alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:11-cv-01751-RBJ-MEH Document 4 Filed 07/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-01751-RBJ-MEH Document 4 Filed 07/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT  10.4



December 17, 1996

Mr. Amancio V. Suarez, Chairman
Cosmo Communications Corporation
16501 N.W. 16 Court                                        `
Miami, Florida 33169


Dear Mr. Suarez:

Please be advised that Congress Financial Corporation ( Florida) hereby waives
the $1,000,000 net worth requirement specified in Section 6.19 of the Accounts
Financing Agreement between us dated October 30, 1989 through December 31, 1997.
We have not waived any other events of default whether with respect to this item
or any other items with respect to the period ending December 31, 1997 or any
other period.


Very truly yours,

Congress Financial Corporation (Florida)


/s/ RAMON LEBRON
----------------
Ramon Lebron
Vice President
EXHIBIT 10.3

                             PETHEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.
                             4400 ROUTE 9, 2ND FLOOR
                           FREEHOLD, NEW JERSEY 07728
                                 (732) 409-1212



January 21, 2000

LP Records, Inc.
300 East 34th Street
New York, New York 10006
Attn:    Lilach Perlstein, President

         Re:      LP Records, Inc.

Dear Mr.  Perlstein:

The  following  sets  forth the terms of the Share  Purchase  Agreement  between
PetHealth Systems, Inc. ("PetHealth") and LP Records, Inc.("LP Records")

1.   PetHealth agrees to pay to LP Records the sum of $7,500.00 for the purchase
     of ten (10%)  percent  of the issued and  outstanding  common  shares of LP
     Records.

2.   Upon the receipt of  $7,500.00,  LP Records  will tender the common  shares
     from treasury to PetHealth.

3.   All Notices,  requests and  instructions  hereunder shall be in writing and
     delivered to each party at the  addresses  set forth above or to such other
     address as may from time to time be designated by a party hereto.

4.   In the  event  that any  term,  covenant,  condition,  or  other  provision
     contained herein is held to be invalid, void or otherwise  unenforceable by
     any court of  competent  jurisdiction,  the  invalidity  of any such  term,
     covenant,  condition,  provision  or  Agreement  shall in no way affect any
     other term, covenant, condition or provision or Agreement contained herein,
     which shall remain in full force and effect.

5.   This  Agreement  contains  all of the terns agreed upon by the parties with
     respect to the subject matter hereof.  This Agreement has been entered into
     after full investigation.

6.   This Agreement  shall be construed in accordance  with and goverened by the
     laws of the State of New Jersey  applicable  to  agreements  made and to be
     performed  within the State of New Jersey  without giving the effect to the
     conflict of law principals thereof.


<PAGE>



7.   No amendments  or additions to this  Agreement  shall be binding  unless in
     writing, signed by both parties, except as herein otherwise provided.

8.   Neither  party may assign  nor  delegate  any of its rights or  obligations
     hereunder without first obtaining the written consent of the other party.

Please sign below to acknowledge the terms of this Agreement.

Very truly yours,

PETHEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.


By:      /s/ Richard I. Anslow
         ---------------------
         RICHARD I.  ANSLOW

ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY:

         LP Records, Inc.


By       /s/ Lilach Perlstein
         LILACH PERLSTEIN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000719274
<NAME> GIGA-TRONICS INCORPORATED

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                           2,686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                       435
<INVENTORY>                                     13,249
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,786
<PP&E>                                          14,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,765
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,621
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,259
<SALES>                                         37,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,636
<CGS>                                           26,102
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (632)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (121)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,006)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,148)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,858)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,858)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
#### GLENS FALLS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK, United States Fidelity *&*Guaranty Company of Baltimore, Maryland, and George A. Hicks, jointly and severally, Appellant, v. Charley E. JOHNS, as Acting Governor of the State of Florida, for the use and benefit of W. S. LEE d/b/a Leon Hardware Company, not incorporated, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Sept. 28, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1954.

