alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


RULE
13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)


OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





I,
Michael D. Burger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
quarterly report of Merix Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended August 29, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Merix
Corporation.





Date:
October 7, 2009





By: /s/ MICHAEL D.
BURGER


Michael
D. Burger


Director,
President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:
    
    August 1, 2007/s/ Joe R. DavisJoe R. Davis
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer)
No. 90-352 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEIZURE OF 

$2,589.00 in United States currency, 

100 ounces of silver in various forms, 

7 gold coins, a Chevrolet pickup truck 

with white cab and orange body, and 

Tract 9-B Hannah Tracts and the residence, 

garage and other out-buildings located 

thereon at 7585 Theisen Road, Belgrade, MT 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin, 

The Honorable Larry W. Moran, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Paul D. Johnson, Asst. Atty. General, Helena, 

Montana 

Mike Salvagni, County Attorney, Jennifer Bordy, 

Deputy, Bozeman, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Michael Cok, Attorney at Law, Bozeman, Montana 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: December 6, 1990 

Decided: December 27, 1990 
Chief Justice J. A. Turnage delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

The Gallatin County Attorney appeals fromthe order dismissing 

this petition for forfeiture, entered by the District Court of the 

Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County. 

In October 1989, Peter Jacob Worts was charged with criminal 

sale of dangerous drugs and criminal possession with intent to 

sell, both felonies. In early November 1989, the Gallatin County 

Sheriff's Office filed a petition for forfeiture pursuant to 5 44- 

12-201, MCA, arising from the same facts as the criminal charges. 

Subsequently, the Gallatin County Attorney's office and Worts 

entered a plea bargain agreement which included both the criminal 

and the forfeiture proceedings. The terms of the agreement were 

that Worts would pay $20,000 to the county drug forfeiture fund, 

the forfeiture petition would be dismissed, Worts would plead 

guilty to both criminal counts and the State would not recommend 

any fine in the criminal proceeding. 

After a May 7, 1990, sentencing hearing, the District Court 

issued an order which, inter alia, required Worts to pay a $20,000 

fine as part of his criminal sentence and dismissed the civil 

forfeiture proceeding with prejudice. The County Attorney argues 

that the court had no authority to dismiss the forfeiture proceeding. 

Under the plea bargain agreement, the criminal and forfeiture 

proceedings were to be disposed of jointly. Additionally, the 

transcripts show that the county attorney orally agreed that the 

District Court could dispose of the $20,000 as it may determine. 

2 
We agree with the District Court that, in these circumstances, its 

action was within its power to accept, reject or modify a plea 

agreement. 

Affirmed. Let remittitur issue forthwith. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company. 

We concur: 

Chief Justice 

Justices
#### In re Melissa H. TALLON.

No. 2011-B-0701.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.*

| ,This disciplinary matter arises from a petition to revoke probation filed jointly by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) and respondent, Melissa H. Tallón, based upon respondent’s violation of the conditions of her probation imposed in *In re: Tallón,*08-0179 (La.2/22/08), 974 So.2d 1290 (‘Tcw&to/”).

*749UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The record in *Tallón I*established that respondent was twice convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. In the petition for consent discipline, the parties noted that respondent had successfully completed an inpatient substance abuse treatment program and had thereafter executed a five-year recovery agreement with the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP). Under these circumstances, and considering respondent’s compliance with her LAP agreement at that time, the parties proposed respondent be suspended for one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to a five-year period of probation to coincide with her LAP contract. The parties further agreed that the suspension would become executory should respondent violate the terms of her LAP contract. We accepted the petition for consent discipline on February 22, 2008.

|2On January 7, 2011, respondent was arrested and charged with felony DWI, driving under suspension, and possession of an open container. She was on probation and her LAP contract was in effect at the time of her arrest.

DISCUSSION

Respondent has acknowledged that her most recent DWI arrest constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of her recovery agreement with LAP, and therefore constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of her probation in *Tallón I.*These facts clearly support the revocation of respondent’s probation and imposition of the deferred one year and one day suspension.

