alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3882

___________ Reginald Boswell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Denny’s, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 17, 2001 Filed: September 21, 2001

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. ReginaldBoswell appeals following an adverse jury verdict in his Title VII action against Denny’s, Inc. After careful consideration of Boswell’s arguments on appeal, we find he has raised no claims warranting reversal. Among other things, he has raised issues concerning witness credibility–matters that are virtually unreviewable by an appellate court. Here, we are not pointed to any problems of witness credibility that would undermine our confidence in the jury verdict. Moreover, based on the limited record before us, which does not include a trial transcript, Boswell has not shown that the district court committed any prejudicial abuse of discretion in making the rulings of which he complains, or that he even requested rulings on certain issues1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- he now raises. We also note that he complains of ineffective assistance of counsel, which is not a basis for reversal in this civil case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We decline Denny’s request to sanction Boswell under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX 10.3 Q314






Exhibit 10.3
Amendment Agreement
This Amendment Agreement dated June 1, 2014, amends the offer of employment letter dated February 4, 2013 (the “Offer Letter”), between you and IHS Inc. (the “Company”), containing the terms and conditions of your employment with the Company.  
The parties agree to amend the provisions of the Offer Letter as follows:


		
	1.
	Paragraph 8 of the Offer Letter is hereby amended to delete (ii), which currently reads:


“(ii) An amount equal to 1.5 times your base salary” 
and to add a new (ii) in its place which now reads as follows:
“(ii) An amount equal to 1.5 times your base salary and target bonus.”


		
	2.
	Paragraph 9 of the Offer Letter is hereby amended to delete (ii), which currently reads:




“(ii) An amount equal to 2 times your base salary; and” 
and to add a new (ii) in its place which now reads as follows:
“(ii) An amount equal to 2 times your base salary and target bonus; and” 


		
	3.
	Except as expressly amended herein, the Offer Letter remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.




	
			
	IHS Inc.

	 

	By:
	/s/ Jeffrey Sisson

	 
	Jeffrey Sisson

	 
	Senior Vice President
Chief Human Resources Officer




	
	
	Accepted and Agreed:

	 

	/s/ Sean Menke

	Employee Name: Sean Menke
Corindus Vascular Robotics, Inc. 8-K


 


Exhibit
10.2



 


AMENDMENT
TO SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment
to Securities Purchase Agreement (this “Amendment”) is dated as of September 15, 2014, by and among Corindus
Vascular Robotics, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and each purchaser identified on the signature
pages hereto (each, including its successors and assigns, a “Purchaser” and collectively, the “Purchasers”).


Recitals:


A.      
The Company and the Purchasers entered into a certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of September 12, 2014 (the
“Agreement”). The Company and the Purchasers desire to amend the Agreement as described herein.


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the foregoing and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and the Purchasers agree as follows:


1.       
Amendment. Section 4.11 of the Agreement shall be amended and restated in its entirety by substituting the following
therefor:


“Limitation
on Beneficial Ownership. The Purchaser (and its Affiliates or any other persons with which it is acting in concert) shall
not be entitled to purchase pursuant to this Agreement, and the Company shall not, from and after the date of this Agreement,
without the prior written consent of the Purchaser, cause such Purchaser to own or control, such number of shares of capital stock
that would result in such Purchaser becoming, directly or indirectly, the beneficial owner of more than 9.9% of a class of voting
securities of the Company for purposes of beneficial ownership under the Exchange Act.”


2.       
Ratify and Affirm. The Company and the Purchasers hereby ratify and affirm all of the other terms of the Agreement.


3.       
Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings given to such terms in the
Agreement.


4.       
Governing Law. This Amendment will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New
York.


5.       
Execution. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which when taken together shall be
considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered
to the other party, it being understood that the parties need not sign the same counterpart. In the event that any signature is
delivered by facsimile transmission, or by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, such signature shall create
a valid and binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and
effect as if such facsimile signature page were an original thereof.


 


[REMAINDER
OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOR COMPANY FOLLOWS]



    	 



    	 



    





IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to Securities Purchase Agreement to be duly executed by their respective
authorized signatories as of the date first indicated above.


	 	CORINDUS
    VASCULAR ROBOTICS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:
	 	 	Title:







[REMAINDER OF
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PURCHASERS FOLLOWS
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 
 In connection with this Quarterly Report of Car Charging Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Farkas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Car Charging Group, Inc.
 
