alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.8      Westmed Manufacturing Agreement



                                     Westmed
                             Manufacturing Contract

The following is a contract agreement between Emergency Filtration Products
located at 500 N. Rainbow, Suite 300, Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 and Westmed, Inc.
located at 3351 E. Hemisphere Loop, Tucson, Arizona, for all terms and
conditions stated in the Westmed, Inc. quotation dated December 15th 1997. This
contract will remain in effect until terminated. Termination of this contract is
accomplished by either party sending a signed written document requesting that
the contract be terminated.

Westmed, Inc. (WT) will be manufacturing for Emergency Filtration Products (EFP)
the "resuscitation filter" as per the sample and drawings supplied, in WT's
December 15th quotation. All materials for the manufacturing and packaging are
to be supplied by EFP in bulk form. Raw materials are to be received clean,
sealed in plastic bags, ready for assembly and packaging. Westmed will provide
molded plastic parts.

Manufacturing will be conducted at WT in accordance with Good Manufacturing
Practices. Documentation will be supplied with the finished devices to support
lot traceability and manufacturing processes.

These are non-sterile devices and will be shipped bulk in a poly lined box or in
an individual poly bag. Release documentation will be supplied with the finished
product.

Accepted by: \S\ Jon McKinnon                         Date: December 15, 1997
                       John Mckinnon
                       Westmed, Inc.

Accepted by: \S\ Doug Beplate                         Date: December 15, 1997
                       Doug Beplate
                       Emergency Filtration Products, Inc.
STATE v. PERKINS.

No. COA04-659.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from New Hanover, (03CRS10927).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
exv10w3



 






Exhibit 10.3




George W. Gresham and Kay J. Nichols have entered into Change of Control Agreements with the
Company that are substantially identical in all respects to the agreement with Paul F. Walsh that
was filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002.
STATE v. William Beach SMITH.

No. 346A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Joseph Blount Cheshire, V, Raleigh, for William Beach Smith.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of December 2005 by Defendant for Partial Remand to Court of Appeals:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of March 2006."
John HARVEY v. Patrick D. McLAUGHLIN, D.C., d/b/a McLaughlin Chiropractic Center.

No. 553P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Joseph B. Chambliss, Jr., Michael C. Allen, Meredith T. Black, Raleigh, for Patrick D. McLaughlin.

Donald J. Dunn, New Bern, for John Harvey.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of September 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4051

DELORISE HAWKINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-107)

Submitted: June 4, 2002

Decided: June 25, 2002

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Brian J. Grossman, ECK, COLLINS & MARSTILLER, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,

Olivia N. Hawkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Delorise Hawkins appeals her convictions, following a bench trial,

for maintenance of a place for distribution, use, and storage of controlled substances, 21 U.S.C.A. § 856 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001), and

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841

(West 1999 & Supp. 2001). Hawkins claims the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. We disagree and accordingly affirm.

On direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a factfinder’s verdict

must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light

most favorable to the government, to support it. Glasser v. United

States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). The Government produced evidence

that Hawkins sold cocaine base ("crack") to Kelvin Hatchet in the

front yard of her home, located at 1513 Williamsburg Road, Richmond, Virginia, on February 8, 2001. During the course of this transaction, Hawkins told Hatchet to inform other people the area was her

"territory," implying that the "territory" involved the drug trade. The

following day, the Richmond police executed a search warrant at

Hawkins’ home and found 5.38 grams of crack on Hawkins’ dining

room table and a rock of crack in the pocket of the shorts Hawkins

was wearing. Based on this evidence, the district court could properly

infer that Hawkins maintained a place for the distribution, use, and

storage of controlled substances and possessed crack cocaine with the

intent to distribute it. 

Accordingly, we affirm Hawkins’ convictions. 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. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. HAWKINS
STATE of North Carolina v. William Britt REEVES.

No. 350A95-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

William Britt Reeves, Pro Se.

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

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st day of July 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Forsyth County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."
Amendment to Agreement dated 6/22/05



 Exhibit 10.2 
  

			
	 	  	JOHN L. JACOBS
		
	 	  	EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
		
	 	  	WORLDWIDE MARKETING AND FINANCIAL PRODUCTS

  
 June 22, 2005 
  
 Mr. Craig S. Donohue 
 Executive Vice President and 
 Chief Administrative Officer 
 CME 
 30 S. Wacker Drive 
 Chicago, IL 60606 
  

	Re:	Agreement for Nasdaq-100 Index, Nasdaq Composite Index and Nasdaq Biotechnology Index Related Derivative Products 

  
 Dear Mr. Donohue: 
  
 The purpose of this letter is to amend the Agreement for Nasdaq-100 Index® and Nasdaq Composite Index Related Derivative Products executed by The Nasdaq Stock
Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”) and CME effective October 2003, as amended, April 2005 (“Agreement”). 
  
