alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.28




                                 March 5, 2003


Joe Vander Pluym


Dear Joe:

         The full year 2002 results ended with a pre-tax profit of $4,109,882.
Unfortunately, this was well below the lowest level where bonus is paid in our
2002 bonus program. I have adjusted the bonus levels as follows for 2003 in
accordance with our new plans.

         The bonus period will be the fiscal months of January 2003 through
December 2003. You must be an employee of Bakers Footwear Group for the full
year to earn your bonus. Your maximum bonus will be 50% of your cumulative
salary for this time period. Your bonus will be earned based on the pre-tax
profit (adding back depreciation and bonus) as follows:

<Table>
<S>       <C>                                                                    <C>
    5%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $4,000,000
   10%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $4,250,000
   15%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $4,500,000
   20%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $5,000,000
   25%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $5,500,000
 33.3%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $7,500,000
 41.7%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $8,500,000
   50%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $9,500,000
</Table>

         Needless to say, we are looking for a strong rebound in profits and
bonus for everyone. Thank you for all your hard work and commitment.


                                                    Sincerely,



                                                    Peter Edison


ss
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 of Viewpoint Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Patrick Vogt and William H.
Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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.

|                        |     |                                        
|----------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: August
  9, 2006 | By: | /s/ PATRICK
  VOGT                     
|                        |     |                                        
|                        |     | Patrick Vogt                           
|                        |     | President
  and Chief Executive Officer
|                        |     |                                        
|Dated: August
  9, 2006 | By: | /s/ WILLIAM
  H. MITCHELL              
|                        |     |                                        
|                        |     | William H.
  Mitchell                  
|                        |     | Chief
  Financial Officer              

---
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: June 7Published June 7, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- On this look around the Air Force, President Barack Obama speaks at the U.S. Air Force Academy’s commencement ceremony; battlefield Airmen get their own training group; and an update on C-130J Super Hercules aircraft destined for Yokota Air Base, Japan. Hosted by Tech. Sgt. Holly Roberts-Davis.
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:
- Obama addresses Academy graduates
- New AF unit activated to better train elite combat Airmen- New C-130J contract to save DOD millionsATAF 



POTUS 



U.S. Air Force Academy 



Battlefield Airmen 



C-130J 



Yokota AB 



Japan 



PACAF
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dexter MONTGOMERY.

No. 2011-KO-2830.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re Montgomery, Dexter; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 487-738; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-1539.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2705

DIANNA WOOD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District

Judge. (CA-96-167-B)

Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: June 7, 1999

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger W. Rutherford, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith,

Deputy Chief Counsel, Robert S. Drum, Assistant Regional Counsel,

Robert P. Crouch, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dianna Wood appeals the district court's order affirming the

Commissioner of Social Security’s finding that she is not disabled

and therefore not entitled to disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Wood v. Commissioner, No. CA-96-167-B (W.D.

Va. Sept. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00095

- CV

Nadir N. Ali and Mumtaz Ali

v. Flessner Enterprises, Inc.
On Appeal from the 135th District Court of De Witt County , Texas Trial Cause No. 13

- 13

- 22,628

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s

. We further order this decision certified b elow for observance. October 1, 2015
#### Geneveive LADNER and Mike Ladner v. TRINITY GROUP, LTD.

No. 2011-C-0580.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Ladner, Geneveive et al.; Ladner, Mike; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 517,695; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,937-CA.

Denied.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Thomas W. Davison, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Sontra Medical Corporation;



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2004                 
|                                     
|/s/ Thomas W. Davison                
|Thomas W. Davison                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Appeal Dismissed and Opinion issued July 28, 2000

In The 

### Court of Appeals 

### Jfftftl? m&ttitt nf Qfexas at Baltaa
No. 05-99-01639-CR

JULIAN MARQUEZ, Appellant
V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appealfrom the 219th District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219-81457-98 

# <&$*•

OPINION AND ORDER PER CURIAM Before ChiefJustice Thomas and Justices Kinkeade and O'Neill 

## Appellanthas filed amotionto withdrawthe appeal. Appellant's counsel has approved

the motion. 

