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

                             [HemaSure Letterhead]


May 23, 1996


Mr. Jeffrey B. Davis
35 Plymouth Road
Summit, NJ 07901


Dear Mr. Davis:

As we have agreed, the following shall set forth and constitute an offer of
employment between you and HemaSure Inc. (the "Company"), based upon the terms
and conditions set forth herein.

1. Title. You shall hold the title of Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, with the attendant responsibilities and perquisites of
such position within the Company.

2. Cash Compensation. You shall earn a base salary of $165,000 per year, subject
to annual increases each year, at the discretion of the Company's Board of
Directors. You shall also receive a signing bonus of $25,000, payable upon
commencement of your employment, and an annual performance bonus targeted at
$50,000 for the first year, based upon mutually agreed upon performance
objectives, payable for the current year in February 1997.

3. Stock Options. You shall receive upon commencement of employment, subject to
approval of the Company's Board of Directors, 100,000 options to purchase the
Company's common stock at the current market price at the time of such Board
approval, which shall vest in equal annual installments over a period of five
years from the date of grant. Additionally, you shall receive 50,000 "Special
Options" to purchase the Company's common stock at the same exercise price as
above, which options shall vest in their entirety ten years from the date of
grant, subject, however, to acceleration and normal five year vesting for 25,000
"Special Options" in the event that the Company's common stock reaches $25 per
share, and similarly for the second 25,000 "Special Options" in the event the
Company's common stock reaches $35 per share, in both cases on a split adjusted
basis.

4. Fringe Benefits. You shall be entitled to such fringe benefits as are
accorded other employees of similar rank within the Company.




<PAGE>


Mr. Jeffrey B. Davis
May 23, 1996
Page 2

5. Termination. If there is a "change in control" of the Company, all options,
other than "Special Options", shall vest immediately, except that "Special
Option" shall vest immediately for a "change in control" at or above the target
price for accelerated vesting set out in the immediately preceding paragraph,
and you shall be entitled to, in the event of a "change in control" or a
termination other than for "cause", 100% of your annualized cash compensation,
whether or not services are performed hereunder.


Very truly yours,

HEMASURE, INC.



/s/ Steven H. Rouhandeh
------------------------------
Steven H. Rouhandeh
President



ACCEPTED AND AGREED
As of the date above written,



/s/ Jeffrey B. Davis
------------------------------
Jeffrey B. Davis



<PAGE>
The Estate of Donna S. Ray, by Thomas D. Ray and Robert A. Wilson, IV, Administrators of the Estate of Donna S. Ray, and Thomas D. Ray, Individually v. B. Keith Forgy, M.D., P.A., Individually and as Agent/Apparent Agent of Grace Health Care System, Inc., Blue Ridge Health Care Systems, Inc., Carolinas Health Care System, Inc., and as an Agent/Apparent Agent, Employee, and Shareholder of Mountain View Surgical Associates, Grace Hospital, Inc., Grace Health Care System, Inc., Blue Ridge Health Care System, Inc., and Carolinas Health Care System, Inc.

No. 248P13-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Phillip T. Jackson, Ann-Patton Hornthal, Attorneys at Law, For Grace Hospital, Inc., et al.

Paul D. Coates, Jon Ward, Attorneys at Law, For Ray, Donna S. (Estate of), et al.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 15th of March 2016 by Defendants (Grace Hospital, Inc., Blue Ridge Healthcare Systems, Inc., Grace Healthcare Systems, Inc., and Carolinas Healthcare Systems, Inc.) 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 15, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136077 & (71) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JACOB S. STANKE, a Minor, by his Next Stephen J. Markman, Friend, Isabella Bank & Trust, and ISABELLA Justices BANK AND TRUST, as Trustee of the Jacob S.

Stanke Trust, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Cross-Appellees,
 

v SC: 136077 

 COA: 263446 

Isabella CC: 04-003305-NM 

LINDA J. STANKE,

Defendant, 

and 

VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & 

HOWLETT, L.L.P.,

 Defendant-Appellee, 

Cross-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The application 

for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is therefore moot and is DENIED. 

1008 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 15, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit
4.3







Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We
consent to the reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part
B of the Prospectus and to the use of our report dated July 8, 2014 in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-196139) of
Smart Trust, Adelante REIT Growth & Income Trust, Series 4.


 


/s/
Grant Thornton LLP


Grant
Thornton LLP


Chicago,
Illinois


July 8, 2014
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Renal Care Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary A.
Brukardt Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

      (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/ Gary A. Brukardt
-----------------------------
Gary A. Brukardt
Chief Executive Officer
March 1, 2005
NO. 07-08-0416-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 21, 2008

______________________________

IN RE BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE,

Relator 

_________________________________

ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.,

Pending before this court is the application of Barry Dwayne Minnfee for a writ of

mandamus. He requests that we compel “[the] trial court to determine was [sic] indigent

and if so appoint an attorney to represent [Minnfee] on this motion for forensic DNA

testing,” among other things. We deny the application for the reasons that follow.

First, rules of procedure obligate one seeking mandamus relief to accompany his

petition with an appendix. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). The latter must include, among other

things, a certified or sworn copy of the document showing the matter complained of. In this

case, the document showing the matter complained of would be the motion requesting

DNA testing and the need for appointed counsel. This Minnfee failed to do. 

