alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.75

HANSEN MEDICAL, INC.

April 22, 2011

Michael MacKinnon

Dear Mike:

You and Hansen Medical, Inc. (the Company) entered into an offer letter dated as of January 14, 2011
(the Offer Letter). In order to clarify your annual commission opportunity, you and the Company agree that Section 3 of the Offer Letter is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

3.    Commissions. You are eligible to receive a maximum of $175,000 in annual commissions at plan. These
commissions are dependent on achieving overall sales goals, and will be paid quarterly. The goals applicable to your commissions may be based on sales of the Companys products and/or services, bookings, revenues, deferred revenue, profits,
margin, procedures performed, number of units sold, physicians trained or any other sales, revenue or profit-based metrics. Your commission opportunity may be expressed as a percentage of one or more of the foregoing metrics (with or without any
threshold or maximum), in relation to increases in one or more of the foregoing metrics and/or as a bonus if a stated goal is achieved.

Except as expressly set forth above, the Offer Letter will remain in effect without change. You may indicate your agreement with this amendment of the Offer Letter by signing and dating the enclosed
duplicate original of this letter agreement and returning it to me. This letter agreement may be executed in two counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but both of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.



Very truly yours,HANSEN MEDICAL, INC.By:

/s/ Peter
Osborne


Title:

Interim CFO




|                       
|-----------------------
|Accepted and agreed to:
|                       
|/s/ Michael MacKinnon  
|                       
|Michael MacKinnon      
|                       
|Dated: May 4, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-19477) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan of Prosoft I-Net 
Solutions, Inc. (formerly known as Prosoft Development, Inc.) of our report 
dated March 8, 1996 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and 
schedules of Prosoft I-Net Solutions, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 
10-K) for the year ended July 31, 1997.



/s/ KELLY & COMPANY
-------------------
Newport Beach, California 
October 27, 1997
STATE v. Cornelius TUCKER, Jr.

No. 118P01-14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*AMENDED*

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of November 2005 by Defendant to proceed in forma pauperis:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of December 2005."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7531

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK DIPADOVA, a/k/a Mark Voiers, a/k/a Jack Norris, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-01-127; CA-02-1045-0-10) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark DiPadova, Appellant Pro Se. Dean Arthur Eichelberger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mark DiPadova seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that DiPadova has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY GLENN AVANT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:02-cr-00133-H-1; 5:12-cv-00026-H)

Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Glenn Avant, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Glenn Avant seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484-85 (2000). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Avant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Alexis Michel Saleta Cerda, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Frances Y. Wang, J.), rendered July 12, 2017, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Frances Y. Wang, J.), rendered July 12, 2017, affirmed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument, which in this case was required to meet the standards that apply to a misdemeanor complaint (<a href="../2014/2014_04038.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Dumay</i>, 23 NY3d 518</a>, 522 [2014]), was jurisdictionally valid, since it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 170.20). At the pleading stage, defendant's knowledge that the temporary license plate on his automobile was forged can be inferred from his conflicting explanations and the suspicious circumstances under which he came into possession of the plate (<i>see People v Johnson, </i>65 NY2d 556, 562 [1985]; <a href="../2017/2017_51787.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Kende, </i>58 Misc 3d 133</a>[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51787[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017], <i>lv denied </i>30 NY3d 1116 [2018]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 12, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
IN RE M.C.

No. COA05-152

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Lenoir (04J36).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
BEST v. MOODY.

No. COA05-883.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Wilson (04CVS416)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
MIYARES v. FORSYTH COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH.

No. COA04-249.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 15, 2005.

Certification Date April 4, 2005.

Appeal from the Forsyth (03CVS2834).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
Order entered June 14, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 00462 - CV LEN RAO, Appellant V. THE AMERICAN ARBITRA TION ASSOCIATION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. CC - 13 - 00255 - B 

### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s June 12, 2013 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file his brief. Appellant shall file his brief on or before July 15, 2013. We caution appellant that no further extension of time will be granted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive OfficerRequired by Rule 13a-14(a) (17 CFR 240.13a-14(a))**

 

I, Christopher B. Begley, certify that:

 

1.  I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”);

 

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

 

3.  Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of Hospira as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4.  Hospira’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for Hospira, and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto Hospira, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of Hospira’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this reportany change in Hospira’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring Hospira’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, Hospira’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.  Hospira’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Hospira’s auditorsand the audit and public policy committee of Hospira’s board of directors:

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect Hospira’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant rolein Hospira’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
|                           |                                           |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Date:   November 10, 2004 | /s/  Christopher B. Begley                |   |
|                           | Christopher B. Begley, Chief Executive Officer |
|                           |                                           |

 

1

----
VINCENT v. BILLINGSLEY.

No. COA05-657.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (02CVS10110).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed in part; no error in part.
STATE v. JACOBS

No. COA04-1499.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Bladen (03CRS1867, 03CRS1869).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
68 Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

MONTANA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

By Type

Service: 46%

Construction: 14%

Research and 

Development: 4%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 36%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

James Talcott Construction $15.4 M

S&K Global Solutions $12.2 M

T&L Sales $11.3 M

S&K Aerospace $11.1 M

Nomad Global Communication Solutions $10.9 M

Ames Construction $7.8 M

ASI Constructors $6.6 M

Project Resources $5.7 M

National-General Supply $4.9 M

BAE Systems $3.9 M

$0.3

$0.4

$0.3

$0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2

39%

10%

36%

15%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$259.5 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