 By: /s/ Michael D. Farkas
 Michael D. Farkas
 Chief Executive Officer
 Principal Executive Officer
 
 May 24,  2010
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 4.4(e)

                              [NORWEST LETTERHEAD]


March 27, 1997

Michael L. Hartzmark, President
Cragar Industries, Inc.
4636 North 43rd Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85031

Dear Mr. Hartzmark:

According to Section 6.14 of the Credit and Security Agreement dated April 14,
1995 (the "Agreement") by and between Cragar Industries, Inc. (the "Borrower"
or "Cragar"), and Norwest Business Credit, Inc. (the "Lender" or "NBCI"), the
Borrower will as of December 31, 1996, for the preceding fiscal quarter,
achieve a cumulative Net Loss of not more than $250,000.00. Cragar has
represented and warranted to NBCI that it has failed to remain within the
maximum Net Loss amount as outlined in Section 6.14 of the Agreement.
Furthermore, Cragar has stated that its Net Loss for the quarter ended December
31, 1996 totaled approximately [$1,064,000]. This result constitutes an Event
of Default pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Agreement.

As an accommodation to Cragar, NBCI agrees to waive the Net Income covenant
default (Section 6.14) for the period ended December 31, 1996. This letter
should be considered a waiver of the Net Income default and is applicable only
to the Net Income covenant for the period ending December 31, 1996 and not to
any other existing or future defaults of any kind. NBCI reserves any and all
rights and remedies allowed it under the Agreement.

In consideration of this waiver, Cragar agrees to pay to NBCI a waiver fee in
the amount of $2,500. This amount will be charged to your loan account on April
1, 1997.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 248-2479.

Sincerely,


/s/ Scott O. Schryver
---------------------
Scott O. Schryver
Vice President
Nerium Biotechnology, Inc.


EXHIBIT 32.1





SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT




TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Dennis R. Knocke certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nerium Biotechnology, Inc.





Dated: December 14, 2012/s/ Dennis R. KnockeDennis R. KnockePresident, Chief Executive Officer
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Bark Group Inc., (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anders Peter
Hageskov, President and 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) of 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.

Date: August 19, 2009

| | /s/
      Anders Peter Hageskov      
| | -------------------------------------
| | Anders Peter Hageskov                
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
| | (Principal Executive Officer)        

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 

WILLISTOWN TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

v.

MAIN LINE GARDENS, INC. AND 

COFFMAN ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 371 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 

WILLISTOWN TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

v.

MAIN LINE GARDENS, INC. AND 

COFFMAN ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 372 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 

WILLISTOWN TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

v.

MAIN LINE GARDENS, INC. AND 

COFFMAN ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 373 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court
[371 MAL 2018, 372 MAL 2018, 373 MAL 2018, 374 MAL 2018, 375 MAL 2018 and 376 

MAL 2018] - 2

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 

WILLISTOWN TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

v.

MAIN LINE GARDENS, INC. AND 

COFFMAN ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 374 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 

WILLISTOWN TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

v.

MAIN LINE GARDENS, INC. AND 

COFFMAN ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 375 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 

WILLISTOWN TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

v.

MAIN LINE GARDENS, INC. AND 

COFFMAN ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 376 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER
[371 MAL 2018, 372 MAL 2018, 373 MAL 2018, 374 MAL 2018, 375 MAL 2018 and 376 

MAL 2018] - 3

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
A96A0506.

#### BROWN v. THE STATE.

(471 SE2d 527)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was charged with violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act by manufacturing marijuana and also misdemeanor possession of marijuana (less than one ounce). He was tried before a jury and found guilty only of manufacturing marijuana. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on the jury’s verdict. *Held:*

In his sole enumeration of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial on the special ground that the trial court “expressed] an opinion in response to a juror’s question after the court recharged the jury,” in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57.

The transcript shows that, in response to the jury’s request for additional instructions, the trial court recharged the jury on the definition of manufacturing marijuana. The following then transpired:

> “[JUROR]: I guess the question that came up was ... if you came to the conclusion that they were aware of it and did nothing about it, is that still considered manufacturing? [THE COURT]: Well, it’s your — the answer to me, that would be yes. I don’t know what, if you let people use your property without doing something about it, to grow marijuana or manufacture, that would be — you have the power to control that; if you don’t, then it becomes, you become a party. [THE JUROR]: That was the question that came up.” The trial court then directly inquired of counsel as to “[a]ny objections to the recharge and to anything I said to the jury during that recharge?” Defense counsel replied, “No objection, your honor.”

> “The present rule is that the question of whether OCGA § 17-8-57 has been violated is not reached unless an objection or motion for mistrial is made. In the case sub judice, defendant did not object or move for a mistrial when the trial court [answered the juror’s question about the legal significance of a state of facts hypothesized to be true]. Consequently, defendant failed to preserve for appellate review any alleged violation of OCGA § 17-8-57.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) *Cornelius v. State,*213 Ga. App. 766, 770 (3) (445 SE2d 800). Although defendant, in the case sub judice, further argues that this Court should review his enumeration under the authority of OCGA § 5-5-24 (c), an objection to explanatory comments is not the same as an exception to the substance of the recharge. *455
>       *Grier v. State,*218 Ga. App. 637, 639 (3), 640 (463 SE2d 130). This enumeration presents nothing for review.

