alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Suite 203

2628 Granville Street

Vancouver

V6H 4B4



PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL



June 2, 2003



James M. DeMesa, M.D.

Suite 904

323 Jervis

Vancouver, BC

V6C 3P8



Dear Jim:



RE:  AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



Further to our previous discussion, this is to confirm the Board of Directors approval to amend your Employment Agreement dated October 1, 2001 (as amended by a letter dated January 31, 2003) as follows:



The section entitled 3) Paragraph 11,
Stock Options, b): as outlined in the January 31, 2003 letter will be deleted and replaced with the following:



1)

For the period October 1, 2002 to April 30, 2003 you agree that the basis for your annual option grant will be the product of: (i) a pro rata seven month portion of the 75,000 contractual annual option grant, which is 43,750 options; and (ii) a factor of 80%, such factor being determined  using the methodology developed to determine the Fiscal 2003 annual option grants for all other Micrologix employees. Based on this calculation, an option to purchase 35,000 Micrologix common shares was granted to you on June 2, 2003 with an exercise price of $1.79 per common share with 8,750 vesting immediately and 8,750 vesting on each of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd anniversaries of the grant (Note: this vesting is as per #3 below).



2)

For future fiscal years, starting with the fiscal year ending April 30, 2004, you agree that:



a)

The basis for your annual option grant will be the product of: (i) the 75,000 contractual annual option grant; and (ii) a factor, not to exceed 100%, based on corporate results achieved for the fiscal year and your individual CORE score, such factor to be determined using the methodology employed for determining the annual option grants for all other Micrologix employees;



b)

Notwithstanding a), if the Company changes the methodology for determining annual option grants to employees for any future fiscal year, such new method will be utilized; and



c)

The Board reserves the right to consider annual option awards over and above the 75,000 contractual annual grant in an outstanding year.



3)

The vesting provisions of your annual option grants (commencing with the Fiscal 2003 grant) will be modified to correspond with the vesting periods for annual option grants to other employees.  The timing of your future annual option grants will be the same as the date of annual option grants, if any, to all employees and any options granted.



---



The Board of Directors has approved these changes and pending your acceptance these changes will go into effect immediately. If you are in agreement with these changes please sign this letter where indicated below and return the signed letter to Catherine Malone.  If you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Sincerely,

MICROLOGIX BIOTECH INC.





David Scott

Chairman

I agree to the above listed amendments to my Employment Agreement:



________________________________              _____________________________

James M. DeMesa, M.D.

Date
#### F. C. Vowell v. State

No. 25560.

December 5, 1951.

Hon. M. V. Ward, Judge Presiding.

*Carroll W. Smith,*El Paso, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $300.00.

No contention is made that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.

*494Appellant’s two bills of exception deal with the failure of the court to grant his motion for a new trial based upon what is alleged to have transpired within the jury room.

It will be noted that to this motion is attached the affidavit of appellant stating that the matters set forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

In Vyvial v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 111, 10 S. W. (2d) 83, we held that where the matters complained of in the motion for new trial were necessarily hearsay as to appellant, such as matters transpiring within the jury room, that such a motion should be accompanied by an affidavit of one who has knowledge of such matters, or should name the source of appellant’s information and belief, or should give some reason or excuse for failure to have either of the above.

To require less than the above, we said, would permit limitless fishing expeditions by all who have been convicted.

In Toms v. State, 150 Tex. Cr. R. 264200 S. W. (2d) 174, we reaffirmed this rule and said:

> “The motion shows that the same was verified by the attorney for appellant who states that the facts therein set out are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. No affidavit from any of the jurors is attached to the motion nor is any reason assigned why such affidavit could not be obtained. It is quite obvious that the attorney for the appellant could not of his own knowledge have known what occurred in the jury room. He must necessarily have obtained such facts, if any, from some other person. Consequently, what is charged in the motion is based purely upon hearsay.”