9,553

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

 Military

Cascade 5,749 3,954 976

Lewis and Clark 1,434 ND 397

Yellowstone 616 50 18

Missoula 473 34 31

Gallatin 231 12 11

Silver Bow 227 38 22

Flathead 189 ND ND

Valley 102 ND 67

Lincoln 80 ND 63

Phillips 69 ND ND

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 40%

Active Duty: 44%

Civilian: 16%

42%

2%

56%

0%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 69

Lincoln

Gallatin

Missoula 

Flathead Lewis and Clark Phillips Valley 

Silver Bow 

Yellowstone 

Cascade

Lincoln

Gallatin

Missoula 

Flathead Lewis and Clark Valley 

Silver Bow 

Cascade County

$197.2 M

Lewis and Clark County

$33.2 M

Yellowstone County 

$6.4 M

Missoula County

$5.0 M

Lincoln County

$3.9 M

Valley County

$3.9 M

Silver Bow County

$3.6 M

Gallatin County

$2.3 M

Flathead County

$1.6 M

Phillips County

$0.4 M

(M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions) (M=millions)

Cascade County

$70.7 M

Lake County

$25.1 M

Lincoln County

$18.0 M

Flathead County

$17.3 M

Valley County

$12.5 M

Gallatin County

$9.7 M

Dawson County

$9.4 M

Missoula County

$7.0 M

Lewis and Clark County

$4.3 M

Silver Bow County

$3.5 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

#48

$0.4 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#41

1.0% OF STATE GDP

0.1%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$428

PER RESIDENT

#48

$0.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#46

9,553 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL

#46

$0.2 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 MONTANA

Cascade

Lake 

Dawson 

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active
110 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

$34.7 $35.6 $34.4 $36.4

FY13 FY14

$29.0 $30.6

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

VIRGINIA 

#2 #1 10.8% $7,481 #3 #2 #1

$64.3 B SPENT IN 11.3% OF STATE OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $44.8 B CONTRACT 250,884 NUMBER $19.4 B PERSONNEL 

STATE GDP DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING OF PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and

Construction: 2% Development: 9%

Supplies and

Equipment: 28%

Service: 62%

By Service 

Army

19%

Navy/Marines

40%

Air Force

15%

Other Defense

26%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 7%

National Guard: 3%

Civilian: 40%

Active Duty: 50%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

22%

Navy/Marines

59%

Air Force

9%

Other Defense

10%

Top Defense Contractors 

Huntington Ingalls

General Dynamics

Northrop Grumman

Leidos

Booz Allen Hamilton

Atlantic Diving Supply

Perspecta

CACI

Lockheed Martin

SAIC

(M = millions, B = billions)

$3.5 B

$1.7 B

$1.6 B

$1.6 B

$1.5 B

$1.2 B

$927.7 M

$832.6 M

$832.4 M

$635.1 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$44.8 $40.8

$19.4 BILLION 250,884

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National Reserve Total

Duty Guard

Norfolk City 16,850 17,077 279 1,278 35,484

Virginia Beach City 18,383 3,907 791 4,754 27,835

Fairfax 6,586 12,293 625 2,960 22,464

Arlington 2,949 16,627 67 124 19,767

Portsmouth City 3,871 14,089 168 29 18,157

Prince William 7,963 4,493 299 745 13,500

Prince George 7,611 3,519 0 473 11,603

York 8,276 685 1,020 945 10,926

Newport News City 6,045 3,685 69 1,121 10,920

Accomack 6,825 103 87 677 7,692
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 111

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 VIRGINIA

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

Fairfax

Arlington

Newport News City

Norfolk City

Virginia Beach City

Loudoun

Prince William

Alexandria City

Portsmouth City

Chesapeake City

(M = millions, B = billions)

$17.7 B

$4.7 B

$4.1 B

$3.0 B

$2.5 B

$2.3 B

$2.3 B

$1.6 B

$959.4 M

$684.1 M

Norfolk City

Fairfax

Arlington

Virginia Beach City

Portsmouth City

Accomack

Prince William

Newport News City

York

King George

$2.8 B

$2.3 B

$2.2 B

$1.8 B

$1.4 B

$998.6 M

$862.8 M

$740.2 M

$657.9 M

$652.9 M

Loudoun

Fairfax

Prince William

Alexandria City

Arlington

Newport News City Norfolk City

Virginia Beach City

Portsmouth City

Chesapeake City

Fairfax

Arlington

Prince William

Newport News City Norfolk City

Virginia Beach City

Portsmouth City

Accomack

King George

York
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN C. LEVI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF ALASKA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-35282 

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00282-RRB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Steven C. Levi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment sua sponte 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Omar v. Sea-Land 

Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
19-35282

The district court properly dismissed Levi’s action for failure to state a claim 

because neither a State nor a state agency is a person for purposes of § 1983 

liability and Levi failed to allege any facts showing a constitutional violation. See

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997) (Section 1983

“creates no remedy against a State”); Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990) (a 

governmental agency that is an arm of the state is not a person for purposes of 

§ 1983); Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 432 (1996) (“The 

Seventh Amendment . . . governs proceedings in federal court, but not in state 

court.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend 

because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home 

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review 

and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment 

would be futile); see also Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 638

(9th Cir. 1988) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim without 

notice or an opportunity to respond where plaintiff cannot possibly win relief).

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

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

Levi’s motion to transmit exhibit (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied.

See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988) 
19-35282

(“Papers not filed with the district court or admitted into evidence by that court are 

not part of the clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.”). Levi’s 

motion to accept supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 18) is granted.

AFFIRMED.
BURROW FARMS v. CULLER

No. COA05-317

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Stokes (02CVD312).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bimini Capital Management, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Cauley, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.





November 9, 2009
/s/ Robert E. CauleyRobert E. Cauley
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer