alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      (23)(b)**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**











We
      have
      issued our report dated March 4, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial
      statements incorporated by reference in the Annual Report of Peoples Bancorp
      of
      North Carolina, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We
      hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
      Registration Statement of Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. on Form S-8
      (File No. 333-46860, effective September 28, 2000).











/s/
      PORTER KEADLE MOORE, LLP














Atlanta,
      Georgia


March
      24,
      2006
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of
Stonepath Group, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



Date: August 25, 2003             By: /s/ Bohn H. Crain
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Bohn H. Crain
                                      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

            This certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other
purpose. It is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Stonepath Group, Inc. and will be retained by Stonepath Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Document

Exhibit 10.3

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


Annual Cash Compensation
The annual cash compensation payable to non-employee directors of Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Adamas, to take effect immediately following the Adamas 2020 annual meeting, is as follows, payable quarterly in arrears:
												
	Retainer			Amount
	Board Member Compensation			
		Board Member 	 		$45,000 	 
		Chair of the Board (additional retainer)	 		$60,000 	 
	Additional Committee Chair Compensation			
		Audit Committee 	 		$20,000 	 
		Compensation Committee 	 		$15,000 	 
		Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee 	 		$10,000 	 
	Additional Committee Member (non-Chair) Compensation			
		Audit Committee 	 		$10,000 	 
		Compensation Committee 	 		$7,500 	 
		Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee 	 		$5,000 	 




Equity Compensation 
Non-employee directors also receive an initial equity award upon commencement of service as a board member; thereafter, each non-employee director will receive an annual equity grant on the date of the Adamas annual meeting. The form of award in each case is a combination of a non-qualified stock option and a restricted stock unit. To take effect immediately following the Adamas 2020 annual meeting, the initial award is an option to purchase 20,000 shares of Adamas common stock and a restricted stock unit to acquire 10,000 shares of Adamas common stock, in each case vesting annually over three years of service. Each subsequent annual award is an option to purchase 10,000 shares of Adamas common stock and a restricted stock unit to acquire 5,000 shares of Adamas common stock, in each case vesting after one year of service. Upon the closing of a change of control, the vesting of all outstanding equity awards held by non-employee directors will accelerate in full.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0000892381
<NAME>                         F-1000 FUTURES FUND L.P., SERIES IX
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                   1,609,971
<SECURITIES>                                             4,826,671
<RECEIVABLES>                                              278,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         6,715,621
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           6,715,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      412,567
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                               6,303,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             6,715,621
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            (4,169)
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            43,803
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (47,972)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (47,972)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                (8.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8457

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

MARC STEVEN CRAIG, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:91-cr-00158-RDP-1; 1:08-cv-00241-LHT) 

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Marc Steven Craig, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Marc Steven Craig seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000 

& Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Craig has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MATTHEW QUIGLEY.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of
Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I,
Edward J. Quilty, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
2004 of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-QSB) upon my best knowledge and
belief fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Derma Sciences, Inc.

|Dated:  August 13, 2004 | /s/ Edward J. QuiltyEdward J. QuiltyChairman,
     President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 3, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LARRY ALLEN CHIEFLY,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 09-6215

v. (W.D. Oklahoma)

WARDEN PROVINCE,

Respondent - Appellee.

(D.C. No. 5:09-CV-00147-M)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Larry Chiefly seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the

denial of his application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(requiring COA to appeal denial of § 2254 application). The United States

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the application on the

ground that it was untimely. See id. § 2244(d). We deny the application for a

COA and dismiss the appeal.

A COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires “a

demonstration that . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate

whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in

a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve

Appellate Case: 09-6215 Document: 01018360871 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Page: 1
-2-

encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

(internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, an applicant must show that

the district court’s resolution of the constitutional claim was either “debatable or

wrong.” Id. If the application was denied on procedural grounds, the applicant

faces a double hurdle. Not only must the applicant make a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right, but he must also show “that jurists of reason

would find it debatable . . . whether the district court was correct in its procedural

ruling.” Id. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is

correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude

either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner

should be allowed to proceed further.” Id.

In this case no reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of the district

court’s determination that Mr. Chiefly’s application under § 2254 was untimely,

as explained in the excellent report and recommendation by the magistrate judge. 

Indeed, in his brief before this court, Mr. Chiefly does not dispute that § 2244(d)

bars his claim. Rather, he challenges the constitutionality of that statutory

provision, at least as applied to his claim. But he did not raise that constitutional

challenge in district court; so it is not properly before us. See Hammon v. Ward,

466 F.3d 919, 926 n.8 (10th Cir. 2006).

Appellate Case: 09-6215 Document: 01018360871 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Page: 2
-3-

Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Chiefly’s application for a COA and DISMISS

the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-6215 Document: 01018360871 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Page: 3
<PAGE>

                            AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE
                            ----------------------
                    AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES
                    ---------------------------------------

THIS AGREEMENT, by and between NKK CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation, having
its main office at 1-1-2, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan (herein called
"NKK") and NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation having its
principal office at 4100 Edison Lakes Parkway, Mishawaka, IN 46545-3440, U.S.A.
(herein called "NSC"), is made effective December 14, 1999.