 Specifically, as you may be aware, Nasdaq has commenced the dissemination of a new Nasdaq Official Opening Price (“NOOP”) value for the Nasdaq-100 Index®, Nasdaq Composite Index® and Nasdaq Biotechnology Index® (collectively, the “Indexes”). The new NOOP value, using a unitary opening
price procedure, replaces the volume weighted opening prices referenced in Section 7.1 of the Agreement, and will be used to settle derivatives on the Indexes beginning with the June expiration. 
  
 As a result, Section 7.1 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and shall be
replaced with the following: 
  
 7.1 At no cost to Licensee other
than the Fees, Nasdaq or its agent shall compute and provide to Licensee the Opening Settlement Value of the Index on the day following the last trading day immediately prior to final settlement of the relevant Options Contracts traded on
Licensee’s market. The term “Opening Settlement Value” shall mean the Index Value derived using a Unitary Opening Price Procedure, such as the Nasdaq Official Opening Price. If an Index-component security does not open for trading on
The Nasdaq Stock Market on that day, then the reported sale price for the security last received and processed by Nasdaq shall be used to calculate the Opening Settlement Value. The term “Unitary Opening Price Procedure” shall mean a
methodology, practice, procedure, or mechanism used by Nasdaq to generate opening prices for Index-component securities that involves gathering, processing and executing buying and selling interest in Index-component securities at one price at the
opening of trading on The Nasdaq Stock Market. 
  
 For ease of review, I have
attached to this Amendment Letter a redlined version of Section 7.1 that clearly shows the changes made with the new language to the terms of the original Section 7.1. 







 Please confirm your acceptance of these changes by executing this Amendment Letter where indicated below and returning
the original to me. 
  
 As always, should you have any questions or concerns,
please do not hesitate to contact me directly. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	 /s/ John L. Jacobs


	John L. Jacobs

  

			
	Agreed and Accepted:
	
	Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (“Licensee”)
		
	By:	 	 /s/ C.S. Donohue


	Name:	 	Craig Donohue
	Title:	 	CEO
	 	 	Authorized Officer
	Date:	 	6/24/05
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00073-CV

In re Janice Marie Vickers

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a request for a free record related to an application for writ of habeas

corpus, a request we have filed as a petition for writ of mandamus. We deny the petition for writ 1

of mandamus.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Filed: February 21, 2014

The caption of relator’s document states that it was filed “in the Court of Criminal 1

Appeals,” so it is possible the document was mistakenly filed in the wrong court.
LITTLE v. LYNTON.

No. COA05-1044.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (03CVS21282).

Case without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
STATE v. HOWELL.

No. COA05-189.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from Scotland (03CRS51400).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants on Schedule II

To the Stockholders of I-Sector Corporation

In connection with our audit of the consolidated financial statements of
I-Sector Corporation and subsidiaries referred to in our report dated February
6, 2004, which is included in the Company's 2003 From 10-K, we have also audited
Schedule II for the year ended December 31, 2003. In our opinion, this schedule,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

/s/Grant Thornton LLP
Houston, Texas
February 6, 2004
1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 3598

___________ LINDSWORTH BROWN

- SESSAY , Petitioner

VS.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

____________________________________ On Petit ion for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A076

- 576

- 183 ) Immigration Judge: Honorable Leo A. Finston

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 22 , 2013
Before: SCIRICA, JOR DAN and GREENBERG , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 28, 2013 )

___________ OPINION

___________ PER CURIAM
Lindsworth Brown

- Sessay (“Sessay”) 1 petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) August 24, 2012 decision upholding the Immigra tion

1 Brown

- Sessay’s filings refer to himself as “Sessay,” and we will do the same here.2

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering Sessay’s removal to Jamaica

. While this case was at the briefing stage, Sessay moved the BIA to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA subsequently granted that motion and remanded the administrative record to the I J for further proceedings