In Moore v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. Rep. 147, 232 S. W. (2d) 711, we held: “The trial court properly declined to permit examination of the jurors as to alleged misconduct in the jury room. The affidavit of appellant to the claimed acts was necessarily hearsay and insufficient to require such examination.”

Recently, in Ramirez v. State, (Page 262 of this volume), 240 S. W. (2) 322, we had an opportunity to distinguish between jury misconduct which occurred within the jury room and that occurring outside.

In the case at bar, the trial court, irrespective of the defect *495in the motion, proceeded to hear evidence from a number of the jurors. The motion before the court was insufficient as a pleading in that it was not supported by the requisite affidavit of a member of the jury, and, therefore, his action in overruling the same at any stage of the proceedings could not be assigned as error.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. James Bradley, Respondent, v. Joseph Besch, as Sheriff of Albany County and Custodian of the Albany County Penitentiary, Appellant.

Order reversed and relator-remanded to the custody of the defendant, on the authority of *People ex rel. Dauchy*v. *Pitts*(118 App. Div. 457). All concurred.
**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CEO**

**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

**I, Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the “Registrant”) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period September 30, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”):**

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

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

**/s/ Juhani Taskinen**

**Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer**

November 12, 2007

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of Hirsch International Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Paul Gallagher, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, hereby 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 and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                                /s/ Paul Gallagher
                                                ------------------
                                                Paul Gallagher, President,
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Operating Officer


April 29, 2005

         This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any
other purpose.
221 So.2d 404

#### Frank J. PIAZZOLA v. STATE of Alabama.

4 Div. 355.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 3, 1969.

Geo. W. Dean, Destín, Fla., for petitioner.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Richard F. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This case was submitted to this court on motion of the Attorney General to strike the petition for writ of certiorari. The motion to strike is grounded, inter alia, on the failure to serve the Attorney General with a copy of the brief. The motion is well taken. Bruner v. State, 265 Ala. 357, 91 So.2d 224.

Motion granted.

COLEMAN, HARWOOD, and BLOOD-WORTH, JJ., concur. • '
**Exhibit 10.34**

**2006Management Bonus Program**

**Introduction**

Wehave accomplished a great deal in the past year to position NMS for success in2006.  Below you will find details on the2006 Management Bonus Program, a program set up to begin paying incentive compensationin conjunction with important milestones for our business.

**Goals of the Plan**

Thegoals of the 2006 Management Bonus Program are:

·                  To recognize employee contributions in theachievement of NMS objectives

·                  To recognize employee contributions in theachievement of Group Pivotal Elements

·                  To link compensation to a set ofpre-determined financial measures

**Plan Funding**

Theplan is funded based on NMS overall performance against the operating plan. IfNMS achieves its 2006 revenue, profit and cash management goals the 2006 bonuspool will be funded at 100% of target. If NMS misses the targets, the pool willbe reduced or not funded. If NMS overachieves the targets the pool can exceed100% of target.

**Group Funding**

Oncethe total bonus pool is established, based on Company performance, a BusinessUnit or function’s allocation will be adjusted based on the group Objectivesand Pivotal Elements.

**Individual Bonus**

Oncea Business Unit or function has been funded, managers will allocate individualbonuses based on the individual’s target bonus (increased or decreased by NMS,Group or individual performance).

**Additional Information**

Attachedis your personalized 2006 bonus letter with your pivotal elements.

2006incentive payments will be paid after the year-end financials are released inlate January 2007 or early February 2007, payment on pivotal elements is basedon management discretion.  You must be anactive employee of NMS on the date of payment to be eligible for bonus payment.

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

**DAKTRONICS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Daktronics, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the annual period ended May 2, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James B. Morgan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

|   | /s/ James B. Morgan |
|--------|---------------------|

|   | James B. Morgan |
|--------|-----------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | June 17, 2009 |
|--------|---------------|

 

 

 

EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**DAKTRONICS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Daktronics, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the annual period ended May 2, 2009as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William R. Retterath, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

|   | /s/ William R. Retterath |
|--------|--------------------------|

|   | William R. Retterath |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | June 17, 2009 |
|--------|---------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

EZELL JOHNSON, JR., 

Plaintiff,

v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09CV96

(Judge Keeley)

RYAN CONNOR, JOSEPH DABLIZ, 

KELLY LUCY, AND JARROD MARSH,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On July 22, 2009, pro se plaintiff, Ezell Johnson, Jr.

(“Johnson”), a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in

Gilmer, West Virginia (“FCI-Gilmer”), filed a civil rights

complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Court

referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge David J.

Joel for initial screening and a report and recommendation in

accordance with Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation 83.02. 

After conducting that initial review, Magistrate Judge Joel

issued an Opinion and Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and 1406(b), the

case be transferred to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Joel

concluded that, because the events giving rise to the incident

alleged in the Complaint occurred in the Eastern District of

2:09-cv-13253-GCS-CEB Doc # 3 Filed 08/19/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 30
JOHNSON V. CONNOR, ET AL. 1:09CV96

ORDER ADOPTING OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

1 The failure to object to the R&R not only waives the

appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the Court of any

obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue presented. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells v. Shriners

Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).

2

Michigan, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is not proper in this

court. 

The R&R also informed Johnson that he could object to the

recommendations contained in the R&R within ten days of its

receipt, and that failure to object within that time period would

result in the waiver of his appellate rights on this issue. No

objection has been filed.1

The Court, therefore, ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (dkt. no.

7), and TRANSFERS the case to the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan.

It is so ORDERED.

The Court directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this Order to

the pro se petitioner, by certified mail, return receipt requested.

Dated: August 18, 2009

/s/ Irene M. Keeley 

IRENE M. KEELEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-13253-GCS-CEB Doc # 3 Filed 08/19/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 31
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of StoneTan China Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2009 of the Company fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| August 10,  2009 | /s/ Richard  Tan |
|-----------------------|-----------------------|
|                  | Name:                 | Richard  Tan |
|                  | Title:                | Chief  Executive Officer, President and Director (Principal Executive, Accounting  and Financial Officer) |

 

1

----
IB

House Calendar No. 135

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 653

[Report No. 104–363]

To designate the United States courthouse under construction in White

Plains, New York, as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 24, 1995

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

on Transportation and Infrastructure

November 28, 1995

Additional sponsors: Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. GILMAN, and Mrs. KELLY

NOVEMBER 28, 1995

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse under construction in White Plains, New York, as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 653 RH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The United States courthouse under construction at

3 300 Quarropas Street in White Plains, New York, shall

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall

5 United States Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States

11 Courthouse’’.

House Calendar No. 135

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 653

[Report No. 104–363]

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse under

‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse’’.construction in White Plains, New York, as the

NOVEMBER 28, 1995

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert O. Bond, as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i)   the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; 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/   ROBERT
O. BOND


Robert O.
Bond


President
and Chief Operating Officer





May 11,
2009











This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
IB

Union Calendar No. 187

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 632

[Report No. 104–373]

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used by the United

States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 23, 1995

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

on the Judiciary

NOVEMBER 30, 1995

Additional sponsors: Mr. FIELDS of Texas, and Mr. BRYANT of Texas

NOVEMBER 30, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used

by the United States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 632 RH

1 SECTION 1. JUST COMPENSATION.

2 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 1498(a) of title 28,

3 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of

4 the first paragraph the following: ‘‘Reasonable and entire

5 compensation shall include the owner’s reasonable costs,

6 including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attor7 neys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent

8 inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had

9 no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-

10 year period preceding the use or manufacture of the pat11 ented invention by or for the United States.’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

13 subsection (a) shall apply to actions under section 1498(a)

14 of title 28, United States Code, that are pending on, or

15 brought on or after, January 1, 1995.

Union Calendar No. 187

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 632

[Report No. 104–373]

A BILL

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of

patents used by the United States.

NOVEMBER 30, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed