alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Clifford K. Bown,
certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security International, Inc. for the quarter ended on June 30, 2007, 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, 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Clifford K. Bown        
|Clifford K. Bown            
|Executive Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer     
|August 8, 2007
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 16-15

IN RE: RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

O R D E R

Pursuant to the authority of 38 U.S.C. §§ 7263(b) and 7264(a), and consistent with 28 U.S.C.

§ 2071(b), the Court has revised Rule 30(a) (Citation of Nonprecedential Authority) of its Rules of

Practice and Procedure. A proposed revision was published for public comment byMISC.NO. 07-15

(July 28, 2015). The Court benefitted from public comment and from the views of its Rules

Advisory Committee. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the attached revision of Rule 30(a) is hereby published and is effective this

date.

DATED: November 19, 2015 FOR THE COURT:

/s/Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court

Attachment
ATTACHMENT TO MISCELLANEOUS ORDER NO. 16-15

REVISED RULE 30(a)

RULE 30. CITATION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY

(a) Citation of Nonprecedential Authority. A party, intervenor, or amicus curiae may not cite as

precedent any action designated as nonprecedential by the Court or any other court, or that was

withdrawn after having been published in a reporter, except when the cited action has binding or

preclusive effect in the case on appeal (such as via the application of the law-of-the-case doctrine). 

Actions designated as nonprecedential by this Court or any other court may be cited only for the

persuasive value of their logic and reasoning, provided that the party states that no clear precedent

exists on point and the party includes a discussion of the reasoning as applied to the instant case. 

With the exception of decisions of this Court available electronically, a copy of any unpublished

action referred to shall be attached to the document containing the reference.
exhibit_4-10.htm










Exhibit 4.10


 


Summary – Directors Compensation


 


General


 


The following table sets forth all cash and cash-equivalent compensation we paid with respect to all of our non-employee directors as a group for the periods indicated:


 



	  	 	
Salaries, fees,



commissions and bonuses



	 	 	
Pension, retirement



and similar benefits



	 
	
All directors


as a group, consisting of 5 persons*


for the year ended December 31, 2009

	 	$	 72,000	 	 	$	 -	 





 


* Excluding Shimon Alon, our Chairman Chief Executive Officer, and Aki Ratner, our former Chief Executive Officer and a member of our Board of Directors. For details, see Item 6B of the annual report.


 


In accordance with the approval of our shareholders, non-employee directors who are not external directors receive an annual fee of $9,000 and an attendance fee of $300 per meeting attended. Our non-employee external directors receive, effective July 2008, an annual fee of $9,000 (equivalent to approximately NIS 33,000) and an attendance fee of NIS 1,630 (equivalent to approximately $440) per meeting attended, both linked to the Israeli CPI.


 



	
·  

	
In November 2008, our Audit Committee and Board of Directors adopted a revised stock option policy for non-employee directors, which was subsequently approved by our shareholders, according to which each of our non-employee directors who may serve from time to time, including our outside directors, will be granted options, as follows:







 



	
·  

	
A grant of options under our stock option plans to purchase 60,000 ordinary shares, which will be vested in three equal installments over three years; an exercise price of all options equal to the fair market value of the ordinary shares on the date of the grant (i.e., the closing price of our shares on the date of the annual general meeting of shareholders in which such director is elected or reelected); and







 



	
·  

	
the portion of outstanding options that is scheduled to vest during the year at which the director’s service with us is terminated or expires will be accelerated and become fully vested and exercisable for a period of 180 days thereafter, unless termination was due to the director’s resignation or for one of the causes set forth in the Companies Law.







 


Other than the foregoing fees, reimbursement for expenses and the award of stock options, we do not compensate our directors for serving on our board of directors.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7367

CHRISTOPHER D. CROMARTIE, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

- PRISONS; ASHLEY JONES; QUEEN GERALD , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Joi Elizabeth Peake , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:18

- cv
- 00479

- LCB

- JEP )

Submitted : January 17, 2019 Decided: January 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Christopher D. Cromartie, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher D. Cromartie, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to dismiss Cromartie’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The magistrate judge’s
recommendation is neither a final order nor an appeal able interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### HARBECK, Appellant, v. PUPIN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

April 13, 1894.)

Action by Henry Harbeck against Sarah K. Pupin and others. J. I. Richards, for appellant. G. C. Holt, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion handed down on previous appeal. See 25 N. Y. Supp. 952.
EXHIBIT
10.47

     

    PROMISSORY
NOTE – UNSECURED

    


    
      	
              AMOUNT:
      $125,000

            	
              DATE
      OF ISSUANCE: March 30, 2010

            
	
              INTEREST
      RATE: 5%

            	
              MATURITY
      DATE: May 30, 2010

            


    

    NOTE
NUMBER: 1

    


    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Power Efficiency
Corporation (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay the order of Steven Z.
Strasser (the “Lender”) at 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 460, Las Vegas, NV
89169, the principal sum of One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000)
plus accumulated interest, no later than May 30, 2010.