. In light of the BIA’s grant of reopening , both parties now argue that Sessay’s petition for review should be dism issed for lack of jurisdiction. We agree. Our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) is limited to the review o f “ final order [ s ] of
removal. ” Although the BIA’s August 24, 2012 decision constituted a final order of
removal at the time Sessay filed his petition , the BIA’s subsequent grant of reopening effectively vacated that decision. See Bronisz v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 2004) ; Lopez

- Ruiz v. Ashcroft , 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002) (order)

. Because there
is no longer a final order of removal before us, we will dismiss Sessay’s petition for lack of jurisdiction

. 2

2 Sessay’s brief, filed before the BIA’s grant of reopening, included requests for miscellaneous relief. To the extent Sessay continues to seek that relief, those requests are hereby denied.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP. v. ANDERSON.

No. COA05-200.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Lincoln (01CVS530)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5104 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5104

         To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 30 days.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2008

Mr. Conyers (for himself and Mr. Reyes) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition 
   to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 30 days.

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

SECTION 1. 30-DAY EXTENSION OF THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007.

    Section 6(c) of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55; 
121 Stat. 557; 50 U.S.C. 1803 note) is amended by striking ``180 days'' 
and inserting ``210 days''.
                                 <all>
```
HUGHES v. FRITO LAY, INC.

No. COA04-1503.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #207477).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for further findings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                         JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                                     9,415
<SECURITIES>                                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                             48,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               3,951
<INVENTORY>                                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                          59,751
<PP&E>                                                                   139,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            92,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                           180,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                     32,098
<BONDS>                                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                                               110,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                             180,652
<SALES>                                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         173,455
<CGS>                                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            128,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                           44,890
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              18,809
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                       26,081
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                              26,081
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                               0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                               0.46
        



</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOHN CHAPMAN
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 987

[ November 7 , 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jeffrey J. Colbath , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2015CF004298AMB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Stacey Kime, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney Ge neral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
A  AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE TO THE SUPERIOR
TELECOM INC. 1996 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (Amended and Restated as of January 1,
2001)  WHEREAS,
Superior TeleCom Inc. (the Company) maintains the Superior TeleCom Inc. 1996
Stock Incentive Plan (Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2001) (the Plan);  WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 11.1 of the Plan, the Company may at any time amend the
Plan; and  WHEREAS,
the Company desires to amend the Plan, effective as of July 1, 2001.  NOW,
THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 11.1 of the Plan, the Plan is
hereby amended, effective as of July 1, 2001, as follows:  1.        Section 7.2(a) of the Plan is amended by substituting 15,000
shares (subject to any increase or decrease pursuant to Section 4.2) for
24,141 shares (as adjusted to reflect all adjustments to the Common Stock on
or before February 29, 2000, subject to any increase or decrease pursuant to
Section 4.2) therein.  2.        Section 7.2(b) of the Plan is amended by substituting 7,500
shares (subject to any increase or decrease pursuant to Section 4.2) for
12,070 shares (as adjusted to reflect all adjustments to the Common Stock on
or before February 29, 2000, subject to any increase or decrease pursuant to
Section 4.2) therein.  3.        The second sentence of Section 7.4(b) of the Plan is amended
in its entirety to read as follows:  All Options held by such non-employee directors and
not previously exercisable shall fully vest upon: (i) a Change in Control; (ii)
a non-employee directors death; or (iii) a non-employee directors
Retirement.  4.        The last sentence of Article IX of the Plan is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:  Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the Committee may determine at the time of grant or thereafter,
that a Non-Qualified Stock Option granted pursuant to Article VI that is
otherwise not Transferable pursuant to this Article IX is Transferable in whole or part and in such circumstances, and under
such conditions, as specified by theCommittee.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT
CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.



|      |  |                         
|----- |  | ------------------------
|      |  | /s/    RICHARD L.
PETEKA
|Name: |  | Richard L. Peteka       
|Date: |  | November 5, 2008
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) ofInfoSonics Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,2005, each of the undersigned Joseph Ram, the Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Jeffrey Klausner, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of theundersigneds’ knowledge and belief:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated: November 14, 2005 | /s/ Joseph Ram       |                    |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                          |                      | Joseph Ram              |
|                          |                      | Chief Executive Officer |
|                          |                      |                    |
|                          |                      |                    |
| Dated: November 14, 2005 | /s/ Jeffrey Klausner |                    |
|                          |                      | Jeffrey Klausner        |
|                          |                      | Chief Financial Officer |
|                               |                           |                         |  |  |

 

----