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



EXHIBIT 10.51.1 FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT This First Amendment to Pledge and Security Agreement is entered into as
of July 28, 2004 (the Amendment), by and between COMERICA BANK (Bank) and
BUSINESS OBJECTS AMERICAS (Pledgor). RECITALS Pledgor and Bank are parties to that certain Pledge and Security Agreement
dated as of April 28, 2004, as amended (the Agreement). The parties desire to
amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. All references to BO SOFTWARE LTD. in the Agreement shall mean
and refer to BUSINESS OBJECTS SOFTWARE LIMITED. 2. Section 1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety
to read as follows: (a) Pledgor shall maintain money market account # at Bank with a balance
equal to or greater than 10% of the aggregate amount of all foreign exchange
transactions (FX Transactions) entered into by Pledgor with Bank (including
any FX Transactions requested by Pledgor but not yet executed by Bank) at all
times (the Required Balance). Such money market account and all amounts
held therein, together with all proceeds thereof, interest paid thereon, and
substitutions therefor, and all accounts, securities, instruments, securities
entitlements and financial assets arising out of any of the foregoing, are
the Collateral. Pledgor hereby pledges to Bank and grants to Bank a
security interest in the Collateral as security for the prompt performance of
all of Pledgors and BO Irelands obligations with respect to, or arising out
of, the FX Agreements (collectively, the Obligations). Pledgor shall enter
into such control or other agreements as Bank requests in order to perfect or
ensure the priority
of Banks security interest in the Collateral. 3. Unless otherwise defined, all initially capitalized terms in this
Amendment shall be as defined in the Agreement. The Agreement, as amended
hereby, shall be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its
respective terms and hereby is ratified and confirmed in all respects. Except
as expressly set forth herein, the execution, delivery, and performance of this
Amendment shall not operate as a waiver of, or as an amendment of, any right,
power, or remedy of Bank under the Agreement, as in effect prior to the date
hereof. Pledgor ratifies and reaffirms the continuing effectiveness of all
instruments, documents and agreements entered into in connection with the
Agreement, if any. 4. Pledgor represents and warrants that the representations and
warranties contained in the Agreement are true and correct as of the date of
this Amendment, and that no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing. 5. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one instrument. 1




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the
first date above written. BUSINESS OBJECTS AMERICASBy:
    
    /s/ James R. TolonenTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerCOMERICA BANKBy:
    
    /s/ JP MichaelTitle:
    
    SVP & Managing Director
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DXP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  February 2, 2010





/s/Mac McConnell


Mac McConnell


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer








The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 17, 2021

No. 04-21-00329-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.C., ET AL, CHILDREN

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019PA02205

The Honorable Kimberly Burley, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal, the clerk’s record was due on August 16, 2021. On the due 

date, the Bexar County District Clerk filed a notification of late record requesting additional time 

to prepare the clerk’s record. 

The request for additional time to file the record is GRANTED. The clerk’s record is due 

on August 23, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (limiting an extension in an accelerated appeal 

to ten days).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of August, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT
32







CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Carol K.
Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Lars H. Johnson, Chief
Financial Officer of Cascade Financial Corporation (the "Corporation"), each
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





1.
            The
      Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008
      (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the
      Corporation.





This
certification is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not
being filed as part of this quarterly report.








Date:
August 7, 2008








/s/ Carol K.
Nelson


Carol K.
Nelson, President and CEO








/s/ Lars H.
Johnson


Lars H.
Johnson, Chief Financial Officer
___________ No. 95-3891

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * Donald Lee Miller, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 1996 Filed: August 15, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, LAY, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Appellant Donald Lee Miller was convicted of a marijuana trafficking offense. Three days later, the government filed civil forfeiture complaints against real property owned by Miller, alleging that the properties in question were forfeitable as criminal proceeds derived from Miller's drug trafficking activity. Approximately a year later, the government's motion for summary judgment in the forfeiture action was granted. Miller's conviction and 150-month sentence having been affirmed on direct appeal, see United States v. Miller , 995 F.2d 865 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1018 (1993), Miller filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion, contending that he has been punished twice for the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, by his criminal conviction on the marijuana charge and the civil forfeiture of his property. The District Court rejected this contention, and Miller appeals.-2- Miller's argument is foreclosed by the decision of this Court in United States v. Clementi , 70 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that forfeiture of fruits of criminal activity is not punishment for purposes of double jeopardy analysis), and by the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2149 (1996) (holding that in remcivil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 10.12**

 

Joseph V. Vittoria

1616 South Ocean Boulevard

Palm Beach, FL 33480

(T) 561 659 0860 (F) 561 659 1045

 

 

 

Puradyn Filter Technologies, Inc.

2017 High Ridge Road

Boynton Beach, FL 33426

Attention: Cindy L. Gimler, CFO

 

March 4, 2010

 

RE:      Standby Commitment Agreement Amendment #12

 

Dear Ms. Gimler:

 

            Pursuant to the Standby Commitment Agreement letters dated March 28, 2002, and March 14, 2003 and all Amendments thereto, I, Joseph Vittoria (the “Lending Party”), agree to extend the payback dates from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2011.

 

            All other terms defined in the original Standby Commitment Agreement letters and the Amendments thereto, not otherwise in conflict with this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.

 

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed and delivered by the respective officers hereunto duly authorized on the date first written above.

 

 

 

                                                            

Joseph V. Vittoria

 

 

 

 

Accepted and Agreed:

Puradyn Filter Technologies, Inc.

 

 

 

By:                                                                                           

            Cindy L. Gimler, Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








Certification


Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Roger G. Wilson,
      Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of Microtek Medical Holdings,
      Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify, to the best of
      my knowledge, that:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Form
      10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in this
      Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Company.








