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

 

**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, 2007 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirementsof 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. 

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten 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.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 10

- 735 V

Filed: February 8, 2013

Not for publication

*************************************

LINDA C. BLACKSTOCK

, *

*

Petitioner

, *

* Damages decision based on stipulation;

v. * influenza vaccine; Guillain

- Barré syndrome

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Ramon Rodriguez, III

, Richmond, VA , for petitioner

. Lisa A. Watts , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On February 8 , 2013 , the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle

this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner allege s that s he suffered from

Guillain

- Barré syndrome ( GB S) that was caused by h er November 16, 2007

, receipt of the

influenza vaccine

. Petitioner further allege s that s he suffered the residual effects of GB S for more

than six months. Respondent denies that petitioner’s GBS, or any other injury, was caused in fact

by the influenza vaccine . Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master's action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims's website, in accordance with the E

- G overnment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial informat ion that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to delete such information p rior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

delete such material from public access.2

The court hereby adopts the parties ’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards

compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the

Court awards petitioner a lump sum of $ 300 ,000.00

, representing compensation for all damages

that would be avai lable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a)

. The award shall be in the form of a check

for $ 300 ,000.00 made payable to petitioner

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment her ewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2013 /s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party = s filing a notice

renouncing the right to seek review.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Alan L. Hoover, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Kahiki Foods, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.


Date: September 23, 2005


/s/ Alan L. Hoover
--------------------------------
Alan L. Hoover, Acting President
(Principal Executive Officer)

                                       16
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6334

ROBERT JOE MCNEMAR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RALPH TERRY, Acting Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 

at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00108-JPB)

Submitted: July 31, 2018 Decided: August 17, 2018

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Joe McNemar, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Joe McNemar 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 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McNemar has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant McNemar’s motion for 

leave to file supplemental argument, we deny his motions for a certificate of appealability

and for 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10. 34

May 15,
2002

Mr. Paul
Schiffrin

34
Robert Drive

Warwick,
NY 10990

Dear
Mr. Schiffrin

This
will confirm the extension of your July 12, 1999, Employee Agreement with DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc. through July 12, 2002. All terms and conditions therein shall remain in
full force and effect, except for the increase of your base compensation to $180,000.00 per year. Also you will be granted 5,000 more options.

Again,
DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc. as a whole would like to thank you for your efforts and we await with much anticipation your accomplishments in the future.

Sincerely,

/s/BERNARD BEER

---
#### Thomas Hook and Uriah Inghram, Executors of Thomas Goodwin, Deceased, Appellants, *v.*Z. G. White, alias Zaddock G. White, Wm. Blair, alias William Blair and Mordecai Kent.

*Principal and surety—Opening judgment—Fraud—Appeals.*

The Supreme Court will not reverse an order of the common pleas making absolute a rule to open a judgment against sureties on a promissory note, where the evidence tends to show that the note was given without any consideration, and for a fraudulent purpose which was known to the payee and the principal, and unknown to the sureties at the time they signed it.

Argued Oct. 19, 1899.

Appeal, No. 19, Oct. T., 1899, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Greene Co., June T., 1899, No. 8, making absolute a rule to open judgment.

Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.

Affirmed.

Rule to open judgment. Craweord, P. J., filed the following opinion:

In this proceeding the defendants, Kent and Blair, ask that judgment be opened and that they be permitted to defend against the note in suit, on the ground that it was given without any consideration and for a fraudulent purpose, which was known to Goodwin, the payee, and to Z. G. White, the principal, but which was not at the time known to either Kent or Blair who signed it as sureties, and as they allege in good faith as a bona fide transaction. There is, as we think, sufficient in the testimony to warrant us in directing an issue to determine the question of their liability. Since the case will go to the jury, we deem it unnecessary to further discuss at this time the merits of the defense, any more than to say that we think the reasons relied upon would be adequate if sufficiently established at the trial. The rule will therefore be made absolute.

*Error assigned*was the order of the court.

*Frank W.*Downey, with him *James J. Purman,*for appellants.

*398
      *William A. Hook, J. A. J. Buchanan*and *B. S. Walton,*for appellee, were not heard.

October 30, 1899:

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the decree of the court below making absolute the rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened as to William Blair and Mordecai Kent, two of the defendants therein.

In view of the evidence the learned judge of the common pleas was fully warranted in making the decree. It is unnecessary as well as improper at this time to review or discuss the testimony. That will be in order when the issue is tried before a jury.

Neither of the specifications is sustained. Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.
Claudia HOLCOMBE; Tom Pelton; Dos Aves, LLC, A North Carolina Limited Liability Company; and Robert Martin and wife, Naomi Martin v. OAK ISLAND AIRCRAFT HOUSING, LLC, A North Carolina Limited Liability Company; 717, NC, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company; Brian Keesee ; John M. Martin; Kevin W. Stephenson; Oak Island Aircraft Management, Inc., a Former North Carolina Corporation and/or Past and/or Present Business Trade Name; Dick J. Thompson; and, Robert Weinbach

No. 170P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Christopher A. Chleborowicz, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Elijah A.T. Huston, Attorney at Law, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for 717, NC, LLC, et al.