Therefore, we will revoke respondent’s probation and make the previously deferred one year and one day suspension executory.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, respondent’s probation is revoked and the previously deferred one year and one day suspension imposed in *In re: Tallón,*08-0179 (La.2/22/08), -974 So.2d 1290, is hereby made immediately executory. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent, Melissa H. Tallón, Louisiana Bar Roll number 27454, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2275
JOYCE JOANNE WOOLRIDGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00573-REP) Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 27, 2007 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joyce Joanne Woolridge, Appellant Pro Se. Robert G. Ames, Lesley Anne Pate, VENABLE, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joyce Joanne Woolridge appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss her civil action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Woolridge v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc. , No. 3:06-cv-00573-REP (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 21, 2006; entered Nov. 22, 2006). 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
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with Affimed N.V.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”)
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange
Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Adi Hoess, Chief Executive Officer of Affimed
N.V., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Affimed N.V.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 30, 2016



|/s/ Adi Hoess          
|-----------------------
|Name: Adi Hoess        
|Chief Executive Officer
Unassociated Document


 

    EXHIBIT
10.38

     


    (DATE)
September 11, 2008

     

    


     

    AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     

    The
Agreement dated August 11, 2008 by and between David Dauwalter and BioDrain
Medical, Inc. has been amended as follows:

     

    4 d. Stock Options line 4 shall be
changed to read:  “The options will vest as follows: 10,000 shares
upon execution of this Agreement, to be issued to Employee upon establishment of
the Plan; the balance (40,000) will vest upon achievement of the following
specific milestones:

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              ·

            	
              An
      additional 10,000 shares to vest upon approval of the 510(k) by the
      FDA,

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              ·

            	
              An
      additional 10,000 shares to vest upon the establishment of four (4) beta
      site approvals via purchase order, letter of intent or testimonial Please
      revise as appropriate

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              ·

            	
              An
      additional 10,000 shares to vest upon the sale of the first
      commercial-ready FMS unit,

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              ·

            	
              An
      additional 10,000 shares to vest upon the sale of the 50th
      commercial-ready FMS unit.”

            


    

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed effective as of the day
and year first written above.

     

    
    

     

    
      	 	      
              BioDrain
      Medical Incorporated

               

              By:
      /s/ Kevin R.
      Davidson

              Kevin
      R. Davidson, President & CEO

               

              By:
      /s/ David J.
      Dauwalter

              David
      J. Dauwalter
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Daniel WILKINS.

No. 2010-KK-2862.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 30, 2010.

In re Wilkins, Robert Daniel; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 19337-*87904; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW10-01415.

Denied.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.383 Madison Avenue31st FloorNew York, New York 10179  RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C18 Commercial Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2014-C18 Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  March 1, 2016 /s/ Brian SmithBRIAN SMITHVice President  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer**

 

Inconnection with the special financial report (the “Report”) pursuant to Rule 15d-2under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Atlantic Express TransportationCorp. (the “Company”), I, Neil J. Abitabilo, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(i) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Neil J. Abitabilo           |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |  Neil J. Abitabilo         |
|   | * Chief Financial Officer* |

 

Date: November 16,2005

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Reportpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notto be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.

 

----
#### Mario Emilio FERNANDEZ-BALART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D09-587.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 20, 2011.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 2, 2011.

Joseph P. George, Jr., Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third Region, and Dan Hallenberg, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG, and EMAS, JJ.

WELLS, Judge.

Mario Fernandez-Balart appeals from an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to vacate a plea brought within the window provided by *State v. Green,*944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006), claiming that his 1979 plea, judgment and sentence must be set aside because of misadvice of counsel as to the immigration consequences of that plea. Because we find the trial court’s order denying Fernandez-Balart’s motion fully supported by competent, substantial evidence, we affirm. We do so, however, without prejudice to Fernandez-Balart’s right to file a new motion asserting any claim which he might have under *Padilla v. Kentucky,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010).
#### Steven BRODER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jimmy STEGALL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-2157.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2001.