Rogers, Towers & Bailey, Jacksonville, Sanchez, Watkins & Watkins, Tallahassee, and J. L. Blackwell, Live Oak, for appellants.

John Allison Rudd and W. J. Oven, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellee.

*889PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of J. B. McCrary Co. v. Dade County, 80 Fla. 652, 86 So. 612; City of Ocala for Use of Standard Oil Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 99 Fla. 736, 127 So. 326, 77 A.L.R. 8. See also Warren, Governor, for Use and Benefit of Hughes Supply Co. v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co., Fla., 66 So.2d 54.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, SE-BRING and HOBSON, JJ., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.
**Exhibit 99.4**

**RECONCILIATION OF CANADIAN GAAP TO UNITED STATES GAAP**

We, our and BCE means BCE Inc., its subsidiaries and jointventures.

Our annual consolidated financial statements are prepared inaccordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). Thisreconciliation of Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP should be read inconjunction with our annual consolidated financial statements for the year endedDecember 31, 2008. We believe that this reconciliation reflects all adjustments(consisting of normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly theresults for the years shown. Material differences between Canadian GAAP andUnited States GAAP are quantified and described below:

 

-1-

----
Case 1:11-cv-01943-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-01943-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-01943-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen L. Bartlett

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL

Mutual Pharmaceutical

Company, Inc., et al.

O R D E R

The only events that have been continued are the Final

Pretrial Conference and the trial. The other deadlines, such as

the motions in limine and responses thereto, formerly tied to the

previous pretrial conference date (May 19, 2010) remain in effect

(subject to modification only by agreement of the parties) as if

the final pretrial conference and trial had not been continued.

Final pretrial statements are due 30 days prior to jury

selection.

The court apologizes to counsel for not issuing this order

sooner. The court was involved in a string of jury trials, and

was unaware counsel were still unclear on this issue.

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 161 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: April 22, 2010

cc: Keith M. Jensen, Esq.

Bryan Ballew, Esq.

Patrick J. O’Neal, Esq.

Christine M. Craig, Esq.

Timothy P. Beaupre, Esq.

Paul J. Cosgrove, Esq.

Joseph P. Thomas, Esq.

Jeffrey D. Geoppinger, Esq.

Linda E. Maichl, Esq.

Stephen J. Judge, Esq.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 161 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2



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 on Form 10-KSB of International
Electronics, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended August 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Peter Demakis, Chief Operating Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Peter Demakis      
|Peter Demakis          
|Chief Operating Officer



Dated: November 28, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Timothy J. Benson, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended May 5, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: June 14, 2007



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Timothy J. Benson                                
|Timothy J. Benson                                    
|Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.: 11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT

LUCAS DEMAESTRI,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERIFACTS, INC.,

Defendant.

 

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW, Steven J. Wienczkowski, with the law office of Adam L Plotkin, P.C., 

and pursuant to D.C.COLO.L.CivR 11.1A, hereby enters his appearance on behalf of the 

Defendant, VERIFACTS, INC.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of October, 2011.

ADAM L. PLOTKIN, P.C.

By: s/ Steven J. Wienczkowski, Esq.

Steven J. Wienczkowski, #33105

621 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1800

Denver, Colorado 80293

Telephone: (303) 296-3566

FAX: (303) 296-3544

E-mail: swienczkowski@alp-pc.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 8 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 18, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing NOTICE 

OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF and by placing the 

same in the U.S. Mail postage prepaid addressed to:

Lucas DeMaestri

9901 E. Evans Ave., #23D

Denver, CO 80247

By: _s/Steven J. Wienczkowski, Esq.______

Steven J. Wienczkowski

Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 8 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Conseco, Inc. (File Nos. 33-57079, 33-56901, 33-57931, 33-40556,
33-58710, 33-58712, 333-10297, 333-18037, 333-18581, 333-19783, 333-23251,
333-28305, 333-32615, 333- 32617, 333-32621, 333-83607, 333-51123, 333-83465,
333-85825, 333-94683 and 333-41114) of our report dated March 26, 2001, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedules of Conseco, Inc. as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and for the years
ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.



