alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.22

9/3/97                                               H.E.R.C. Products Inc.
                                                     2202 W Lone Cactus Dr. # 15
Jerry Ludwig                                         Phoenix, AZ  85027
Ludwig and Associates                                (602)492-0336
8840 N 57th St                                       (602)233-1107
Paradise Valley, AZ   85253


Dear Dr. Ludwig:

This is the engagement  offer letter we have been  discussing.  The form we have
agreed to is warrants in HERC Products,  Inc. in lieu of your $1000.00 per month
fee. Specifically, the details are as follows:

Monthly Fee:         $500.00  Payable to Jerry Ludwig and Assoc., Inc.
Warrants:            40,000

The warrants will vest on two dates. The first half, or 20,000, will vest at the
end of the six month  anniversary  of this  agreement.  The second  half,  again
20,000, will vest at the end of the eighteen month anniversary of our agreement.
The exercise price will be 1.06 or the closing trading price on the day you sign
this  agreement,  whichever is higher.  The warrants  will expire five (5) years
from the date of vesting.

The list of your actions items include the following:

1.    Oversight of the Company's patent program.

2.    Interaction  on  behalf  of  the  company  with  International  Licensees.
      Including the U.K., Europe, Latin America, and the Far East.

3.    Technical assistance when required for Pipe-Klean operations.

This agreement is for two years and is renewable if agreed upon by both parties.

If you  have  any  questions  please  let  me  know.  I am  very  excited  about
opportunities  we have before us and the part Ludwig and  Assiciates can play. I
am looking forward to a mutually profitable relationship.

Sincerely,


Steven Carl                             Agreed to by:___________________________
Chairman/CEO                                               Jerry Ludwig

cc: HERC Board of Directors             Date:___________________________________
    John Johnson
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION  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 on Form 10-K
of BioSphere Medical, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned, Richard J. Faleschini, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
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.  Dated: March 26, 2008
  /s/ RICHARD J.
  FALESCHINIRichard J. FaleschiniPresident
  and Chief Executive Officer(principal
  executive officer)
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 27 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting 

the Federal Government from using the power of taxation to compel 

someone to engage in commercial activity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States prohibiting the Federal Government from using 

the power of taxation to compel someone to engage in 

commercial activity. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 27 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘The Congress shall not have the power to lay and 

5 collect taxes in order to compel any person or persons to 

6 engage in commercial activity, nor shall Congress have the 

7 power to lay and collect taxes from any person or persons 

8 for a failure to engage in any form of commercial activ9 ity.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Larry B. RUBIN, Petitioner, v. Hector SANCHEZ, et al.

No. 18-9254

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 9

REDACTED IN ITS 

ENTIRETY

To Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to 

Dismiss Complaint

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 50-10 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 752
Independent Auditors' Consent




To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Institutional Cash Management Fund, Inc.:
We consent to the incorporation by reference, in this Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information, of our report dated July
13, 2000, on the statement of assets and liabilities of the Smith
Barney Institutional Cash Management Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") as of
May 31, 2000 and the related statement of operations for the year
then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of
the years in the two-year period then ended and the financial
highlights for each of the years in the four-year period then
ended and for the period from June 16, 1995 (commencement of
operations) to May 31, 1996. These financial statements and
financial highlights and our report thereon are included in the
Annual Report of the Fund as filed on Form N-30D.
We also consent to the references to our firm under the headings
"Financial Highlights" in the Prospectus and "Auditors" in the
Statement of Additional Information.



KPMG LLP
New York, New York
September 26, 2000
Page
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

SOLOMON EVERFIELD, III § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-458

IAH DETENTION CENTER FACILITIES § 

MEDICAL DEP’T

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING TRANSFER

Plaintiff Solomon Everfield, III, a prisoner confined at the IAH Detention Center in

Livingston, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action against the medical department

of the IAH Detention Center.

Discussion

When, as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391 provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the defendants reside or in

which the claim arose. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the convenience of parties and witnesses and

in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division

where it could have been brought. Such a transfer may be done sua sponte and is reviewable only

for an abuse of discretion. Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff’sComplaint concerns allegations that he is not receiving adequate medical treatment

at the IAH Detention Center in Livingston, Texas. The IAH Detention Center is located in the

boundaries of the Lufkin Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Texas. Although venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas, the court has considered the

circumstances and has determined that the interests of justice would be served by transferring this

Case 9:24-cv-00001-MAC-ZJH Document 2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 9
action to the division in which the claims arose. Therefore, the Complaint should be transferred to

the Lufkin Division. It is accordingly

ORDERED that this civil rights action is TRANSFERRED to the Lufkin Division of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

2

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 3rd day of January, 2024.

Case 9:24-cv-00001-MAC-ZJH Document 2 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 10
Jennifer LU, Petitioner v. STANFORD UNIVERSITY.