August
                9, 2007
            /s/
                Roger G. WilsonRoger
                G. WilsonChief
                Financial Officer, Treasurer and
                Secretary
Exhibit 32.2

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted S. Smith, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/TED S. SMITHTed S. Smith Chief Accounting Officer |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|March 30, 2004                                       |  | 

---

QuickLinks
STATE v. FARRAR.

No. COA05-1081.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. No error.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1629. RON O. YOUNG v. THE STATE.

During the summer and early fall of 2004, Ron O. Young raped and/or sexually

assaulted five women. In October 2006, he was tried and convicted for multiple

offenses, including four counts of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to life

without parole. Young appealed, and his convictions were affirmed in an unpublished

opinion. See Case Number A08A0591 (decided April 2, 2008). In 2016, Young

purported to file a “Motion to Correct Void Sentence,” arguing that his sentence of

life without parole is impermissible. The State moved to dismiss the motion, arguing

that it was filed by a fellow prisoner. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss,

and Young filed this appeal.

Pretermitting whether dismissal was proper, Young is not entitled to a direct

appeal. A direct appeal may be taken from an order denying or dismissing a motion

to vacate a void sentence only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the

sentence is, in fact, void. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 n.1 (686 SE2d 786)

(2009); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentence is

void only if it imposes punishment that the law does not allow. Crumbley v. State,

261 Ga. 610, 611 (1) (409 SE2d 517) (1991). “Motions to vacate a void sentence

generally are limited to claims that – even assuming the existence and validity of the

conviction for which the sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that

sentence, most typically because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment for which the

applicable penal statute provides.” Von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748

SE2d 446) (2013).

May 16, 2017
Contrary to Young’s contention, life without parole is a lawful sentence for

rape. See OCGA § 16-6-1 (b) (“A person convicted of the offense of rape shall be

punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, by imprisonment for life,

or by a split sentence that is a term of imprisonment for not less than 25 years and not

exceeding life imprisonment, followed by probation for life.”). Accordingly, Young

has failed to raise a colorable void sentence claim, and this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/16/2017
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Eduardo CASTANO.

No. 397P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Julie Ramseur Lewis, Assistant Public Defender, for Castano.

J. Bruce McKinney, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 2nd day of August 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of August 2006 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 5th day of October 2006."
DAVID K. EVERSON and PATRICIA M. EVERSON v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS.

No. 269P06

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 17, 2006

**ORDER**

> "Plainitff-Petitiner's Pro Se Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Declaratory Ruling is denied pursuant to Rule 34 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure as a frivolous filing. Plaintiff-Petitioner is no longer allowed to file pro se in this civil matter before the Court. Any future filing in this matter by Plaintiff-Petitioner which is not accompanied by a certification signed by a licensed North Carolina attorney, who is in good standing with the North Carolina State Bar, verifying Plaintiff-Petitioner's claims are of merit and not frivolous, will not be processed.

> Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 34, we remand this matter to Rockingham County for a hearing to determine sanctions, if appropriate. By order of the Court in Conference this the 17th day of August 2006.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Advanced Optics  Electronics,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Leslie
Robins, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

                                               /S/ LESLIE ROBINS
                                               -----------------------
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               March 30, 2004

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 768/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 768/2013 of 9 August 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 on detailed rules            to implement Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 on measures improving general conditions for the production and marketing            of apiculture products (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 768/2013                     

# of 9 August 2013

# amending Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 on detailed rules to implement Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 on measures improving                        general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1366 of 11 May 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament                                 and of the Council with regard to aid in the apiculture sector.
B & L SURVEYS v. CLINE.

No. COA05-1436.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Davidson (05CVD656).

Case without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
STATE v. Tywaine Sherell DENNY.

No. 572PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 17, 2007.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for Denny.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of January 2007 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 29th day of January 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of January 2007."
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-40190

____________

Randall T. Greenough, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Sharilla Gray, 

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:21-CV-75

______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Our prior panel opinion, Greenough v. Gray, No. 22-40190, 2023 WL 

2573923 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2023), is WITHDRAWN. The following 

opinion is SUBSTITUTED:

Randall T. Greenough, an inmate confined at the Polunsky Unit of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, 

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for default judgment.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 25, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40190 Document: 00516763569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2023
No. 22-40190

2

It is not clear that the district court’s order denying default judgment 

is appealable at this time because it is not clear that Greenough’s case has 

progressed to final judgment. See Adult Film Ass’n of America, Inc. v. 

Thetford, 776 F.2d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding that orders denying 

default judgment are not subject to interlocutory appeal). While the district 

court issued an order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation dismissing Greenough’s claims on March 23, 2022, the 

magistrate judge extended Greenough’s time to file objections to the report 

and recommendation on March 25, 2022, explaining that “the plaintiff did 

not have an opportunity to file objections” due to mailing delays. Those 

objections have now been filed, and the district court has not ruled on them. 

Because it is not clear, from the record, whether Greenough’s case 

remains pending, we remand to the district court to clarify whether a final 

judgment has been issued. Upon doing that, the district court shall return 

the case to this court for further proceedings, or dismissal, as may be 

appropriate. 

LIMITED REMAND. 

Case: 22-40190 Document: 00516763569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2023
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy Earl BLACKWELL.

No. 490PA04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 2, 2006.

Patricia A. Duffy, Amy C. Kunstling, Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney Generals, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Marilyn G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, for Blackwell.

*ORDER*

Defendant's Motion to File Supplemental Response on the Question of Special Verdicts is allowed. The Attorney General shall have seven days from the date of this Order to file a response.

By order of the Court in Conference, this the 2nd day of November, 2006.