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




**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of GigaBeam
      Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
“Report”), the undersigned as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby,
      certifies 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)
              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/
      Mark
      W. Hahn


Name:
      Mark W. Hahn


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      19, 2007
STATE of North Carolina v. Eric Allen WILLIAMS, Defendant.

No. COA15-1038.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Herman V. TATE v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

No. COA14-1274.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
# C_2011340EN.01003502.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Angé Serrano v Parliament

(Case F-9/07) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - Change of category under the old Staff Regulations - Transitional rules for grading as at 1 May 2004 - Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 February 2006 - Reclassification on the basis of the salary of officials receiving a compensatory payment - Applicable multiplier - Loss of promotion points - Claim for compensation)

2011/C 340/70

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pilar Angé Serrano (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by C. Burgos and K. Zejdová, Agents, and subsequently by L.G. Knudsen and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Simm and I. Šulce, and subsequently by K. Zieleśkiewicz, M. Bauer and J. Monteiro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the European Parliament’s decision regrading the applicant at grade B*6, step 8; she had been included on the reserve list following an internal competition for change of category, before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the latter’s less favourable provisions — Claim for compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69 of 24.03.07, p. 31.

1

---
# C_2009113EN.01000502.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-270/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common agricultural policy - Fees relating to veterinary inspections and controls - Directive 85/73/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004)

2009/C 113/09

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents, and by U. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1 and Article 5(3) and (4) of Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14), as amended by Council Directive 97/79/EC of 18 December 1997 (OJ 1997 L 24, p. 31), and of Article 27(2), (4) and (10) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 776/2006 of 23 May 2006 (OJ 2006 L 136, p. 3) — National rules on the health inspection of meat also allowing, over and above the Community fee, the collection of an additional specific fee equivalent to the costs of bacteriological examinations of fresh meat

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 10.2


 


American Doctors Online, Inc.


200 Mill Road, Suite 350


Fairhaven, MA  02719


 


 


Brian G. LaneOctober 8, 2013


22 Beaver Dam Road


Killingworth, CT, 06419


 


Dear Brian:


 


American Doctors Online, Inc. (the “Company)
would like to memorialize and confirm the status of your employment, compensation and other matters as Chief Executive Officer
of the Company. As you are aware the board of directors of the Company has agreed to issue you shares of common stock in exchange
for the cancellation of options to purchase shares of common stock you were granted pursuant to your employment agreement (the
“Initial Employment Agreement”). The Company will promptly recommend to the Board to confirm and authorize the issuance
of two million (2,000,000) shares of common stock. The company would also like to extend the terms of your contract through December
31, 2013 with the same salary and health benefits as stated in the Initial Employment Agreement.


 


Additionally, the Company will immediately
begin negotiations with you regarding your continued employment as CEO of the company. We expect your base annual salary to be
$250,000. The agreement will also include participation in any equity plans, health benefits (family), vacation terms as well as
other matters that we will negotiate in good faith.


 


Please confirm and acknowledge the above by
signing below.
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORTHERN NEW 

ENGLAND PERFORMANCE CLUSTER, 

Burlington, VT, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-2057 

Issued: March 5, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER VACATING DECISION AND REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

The Board issued a decision in this case on February 7, 2014 affirming May 16 and 

July 25, 2013 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Prior to 

the issuance of the Board’s decision, on February 5, 2014, the Director of OWCP filed a motion 

to remand the case. 

The Board will vacate its decision dated February 7, 2014 and grant the Director’s 

motion to remand.1

 The Director notes that OWCP has received medical evidence which was 

not before the Board on appeal.2

 As appellant has now submitted medical reports which could 

not be considered by the Board, the Director asks that the Board remand the matter to OWCP for 

further development and a new decision regarding whether the newly submitted medical reports 

 1

 The Board’s Rules of Procedure at 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d) provides that decisions and orders of the Board are final 

as to the subject matter appealed, and such decisions and orders are not subject to review, except by the Board. The 

decisions and orders of the Board will be final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of issuance of the 

Board’s decision. As 30 days have not expired from the issuance of the Board’s decision, the Board retains 

jurisdiction over this appeal. 

2

 The Board’s review of a case is limited to evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its 

final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

establish this claim. The Board hereby grants the Director’s motion and remands the case for 

further development, to be followed by a merit review. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Board’s decision dated February 7, 2014 is 

vacated and this case is remanded to Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs for further 

proceedings to be followed by merit review. 

Issued: March 5, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
# C_2009193EN.01003704.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — Bethuyne and Others v Commission

(Case F-49/05) (1)

1

2009/C 193/65

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005, p. 31.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-6571 

BOBBY STROMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (2:07-cv-02738-HMH)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Stroman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Stroman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Stroman 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
# C_2009141EN.01002003.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/20

---

Order of the Court of 20 January 2009 — Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-374/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Commission - Certain and actual loss - Distortion of the clear sense of the facts and the evidence - Burden of proof)

2009/C 141/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05 Mebrom v Commission by which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant following the Commission’s failure to set up, for January and February 2005, a system allowing it to import methyl bromide into the European Union in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1).

Mebrom

Commission

Operative part

Operative part

Το Δικαστήριο διατάσσει:

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mebrom NV shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mebrom NV shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
VASCO Data Security International, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-62829), on Form S-3 (333-46256) and on Form S-1 (333-124458)
of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated
March 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of VASCO Data
Security International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2006, and the related financial statement schedule,
management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports are included in the
December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of VASCO Data Security
International, Inc.

Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to the Company's
adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
123R, Share-Based Payment, modifying share-based compensation in 2006.


                                        /s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 15, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,879
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,062
<PP&E>                                           6,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,437,817
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,096,648)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,503
<SALES>                                        198,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               198,540
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  413,810
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               496,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (714,315)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (714,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (714,315)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)


</TABLE>
Carter v. State of N.C., et al.

200P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Dianne Michele Carter, for Carter, Dianne Michele.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, David R. Johnson, Deputy Counsel, for State of N.C., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of June 2016 by Defendant for Responsive Pleading Regarding Dismissal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
# C_2009282EN.01004101.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/41

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-55/07) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Rural development support - Transitional measures - Concept of ‘multi-annual expenditure’ - Article 4(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2603/1999)

2009/C 282/77

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: initially H. Sevenster and M. de Grave, subsequently M. de Grave, C. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and more particularly with regard to the financial correction applied to the reimbursement of ineligible expenditure in the framework of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, for the year 2002 in the amount of EUR 5.67 million.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.04.2007.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          84,597
<SECURITIES>                                    44,372
<RECEIVABLES>                                  229,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               405,558
<PP&E>                                         275,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 958,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          238,992
<BONDS>                                        170,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         43
<COMMON>                                           613
<OTHER-SE>                                     516,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   958,268
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               885,557
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  793,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (6,490)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,439
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,376
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             58,063
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (9,197)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,866
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46


</TABLE>