alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.21



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350



I, Eric Smit, the chief financial officer of eGain Communications Corporation (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my
knowledge,



(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K
for the period ending June 30, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



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





/s/    ERIC N. SMITEric N. Smit  September 28, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to eGain Communications Corporation and will be retained by eGain Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







---

|1 |  | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
|- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19611]



[[Page 57300]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

[CMS-1307-CN]
RIN 0938-ZA74


Medicare Program; Criteria and Standards for Evaluating 
Intermediary, Carrier, and Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, 
Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Regional Carrier Performance During 
Fiscal Year 2006; Correction Notice

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION: Correction notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document corrects technical errors that appeared in the 
general notice with comment period published in the Federal Register on 
September 23, 2005 entitled ``Medicare Program; Criteria and Standards 
for Evaluating Intermediary, Carrier, and Durable Medical Equipment, 
Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) Regional Carrier 
Performance During Fiscal Year 2006.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: This correction is effective October 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Johnson, (410) 786-5633.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    In FR Doc. 05-18923 of September 23, 2005 (70 FR 55887), there were 
technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of 
Errors section below.

II. Correction of Errors

    In FR Doc. 05-18923 of September 23, 2005 (70 FR 55887), make the 
following corrections:
    1. On page 55887, in the third column, second paragraph, lines 2 
and 3, the date ``October 24, 2005'' is corrected to read ``October 1, 
2005.''
    2. On page 55888, in the first column, first paragraph, lines 2 
through 4, the phrase ``beginning on the first day of the first month 
following publication of this notice in the Federal Register'' is 
corrected to read, ``October 31, 2005'.
    3. On page 55888, in the first column, fourth paragraph, lines 5 
and 6, the Web site address ``or to http://www.regulations.gov'' is 
deleted.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.774, 
Medicare--Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)

    Dated: September 26, 2005.
Jacquelyn Y. White,
Director, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 05-19611 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Clarence Adrian ROYSTER

No. 98P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Patrick M. Megaro, Attorney at Law, for Royster, Clarence Adrian

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Michael D. Waters, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd of April 2018 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 9th of May 2018."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6488

CHARLES O. HALL, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

COLIE RUSHTON, Warden McCormick Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(2:07-cv-00620-TLW) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Charles O. Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Charles O. Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order 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. MillerEl 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 Hall has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

May 11, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00003

- CR

David LUNA
, A ppellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court

, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- 1176

- CR

- B Honorable Gary L. Steel , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 368 U.S. 738 (1967) . Counsel asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has informed appellant of his right to file his own brief and provided appellant with a form motion for requesting the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2014); Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

If appellant desires to request the appellate record, he must file the motion requesting the record within fourteen ( 14 ) days from the date of this order. If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within forty

- five (45) days from the date of this order. See Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If appellant files a pro se brief, th e State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty (30) days after the date appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

It is ORDERED that counsel’s motion to withdraw is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 11th day of May, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 03-2502 JOSEPH RODI, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on November 10, 2004 is corrected as follows: On page 2, 1st sentence — delete the words "and uninformative"
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 Atlas America Series 25-2004 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            May
      14, 2009
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4609 

To amend SAFETEA–LU to ensure that projects that assist the establishment of aerotropolis transportation systems are eligible for certain 

grants, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2014 

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend SAFETEA–LU to ensure that projects that assist 

the establishment of aerotropolis transportation systems 

are eligible for certain grants, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Aerotropolis Act of 

5 2014’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4609 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SIGNIFI2 CANCE. 

3 (a) ELIGIBLE PROJECT DEFINED.—Section 

4 1301(c)(2) of SAFETEA–LU (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is 

5 amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE PROJECT.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘eligible 

8 project’ means any surface transportation 

9 project eligible for Federal assistance under 

10 title 23, United States Code, including freight 

11 railroad projects and activities eligible under 

12 such title. 

13 ‘‘(B) INCLUSION OF AEROTROPOLIS

14 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROJECTS.—The 

15 term ‘eligible project’ includes a combination of 

16 projects described in subparagraph (A) that, as 

17 a group— 

18 ‘‘(i) assist the establishment of an 

19 aerotropolis transportation system; and 

20 ‘‘(ii) satisfy the requirement under 

21 subsection (d).’’. 

22 (b) AEROTROPOLIS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DE23 FINED.—Section 1301(c) of SAFETEA–LU (23 U.S.C. 

24 101 note) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

25 ‘‘(4) AEROTROPOLIS TRANSPORTATION SYS26 TEM.—The term ‘aerotropolis transportation system’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4609 IH

1 means a planned and coordinated multimodal freight 

2 and passenger transportation network that, as deter3 mined by the Secretary, provides efficient, cost-effec4 tive, sustainable, and intermodal connectivity to a 

5 defined region of economic significance centered 

6 around a major airport.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
RICHMOND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. Janet COWELL, North Carolina State Treasurer, in her official capacity, Linda Combs, North Carolina State Controller, in her official capacity, Andrew Heath, North Carolina State Budget Director, in his official capacity, Frank Perry, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, in his official capacity, and Roy Cooper, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, in his official capacity

No. 146P13-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Hal F. Askins, Special Deputy Attorney General, John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Thomas M. Woodward, Special Deputy Attorney General, Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for Cowell, Janet, et al.

George E. Crump, III, Attorney at Law, Rockingham, for Richmond County Board of Education.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 11th of August 2017 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 Defendants, 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 1st of March 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of August 2017 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision *873of 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 1st of March 2018."
#### Travis PACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOGALUSA CITY SCHOOL BOARD; Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education; The Louisiana Department of Education; The State of Louisiana, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-31026.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 17, 2003.