    


    THIS PROMISSORY NOTE is not
secured.

    


    THE BORROWER MAY, at any time, without
notice, bonus or penalty, prepay or cause to be prepaid the whole or any part of
the principal amount and accumulated interest remaining unpaid
hereunder.

    


    THE
PROMISSORY NOTE shall be governed by the laws of the State of Nevada, which laws
shall be applicable to the interpretation, construction and enforcement hereof.
The Borrower and the Lender each submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the
courts of the State of Nevada and the United States courts located in the State
of Nevada in relation to any claim or dispute that may arise with respect to
this Promissory Note.

    


    IN THE EVENT of the bankruptcy or
insolvency of the Borrower, or upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy
against the Borrower, or upon the making of a proposal in bankruptcy by the
Borrower, the principal and interest under this Promissory Note remaining unpaid
shall, at the option of the Lender, immediately become due and
payable.

    


    THE UNDERSIGNED may, at any time,
without notice, bonus or penalty, prepay or cause to be prepaid the whole or any
part of the principal amount remaining unpaid hereunder.

    


    DATED this 30th day of
March, 2010.

    


    
      	
               

            	 	
               

            
	
              Lender

            	 	
              Borrower

            
	
              Steven
      Z. Strasser

            	 	
              Power
      Efficiency Corporation

            
	 
      	 	
              John
      Lackland, CFO
EXHIBIT
23.1










Richardson &
Company


550
Howe Avenue, Suite 210


Sacramento,
California 95825





Telephone:
(916) 564-8727


FAX:
(916) 564-8728


























CONSENT OF RICHARDSON &
COMPANY








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) (SEC File Number 333-62294) pertaining to the Sonoma Valley Bancorp's 1996
Stock Option Plan as amended in April 1999, the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) (SEC File Number 333-88610) pertaining to the Sonoma Valley Bancorp=s 2002
Equity Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8) (SEC File Number
333-145313) pertaining to the Sonoma Valley Bancorp’s 2007 Equity Incentive Plan
of our report dated March 5, 2009 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Sonoma Valley Bancorp and Subsidiary included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

















Sacramento,
California


March 17,
2009
<PAGE>

                                                                   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

I, John F. Welch, Chief Executive Officer of CNA Surety Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); 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 F. Welch
--------------------------

John F. Welch
President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       45
EX-10.17





 Exhibit 10.17 
 



 
  

			
	TO:	  	STEPHAN PACE
		
	FROM:	  	STEVE ESTES
		
	DATE:	  	JULY 8, 2019
		
	SUBJECT:	  	PLANNED ISSUANCE OF RESTRICTED STOCK

  
  

As we have discussed, a critical component of our ongoing business strategy for Reynolds Consumer Products LLC will be to explore opportunities for the
business that could lead to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the business or potentially a divestiture of the associated business entities. Your assistance is needed by Reynolds as we work through this process to help prepare the business for a
successful transaction. 
 If the IPO is successful, the company whose shares are registered in the IPO will issue you Restricted Stock at the completion of
the IPO. The number of shares in this grant equals $225,102 divided by the IPO price as of the date of the grant, rounded to the nearest whole share. Vesting for the restricted stock will occur over a 3-year
period with 1/3 vesting after 12-months from the successful IPO; 1/3 vesting after 24-months from the successful IPO; and, 1/3 vesting after 36-months from the successful IPO. You must be an employee of the Company or one of its affiliates on the applicable vesting date to receive such shares. 

Should there be a business sale instead of an IPO, you will receive $225,102 in cash in lieu of Restricted Stock. For purposes hereof, a business sale means a
sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company or a sale of more than 50% of the equity of the Company or such entity. This cash payment will be made in the following manner: 

1⁄2 Payable
30-days post-closing of the sale 
 1⁄2 Payable 180-days post-closing of the sale 
 This memo does not change your
status as an “at-will” employee and does not guarantee your employment for any specific period of time. The Company reserves the right to terminate you at any time and for any or no reason. Any
Restricted Stock issued or cash payment made pursuant to this memo shall be subject to regular tax withholdings and other authorized deductions and will not be treated as compensation for any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless
statutorily required. 
 This memo is provided to summarize the agreement that has been reached in this regard between the Company and the employee. Should
an IPO be completed, a formal grant letter for the Restricted Stock will be provided to the employee that documents all terms and conditions related to the grant. 

//s// Steve Estes
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6216 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6216

     To amend title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit 
  discrimination on the ground of religion in educational programs or 
                              activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2010

Mr. Sherman (for himself and Mr. Engel) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit 
  discrimination on the ground of religion in educational programs or 
                              activities.