Before KEITH, BOGGS, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Steven Broder, appeals the order of the district court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to U.S.C. § 2254. In 1992, Petitioner was convicted of four counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of eight to twenty years. In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner asserted that: 1) he was denied due process because the trial court denied a discovery request and thus impaired his ability to cross-examine witnesses; 2) his convictions were obtained through the solicitation and admission of perjured testimony; 3) his convictions were based on insufficient evidence; 4) he was denied due process of law by the improper admission of hearsay testimony; and 5) he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. *426In dismissing the petition, the district court held that Petitioner procedurally defaulted his first three claims in state court, and that his fourth and fifth claims did not provide a basis for habeas relief. The district court further found that each of these claims failed on the merits.

After careful review and consideration of both parties’ briefs, the record, and relevant case law, we conclude that the district court did not err as a matter of law in reaching its conclusions, and agree entirely with the reasoning and the result reached in the district court’s opinion. Because no jurisprudential purpose would be served by the issuance of a separate opinion on appeal, we affirm based upon the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. Accordingly, the decision of Judge Bernard A. Friedman of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Opinion and Order dated September 22, 1998.
Exhibit 10.14


 





 


October 27, 2021


 


Dave Cotter


Dave.Cotter@leafly.com


 


Dear Dave,


 


On behalf of Leafly Holdings, Inc. (“Leafly”
or the “Company”), my colleagues and I are pleased to confirm this market adjustment update, effective October 1, 2021.


 


Base Compensation: This position is salaried,
exempt, and is not eligible for overtime. Your salary will be $15,625.00 USD per pay period, which is equivalent to $375,000.00 USD on
an annual basis, less payroll deductions and withholdings. You will be paid semi-monthly.


 


Incentive Compensation:  You will
continue to be eligible for an annual discretionary bonus of up to 40% of your annual base salary that may be awarded in cash and/or options
at the company’s discretion. Incentive compensation will be based on performance and is awarded solely at the discretion of the
company. 


 


Benefits: All terms of your benefits and
PTO will remain unchanged.


 


Policies:  As an employee, you will be
expected to abide by Company rules, policies and procedures. As a condition of employment, you will need to sign and comply with a Confidential
Information and Inventions Agreement and an Arbitration Agreement, among other obligations. In addition, Leafly utilizes the services
of an investigative consumer reporting agency to conduct criminal and civil background checks after the initial job offer has been made
and to verify employment history.


 


Termination: Your employment is at-will. You
may terminate your employment with the Company at any time and for any reason whatsoever simply by notifying the Company. Likewise, the
Company may terminate your employment at any time, with or without cause or advance notice. Your employment at-will status can only be
modified in a written agreement signed by you and by an officer of the Company.


 


Agreement: This letter, together with your
Confidential Information and Inventions Agreement forms the complete and exclusive statement of your employment agreement with the Company.
It supersedes any other agreements or promises made to you by anyone, whether oral or written. Changes in your employment terms, other
than those changes expressly reserved to the Company’s discretion in this letter, require a written modification signed by an officer
of the Company.


 





Leafly Headquarters: 600 1st Ave, Suite
LL20, Seattle, WA 98104-2210


 






     


     


    

 





 


Acceptance: We are delighted to be able
to extend you this offer and are so pleased to continue working with you. To indicate your acceptance of the Company’s offer, please
sign and date this letter in the space provided below.


 


	Congratulations!	 
	 	 
	Sincerely,	 
	 	 
	/s/ Dar
Levy	 
	Dar Levy	 
	 	 
	Senior Director, Human Resources	



 


	 	Accepted: 
	 	Dave Cotter
	 	NAME
	 	 
	 	/s/ Dave Cotter 
	 	SIGNATURE
	 	 
	 	Date



 


Leafly Headquarters: 600 1st Ave, Suite
LL20, Seattle, WA 98104-2210
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1512 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1512

      To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a 
                  felony or two or more misdemeanors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2007

 Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California (for herself, Mrs. McCarthy of New 
York, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Berman, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. 
Lantos, Ms. Harman, Ms. Watson, Mr. Sherman, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Baca, 
Ms. Woolsey, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Solis, Mr. George Miller of 
 California, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mrs. Tauscher, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of 
  California, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Farr, Mr. 
  Higgins, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Kagen) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a 
                  felony or two or more misdemeanors.

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

SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE FOR STATES INCARCERATING UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS 
              CHARGED WITH CERTAIN CRIMES.

    Section 241(i)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``charged with or'' 
before ``convicted''.
                                 <all>
```