Anne Arata Spell (argued), Spell & Spell, Frankhnton, LA, for Pace.

John W. Waters, Jr. (argued), Ernest L. O’Bannon, Christopher Marx G’Sell, Bien-venu, Foster, Ryan & O’Bannon, New Orleans, LA, for Bogalusa City School Bd.

Charles K. Reasonover (argued), La-mothe & Hamilton, New Orleans, LA, for Louisiana State Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., Louisiana Dept, of Educ. and State of Louisiana.

Kevin K. Russell (argued), Jessica Dun-say Silver, Tovah R. Calderson, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, DC, for U.S.

Amy Warr, Austin, TX, for State of TX, Amicus Curiae.

*349Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.1

1

. Judge Clement is recused and did not participate in this decision.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petitions for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
GMED 6.30.14 Ex 10.1






Exhibit 10.1


THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT 




THIS AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into as of May 5, 2014, by and between GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Borrower"), and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ("Bank"). 


RECITALS 


WHEREAS, Borrower is currently indebted to Bank pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Credit Agreement between Borrower and Bank dated as of May 3, 2011, as amended from time to time ("Credit Agreement"). 


WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower have agreed to certain changes in the terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement and have agreed to amend the Credit Agreement to reflect said changes. 
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Credit Agreement shall be amended as follows: 


1.    Section 1.5.(c) is hereby deleted in its entirety, without substitution.
2.    Section 1.5.(d) is hereby renumbered to be 1.5.(c).
3.     Except as specifically provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement remain in full force and effect, without waiver or modification.  All terms defined in the Credit Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Amendment. This Amendment and the Credit Agreement shall be read together, as one document. 
4.     Borrower hereby remakes all representations and warranties contained in the Credit Agreement and reaffirms all covenants set forth therein.  Borrower further certifies that as of the date of this Amendment there exists no Event of Default as defined in the Credit Agreement, nor any condition, act or event which with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both would constitute any such Event of Default. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, have caused this Amendment to be executed as a sealed instrument as of the day and year first written above. 


	
			
	GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC.
	 
	WELLS FARGO BANK,               NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

	 
	 
	 

	By: /s/ Richard Baron                (SEAL)
	 
	By: /s/ Tara Handforth                      

	Richard Baron, Chief Financial Officer
	 
	Tara Handforth, Senior Vice President
EHMANN, et al. v. MEDFLOW, INC., et al.

433A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2018

Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, C. Bailey King, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Medflow, Inc., et al.

Harold C. Spears, Christopher P. Raab, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, for Ehmann, Eugene K., et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 13th of July 2018 by Plaintiffs:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2018."
#### Audrey MUDD, Appellant, v. Joseph MUDD, Respondent.

No. ED 81344.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 24, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 13, 2003.

Harold Johnson, Mitchell Johnson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Henry Gerhardt, St. Charles, MO, for respondent.

Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wife, Audrey Mudd, appeals from the judgment of the trial court modifying the decree of dissolution of her marriage to husband, Joseph Mudd.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth, the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 11.1

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF
BASIC EARNINGS AND DILUTED
EARNINGS PER SHARE



YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,                      2007          2006          2005
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Net income                            $ 4,447,000   $ 5,541,000   $ 2,469,000

                                      ===========   ===========   ===========

BASIC:
  Weighted average number of
   common shares - basic                3,519,942     4,124,189     4,296,525
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========

Basic earnings per share                    $1.26         $1.34         $0.57
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========


DILUTED:
 Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:
   Weighted average number of common
    shares - basic                      3,519,942     4,124,189     4,296,525
   Common stock equivalents from
    options computed utilizing the
    treasury-stock method based on the
    average fair market value of common
    stock during the period                97,965       146,773       177,586
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
Weighted average number of common and
  common equivalent shares - diluted    3,617,907     4,270,962     4,474,111
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========

Diluted earnings per share                  $1.23         $1.30         $0.55
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4606 

To provide an additional authorization of appropriations for the BrookwoodSago Mine Safety Grants to be used specifically to fund programs that 

provide hands-on mine safety skills training and certification in mine 

rescue and mine emergency response. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2014 

Mr. MCKINLEY (for himself, Mr. RAHALL, and Mrs. CAPITO) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide an additional authorization of appropriations for 

the Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants to be used specifically to fund programs that provide hands-on mine 

safety skills training and certification in mine rescue 

and mine emergency response. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BROOKWOOD-SAGO MINE SAFETY GRANTS. 

4 Section 14(g) of the Mine Improvement and New 

5 Emergency Response Act of 2006 (30 U.S.C. 965(g)) is 

6 amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4606 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘There are’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) 

2 IN GENERAL.—There are’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) SPECIFIC PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATION.—In 

5 addition to amounts authorized under paragraph 

6 (1), there is authorized to be appropriated 

7 $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2015 specifically for 

8 grants providing hands-on mine safety skills training 

9 and certification in mine rescue and mine emergency 

10 response.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Motion Granted; Order filed September 30, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00369-CR

____________

JOSE TRETO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1894823

ORDER

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress. 

Although appellant requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, none have 

been filed. Appellant has filed a motion requesting this appeal be abated for entry 

of findings of fact and conclusions of law. When the losing party on a motion to 

suppress requests findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court is required 

to make them. State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 698–99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress and 

have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of 

this Court within thirty days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

PER CURIAM