alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.18




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of October 31, 2007 (the "Agreement") between Notify Technology Corporation (the "Company") and Rhonda Chicone (the "Employee"), is made as of December 17, 2008.

In consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Employee agree as follows:

1.

Section 3(a) of the Agreement shall be amended and restated that it reads in its entirety as follows:

“Base Compensation.  The Company shall pay the Employee as compensation for services a base salary at an annualized rate of $145,000.  Such salary shall be reviewed at least annually and shall be increased from time to time subject to accomplishment of such performance and contribution goals and objectives as may be established from time to time by the Board.  Such salary shall be paid periodically in accordance with normal Company payroll.  The annual compensation specified in this Section 3(a), together with any increases in such compensation that the Board may grant from time to time, is referred to in this Agreement as “Base Compensation”.

2.

Other than as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

This Amendment has been executed effective as of the date set forth above.

NOTIFY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

EMPLOYEE




/s/ Paul DePond_____________

/s/ Rhonda Chicone______

Paul DePond, Chief Executive Officer

Rhonda Chicone
#### Eric BEATTIE, Appellant, v. Elizabeth BEATTIE, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 20, 2011.

*1141Jack Bridges, Tavernier, for appellant.

Eugene G. Kyle, Marathon, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, SALTER and EMAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Sell v. Sell,*949 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA2007).
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

I, David M. Bronson, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended October 2, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 that 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. Bronson                                
|David M. Bronson                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

November 10, 2009
---

EXHIBIT 99.7

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

I, Andrew Patient, Chief Financial Officer of Merus Labs
International Inc. (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 the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended September 30, 2014 (the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                  



| | By:    | /s/ Andrew Patient     
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | Andrew Patient         
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | December 22, 2014      

---
#### Francis X. MURPHY, III, Petitioner, v. Al LAMBERTI, Sheriff of Broward County, Respondent.

No. 4D11-1176.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 14, 2011.

*415J. David Bogenschutz of Bogenschutz, Dutko & Kroll, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a stipulation with the state, the petitioner was released on bond with conditions. Several months later, the state moved to revoke that bond because of the petitioner’s violation of a condition. After taking evidence, the trial court made a finding that the violation was intentional and revoked the bond. Petitioner disputes that finding; however, we agree with the state that it is supported by the record.

The trial court, however, made no actual findings that “no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons or assure the presence of the accused at trial.” This is a requirement of pretrial detention under section 907.041(4)(c)7, Florida Statutes (2010). *Blair v. State,*15 So.3d 758, 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“A pretrial detention order must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law showing that the constitutional and statutory criteria for pretrial detention are met. *See*Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.132(c)(2); § 907.041(4)®, Fla. Stat. (2008).”), *approved,*39 So.3d 1190 (Fla.2010). The statute does not allow the trial court to deny release solely on a finding that the defendant violated a condition of bond. *Buhbut v. Bieluch,*835 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

We therefore grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus in part, and remand to the trial court to set an expedited hearing to determine whether there are any reasonable conditions of release which would protect the community and assure petitioner’s presence at trial.

*Petition granted in part; case remanded for an expedited hearing.*

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
#### Oscar J. Dugey v. Hughs Bros. & Co.

*(No.*1507.)

Appeal from Anderson County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 4. *Argument; right to open and conclude.*A verbal admission of plaintiff’s cause of action made by defendant’s counsel, after the close of the evidence in the case, does not entitle the defendant to open and conclude the argument. When the defendant, before the trial commences, admits specifically the plaintiff’s cause of action, so as to relieve the plaintiff from adducing any proof, and causes this admission to be entered of record, then, and not till then, is he entitled to open and conclude the argument. [Rule 31 for Dist. Courts; W. & W. Con. Rep. § 834; Eastham v. Ward, Dewey & Co. 1 Tex. Law Rev. p. *173;*Alston v. Cundiff, 52 Tex. 460.]

§ 5. *Illegal evidence; admission of, not ground for reversal, when.*The admission of illegal evidence is not ground for the reversal of a judgment when it is apparent that no injury has thereby resulted to the party objecting to it. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 667.]

§ 6. *Attachment; judgment for plaintiff in, where the verdict found that the writ was wrongfully sued out.*Plaintiff sued.out an attachment which was levied upon defendant’s property, which property defendant replevied by giving bond. Defendant pleaded in reconvention for damages, that the attachment was wrongfully sued out. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for his debt, and for *19the defendant for $5 damages, and finding that the attachment was wrongfully sued out. Upon this verdict judgment was rendered 'for the plaintiff against the defendant and his sureties on the replevy bond for the amount of plaintiff’s debt, less the $5 damages awarded the defendant, and for all costs. *Held,*that this was a proper judgment. [Ammon v. Thompson, 34 Tex. 237; Cloud v. Smith, 1 Tex. 611; Walcott v. Hendrix, 6 Tex. 406; Wallace v. Erieburg, 46 Tex. 46.]

