alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex_269369.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.3


 


LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.


Director Compensation Policy


 


Employee Directors


Employee directors do not receive cash compensation for their service as members of the Board of Directors.


 


Non-Employee Directors


 


Non-employee directors receive an annual retainer for Board membership of $26,000. The chairman of our Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $20,000, the chairman of our Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $7,500, and the chairman of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an annual retainer of $6,500. Members of our Audit Committee receive an annual retainer of $6,000, members of our Compensation Committee receive an annual retainer of $2,500, and members of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receive an annual retainer of $2,000.


 


Aggregate cash compensation paid to any non-employee director for any year may not exceed $50,000 without the approval of the Board. Minimum cash compensation to any non-employee director may not be below $30,000 for any year.


 


Upon initial election or appointment to the Board of Directors, a non-employee director may be eligible to receive an equity grant comprised of 50% options, 25% performance stock, and 25% restricted stock subject to vesting in three equal annual installments based upon continued service. In addition, thereafter, each non-employee director is eligible for an annual equity grant valued at $112,000, which shall be comprised of 50% options, 25% performance stock, and 25% restricted stock, provided that he or she has served as a director for at least six months at the time of grant.


 


All Directors


All directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred on our behalf, and all directors are eligible to participate in the Third Amended and Restated 2006 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, or any successor equity incentive plan, on an ad hoc basis from time to time at the discretion of the Board of Directors.
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of CVF Technologies Corporation (the Company), does
hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Form 10-QSB)
of the Company 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  May 16, 2005
    /s/ Jeffrey I. DrebenJeffrey I. Dreben,Chief Executive Officer Dated:      May 16, 2005
    /s/ Robert L. MillerRobert L. Miller,Chief Financial Officer This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Form 10-QSB pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company
unless such incorporation is expressly referenced therein.
Exhibit 32.2

Informational Addendum to Annual Report on Form 10-K

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as
follows:

Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely
to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the undersigned hereby certifies that this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Thomas T. McEntireName:

Thomas T. McEntireTitle:

Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryDecember 11, 2009
ex_266091.htm


 


Exhibit 10.3


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	
			Amount of Loan:         $25,000

				July 9, 2021



 


For value received, KRYPTOBANK CO., a Delaware Corporation having offices at 407 Lincoln Road, Suite 701, Miami Beach, Florida 33139 (the “Borrower”), hereby unconditionally promises to pay $25,000 including 12% per annum interest to the order of LYONS CAPITAL LLC a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, having offices at 7239 San Salvador Dr. Suite 100 Boca Raton, FL 33433 (the “Lender”). Payments shall be made at Lender’s office aforesaid or at such other place as Lender shall from time to time designate to the Borrower in writing.


 


The full principal amount and interest of this Note shall be due in on July 8, 2022; or the date on which Borrower raises at least $200,000 from investors, whichever is sooner (the “Maturity Date”) Interest will accrue beginning on July 9, 2021.


 


Upon the failure by Borrower to tender the full payment to Lender on the Maturity Date, the entire principal amount of this Note shall upon notice from Lender to Borrower be immediately due and payable.


 


Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted to be given under any of the provisions of this Note shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when personally delivered or mailed by first class certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the parties at their current addresses (or at such other address as any party may specify by notice to all other parties given as aforesaid).


 


Borrower agrees that any legal suit, action, or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Note may be instituted in such New York State or Federal Court sitting in Miami-Dade County, Florida as Lender, in his sole discretion, may elect. TRIAL BY JURY IS EXPRESSLY WAIVED.


 


This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State of Florida applicable to contracts made and to be performed therein.


 


This Note shall not be changed or terminated orally.


 


 


By:    /s/ Michael D. Farkas                             


Name: Michael D. Farkas, Director


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


I
Exhibit 32.1



Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-K

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:



Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-K, the undersigned hereby certifies that this Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Gary D. OwensName:

Gary D. OwensTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDecember 3, 2004
Exhibit 32.1



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF
TG THERAPEUTICS, INC.
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 the annual report of TG Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Michael S. Weiss, Executive Chairman,
Interim Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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: June 10, 2013 |                                                                                                               | /s/ Michael S. Weiss
|------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------
|                    | Michael S. WeissExecutive Chairman, Interim Chief Executive Officer and  PresidentPrincipal Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1951

In re: KENYA ANTWAIN EVANS

 Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis

(No. 1:99-cr-00251-NCT-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 13, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenya Antwain Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenya Antwain Evans petitions this court for a writ of 

error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2006). In 

his petition, Evans challenges the constitutionality of his 

convictions and sentence for carjacking and possession and 

brandishing of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, 

based on Carachuri Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2589 (2010), 

and United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en 

banc).

The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary 

remedy which may be used to correct fundamental error in a 

criminal conviction “presenting circumstances compelling its use 

to achieve justice.” United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 

(2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. 

Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012). Remedy under the 

writ is limited to those petitioners who are no longer in 

custody pursuant to their convictions. Carlisle v. United 

States, 517 U.S. at 416, 429 (1996). Moreover, the remedy will 

not lie when an alternative remedy, such as habeas corpus, is 

available. Denedo, 556 U.S. at 911; Akinsade, 686 F.3d at 252.

Evans is currently in custody pursuant to his 

convictions, and he previously challenged his convictions and 

sentence in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012). While Evans’s present challenge was not previously 
3

raised in his § 2255 motion, he has not sought authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion. Thus, we conclude that Evans 

fails to establish entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of 

the writ.