### This Courthereby GRANTS the motion to withdraw and ORDERS the appeal DISMISSED and thatthis decision be certifiedbelow for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). PER CURIAM Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47~K**£*s:.**Sr;*3S

Fifth Court ofAppeals CaseAttorney Address List Page: 1 Date Printed: 07/28/2000 

### Case Number: 05-99-01639-CR Date Filed: 09/29/1999 Style: Marquez, Julian

v. The State ofTexas 

### Trial Judge: Henderson, Curt B. 

### Trial CourtReporter: Wheeler,Deborah/MaienscheinS Trial Court: 219TH DISTRICT COURT Trial County: COLLIN APP Greg Willis ATT 21653500 777 E 15 th #203 Piano, TX 75074 Phone 972/616-1999 Fax STA Tom O'Connell ATT 015181000 Criminal District Attorney Collin County Courthouse 210 S. McDonald Street, Suite 324 McKinney, TX 75069 Phone 972/548-4323 Fax 972/542-3052
Exhibit 21.1


Subsidiaries of Franklin Street Properties Corp.

                                                                 Jurisdiction of
Name                                                             Organization
----                                                             ------------

FSP Investments LLC                                              Massachusetts

FSP Property Management LLC                                      Massachusetts

FSP Holdings LLC                                                 Delaware

FSP REIT Protective Trust                                        Massachusetts

FSP Protective TRS Corp.                                         Massachusetts

FSP Royal Ridge Corp.                                                 Delaware

FSP Montague Business Center Corp.                                    Delaware

FSP Collins Crossing Corp.                                            Delaware

FSP Addison Circle Corp.                                              Delaware

Essex Lane Associates Limited Partnership                        Massachusetts

FSP Austin N.W. Limited Partnership                              Massachusetts

FSP Bollman Place Limited Partnership                            Massachusetts

FSP Gateway Crossing Limited Partnership                         Massachusetts

FSP Hillview Center Limited Partnership                          Massachusetts

FSP Lyberty Way Limited Partnership                              Massachusetts

FSP North Andover Office Park Limited Partnership                Massachusetts

FSP Park Seneca Limited Partnership                              Massachusetts

FSP Piedmont Center Limited Partnership                          Massachusetts

FSP Santa Clara Limited Partnership                              Massachusetts

FSP Silverside Plantation Limited Partnership                    Massachusetts

FSP Southfield Centre Limited Partnership                        Massachusetts

FSP Telecom Business Center Limited Partnership                  Massachusetts

One Technology Drive Limited Partnership                         Massachusetts

FSP Gael Apartments Limited Partnership                                  Texas

FSP Goldentop Technology Center Limited Partnership                 California

FSP Merrywood Apartments Limited Partnership                             Texas

FSP Park Ten Limited Partnership                                         Texas

FSP Forest Park IV NC Limited Partnership                       North Carolina

FSP Greenwood Plaza Corp.                                             Delaware

FSP River Crossing LLC                                                Delaware

FSP Liberty Plaza Limited Partnership                                    Texas
#### STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of D.E.

No. 2010-CJ-2645.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 15, 2010.

In re Gentry, Charlie; Gentry, Janet; — Other(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, Juvenile Court for Caddo Parish, No. 138,047; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,809-JAC.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
<PAGE>

                                                                  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 Quarterly Report of Renal Care Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
M. Dill, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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) 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/ David M. Dill
------------------------------
David M. Dill
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2004
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7633-S7634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             RUSSIAN SALES OF SUBMARINES TO IRAN AND CHINA

