alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.3**

 
|  |   | Northwest  Airlines, Inc. 

Department  A1180 

2700  Lone Oak Parkway

Eagan,  MN  55121 |
|--|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

June 16,2008

 

Mr. NealS. Cohen

4970Meadville

Greenwood,MN  55331

 

Mr. Cohen,

 

This letter is in responseto your request that Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”) provide youwith a limited waiver to your obligations set forth in Section 6(b) ofthe Management Compensation Agreement dated as of May 2, 2005 between youand Northwest (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which you agreed not to become anemployee, consultant, officer, partner or director of any air carrier thatcompetes with Northwest or any of its affiliates for a period of one yearfollowing the termination of your employment with Northwest.  You have requested that the limited waiverpermit you to provide advice to Seabury Group LLC related to their engagementwith Midwest Airlines.

 

Thiswill confirm that Northwest hereby grants to you a limited waiver of thenon-compete provision set forth in Section 6(b) of your Agreement topermit you to provide advice to Seabury Group LLC related to their engagementwith Midwest Airlines so long as you remain in full compliance with all of theother terms and conditions of your Agreement and that certain Letter Agreementbetween you and Northwest dated as of May 13, 2008.

 

Sincerely,

 
| */s/ David M. Davis* |   |
|----------------------|--------|

 

DavidM. Davis

 

----
exhibit102.htm


    
      Exhibit 10.2


    

     

    

    
      
        	
                Georgia
      Department of

              	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                Community
      Health

              	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                2 Peachtree Street,
      NW

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                Atlanta,
      GA 30303-3159

              
	
                Rhonda
      M. Medows, MD, Commissioner

              	 
      	
                Sonny
      Perdue, Governor

              	 
      	
                www.dch.georgia.gov

                 

              


      

    

    
 

    May 29,
2009

    


     

    Peach
State Health Plan

    Attn:
Patrick Healy

    President & Chief Executive Officer

    3200
Highland Pkwy, SE, Suite
300

    Smyrna,
Georgia 30082

    
       

      Sent
Via:  Certified Mail; Return Receipt Requested

      
 

    

        Re:          NOTICE
OF RENEWAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

        Contract #0653
Medicaid Managed Care

    


    Dear Mr.
Healy:

     

    This letter serves as written notice that the Georgia
Department of Community Health (hereinafter “DCH” or the “Department”) is
exercising its option to Renew the
above-referenced contract for an additional State Fiscal year, subject to the
terms and conditions of the underlying contract (the “Contract”) and any
applicable subsequent amendments.  The Contract, as renewed, shall
terminate on June 30,
2010.  All terms and conditions of the contract, including
reimbursement, shall remain as stated in the original contract and any
amendments thereto.  Please be advised
that all invoices are to be mailed to the Georgia Department of Community
Health, P.O. Box 1966, Atlanta, Georgia 30301-1966.

    


    Please contact me at (404)-463-0348 or
via email at pgordon@dch.ga.gov
should you have any questions or require additional information.  We
look forward to continuing with your contract in Fiscal Year 2010.

    


                Sincerely,

    


                /s/ Pamela
Gordon

    


                Pamela
Gordon

                Contract Specialist
II

     

     

    Attachments

    


    cc:       Clyde
White, Director of Contracts Administration

        Jerry
Dubberly

        Randy
Houpe

        File
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

*Time and Date:*                         June 9, 2010, 8 a.m. until 12 Noon, Mountain Daylight Time.                    

*Place:*                         This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested person may call Place: This meeting will take place at the Hotel Park City, 2001 Park Avenue, Park City, UT 84060. Any interested person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at (505) 827-4565 to receive the toll free number and pass code needed to participate in this meeting by telephone.                    

*Status:*                         Open to the public.                     

# Matters to be Considered:

The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board  of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

Issued on: May 28, 2010.