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

SECTION 1. NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUND OF RELIGION.

    Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``No person''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b)(1) No person in the United States shall, on the ground of 
religion, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, 
or be subjected to discrimination under, an educational program or 
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed--
            ``(A) to limit an educational entity covered by section 606 
        with a religious affiliation, mission, or purpose from applying 
        policies for the admission of students, criteria for attaining 
        academic degrees, regulations governing student conduct and 
        student organizations, or policies for the employment of 
        faculty or staff, if the corresponding policies, criteria, or 
        regulations relate to the religious affiliation, mission, or 
        purpose;
            ``(B) to require an educational entity covered by section 
        606 to provide accommodation to any student's religious 
        obligations (including dietary restrictions and school 
        absences); or
            ``(C) with respect to an educational entity covered by 
        section 606 that permits expressive organizations to exist by 
        funding or otherwise recognizing the organizations, to require 
        the entity to limit such organizations from exercising their 
        freedom of expressive association by establishing criteria for 
        their membership or leadership.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, J. Michael Edenfield, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Logility, Inc.;

2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter 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:

(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.



|                     |  |     |  |                                             
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: March 12, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ J. Michael Edenfield                    
|                     |  |     |  | J. Michael Edenfield Chief Executive
Officer
#### The SEVEN-UP COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Missouri, Plaintiff, v. Andrew C. GOODHOPE, Hearing Examiner, et al., Defendants.

No. 72 C 285(2).

United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

Oct. 16, 1972.

*552John T. Tabor and J. Stewart Bakula, St. Louis, Mo., Earl W. Kintner, Mark R. Joelson, Eugene J. Meigher and I. C. Waddey, Jr., Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plot-kin & Kahn, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U. S. Atty., and David W. Harlan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Ronald M. Dietrich, Gen. Counsel, Harold D. Rhynedance, Jr., Asst. Gen. Counsel, James P. Timony, Atty., F.T.C., Washington, D. C., for defendants.

ORDER

REGAN, District Judge.

Presently pending before the Federal Trade Commission is a proceeding charging plaintiff, a soft drink manufacturer, with engaging in unfair methods of competition in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S. C. , Section 45, by reason of provisions in licenses granted to its bottlers whereby the bottlers agree not to sell the product outside of a designated geographical territory. Similar complaints were filed and are pending against other soft drink manufacturers, including Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the Commission proceedings on the ground of non-joinder of plaintiffs’ many bottlers as indispensable parties.

This action for injunctive and declaratory relief challenges the propriety of the interlocutory order of the Commission denying the motion to dismiss. Similar orders in the Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola proceedings have been unsuccessfully attacked in other United States District Courts. See The Coca-Cola Company v. Federal Trade Commission, N.D.Ga., 342 F.Supp. 670, and Pepsi-Co, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, S.D.N.Y., 343 F.Supp. 396. Appeals have been taken from both rulings.

Defendants have moved to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment. Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment. After full consideration, we agree with the rationale of the district court rulings in the Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola cases dismissing the complaints therein for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be and the same is hereby sustained and the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
CKEDITOR.on("dialogDefinition", function (ev) {
  var dialogName = ev.data.name;
  var dialogDefinition = ev.data.definition;

  if(dialogName == "iframe") {
    var infoTab = dialogDefinition.getContents("info");
    var titleField = infoTab.get("title");

    titleField["required"] = true;
    titleField["validate"] = CKEDITOR.dialog.validate.notEmpty("Advisory Title is required");
  }
});
jQuery("head").append(
  '<link rel="stylesheet" href="/libraries/balloonpanel/skins/moono/balloonpanel.css" type="text/css" />'
);
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 

MISC. NO. 03-24 

IN RE: RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGE

O R D E R

 Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), eligible retired Judges of the Court may be recalled by 

the Chief Judge when further service is needed by the Court. Retired Judge Mary J. Schoelen, 

having complied with 38 U.S.C. § 7257, is designated a recall-eligible retired Judge. The Chief 

Judge of the Court has determined that, if recalled, Judge Schoelen would provide substantial service 

necessary to meet the needs of the Court. 

 Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

 ORDERED that, effective January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, recall-eligible retired 

Judge Schoelen is recalled from retired status in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1). Judge 

Schoelen shall have and exercise all the judicial powers and duties of the office of a Judge in active 

service and shall otherwise perform substantial service for the Court as requested by the Chief Judge. 

It is further 

 ORDERED that Judge Schoelen shall serve in recalled status in calendar year 2024 to review 

and decide appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court and to perform other substantial service 

at the request of the Chief Judge and she shall so serve throughout the calendar year for up to 90 days 

or its equivalent. With her consent, Judge Schoelen's service may be extended beyond 90 days. 

 

DATED: January 3, 2024 BY THE COURT: 

MARGARET BARTLEY 

 Chief Judge