alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-3 to Discuss Mission After Returning to Earth","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"jOqdlo1kZV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasas-spacex-crew-3-to-discuss-mission-after-returning-to-earth\/\">NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-3 to Discuss Mission After Returning to Earth<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasas-spacex-crew-3-to-discuss-mission-after-returning-to-earth\/embed\/#?secret=jOqdlo1kZV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-3 to Discuss Mission After Returning to Earth” — NASA\" data-secret=\"jOqdlo1kZV\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/iss067e022576.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
----

Exhibit 32.2

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. §1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bridge Technology,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JohnT. Gauthier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

| 1.     |   | The Report fully complies with the        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities        Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                               |
| 2.     |   | The information contained in the Report        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial        condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |                      |
|--------|--------|------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |                      |
|   |   | Date: January 16, 2004 |   |   |   |   |   | /s/ John T. Gauthier      |
|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |                           |
|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   | John T. Gauthier          |
|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, an other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SUGARTOWN WORLDWIDE LLC, 

TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., and

SOUTHERN TIDE, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MEMORYHOME STORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-02187

Judge Sara L. Ellis

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, a judgment was entered in the above action on July 22, 2020 [52], in favor

of Plaintiffs Sugartown Worldwide LLC, Tommy Bahama Group, Inc., and Southern Tide, LLC 

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) and against the Defendants Identified in Schedule A in the amount of 

two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) of trademark statutory damages and one hundred 

thousand dollar ($100,000) of copyright statutory damages per Defaulting Defendant, and Lilly 

Pulitzer acknowledges payment of an agreed upon damages amount, costs, and interest and 

desires to release this judgment and hereby fully and completely satisfy the same as to the 

following Defendants:

Defendant Name Line No.

memoryhome store 1

THEREFORE, full and complete satisfaction of said judgment as to the above-referenced 

Defendants is hereby acknowledged, and the Clerk of the Court is hereby authorized and directed 

to make an entry of the full and complete satisfaction on the docket of said judgment.

Case: 1:20-cv-02187 Document #: 56 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2468
2

Dated this 25th day of September 2020. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ RiKaleigh C. Johnson

Amy C. Ziegler

Justin R. Gaudio

RiKaleigh C. Johnson

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile)

aziegler@gbc.law

jgaudio@gbc.law

rjohnson@gbc.law

Counsel for Plaintiffs Sugartown Worldwide LLC, 

Tommy Bahama Group, Inc., and Southern Tide, 

LLC

Case: 1:20-cv-02187 Document #: 56 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2469
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls
o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :
A2 0 A0 05 7 . CALVI N SMI TH v . MARK MELTON et a l
. Cal v i n Sm i t h ap p eal s t h e t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er d is m i s s i n g h i s ap p l i cat i on fo r a wri t

o f h ab eas co rp u s. Th e Su p rem e Co u rt , h o wev er, h a s a p p el l at e ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er al l h ab eas co rp us cas es

. Se e G a

. C o n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3 , Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (4 ). Th i s ap p eal i s t h erefo re TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co urt fo r d i s p o s i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## August 09, 2019

08/09/2019
Letter Agreement between Registrant & Nancy E. Katz



 
EXHIBIT
10.126 
 
NANCY E. KATZ 
4307 Quail Run Place 
Danville, CA 94506 
 
February 14, 2003 
 
Calypte Biomedical Corporation 
1265 Harbor Bay Parkway 
Alameda, CA 94502 
 
Gentlemen: 
 
Under my October 31, 2002 Employment Agreement Calypte was to grant me 4,400,000 fully vested stock options at $0.08 per share. These options were
exercisable for a period of 5 years from October 31, 2002. Further, Calypte would provide cost-free piggyback rights and use its best efforts to register the underlying shares by approximately the end of February (120 days.). We had previously
agreed to grant and register these options following the 2001 Shareholders’ Meeting that was to be held in February 2003. 
 
Calypte now seeks to delay the granting and registration of these shares to coincide with the new schedule for an annual shareholders’ meeting
covering 2001 and 2002. This is expected to take place in May 2003. I agree to postpone my right to the granting of these shares until that annual meeting occurs, whether in May or otherwise. In return Calypte agrees to register these shares under
the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan at a price of $0.05 per share. These options will continue to be fully vested and be exercisable for a period of 5 years from the date of grant. 
 
In the further event that the Company does not issue the aforesaid options, then in that event, the Company will make payment
to me of the value of the options within two (2) years from the date hereof. 
 

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 /s/     Nancy E. Katz


	 NANCY E. KATZ



 
AGREED TO: 
 

	
	 CALYPTE BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION

	
	 By:
	 	 /s/     Anthony J Cataldo
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 112 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  House Calendar No. 15
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 112

                          [Report No. 105-53]

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 1997

    Mr. Dreier, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on Wednesday, April 
16, 1997, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend 
the rules. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority 
leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for 
consideration pursuant to this resolution.