Decided May 3, 1996

Reconsideration denied May 17, 1996

*William L. Reilly,*for appellant.

*Roger G. Queen, District Attorney, William B. Britt, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Johnson and Ruffin, JJ., concur.*
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTINBy way or re-arr1risafAoe, Rll lmgeln quota ycu the Ciroct holdingqzi

the polnt of the Supram Ceurt oi Pou6

'Y'ho rule hw btaos

ropwtedly anaouneedthat, la the absenooof fIroud 

### or ilhgulity, the motion
or a board of aqiralisation upoa a partiouiar8eswmZLwlt

16 fltml~ and, rurth4rw8r0,tbst rush valuetlon will not be set amide wroly upan % shmiag tilet the oQT4 16 lc feat exw6uioo. If th6 board fairly and honeatlyondeetorsto fix a fair and juet valuationfor taring puqiomes,a idetfa4ro on it0 prt, uador au& oircuw6tanao8, Is sot sub mt ta review by the oourts. Tex5.6 Q Paaifla 4-y. 4 0. v, City of a Ywo (Tax.Sup.) 85 8. B. (s4,e4q Rcwlaad V. cjity

of Tyler (To%.Cm. App.) b 9. U. (eQ) 9561 

### Bruewlow'I,

Baker (20% Corn. App,) S%O 8. 1. 4931 Duok I, Ponler, 94 Tex. SW, 11 8. 'I*ll&l~ Stnt4 v. Chiuago, 8. I. & 8. ity, Co. (Tar,Cw. App.) INS3

S. U. St%* %cntbiy

Lairs Iren Co. ?a Rbkofield, E49 0. 8. S& SS 8. Qt. 4%X5, 68 L, Ed. WM.'

In the abwe.qiaotuddam the Supreso Court 18 eaylng that the faot that LCI axaeeaireraluationww pla44d on roperty does ;sot

0s itsalr outbarisoa 

## rearaerwont of 8 **o.fd** property. You are aeooi-dlngly no 

### aaviaod.

Pour4 r4ry tzury

APPROVED OPm4lON 

# 0 cmMMn-rEB ByceJ~
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of US Unwired Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Robert W. Piper, President and 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:



(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    
|/s/ Robert W. Piper                                                 
|Robert W. Piper President and Chief Executive Officer March 11, 2005
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 12 -C V

______________________________
I N RE: BI L L Y RAY JOHNSON, BYAND TH ROUGH NEX T FRI END, LUE WI L SON

Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Relator, B illy

Ray J ohnson, by

and throug h next friend L ue Wilson, has filed in this C ourt a petition for wr it of mandamus see king r eview of the t rial court's earlier appointment of a guardia n ad litem for Johnson. His petition also contained a request for e merg ency relief which we deeme d a motion to stay

proce eding s, including a hea ring schedule d for Oc tober 10, 2008. We denie d that motion and directe d J ohnson to supplement the rec ord i n this matter with the orders resulting from th e O ct o b er

1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , h ea ri n g. J ohnson' s counsel notified this Court of the events of the October 10 hear ing, e x plaining that the orde rs ar e not y et available . Counsel repre sented that the pa rties re ache d a settlement of the controve rsies amongthem and that, as a result of the s ettlement agr eeme nt, the order appointing the g uardia n ad litem will be dissolved. We take these repr esentations by counsel as fac ts that render moot the issues presente d in the petition for writ of m andamus concer ning the appointment of the g uardia n ad litem. Ac c or din g ly , w e dis mis s a s mo ot Johns on ' s p e tit ion fo r wri t of

mand amus .

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: October 21, 2008 Date D ecide d: October 22, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73855-73856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.

[[Page 73856]]

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel Program Project Review.
    Date: February 11, 2008.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 
Democracy Blvd., Suite 200, Conference Room 223, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Ruixia Zhou, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Democracy Two Building, 
Suite 957, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-4773, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cfb5a7a0babd8fa2aea6a3e1a1a6a7e1a8a0b9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1bba9aeb4b381aca0a8adefafa8a9efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel Training Grant Review.
    Date: March 12, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Marriott 
Baltimore/Washington Int'l Airport, 1743 West Nursery Road, 
Baltimore, MD 21240.
    Contact Person: Ruth Grossman, DDS, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institutes of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 960, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 496-8775, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bddacfd2ceced0dcd3cfcefdd0dcd4d193d3d4d593dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2146534e52524c404f5352614c40484d0f4f48490f464e57">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 18, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-6210 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>