                                        /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
                                        ------------------------------
                                        PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Indianapolis, Indiana
March 26, 2001
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Intraware, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended May 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I Peter H. Jackson,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Dated:    July 16, 2007

 
| /s/  PETER H. JACKSON                            |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Peter H.  Jackson                                     |
| *Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and President of* |
| *Intraware,  Inc.*                                         |
| *(Principal  Executive Officer)*                           |

** **

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Intraware, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended May 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I Wendy A. Nieto,Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Technology andOperations, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Dated:    July 16, 2007

 
| /s/  WENDY A. NIETO            |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Wendy A.  Nieto                     |
| *Chief  Financial Officer and Executive* |
| *Vice  President of Intraware, Inc.*     |
| *(Principal  Financial Officer)*         |

 

----
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 20
Case 1:11-cv-02104-REB-CBS Document 23 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 20
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6684

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GERALD DAMONE HOPPER,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:95-cr-00119-MOC-SCR-1)

Submitted: September 14, 2023 Decided: September 18, 2023

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Damone Hopper, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6684 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/18/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Damone Hopper seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion 

to recuse the magistrate judge and to quash an arrest warrant. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-46 (1949); see United States v. Sueiro, 946 F.3d 637, 639 (4th Cir. 2020) (“In the 

criminal context, . . . this Court generally does not have appellate jurisdiction until after the 

imposition of a sentence.”). The order Hopper seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor 

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See, e.g., Mischler v. Bevin, 887 F.3d 271, 

271 (6th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (“[A]n order denying recusal is not immediately 

appealable under the collateral order doctrine.”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6684 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/18/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02289-RPM-BNB 

ELIZABETH HUDSPETH, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONAL ASSET RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., a Missouri corporation, 

 Defendant. 

 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 

 THE COURT having reviewed the Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant 

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and being fully advised in the premises, DOES HEREBY 

ORDER that this case is Dismissed with Prejudice, with each party to pay her or its own 

attorney’s fees and costs. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 s/Richard P. Matsch 

October 7th, 2011 

__________________ ____________________________________ 

DATE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-02289-RPM-BNB Document 7 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM










We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-45476, 333-34719, 333-48889, 333-39403, 333-69688 and 333-135578) on Form S-8 of Giga-tronics Incorporated of our report dated May 19, 2011, June 19, 2012, as to the effects of the restatement discussed in Note 2 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement discussed in Note 2), relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Giga-tronics Incorporated for the year ended March 26, 2011.










/s/ Perry-Smith LLP






San Francisco, California


June 19, 2012
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Shuffle Master, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Gavin Isaacs, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to the best of 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.








May 6, 2011/s/ MICHAEL GAVIN ISAACSMichael Gavin IsaacsChief Executive Officer
201 La. 912

#### Robert A. REED v. William C. FEAZEL.

No. 36406.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1942.

R. D. Watkins, of Minden, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Oliver & Digby, of Monroe, and A. S. Drew, of Minden, for defendant-appellee.

ODOM, Justice.

The issues involved in this case are identical with those involved in the case of W. Redrick Fogle, Jr., v. William C. Feazel, No. 36,405, 10 So. 695, this day decided. The lease contracts involved are identical except as to the land covered by the lease. In this case, as in the Fogle case, plaintiff introduced and filed in evidence the lease contract, a demand made on defendant to perform, and the testimony of Mr. Wray as to the cost of drilling the well. In this case, as in the Fogle case, plaintiff’s demands were rejected, and he appealed. It is not necessary, therefore, that we write an opinion in this case.

For the reasons assigned in the Fogle case, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at plaintiff’s costs.

FOURNET, J., concurs in the decree.

ROGERS, J., absent.