                                                  House Calendar No. 15

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 112

                          [Report No. 105-53]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 14, 1997

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7527
DARNELL JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS LAWSON; HAROLD A. BLACK; WARDEN OF THE AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1025-R) Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darnell Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We gather from Appellant's notice of appeal and informal brief to this court that he believes that those documents have begun the exhaustion process. In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c), Appellant must initiate a separate proceeding in state court. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Lawson , No. CA-95-1025-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 19, 1995). * 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
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Zajac","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mzajac\/","title":"Dr. James D. Polk","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ERqkjy2X56\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/chief-health-and-medical-officer-dr-james-d-polk\/\">Dr. James D. Polk<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/chief-health-and-medical-officer-dr-james-d-polk\/embed\/#?secret=ERqkjy2X56\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Dr. James D. Polk” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ERqkjy2X56\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/drpolk_300x375.jpg?w=300","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":375}
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 93

To prohibit the importation of foreign-made flags of the United States of

America.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To prohibit the importation of foreign-made flags of the

United States of America.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Flag Fidelity

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN-MADE AMERICAN

7 FLAGS PROHIBITED.

8 After the date of the enactment of this Act, no flag

9 of the United States of America (regardless of size and
2

HR 93 IH

1 whether or not in compliance with the standard propor2 tions prescribed by Executive order) that is the product

3 or manufacture of any foreign country or instrumentality

4 may be imported into the United States.

Æ
Exhibit 10.14





SECOND AMENDMENT


OF


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, OTELCO INC. (the “Company”) has previously entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of August 24, 2006, with Dennis Andrews (the “Employee”), as amended on December 17, 2008, setting forth the terms and conditions of the Employee’s employment with the Company; and




WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend certain provisions of the Agreement.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:




Base Salary.  Effective January 1, 2011, Section 3(c)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:




(i)           Base Salary.  During the Employment Period, the Employee shall receive an annual base salary of $200,000, subject to increase by the Board, which annual base salary shall be further subject to annual increase by an amount equal to at least the increase in the cost of living, if any, between the date of the immediately preceding increase and the date of each such adjustment, based upon the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, or, if that index is discontinued, a similar index prepared by a department or agency of the United States government (as so increased and adjusted, the “Annual Base Salary”).  The Annual Base Salary shall be paid in accordance with the customary payroll practices of the Company, subject to withholding and other payroll taxes.




Bonus.  Effective January 1, 2011, Section 3(c)(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:




(ii)           Bonus.  For each fiscal year during the Employment Period, the Employee will be entitled to receive a bonus (the “Bonus”).  The Bonus shall be based upon the Company achieving operating and/or financial goals to be established by the Board or any duly appointed committee thereof in good faith, in its sole discretion.




SAVINGS CLAUSE.  Save and except as herein expressly amended, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.


March 4, 2011
OTELCO INC.By:
/s/ Curtis L. Garner, Jr.Name:Curtis L. Garner, Jr.Title:Chief Financial Officer/s/ Dennis AndrewsDennis Andrews
#### F. A. HAISCH v. C. L. COULTER.1

February 6, 1920.

No. 21,624.

Vacating judgment by default.

An order opening a default judgment and permitting defendant to answer *Jielcl*not an abuse of discretion.

*116Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $1,000 upon a promissory note. From an order, Bardwell, J., setting aside a judgment entered by default in favor of plaintiff for $1,035.67, plaintiff appealed.

Affirmed.

*George R. Smith, H. Stanley Hanson*and *Leo J. Gleason,*for appellant.

*S. H. Cranmer,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 176 N. W. 155.

Brown, C. J.

The summons in this action was served on June 6, 1919, and the time to answer expired on June 26. The time was extended to July 6 by stipulation of the parties. Defendant had employed an attorney and on the facts given to him by defendant the attorney had prepared an answer, but, by reason of pressure of office work, neglected to serve it within the time fixed by the stipulation. The attorney discovered the failure to serve the answer on the morning of July 9, three days late, and then took it to the office of the attorneys for plaintiff and tendered a copy to them. They refused to accept service, for the reason that application for default judgment had been made. Defendant’s attorney then made an affidavit of the facts, in excuse of his failure to serve the answer in time, stating therein that defendant had a good defense to the action on the merits, and that the failure to serve the answer was due wholly to reasons above stated. Thereupon the court below granted an order to show cause why the default should not be removed with the right of defendánt to serve his answer. The order to show cause was so issued on July 9, and at the time thereof no judgment in the action had been rendered. Application therefor had been made, however, and it was duly rendered later on that day. On the hearing of the order to show cause, the relief asked for by defendant was granted and plaintiff appealed.

We discover from the record no sufficient reason for holding that the order granting the relief was an abuse of judicial discretion. It is true that there was no affidavit of merits by defendant, but that was a matter for the consideration of the trial court. Such an affidavit is not indispensable. The answer prepared by the attorney stated a good defense to the action. In the preparation thereof he necessarily conferred with defendant and examined whatever records were pertinent to the facts in the *117case, and, in his affidavit to be relieved from a default, states that defendant has a good and substantial defense on the merits. The case in this respect comes fairly within the rule stated'and applied in Grady v. Maurice L. Rothschild & Co. supra, page 74, which we follow and apply.

Order affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Stanley Louie, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Structured Products Corp., on behalf of CorTS Trust II For Goldman Sachs Capital I;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

 

4.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

 

5.             The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust National Association.

               

 

By:**   /s/**Stanley Louie    

Name:  Stanley Louie

Title:    Vice President, Finance Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitization