alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         267,813
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  410,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               886,744
<PP&E>                                         150,959
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,790)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,159,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          708,268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,407,225
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,660,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,159,656
<SALES>                                      1,131,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,474,209
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (4,886,457)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (37,288)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (22,288)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,703)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,475,527)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (40,990)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,516,517)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,516,517)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
lob-ex1011_131.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1.1

 

 

Amendment

 

This Amendment (“Amendment”) is effective as of the date that both parties have executed this Amendment (the “Amendment Effective Date”) and amends the nCino, LLC Software Service Agreement dated November 1, 2012, as amended (the “Agreement”) entered into by and between nCino, Inc. (“nCino”) and Live Oak Bank (“Subscriber”).

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the consideration detailed herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged by both parties, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

 

1.        Subscriber hereby purchases access and use rights for the additional Subscription Services set forth in Exhibit A below (the “Additional Subscription Services”) commencing on the Amendment Effective Date. Accordingly, Attachment A to the Agreement shall be amended to include the Additional Subscription Services set forth in Exhibit A below effective as of the Amendment Effective Date and the Additional Subscription Services will activate in Subscriber’s Org ID 00DG0000000h5Do as soon as practicable following the Amendment Effective Date. The initial invoice for the Additional Subscription Services will be issued as of the date the Additional Subscription Services are activated, pro-rated for the initial year of activation, as applicable. Thereafter, Subscriber will be invoiced the full annual amount of the Fees for the Additional Subscription Services on each annual invoice date for the remainder of the term of the Agreement. The term for the Additional Subscription Services will run co-terminously with the Term of the Agreement.

 

Exhibit A

 


					
	
Product
	
Features
	
Qty
	
Price
	
Annual

Subscription

Fees

	
File Storage –
	
10GB File Storage per Block
	
60 Block(s)
	
$17/
	
$12,240

	
10GB
	
 
	
Block/Month




 

2.        Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.  Any further modification or amendment to the Agreement must be set forth in writing in a document executed by both parties. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

[Signatures appear on following page.]

 

 

 

Page 1 of 2



 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the dates shown below their respective signatures.

 


	
nCino
	
Subscriber

	
Signature:  /s/ Charles Ragland
	
Signature:   /s/ Mark Moroz

	
Name:  Charles Ragland
	
Name:  Mark Moroz

	
Title:  Global Sales Operations 
	
Title:  EVP – Head of Product

	
Date:  5/21/2021
	
Date:  5/21/2021




 

 

Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dora Maria FLORES-QUINTANA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-40076

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 14, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory L. Ahlgren, Ahlgren Law Firm, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dora Maria Flores-Quintana (Flores) pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin, and she was sentenced within the guidelines range to 135 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Flores agreed in the written plea agreement to waive her right to appeal her conviction, her sentence, and the manner in which her sentence was determined, with no exceptions. The Government has expressed its intent to enforce the waiver.

Flores argues on appeal that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a). However, this argument is barred by her appeal waiver. *See United States v. Story,*439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir.2006). Although Flores asserts that if the Government enforces the waiver, she preserves for possible Supreme Court review “her argument that appeal waivers made without knowledge of the rights being sacrificed are neither knowing nor voluntary,” she has not adequately briefed the issue, and thus she has abandoned it. *See United States v. Trujillo,*502 F.3d 353, 360 & n. 30 (5th Cir.2007); *Hughes v. Johnson,*191 F.3d 607, 612-13 (5th Cir.1999); *Beasley v. McCotter,*798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Gexa Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Neil Leibman, 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, 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.

|/s/NEIL LEIBMANNeil Leibman
Chief Executive Officer
Dated: May 18, 2004 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gexa Corp. and will be retained by Gexa Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

87

---



QuickLinks
Case: 1:02-cr-00206 Document #: 72 Filed: 03/04/08 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:138
Case: 1:02-cr-00206 Document #: 72 Filed: 03/04/08 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:139
Case: 1:02-cr-00206 Document #: 72 Filed: 03/04/08 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:140
Case: 1:02-cr-00206 Document #: 72 Filed: 03/04/08 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:141
Case: 1:02-cr-00206 Document #: 72 Filed: 03/04/08 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:142
Case: 1:02-cr-00206 Document #: 72 Filed: 03/04/08 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:143
CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Daniel R. Baty, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Emeritus Corporation; 
 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 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. 
 
 /s/    Daniel R. Baty
 Daniel R. Baty
 Chief Executive Officer
 January 26, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB/A  (Fourth  Amendment) for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kevan  Casey,  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  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

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

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


/s/  Kevan Casey
----------------
Kevan Casey,
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
November 5, 2004


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to eLinear, Inc. and will be retained by eLinear, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
EX-10.5





 Exhibit 10.5 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO TPCO HOLDING CORP. RSU AWARD AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN MIKE BATESOLE AND TPCO HOLDING CORP. 