Larry W. Minor,

Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 2010-13396 Filed 5-28-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6529

KEITH W. JONES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CRYSTAL ATKINSON; CAPTAIN MCPHERSON; SGT HONEYCUTT; SGT HENDERSON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HALEY , Defendants

- Appellees , and SGT GRAHAM; SGT JOLLY; SGT FLOYD; JUSTIN W. BUTLER; BRAD PERRITT; JULIAN PRIEST; GEORGE BAYSDEN; UNIT MANAGER BROWN; UNIT MANAGER WEST; UNIT MANAGER LANEHART; UNIT MANAGER SPIVEY; DOCTOR SCOTT; TODD E. ISHEE; ERIK A. HOOKS , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III, District Judge. ( 5:21

- ct

- 03008

- D )

Submitted : February 27 , 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON , WYNN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6529 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 Keith W. Jones , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6529 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Keith W. Jones appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint , in which Jones alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Jones
v. Atkinson , No. 5:21

- ct

- 03008

- D (E.D.N.C. May 12, 2023) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6529 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
#### Robert Schulz et al., Appellants, v New York State Executive, George Pataki, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 5, 1996;

decided February 15, 1996

Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte, to*the Appellate Division, Third Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [2]; § 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuantto**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Northwest Airlines Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Douglas M. Steenland, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

Date:November 9, 2007

 
| /s/  Douglas M. Steenland              |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Douglas  M. Steenland                  |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Thiscertification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the ExchangeAct, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it byreference.

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         260,987
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  171,865
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (30,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    721,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,137,692
<PP&E>                                          24,789
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,886
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,995,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          540,281
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,529
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,447,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,995,305
<SALES>                                         59,771
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,499
<CGS>                                           24,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               231,251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (193,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (193,535)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (195,535)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.026)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.026)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM






We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-1 (No. 33-161461) and on Form
S-8 (No. 33-158918) of Beyond Commerce, Inc. of our report dated April 19, 2010,
on the financial statements of Beyond Commerce, Inc., which report appears on
Page F-1 of this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009.




L J Soldinger Associates,
LLC





/s/ L J SOLDINGER
ASSOCIATES, LLC


Deer Park, Illinois


April 22, 2010
#### STATE v. PERCY HAYESLIPPS and ROBERT HARRIS.

(Filed 29 October, 1930.)

Criminal Law L a — Where appeal in capital case is not prosecuted according to Rules it will be dismissed, no error appearing on face of record.

Where the defendants convicted of a capital offense give notice of appeal, but nothing is done toward perfecting the same, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss the appeal will be allowed, no error appearing upon the face of the record proper.

*637Motion by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

Stacy, C. J.

At tbe May Term, 1930, Forsyth Superior Court, the defendants herein, Percy Hayeslipps and Eobert Harris, were tried upon an indictment charging them with a capital offense, to wit, rape, which resulted in a .conviction of both the defendants, and sentences of death prononneed thereon. From the judgments thus entered, the defendants gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, but nothing has been done towards perfecting same.

As no error appears on the face of the record proper, the motion of the State must be allowed. *S. v. Brumfield,*198 N. C., 613.

Appeal dismissed.
#### J. B. RICHARDSON v. SOUTHERN SURETY COMPANY.

(Filed 2 November, 1927.)

Master and Servant — Employer and Employee — Negligence—Evidence— Nonsuit.

Where there was evidence that the plaintiff was employed to load rock in a field for the construction of a highway, requiring the bursting of a rock with a sledge hammer when too large for loading, and that the injury in suit was caused by a particle of stone flying into his eye from the stroke of the hammer upon the rock, it is insufficient evidence of the employer’s negligence that he failed to furnish the plaintiff with goggles to have protected his eye, nothing else appearing.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Finley, J.,*at April Term, 1927, of Ashe.

Affirmed.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while at work as an employee of defendant.

From judgment dismissing the action as upon nonsuit, at the close of the evidence, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*T. G. Bowie and G. W. Higgins for plaintiff.*

*Buark & Fletcher and G. H. Gover for defendant.*

Pee Cukiam.

Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, was engaged in loading rock, in a field, to be hauled to and used in the construction of a highway. Some of the rocks were too large to be loaded. Plaintiff was instructed by his foreman to burst these large rocks with a sledge hammer furnished him for that purpose. While bursting a large rock with this hammer, a piece of the rock flew up and hit him in the eye, injuring it.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to furnish him with goggles or wire screens, to be used while bursting the rocks, for the protection of his eyes, and that such failure was negligence, causing his injury. Upon the facts of this case it cannot be held that it was the duty of defendant to furnish such goggles or wire-screens to plaintiff for his protection while engaged in the work for which he was employed. Plaintiff’s injury, upon all the evidence, was due to an accident, and was not caused by any negligence of defendant. The judgment dismissing the action is sustained by *Whitt v. Rand,*187 N. C., 805, and by *Fore v. Geary,*191 N. C., 90. The judgment is

Affirmed.
##### 



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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Eugene Miller, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Landacorp, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify that to the best of
my knowledge:

(1)  The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2003, and to which this certification is attached as
Exhibit 32.1 (the
Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                      |  |                                                                     
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2003 |  | /s/ Eugene MillerEugene Miller
President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Sally Holdings LLC (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Mark J. Flaherty, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Mark J. Flaherty                                                     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Mark J. Flaherty                                                         |
|   |   | Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer of Sally Holdings LLC |

 

 

Date:       November 18, 2010

 

----
**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**

|   | */s/                Robert C. Salipante*     |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert                C. Salipante           |
|   | President                                    |
|   | (principal                executive officer) |
|   | November                10, 2006             |
EXHIBIT 4.1

 

	
Number
   A-
    	
Incorporated   Under the Laws of the State of Delaware
    	
Shares
   -0-
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Cusip No.
    


 

COMMERCEHUB, INC.

 

Series A Common Stock, par value $.01 per share

 

Specimen Certificate

 

This Certifies that [          ]  is the owner of [          ] FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF SERIES A COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF COMMERCEHUB, INC. (hereinafter called the “Corporation”) transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.

 

Witness, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers.

 

Dated:

 

CommerceHub, Inc.

 

[Corporate Seal]

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
President
    	
 
    	
Secretary
#### Catharine J. Brown, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs and disbursements. No opinion.
#### STATE v. WALLACE B. DAVIS.

(Filed 19 October, 1932.)

1. Criminal Law J f — After affirmance of conviction Superior Court may not hear motion for new trial for jury bias or errors at hearing.

After the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment against the defendant in a criminal action, the Superior Court is without authority to hear a motion at the next succeeding term for a new trial on the grounds of jury bias, prejudice or attaint, or for errors committed on the hearing.

*3282. Criminal Daw K f — Superior Court may not stay execution pending application for new trial after affirmance of conviction.

An application for a stay of execution pending the hearing of a motion for a new trial for bias, prejudice, or attaint of jury or for errors committed during the trial, made after the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction, is improvidently granted.

MotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

At the April Special Term, 1931, Buncombe Superior Court, the defendant in the above entitled cause was tried upon an indictment charging him with violations of the banking laws, which resulted in conviction and sentence. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The judgment was affirmed in an opinion filed 15 June, 1932, reported, *ante,*47.

Immediately thereafter, and before the opinion was certified down, a summary motion was made to review the record and to reconsider the opinion, which was denied 29 June on authority of *S. v. Lea, ante,*35.

Application was then made to Hon. P. A. McElroy, resident judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District, on 5 July, 1932, to stay the execution of the judgment pending the hearing of a motion to be lodged at the next succeeding term of Buncombe Superior Court for a new trial on the ground of alleged jury bias, prejudice and misconduct. Upon the allegations of the petition, and apparently without notice to the solicitor, stay of execution was granted in accordance with the defendant’s request.

At the July Term, 1932, the application for new trial was based upon the following allegations:

First. That several of the jurors were biased and prejudiced against the defendant.

Second. That the officer in charge of the jury was hostile to the defendant, which militated against him on the trial.

Third. That the trial judge gave contradictory instructions to the jury, and counsel for the defendant was inadvertently misled because of an instruction given after the argument had closed..

Hon. John H. Clement, who presided at the July Term, 1932, Buncombe Superior Court, found the facts against the defendant, and, in his discretion, overruled his motion for a new trial, from which the defendant again gave notice of appeal.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.*

*B. B. Williams for respondent.*

*329Stacy, C. J.

The motion to docket and dismiss the attempted appeal is allowed on authority of *S. v. Lea, ante,*316.

The court was without authority to entertain the application on the grounds alleged. The stay of execution was improvidently granted, and the application might well have been dismissed on motion of the solicitor.

Motion allowed.