                                  WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, NKK and NSC entered into an Agreement for the Transfer of Employees
dated as of May 1, 1995 (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which certain employees
have been transferred from NKK to NSC for the purpose of providing technical
assistance, consulting services and business assistance to NSC; and

WHEREAS, NKK and NSC desire to extend the term of the Agreement for an
additional year, through 2000.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein
contained, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as
follows:

1. Capitalized terms as used herein and not defined herein shall have the same
   meaning as set forth in the Agreement.

2. In accordance with Paragraph 15 of the Agreement, the term of the Agreement
   is hereby extended for an additional Contract Year, from January 1, 2000
   through December 31, 2000 (the "2000 Contract Year").

3. The Reimbursable Expenses Cap for the 2000 Contract Year shall be Seven
   Million Dollars ($7,000,000).

4. Each party represents and warrants to the other that it has the requisite
   power and authority to extend the Agreement, including, without limitation,
   that all necessary corporate proceedings have been duly taken as required
   under Paragraph 15 of the Agreement.

5. Except as amended hereby, all of the terms of the Agreement shall remain in
   full force and effect.


NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION                    NKK CORPORATION

By: /s/ Ronald J. Werhnyak                    By: /s/ Hirokazu Otsuki
    ----------------------                        -------------------

Title: Vice President, General Counsel &      Title: General Manager Human
       ---------------------------------             ------------------------
       Secretary                                      Resources Department
       ---------------------------------              -----------------------

Date:  12/17/99                               Date:   1/6/2000
       ---------------------------------              -----------------------
**Exhibit 10(a)**

 

August9, 2005

 

Via Telecopy

 

JP Morgan Chase BankLoan and Agency Services GroupOne Chase Manhattan Plaza, 8th FloorNew York, New York  10081Attn: Agency ServicesTelecopy No. (212) 552-2261

 

Mr. Scott HarveyJP Morgan Chase Bank2200 Ross Ave.Dallas, TX  75201Telecopy No. (214) 965-3849

 

Re:                     Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreementdated as of June 13, 2002, as amended (the “Agreement”)

 

Dear Scott:

 

Pursuant to Section 2.4(a) of the Agreement,Haggar is hereby notifying JP Morgan Chase Bank, as Agent, that we are reducingthe Commitments by $41,000,000 from $111,000,000 to $70,000,000 as of September6, 2005.

 

Please confirm receipt and acceptance of thisrequest by signing and returning a copy of this letter to me by telecopy at 214-956-4561.

 
|                                        | Sincerely,                                         |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                        |                                               |
|                                        | /s/ John W. Feray                                  |   |
|                                        | John W. Feray                                      |
|                                        | SVP, Chief Accounting  Officer                     |
|                                        |
| Received and Accepted  JP Morgan Chase Bank |
| By:                                         |   /s/ D. Scott  Harvey                   |   |
| Name and Title:                             |    D. Scott  Harvey, Vice President |   |
|                                             |                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----
#### Russell Gibbs v. James N. O’Neil.

*Ejectment*— Parties.

In ejectment by a mortgagee, after tbe foreclosure of a purchase-money mortgage without making the wife of the mortgagor a party, to recover possession of the mortgaged premises, which are occupied by the mortgagor and his wife as a homestead, the wife is a necessary party; citing *Sessions v. Sherwood,*78 Mich. 234.

Case made from Newaygo. (Palmer, J.)

Argued April *17,*1891.

Decided May 8, 1891.

Ejectment. Plaintiff assigns error.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*A. G. Day,*for appellant.

*George Luton*and *M. W. Underwood,*for defendant.

Grant, J.

This is an action of ejectment. It was tried before the court without a jury.

There is no such finding of facts in the case as the law requires. It is difficult to determine from the record where the finding begins and ends. There is nothing to show that certain statements appearing upon the record are the judge’s findings of fact. The only conclusion of law that appears in the record is the statement in the bill of exceptions, “I decided in favor of defendant.” The appeal ought, therefore, to be dismissed. But, inasmuch, as the appellant is entitled to a second trial under the statute, we will determine the principal question presented in the briefs of counsel.

The testimony showed that the" defendant was married, and that he was in possession of the land, — 40 acres,— *634occupying and claiming ifc as a homestead. His wife was not made a party defendant, nor was she made a party defendant in the foreclosure suit through which plaintiff claims title. She was a necessary party, under the former decisions of this Court. *Sessions v. Sherwood, 78*Mich. 234, and cases there cited. This rule is not changed by the fact that the mortgage was for the purchase money.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 99.3



CHIPPAC, INC.

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert Krakauer, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of ChipPAC, Inc., a Delaware corporation (ChipPAC), and in
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by ChipPAC with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2003 (the Report), hereby certify that:



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



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this CFO Certification as of the 31st day of March, 2003.



/s/    ROBERT
KRAKAUERRobert Krakauer Chief Financial Officer




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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Caspian Services, Inc., on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *“Report”*), the undersigned, Laird Garrard, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| Date: January 12, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Laird Garrard                          |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Laird Garrard, Principal Executive Officer |
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J O SE V I CTO R Q U I RO A - A RI A S, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 10059 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 - C R - 0 0 4 3 5 - G MS

ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona G . M urr ayS now , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l5, 2010 ** B e f o r e : R Y M E R , M c K E O W N , an dP A E Z , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J os e V i c t orQ ui r oa - A r i a s appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 46- mo n th s e n t e n c e f

o ri l l e g a l r e e n trya f

t e rd e p o rt a t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an dw e a f f irm . 

# FI LED APR15 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10059 2 P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), Q u i ro a-A ri as’ c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e a r e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . W e h a v e p r o v id e dQ u ir o a - A r ia s th e o p p o rtu n ity t o fi l e apro se s up pl em ent albri ef . N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef or answ er i ng bri ef ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s AF F I RME D.