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the sale of Russian submarines to 
Iran and the People's Republic of China have the potential to 
significantly jeopardize regional stability and pose a grave threat to 
international trade. The United States must take a firm stand on this 
issue.
  Iran, which borders the Straits of Hormuz, has obtained two and is 
expected to take delivery of a third Russian Kilo class submarine. 
These submarines, particularly when armed with the wake-homing 
torpedoes that the Iranian's have tested, are optimized to cut off the 
passage of merchant shipping through the straits. Roughly 50 percent of 
the oil in international trade passes through these straits. Any 
interruption of this supply would result in an international energy 
crisis, and a sustained interruption would have dramatic economic 
consequences.
  We must ask ourselves, ``why are the Iranian's developing this 
capability?'' Could the answer be that they wish to close the straits? 
Clearly, it is not in our national interest to allow a country which 
sponsors international terrorism to do this, holding the world's oil 
supply and the key to the global economy hostage.
  The People's Republic of China is also buying modern Russian 
submarines. For what purpose? Their lawless efforts to seize control of 
the Spratley Islands already indicate an intent to control the South 
China Sea. Are these submarines intended to bolster this effort or are 
they intended to threaten our friends in Taiwan?
  As an island nation, Taiwan is desperately dependent on the free 
passage of shipping. If this were to be threatened or cut off, the 
Taiwanese economy would flounder. Would we, should we, allow this to 
happen? I think not. Taiwan is our sixth largest trading partner and, 
unlike the People's Republic of China, a democratic state.
  Since 1776 the United States has supported the freedom of navigation 
and must continue to do so. Twice in this century a country with a 
relatively small submarine force caused havoc with the merchant 
shipping of free nations. This can not happen again.
  The United States does not build submarines for foreign nations and 
neither should the Russians. We must increase our efforts to discourage 
the Russians from proliferating this, as well as other, dangerous 
technology and we must vigorously maintain our supremacy in 
antisubmarine warfare capabilities. Furthermore, we must make it 
absolutely clear to Iran and the People's Republic of China that the 
United [[Page S7634]] States can not, and will not, tolerate any action 
which impacts regional stability by threatening the merchant trade of 
peaceful nations.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)

                          ____________________
```
#### W. S. Yancy v. J. E. Felker et al.

(No. 2275.)

Appeal from Waller County.

Harvey & Browne, for appellant.

T. S. Reese, for appellee Felker.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 249. *Exempt properly; right of party to designate; damages for seizure and sale of; measure of such damage; case stated.*Appellant sued appellees Felker and Manning to recover damages for the seizure and conversion by them of two horses, his property. As shown by the petition and evidence, Felker hada judgment against appellant upon which he caused an execution to be issued and placed in the hands of Manning, a constable, who levied the same -upon four horses, the property of appellant, and said horses were sold to satisfy said execution. Appellant was the head of a family; said four horses were all the horses he owned.- Judgment was rendered that appellant take nothing by his suit, etc. Appellant was not present in the county of his residence where the horses were levied upon and sold, at the time the same *305were so levied upon and sold, and he had no knowledge of said levy and sale until after the same had transpired. He was not afforded an opportunity of pointing out property to be levied upon, nor of designating the horses which he claimed to be exempt. His family were in the county at his residence, but were not called upon to point out property to be levied upon, nor to designate exempt-property. In his petition appellant does not designate which two of the four horses levied upon and sold he claims as exempt property, but alleges that said four horses were of equal value, and claims two of them as exempt. Upon the trial of the cause, he offered to designate which two of the four horses he claimed as exempt. He was refused permission to make such designation. It w’as proved that the four horses were of different val-' ues. *Held:*Appellant had the legal right to make such designation on the trial. There is no rule of law7 which, under the facts of this case, would deprive him of the right of designation at the time he offered to exercise it. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 951.] As to the proper measure of damage in this case, the true test is, what amount would, compensate appellant for the actual, direct, natural and proximate loss sustained by him by reason of the seizure, and conversion of the two exempt horses. The market value of the horses at the time of the seizure, and the reasonable value of their use during the time he has been deprived of them, would seem to be fair and full compensation.

February 26, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.