This Amendment to the TPCO HOLDING CORP. RSU AWARD AGREEMENT (“this Amendment”) between Mike Batesole (“Participant”) and
TPCO Holding Corp. (“Corporation”), is made as of July 2, 2021 (the “Amendment Effective Date”). 
 WHEREAS Participant
and Corporation are parties to that certain TPCO HOLDING CORP. RSU AWARD AGREEMENT, with an EFFECTIVE DATE of February 15, 2021 (“the Agreement”); 

WHEREAS any defined terms used herein have the same meaning as originally prescribed in the TPCO HOLDING CORP. RSU AWARD AGREEMENT, unless
otherwise noted; and 
 WHEREAS Participant and Corporation wish to amend the Agreement. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Participant and Corporation agree that “Section 3” in the TPCO HOLDING CORP. RSU AWARD AGREEMENT will be replaced in its entirety as follows: 
  


	3.	 Settlement of RSUs 



3.1    The Participant will be entitled to receive, as soon as reasonably practicable following each Vesting Date, in respect of each
vested RSU, either one Share from treasury, the Cash Equivalent of one Share or a combination of cash and Shares, subject to any applicable deductions and withholdings. Notwithstanding the Corporation’s discretion to settle in Shares, Cash
Equivalents or a combination of cash and Shares, it is anticipated that the Corporation will settle in Shares as normal course. 

3.2    For greater certainty, the Participant shall have no right to receive Shares or a cash payment, as compensation, damages or
otherwise, with respect to any RSUs that do not become vested. 
 The terms hereof shall constitute an Amendment to the TPCO HOLDING CORP.
RSU AWARD AGREEMENT. Except as provided herein, the terms and conditions of the TPCO HOLDING CORP. RSU AWARD AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of conflict between this Amendment and the TPCO HOLDING CORP. RSU AWARD
AGREEMENT, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Participant and Corporation have executed this First Amendment
as of the Amendment Effective Date set forth above. 
 Agreed and Acknowledged by: 

 

									
	TPCO HOLDING CORP.	 		 	PARTICIPANT
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Steve Allan
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Mike Batesole

	Name:	 	Steve Allan	 		 	Name:	 	Mike Batesole
	Title:	 	CEO	 		 	Title:	 	CFO                        
	Date:	 	Jul-02-2021 | 18:11 PDT	 		 	Date:	 	Jul-03-2021 | 07:42 PDT
Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73-4 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:563
Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73-4 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:564
Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73-4 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:565
Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73-4 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:566
Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73-4 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:567
Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 73-4 Filed: 11/30/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:568
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1016

To authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail Route in New

Jersey, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 14, 1997

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. TORRICELLI) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail

Route in New Jersey, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 Section 6 of Public Law 100–515 (16 U.S.C. 1244

5 note) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking

7 ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,000,000’’; and

8 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘five’’ and in9 serting ‘‘10’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deserene Warren, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), rendered October 20, 1983, convicting her of robbery in the first degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
II

Calendar No. 222

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1292

Disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on October 6,

1997, regarding Public Law 105–45.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 9, 1997

Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. BYRD, Mr. BURNS, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. AKAKA,

Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BOND, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BINGAMAN,

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr.

CRAIG, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. FORD, Mr.

FRIST, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELMS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr.

INOUYE, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MACK, Mr.

MCCONNELL, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM,

Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations for seven days of session pursuant to section

1025 of Public Law 93–344

OCTOBER 23, 1997

Reported by Mr. STEVENS, with an amendment

[Omit the part struck through]

A BILL

Disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President

on October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 105–45.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1292 RS

1 That Congress disapproves of cancellations 97–4, 97–5,

2 97–6, 97–7, 97–8, 97–9, 97–10, 97–11, 97–12, 97–13,

3 97–14, 97–15, 97–16, 97–17, 97–18, 97–19, 97–20, 97–

4 21, 97–22, 97–23, 97–24, 97–25, 97–26, 97–27, 97–28,

5 97–29, 97–30, 97–32, 97–33, 97–34, 97–35, 97–36, 97–

6 37, 97–38, 97–39, and 97–40, as transmitted by the

7 President in a special message on October 6, 1997, re8 garding Public Law 105–45.

Calendar No. 222

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1292

A BILL

Disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the

Law 105–45.President on October 6, 1997, regarding Public

OCTOBER 23, 1997

Reported with an amendment
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40537 Conference Calendar

WILLIE ROY HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LESLIE W. WOODS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CV-193

- - - - - - - - - - February 24, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The motion of Willie Roy Houston, Texas prisoner #629532, to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. Regarding Houston’s contentions that a prison lockdown violated his Eighth Amendment rights and that prison employees were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when he failed to receive a special dietary meal on four occasions during the lockdown, we have reviewed the parties’ brief and the record, and we find that the district court did not err by granting summaryNo. 96-40537 - 2 - judgment in favor of the defendants. Houston’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Due to the frivolousness of Houston’s claims, we impose a sanction of $100. Houston is cautioned that future frivolous civil suits and appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of further sanctions. Houston is cautioned further to review any pending suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), we assess no initial partial filing fee against Houston. However, Houston henceforth shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The agency having custody of Houston is directed to forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the appellate filing fee of $105 is paid. Id.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
##### 



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 Annual Report of ILEX Oncology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Mark P. Mellin, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ Mark P. MellinName:
    
    Mark P. MellinTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate:
    
    May 3, 2004
Case 1:02-cv-05979   Document 12    Filed 12/09/02   Page 1 of 7

Case 1:02-cv-05979   Document 12    Filed 12/09/02   Page 2 of 7

Case 1:02-cv-05979   Document 12    Filed 12/09/02   Page 3 of 7

Case 1:02-cv-05979   Document 12    Filed 12/09/02   Page 4 of 7

Case 1:02-cv-05979   Document 12    Filed 12/09/02   Page 5 of 7

Case 1:02-cv-05979   Document 12    Filed 12/09/02   Page 6 of 7

Case 1:02-cv-05979   Document 12    Filed 12/09/02   Page 7 of 7
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11
Case: 1:02-cv-01828 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/02 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12
----

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 376th meeting on 21 June 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges

(2005/C 3/03)

----