alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


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


      In connection with the Annual Report of Quinton Cardiology Systems, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Ruediger Naumann-Etienne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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: March 18, 2003                     /s/ Ruediger Naumann-Etienne
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Name:  Ruediger Naumann-Etienne
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUKIT KUMVACHIRAPITAG,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BARACK OBAMA, U.S. President,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-17084

D.C. No. 4:14-cv-03182-KAW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted September 21, 2015*** 

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Sukit Kumvachirapitag appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction

FILED

SEP 25 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** Kumvachirapitag consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United

States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Kumvachirapitag

failed to allege claims under federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331, 1332(a); see also Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)

(federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party”);

Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears

the burden of establishing it). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

(per curiam).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-17084
[Nos. 13807-1-III; 13866-6-III.

Division Three.

August 5, 1997.]

#### Mountain Meadows Mining Corporation, et al., *Respondents,*v. The Estate of Leonard Sell, et al., *Defendants,*Arthur Bolt, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Stevens County, No. 82-2-00048-3, John Schultheis, J., entered January 1, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
#### HILL, Respondent, v. WARNER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Thomas Hill, Jr., against Abram L. Warner.

PER CURIAM.

Ordered that the case herein be remitted to the trial justice, to the end that the same may be amended so as to contain the exceptions, if any, taken by the defendant’s counsel to the refusal of the court to submit certain questions of fact to the jury, and to the direction by the court of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff upon payment of the costs of the former argument, and $10 costs of this motion. And it is further ordered that, in the event that the case shall be settled in the manner above indicated, the defendant’s motion for a reargument in this court is granted. ' All concur except HARDIN, P. J., and FOLLETT, J., dissenting: See 42 N. Y. Supp. 1126, 47 N. Y. Supp. 1138, and 48 N. Y. Supp. 1106.

FOLLETT, J.

I dissent on the ground that the trial court cannot permit exceptions not in fact taken to rulings made on the trial to be inserted in the record after the conclusion of the trial, without the consent of both parties. Section 995 of the Oode of Oivil Procedure. The defendant does not assert that he actually took the exceptions which he now wishes to have inserted in the record. Again, the motion should be denied because of the laches of the defendant. The verdict was rendered September 12, 1895. December 15, 1896, the judgment entered on the verdict was affirmed by this court, and in the memorandum published on the following ‘day (42 N. Y. Supp. 1126) it was stated that certain questions discussed could not be considered, because no exceptions were taken to the rulings. In the face of this the defendant appealed to the court of appeals, and, after withdrawing his appeal to that court, asks, in effect, that this court vacate its former judgment, and allow the defendant to go before the trial judge, resettle the case, and then bring his appeal before this court for a second review.

HARDIN, P. J.,

in dissenting," concurs with the views stated by FOLLETT, J., and.also upon the ground that the appellant, by waiver and laches, ought not to be permitted to present the case again to the trial judge for resettlement.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ERIC LEON JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 2:14-CV-249 JVB

THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, 

THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, JON HANLEY, GALEN 

PELLETTIER, DAVID RYANS, and JAMIE 

BUFORD, 

Defendants. 

ORDER

 Plaintiff Eric Leon Johnson filed his complaint against Defendants the City of South 

Bend, the City of South Bend Police Department, Jon Hanley, Galen Pellettier, David Ryans, and 

Jamie Buford, violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights in a series of incidents 

beginning in January 2004 and ending in March 2004. Defendants moved for summary judgment 

(DE 46). 

 In their motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims were brought well after the 

statute of limitations. The Court agrees. The statute of limitations period for civil cases brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are governed by the state law period for personal injury actions. 

Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7th Cir. 2012). In Indiana, such period is two years. Ind. 

Code § 34-11-2-4. Therefore, in order to bring his case within the statute of limitations, Plaintiff 

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00249-JVB-JEM document 54 filed 07/25/18 page 1 of 2
2 

would have had to sue no later than January 2006 to include all of the alleged incidents. Plaintiff 

did not file his complaint until July 2014, eight years after the time to sue expired. 

 In his supplemental response, Plaintiff argues that he filed his complaint late due to his 

mental illness and a “voluntary civil commitment.” (DE 50.) Mental incompetence can be 

grounds for tolling of the statute of limitations. See Davis v. Humphreys, 747 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 

2014). Plaintiff attached what appear to be mental health counseling records to his response to 

the motion; however, he does not make any discernible argument as to how these records show 

that he was mentally incompetent, nor does he make any legal argument that his mental 

incompetence should toll the statute of limitations such that his complaint would be considered 

timely. “A party will be deemed to have waived a claim for failing to cite both legal authority 

and supporting factual evidence.” De v. City of Chicago, 912 F.Supp.2d 709, 734 (7th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Gross v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 619 F.3d 697, 708 (7th Cir. 2010)). 

 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (DE 46), 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a status report (DE 53) as moot, and ORDERS the Clerk to close 

this case. 

SO ORDERED on July 25, 2018. 

 

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00249-JVB-JEM document 54 filed 07/25/18 page 2 of 2
#### Michael Byrne, Respondent, *v.*The Knickerbocker Ice Company, Appellant.

(Argued June 13, 1890;

decided June 24, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon, an order made December 7, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.