Randolph M. James, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Stephenson, Kevin W

Charles D. Meier, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Martin, Robert, et al.

Dawn Walton

Benedict J. Del Re, Jr., Attorney at Law, Holden Beach.

Kimberly L. Moore, Attorney at Law, Southport, for Martin, John M.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendants (717, NC, LLC, Brian Keesee, and Dick J. Thompson) on the 4th of June 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th of June 2018 by Defendants (717, NC, LLC, Brian Keesee, and Dick J. Thompson) 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 20th of September 2018."
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 
 LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP. 
 3355 Las Vegas Blvd. 

Las Vegas, NV 89109 

December 18, 2012 
 Chris J. Cahill

 c/o Las Vegas Sands Corp. 
 3355 Las
Vegas Boulevard South 
 Las Vegas, NV 89109 
  

	 	Re:	Amendment to Employment Agreement 

 Dear
Chris: 
 Reference is hereby made to that certain employment agreement between you and Las Vegas Sands Corp. (the
“Company”), dated as of April 1, 2012 (as may be amended from time to time, the “Employment Agreement”). As set forth below, you and the Company have agreed to amend the Employment Agreement to clarify its compliance with
the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations and guidance promulgated thereunder. 
 Accordingly, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, you and the Company hereby agree as follows, effective December 31, 2012: 

1. The Employment Agreement is amended by adding the following language at the end of Section 6.7 thereof: 

“Any tax equalization payments shall be made no later than the end of the second taxable year of Employee beginning after the taxable
year of the Company in which the Employee’s U.S. federal income tax return is required to be filed (including any extensions) for the year to which the compensation subject to the tax equalization payment relates, or, if later, the second
taxable year of the service provider beginning after the latest such taxable year in which the Employee’s foreign tax return or payment is required to be filed or made for the year to which the compensation subject to the tax equalization
payment relates. Any tax gross-up payments will be made by the end of the Employee’s taxable year next following the Employee’s taxable year in which the Employee remits the related taxes.” 

2. The Employment Agreement is amended by adding the following language at the end of Section 6.8 thereof: 

“Any payments that would have been made between the date of termination of employment and the effective date of the General Release
and Covenant Not to Sue, shall be made as soon as practicable but in any event within 10 days following the effective date of the General Release and Covenant Not to Sue.” 







 The Company and you each acknowledges and agrees that except as amended hereby, the
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This letter shall be construed and enforced in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Nevada other than principles of law that would apply the law of
another jurisdiction. This letter may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument. 

 

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kenneth J. Kay
	Name: Kenneth J. Kay
	Title: Executive Vice President &
		 	   Chief Financial Officer


 Agreed and accepted this 21 day of December 2012: 

 

	
	/s/ Chris J. Cahill
	CHRIS J. CAHILL


  
 2
STATE of North Carolina v. Devrie Leran BURRIS

No. 187P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Mr. Andrew K. Yu, Attorney at Law, Ms. Katherine Whitney Dickinson-Schultz, Attorney at Law, for Burris, Devrie Leran.

Ms. Kathryn E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of June 2017 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 17th of August 2017."
STATE v. Fred DRAVIS

305P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 13, 2018

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Dravis, Fred George.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, L. Michael Dodd, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of September 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of September 2018."
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION of CEO and CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the annual report of the Intrepid
(Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Commission on the date hereof, William Dunavant, Chief Executive officer and
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 2003, that:

(1) This 10-KSB complies with the
requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act; and

(2) The financial information contained
in this Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ William DunavantBy: William Dunavant, Chief
Executive Officer

/s/ William DunavantBy: William Dunavant, Chief
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

April 15, 2008

The signed original of this written statement required by
section 906 has been provided to Intrepid Global Imaging 3D Inc., and will be
retained by Intrepid Global Imaging 3D Inc and furnished to the SEC upon
request.

---
In the MATTER OF: N.D.

No. COA17-799

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED. REMANDED IN PART.
EXHIBIT 23

                    CONSENT OF INDPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Admiralty Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-36012) and Form S-3 (No. 333-36016) of Admiralty Bancorp, Inc. of
our report dated January 9, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
the Company and subsidiary as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for the years then ended which report appears in the December 31, 2000,
annual report on Form 10-KSB of Admiralty Bancorp, Inc.

                                            /S/ KPMG LLP

West Palm Beach, FLorida
March 27, 2001
----

Action brought on 7 March 2005 by Reckitt Benckiser N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-118/05)

(2005/C 115/62)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 March 2005 by Reckitt Benckiser N.V., established in Hoofddorp (The Netherlands), represented by G.S.P. Vos, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4657 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4657

    To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to include information 
   relating to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the disease 
    prevention and health promotion services authorized by such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2010

Mr. Carson of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to include information 
   relating to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the disease 
    prevention and health promotion services authorized by such Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Older Americans HIV Information and 
Prevention Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 102(14) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
3002(14)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``human 
        immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection,'' after ``density,'',
            (2) in subparagraph (D) by inserting ``human 
        immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection,'' after ``diabetes,'', 
        and
            (3) in subparagraph (J) by inserting ``human 
        immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection,'' after ``diabetes,''.
                                 <all>
```