No. 19-5040

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 21

           SUBSIDIARIES OF CHARLES E. SMITH RESIDENTIAL REALTY, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                               STATE OF INCORPORATION/FORMATION
<S>                                                <C>
Smith One, Inc.                                           Delaware
Smith Two, Inc.                                           Delaware
Smith Three, Inc.                                         Delaware
Smith Four, Inc.                                          Delaware
Smith Five, Inc.                                          Delaware
Smith Six, Inc.                                           Delaware
Smith Seven, Inc.                                         Delaware

Charles E. Smith Residential Realty L.P.                  Delaware
Smith Employment Services L.P.                            Delaware
Courthouse Hill L.L.C.                                    Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Springfield L.L.C.                Delaware
Smith Property Holdings 2000 Commonwealth L.L.C.          Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Cathedral Place L.L.C.            Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Crystal Plaza L.L.C.              Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Dearborn Place L.L.C.             Delaware
Smith Property Holdings One East Delaware L.L.C.          Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Lincoln Towers L.L.C.             Delaware

Smith Property Holdings One, L.P.                         Delaware
Smith Property Holdings One (D.C.) L.P.                   Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Crystal Towers L.P.               Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Two L.P.                          Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Two (D.C) L.P.                    Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Three L.P.                        Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Three (D.C.) L.P.                 Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Four L.P.                         Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Kenmore L.P.                      Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Five L.P.                         Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Five (D.C.) L.P.                  Delaware
First Herndon Associates Limited Partnership              Virginia
Smith Property Holdings Six L.P.                          Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Six (D.C.) L.P.                   Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Van Ness L.P.                     Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Columbia Road L.P.                Delaware
Smith Property Holdings Seven L.P.                        Delaware
Metropolitan Acquisition Finance L.P.                     Delaware

Smith Realty Company                                      Maryland
Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc.                   Maryland
Smith Management Construction, Inc.                       Maryland
Charles E. Smith Insurance Agency, Inc.                   District of Columbia
</TABLE>

                                      E-3
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Eastern District of Texas Headwater Research LLC Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Headwater Research LLC 01/03/2024 /s/ Adam S. Hoffman Adam S. Hoffman CA Bar No. 218740

Russ August & Kabat 

12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025

(310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Address

 ahoffman@raklaw.com

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 800
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2000 and the related Consolidated
Statements of Income and Cash Flows for the three Months Ended March 31, 2000
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                       258
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,874
<PP&E>                                           9,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,419
<BONDS>                                         19,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,867
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,911
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,419
<INCOME-TAX>                                       462
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                784
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       784
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16


</TABLE>
In Re Larry SWEARINGEN, petitioner.

No. 19-5640 (19A200).

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 21, 2019.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice ALITO and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Darius Leigh GILKEY, Petitioner, v. DeWayne BURTON, Warden.

No. 18-9541

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-JRG 

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-CV-00064-JRG

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 36-1 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 164
On this date the Court considered the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 22), filed by Plaintiff VirtaMove Corp. (“Plaintiff” or

“VirtaMove”) and Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Defendant”). Based on the 

motion and the grounds set forth therein, and the agreement of the Parties in the motion, the Court 

finds that good cause has been established and the Joint Motion for Extension of Time should be 

granted. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s time to respond to the 

Motion shall be extended by two weeks, from April 29, 2024 to May 13, 2024.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s time to reply in support of

the Motion shall be extended from May 6, 2024 to May 29, 2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 36-1 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 165
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

NATHAN JAMES LEMAR

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 4:24-CR-00022

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for administration of 

a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court accept 

Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment.

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of 

the United States Magistrate Judge. The court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance 

of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report.

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Nathan James 

Lemar GUILTY of Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 

922(g)(1) - Possession of a Firearm by a Felon.

Case 4:24-cr-00022-ALM-AGD Document 26 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

60
EXHIBIT 99

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Ultimate Electronics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/J. EDWARD MCENTIREJ. Edward McEntire
Chief Executive Officer
September 13, 2002 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ALAN E. KESSOCKAlan E. Kessock
Chief Financial Officer
September 13, 2002       |  | 

---

QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., F/K/A COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., Respondent

v. MATTHEW J. GIBSON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 740 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 24th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                     TO THE
                              ARMOR HOLDINGS, INC.
                            2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


         The following amendment is hereby made to the Armor Holdings, Inc. 2002
Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan"):

         Section 5.8 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety and replaced
by the following new Section 5.8:

                  "5.8 Modification, Extension or Renewal. The Committee may
         modify, extend or renew outstanding Options and authorize the grant of
         new Options in substitution therefor, provided that (i) except as
         expressly provided for in the Plan or an Award Agreement, any such
         action may not, without the written consent of a Participant, impair
         any of such Participant's rights under any Option previously granted
         and (ii) except as provided for in Section 18 of the Plan, Options
         issued hereunder will not be repriced, replaced or regranted through
         cancellation or by lowering the Exercise Price of a previously granted
         Award without prior approval of the Company's Stockholders. Any
         outstanding ISO that is modified, extended, renewed or otherwise
         altered will be treated in accordance with Section 424(h) of the Code."

         The Plan was amended by the Board of Directors of Armor Holdings, Inc.
as of June 18, 2002.


<PAGE>

                                  CERTIFICATION

         The undersigned, being the Secretary of Armor Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true and complete
copy of Amendment No. 1 to the Armor Holdings, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan,
as duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on June 18, 2002, and
that said Amendment No. 1 to Armor Holdings, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan is
in full force and effect on the date hereof, without further amendment or
modification.


                                       /s/ Robert R. Schiller
                                       ----------------------
                                       Robert R. Schiller, Secretary of
                                       Armor Holdings, Inc.
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 16 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal 

the sixteenth article of amendment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself and Mr. WOODALL) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HJ 16 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitu3 tion of the United States is hereby repealed’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with
Peter Alfred PEREZ, Petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 18-9199

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Rostislav KHRAPKO, Petitioner, v. Kristin SPLAIN, et al.

No. 19-1041.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.