October 13, 1883.

§ 7. *Verdict; where evidence is conflicting will not he disturbed.*Where the evidence is conflicting, but there is sufficient, if believed, to sustain the verdict, it will not be disturbed. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 46, 99, 634, 712, 831, 924, 1029.]

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24499]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1930-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]


Iowa; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for State of Iowa (FEMA-1930-DR), dated July 29, 2010, and related 
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 20, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas A. Hall, 
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Michael R. Scott as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-24499 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
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 of IBSG International, Inc (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Geoffrey
      Birch  Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2001, that:





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





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




IBSG
                International, IncMarch
                  29, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Geoffrey
                BirchGeoffrey
              BirchChief
                Accounting Officer
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlternativeResources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial 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 based ontheir knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for theperiods covered in the Report.

 

 
| /s/ George W. Watts                       |               |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
| George W. Watts, Chief  Executive Officer | Date: May 14, 2003 |
|                                      |               |
|                                      |               |
| /s/ Steven Purcell                        |               |   |
| Steven Purcell, Chief  Financial Officer  | Date: May 14, 2003 |

 

----
#### In re Appeal of Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 10-PDB-028.

No. 2010-OB-2171.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re LeMaire, Kevin; —Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of the Attorney Disciplinary Board, No. 10-PDB-028.

Leave to appeal denied.
#### James and Rebecca WALLACE, Sandra Quillin, George and Dellarene Hodges, and Raphael and Dianne Orgeron, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION and Anpac Louisiana Insurance Company.

No. 2011-C-0007.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

*336In re Wallace, James et al.; Wallace, Rebecca; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 52-975; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0647.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ray A. BOUDREAUX.

No. 2010-K-2434.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Boudreaux, Ray A.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 476-062; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-1504.

Denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, PehongChen, Chief Executive Officer of BroadVision, Inc., certify that:

 

1.    Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofBroadVision, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.    Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    [intentionallyomitted]

 

c)    Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:    May  10, 2004 |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       | /s/    PEHONG CHEN |   |
|                                       | Pehong Chen |
|                                       | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1450 

To create 4 new permanent judgeships for the eastern district of California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2007 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California (for himself and Mr. MCCARTHY of 

California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To create 4 new permanent judgeships for the eastern 

district of California. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NEW JUDGESHIPS FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

4 CALIFORNIA. 

5 (a) NEW APPOINTMENTS.—The President shall ap6 point, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 

7 4 additional district judges for the eastern district of Cali8 fornia. 

9 (b) TABLE.—In order that the table contained in sec10 tion 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, reflects the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1450 IH

1 total number of permanent district judgeships authorized 

2 by virtue of subsection (a) of this section, such table is 

3 amended by striking the item relating to California and 

4 inserting the following: 

‘‘California 

Northern ............................................................................................ 14

Eastern ............................................................................................... 10

Central ............................................................................................... 27

Southern ............................................................................................. 13’’. 

5 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

6 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

7 necessary to carry out this section, including such sums 

8 as may be necessary to provide appropriate space and fa9 cilities for the judicial positions created by this section. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1085 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1085

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude combat zone 
   compensation of members of the Armed Forces from employment taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2007

  Mr. Garrett of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude combat zone 
   compensation of members of the Armed Forces from employment taxes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Armed Forces Tax Relief Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF COMBAT ZONE COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES FROM EMPLOYMENT TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 3121(i) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to service in the uniformed services) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The term 
`wages' shall not include remuneration for active service performed in 
a month for which such individual is entitled to the benefits of 
section 112 (relating to certain combat zone compensation of members of 
the Armed Forces of the United States) to the extent remuneration for 
such service is excludable from gross income under such section.''.
    (b) Social Security Trust Funds Held Harmless.--There is hereby 
appropriated (out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated) for each fiscal year to each fund under the Social 
Security Act an amount equal to the reduction in the transfers to such 
fund for such fiscal year by reason of the amendment made by subsection 
(a).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to service performed after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
#### Gary John VAN OOTEGHEM, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v. Hartsell GRAY, Individually and in his capacity as Treasurer of Harris County, Texas (Henry E. Kriegel, successor in office), Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

No. 78-3711.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 26, 1981.

Certiorari Dismissed April 27, 1981.

See 101 S.Ct. 2031.

Joe Resweber, Billy E. Lee, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant-cross appellee.

J. Patrick Wiseman, Larry Sauer, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee-cross appellant.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, BROWN, COLEMAN, AINSWORTH, CHARLES CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJO-FLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN, VANCE, KRAVITCH, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., GARZA, HENDERSON, REAVLEY, POL-ITZ, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON, THOMAS A. CLARK, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A majority of the Judges in active service, on the Court’s own motion, having determined to have this case reheard en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc on briefs without oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.