*Michael M. Forrest*for appellant.

*701
      *Arthur G. Palmer*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                        Certification of CFO Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AMCORE Financial, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John R.
Hecht, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ John R. Hecht
----------------------------
John R. Hecht
Chief Financial Officer
May 10, 2005


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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

     Certification of Chief Executive Officer under Section 1350

     In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dover
Petroleum Corp. (the "Company")for the fiscal year ending December
31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I hereby 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: December 23, 2003




                                   Robert Salna, Principal Executive
                                   Officer



     The foregoing certification accompanied the Annual Report on
Form 10KSB filing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is being
reproduced herein for information only.  It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any
filing of the Company, whether made before or after hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained b y the
Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13717]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; Meeting of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules will hold a meeting 
on November 5, 2021 in San Diego, CA. The meeting is open to the public 
for observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting 
materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at: 
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/agenda-books.

DATES: November 5, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Pacific).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Wilson, Esq., Acting Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84d6f1e8e1f7c7ebe9e9edf0f0e1e1dbd7e1e7f6e1f0e5f6fdc4e5ebaaf1f7e7ebf1f6f0f7aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c5e7960697f4f6361616578786969535f696f7e69786d7e754c6d6322797f6f63797e787f226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021-13717 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32
      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of MB Software  Corporation  on Form
10-QSB for the period ending  September  30, 2004, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof, I, Scott A. Haire,  Chief Executive
Officer and principal financial officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.

December 22, 2004

/S/ Scott A. Haire
----------------------
Scott A. Haire,
Chairman of the Board,
(Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 10.1


 





FIRST AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made effective this 9 day of March, 2015 (the “Effective Date”),
by and between SAJAN, INC., a Delaware corporation having its principal executive offices in the State of Wisconsin (the “Company”),
and THOMAS P. SKIBA, an individual resident of the State of Minnesota (the “Employee”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the parties
entered into a written agreement governing Employee’s employment with the Company on August 29, 2013 (the “Agreement”),
pursuant to which the Employee is entitled to a severance payment in a total gross amount equal to six (6) months of the Employee’s
ending base salary if the Employee’s employment with the Company is terminated by the Company without Cause or by the Employee
for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in the Agreement); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Employee desire to amend Section 6.4 of the Agreement to increase the Employee’s severance payment to a total gross
amount equal to twelve (12) months of the Employee’s ending base salary;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual promises and provisions contained in this Amendment, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree
as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


1.Terms of Employment.
The parties agree that the terms of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect, except as set forth in this Amendment.


 


2.Severance Payment.
Section 6.4 of the Agreement will be replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


“6.4 By
the Company Without Cause or by the Employee for Good Reason. If (a) the Company terminates the Employee’s employment
without Cause, or (b) the Employee properly terminates employment for Good Reason pursuant to Section 5.2, the Employee will be
entitled to severance pay in a total gross amount equal to twelve (12) months of the Employee’s ending Base Salary with
the Company (the “Severance Payment”), which will be paid in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll
schedule commencing on the first payroll date following the Employee’s signing of the general release agreement discussed
in Section 6.5 of this Agreement and the expiration of any rescission period set forth in such general release agreement. In addition,
any stock options that are due to be vested within twelve months from the Date of Termination shall become vested and exercisable.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in no event shall any portion of the Severance Payment be paid to the Employee
later than the last day of the second taxable year of the Employee following the taxable year in which the Date of Termination
occurs.”


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed and delivered this First Amendment to Employment Agreement on the day and year first written above.


 





	 	SAJAN, INC.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ Shannon Zimmerman
	 	By: Shannon Zimmerman
	 	Its: CEO
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ Thomas P. Skiba
	 	Thomas P. Skiba, an Individual







 





Signature Page to First Amendment to Employment Agreement
# L_2009088EN.01017401.xml

| 31.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 88/174 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 88/174

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 22 April 2008

on the closure of the accounts of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the financial year 2006

(2009/216/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the financial year 2006 (1),

having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the financial year 2006, together with the Agency's replies (2),

having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),

having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (4), and in particular Article 14 thereof,

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0128/2008),

| 1. | Notes that the final annual accounts of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work are as annexed to the Court of Auditors' report; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the financial year 2006; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series). |
| --- | --- |

3.

The President

Hans-Gert PÖTTERING

The Secretary-General

Harald RØMER

---

(1)  
  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 26.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 62.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1.

4

(5)  
  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

5

---
Exhibit 99.12


                         ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

                   OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

In compliance with Section 3(a) of the Administration Agreement (the
"Agreement") among Nelnet Student Loan Trust 2004-4, as Issuer, Wilmington Trust
Company, as Delaware Trustee, Zions First National Bank, as Indenture Trustee,
and NELN, Inc. (fka Nelnet, Inc.), as Administrator, dated as of September 1,
2004, I, Terry J. Heimes, certify that:

     1.   A review of the activities of the Administrator during the period from
          September 29, 2004 to December 31, 2004 and of its performance under
          this Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

     2.   Based on my knowledge of such review, the Administrator has fulfilled
          its obligations in all material respects under this Agreement.


December 31, 2004




By:     /s/ Terry J. Heimes
        -----------------------------------
        Terry J. Heimes
        Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
        and Executive Director,
        NELN, Inc.