Second, nothing of record indicates that the motion for DNA testing and request for

appointed counsel was brought to the attention of the district court. Simply put, before
Filing something with the district clerk does not mean the trial court knows of it. Nor is that clerk’s 1

knowledge imputed to the trial court. In re Chavez, 62 S.W .3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2001, orig.

proceeding). Thus, Minnfee must prove that the trial court received notice of the pleading. Id. Merely alleging

that something was filed with or mailed to the district clerk does not satisfy that requirement. Id.

mandamus relief may issue, the petitioner must establish that the district court 1) had a

legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, 2) was asked to perform the act, and 3) failed

or refused to do it. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992); In

re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Given this,

it is encumbent upon Minnfee to illustrate that the district court received and was aware of

his motion. This is so because a court cannot be faulted for doing nothing when it is or

1

was unaware of the need to act. Here, Minnfee states in his petition that he “directed” the

motion to the district court on June 9, 2008, but whether the court was ever made aware

of it is unknown. Lacking that information, we cannot simply assume that the district court

knew of its duty to act and neglected to perform it. Thus, Minnfee has not fulfilled his

burden to illustrate that the trial court refused to act.

Accordingly, the application for writ of mandamus pending before this court is

denied.

Per Curiam
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 of Develocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen B. Schneer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Stephen B. Schneer Stephen B. Schneer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer December 10, 2007
STATE v. Ottis MCGILL

428P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for McGill, Ottis.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Melody R. Hairston, Special Deputy Attorney General, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of December 2016 by State of NC to Deem Response Timely Filed:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
OW NER -OPER

ATOR INDEPENDENT DR IVER S ASSOC IATION, INC ., e t al. , Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. R IC HARD C OREY, e t al. , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15–16429 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00186-M C E-AC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M orrison C . Engla

nd, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 19, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd TASHIM A , C irc uit Judge s , a nd M OLLOY, * * Distric t Judge
. Owne r-Ope rator Inde pe nde nt Drive rs Assoc iation, Inc . a ppe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r dism issing for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion its c ha lle nge to 

# F IL ED APR 26 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. * * The Honora

ble Dona ld W . M olloy , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa tion.Appe l le e s’ e nforc e m e nt of the Truc k a nd B us R e gula

tion, a n EPA-a p p rove d rule
c onc e rning he a

vy ve hic le e m issions. B e c a

use , “ a s a pra c tic a l m atte r,” the Assoc iat ion’ s suit c ha lle nge s the EPA Adm inistra tor’ s fina l a c t ion in a

pproving the R e gula tion a s pa rt of C a lifornia ’ s State Im ple m e ntation Pla

n, we a ffirm
. C

al. Dump Truc k

Ow ne r ’s Ass’n v . N

ic hols , 784 F.3d 500, 507 (9th C ir. 2015), c e rt de nie d 136 S. C t. 403 (Nov. 2, 2015). Se e also 42 U.S.C . § 7607(b)(1). W e ne e d not re a c h the issue of whe the r the EPA wa s a ne c e ssa ry and indispensa

ble pa rty to the a c tion. AFFIRM E D.

2
STATE v. John Joseph CARVALHO, II.

No. 369A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 18, 2016.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Carvalho, John Joseph (II).

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 17th of May 2016 by State of NC

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of May 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 31st day of May 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned,
David C. Mahoney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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

                               /s/ David C. Mahoney
                                   --------------------------------
                                   David C. Mahoney
                                   Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       36
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RICHARD J. DESABETINO, II,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 309 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of June, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
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 of CPI International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 3, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, O.
Joe Caldarelli, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/
      O. JOE CALDARELLIO.
      Joe CaldarelliChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      13, 2009
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION


OF


CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of PureDepth,
      Inc.
      do hereby certify that:





(a)
      the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PureDepth, Inc. for the period ended
      October 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of PureDepth,
      Inc.











Dated:
      September 12, 2007








/s/
      Thomas L. Marcus





Thomas
      L.
      Marcus


Interim
      Chief Executive Officer











/s/
      Jonathan J. McCaman





Jonathan
      J. McCaman Chief
        Financial Officer and
 Chief
        Accounting Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3860 

To revise the formula for allocating funding to States under the Low-Income 

Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2014 

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. GIBSON, and Mr. RAHALL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, 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 revise the formula for allocating funding to States under 

the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Low Income Heating 

5 Improvement Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3860 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIHEAP STATE ALLOCATION FORMULA. 

2 Section 2604(a)(2) of the Low-Income Home Energy 

3 Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(a)(2)) is amend4 ed to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a State’s allot6 ment percentage is the percentage which that State would 

7 have received under this section as enacted in Public Law 

8 97–35.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 09, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A1935. NORRIS BERNARD LEWIS, JR. v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration 

of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals 

Rule 13.

On July 14, 2017, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a 

brief no later than July 24, 2017. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 09, 2017.

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.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
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 of Develocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jimmy B. Holton, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Jimmy B. Holton



Jimmy B. Holton

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

November 16, 2005
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Commission v B2 Test**

**(Case T-317/07)**

Arbitration clause – Contract concluded in the framework of the specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration,
in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1994-1998) – Breach of contract – Repayment of balance of advance paid by the Commission

1.                     *Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions
for the grant of assistance (see para. 71)*

2.                     *Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision 94/571) (see
paras 74, 82, 90-91, 99-101)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION under Article 238 EC seeking to obtain repayment of the balance of the advance paid by the European Community, plus late-payment interest thereon, in the framework of the contract BRST-CT-98-5452, and the payment of damages with interest. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Orders B2 Test SA to repay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 43 437.94, increased by late-payment interest at the statutory annual rate applicable in France, from 31 July 2002 until the debt has been paid in full; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders B2 Test to pay the costs. |