Accordingly, we deny Evans’s petition for a writ of 

error coram nobis. 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.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1000 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1000

To designate the United States courthouse at 500 State Avenue in Kansas 
   City, Kansas, as the ``Robert J. Dole United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 1997

 Mr. Roberts (for himself and Mr. Brownback) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States courthouse at 500 State Avenue in Kansas 
   City, Kansas, as the ``Robert J. Dole United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT J. DOLE UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse at 500 State Avenue in Kansas City, 
Kansas, shall be known and designated as the ``Robert J. Dole United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert J. Dole 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jerry Tepper, as Administrator of the Estate of Anne Tepper, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v Herbert Feldman, Doing Business as the Five Town Nursing Home, Appellant.

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated June 6, 1984, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and action dismissed.

In response to the defendant’s documentary evidence which indicated that the decedent’s fall and ensuing injuries were not the product of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiffs had the responsibility to lay bare proof and show validity to their claim by evidentiary proof in admissible form *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557; *Mildner v Wagner,*89 AD2d 638; *DeBoer v Lloyd’s Shopping Center,*115 AD2d 633). Since the plaintiffs failed to meet this responsibility, the defendant’s motion should have been granted. Mengano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-35969) and the related Prospectus, in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-99586 and Form S-8 No. 333-45561) pertaining to the
1995 Equity Incentive Plan, Stock Options Issued Outside the 1995 Equity
Incentive Plan, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the 1995 Non-Employee
Directors' Stock Option Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-33451) pertaining to the Options assumed by DataWorks Corporation
originally granted under the Interactive Group, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan and
1997 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan (the "Interactive Plans") and outside the
Interactive Plans, of DataWorks Corporation of our report dated January 26,
1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of DataWorks
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1997.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
March 27, 1998
#### Bernard H. Glatzer, Appellant, v Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 243]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered on or about May *Í,*2008, which denied plaintiffs recusal motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff filed the instant recusal motion after the court dismissed the complaint. Thus, the trial court lacked the authority to grant the motion absent proof of actual prejudice or biased actions, rather than the mere appearance of impropriety *(see Rochester Community Individual Practice Assn. v Excellus Health Plan,*305 AD2d 1007 [2003], *lv dismissed*1 NY3d 546 [2003]), and there is no basis for mandatory disqualification or recusal *(see*Judiciary Law § 14; 22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1]; *People v Grasso,*49 AD3d 303 [2008]). The trial court’s generalized comments comparing judicial salaries to first year attorney salaries as recently reported in the news, coupled with an attendant joke that he might have to seek employment with defendants’ counsel’s law firm, stand in stark contrast to the facts in *Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co.*(556 US 868 [2009]), relied upon by plaintiff, in which the president and chief executive officer of a corporation appearing as a defendant before the judge against whom recusal was sought had contributed some $3 million to his election campaign and at issue was a $50 million judgment against the defendant corporation. Here, there is no basis to conclude that actual bias or prejudice existed. No evidence was offered to show that the trial judge had any relationship with defendants’ counsel outside of the courtroom, that the trial judge was seeking, or intended to seek employment with the law firm, or that the court was in anyway biased in favor of defendants.

Moreover, where, as here, a party inexplicably withholds an allegation of bias until after the court adversely rules against it, denial of the recusal motion is generally warranted and the courts’ discretion in so ruling will not be disturbed *(see e.g., Anonymous v Anonymous,*222 AD2d 295 [1995]; *Leventritt v Eckstein,*206 AD2d 313 [1994], *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*84 NY2d 987 [1994]). Plaintiff’s claims of bias are undermined by his continued participation in the court proceedings for nearly a year after the disputed comments were made, *708without complaint. Furthermore, the dismissal of plaintiff’s “amended” action was soundly based upon a prior federal district Court decision which this Court previously found disposed of plaintiff’s fundamental arguments *(see Glatzer v Enron Corp.,*277 AD2d 161 [2000]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Blanca Cruz, Respondent, v Arcadio Rodriguez, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 480]

— In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Arcadio Rodriguez appeals from an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Lebwohl, J.), dated November 16, 2011, which, after a hearing and, in effect, upon a finding that he had committed the family offenses of menacing in the third degree and disorderly conduct, directed him, inter alia, to stay away from the petitioner until and including November 16, 2013.

Ordered that the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court” *(Matter of Creighton v Whitmore,*71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; *see*Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; *Matter of Armstrong v Ewing,*82 AD3d 1092 [2011]; *Matter of Kaur v Singh,*73 AD3d 1178 [2010]), and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to considerable deference on appeal *(see Matter of Creighton v Whitmore,*71 AD3d at 1141; *see Matter of Kaur v Singh,*73 AD3d at 1178). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supported the Family Court’s determination that he committed acts which constituted the family offenses of menacing in the third degree and disorderly conduct, warranting the issuance of an order of protection *(see*Penal Law §§ 120.15, 240.20; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; *Matter of Armstrong v Ewing,*82 AD3d at 1093; *Matter of Pearlman v Pearlman,*78 AD3d 711 [2010]; *Matter of Kaur v Singh,*73 AD3d at 1178).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
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



I, Peter Maloney, Chief Financial Officer of Keynote Systems, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2004 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 13, 2004



|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Peter Maloney                                                              
|Peter Maloney Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Keynote Systems, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
financial statements for fiscal year December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999          DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          52,655                    0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,323                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                    0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,666                    0
<PP&E>                                       1,778,991                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                (355,165)                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,495,591                    0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,801,838                    0
<BONDS>                                              0                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                    0
<PREFERRED>                                    275,774                    0
<COMMON>                                       781,016                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,074,282                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,495,591                    0
<SALES>                                        278,186                1,997
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               278,186                    0
<CGS>                                                0                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,565,863              105,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,273                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,443                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,333,393)             (103,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                    0
<CHANGES>                                            0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,333,393)             (103,926)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)                (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)                (0.01)



</TABLE>