow


Genevieve A. Tuchow, Vice President,


Human Resources_____________________
# L_2004224EN.01003301.xml

| 25.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 224/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 224/33

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1172/2004

of 24 June 2004

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 32nd partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 of 18 July 2003 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2003/2004 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 of 18 July 2003 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2003/2004 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 32nd partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 48,455 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 June 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 June 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 181, 19.7.2003, p. 7. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2126/2003 (OJ L 319, 4.12.2003, p. 4).

2

---
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Andrew Lyon,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of Yarraman  Winery,  Inc. for the quarter  ended  December 31, 2005
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 Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of Yarraman Winery, Inc.

      I, John Wells, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Yarraman  Winery,  Inc. for the quarter ended  December 31, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of Yarraman Winery, Inc.

February 14, 2006

By: /s/ Andrew Lyon
    ----------------------------------
    Andrew Lyon
    Chief Executive Officer

By: /s/ John Wells
    ----------------------------------
    John Wells
    Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1929

In re: LATHRONEA P. GRESHAM , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.

Submitted : November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lathronea P. Gresham , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Lathronea Gresham petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to reopen her employment discrimination action. We conclude that
Gresham is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. &
Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Gresham is not available by way of mandamu s. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company), each hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 9, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ William L. Hunter  
|                       |  |  |  | William L. Hunter, M.D.
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ K. Thomas Bailey   
|                       |  |  |  | K. Thomas Bailey       
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1641
AL CUJAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-97-741-1) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 25, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Al Cujas, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Bruce Tobin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Al Cujas appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant on his action filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1994). Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cujas v. Internal Revenue , No. CA-97-741-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED