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


                            CORD BLOOD AMERICA, INC.
      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 Cord Blood America, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sandra
D. Smith, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer),
of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

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

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

                                            Date:   April 28, 2005
                                                    --------------

                                            /s/Sandra D. Smith
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Sandra D. Smith
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                            Officer)
Exhibit 10.24  FIRST AMENDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT  First Amendment (Amendment) made as of December 31,
2008 to the Letter Agreement (Letter Agreement) dated as of February 5,
2008, by and between NeuroMetrix, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive office in Waltham, Massachusetts (the Company),
and Guy Daniello (the Executive).  WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Letter
Agreement to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and  WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire that this Amendment
be deemed a modification and an amendment to the Letter Agreement.  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
covenants contained herein, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:  1.The
paragraph titled Severance of the Letter Agreement is hereby amended by
appending the following to the end of such paragraph:  Payments of continuation of Base Salary owed
pursuant to this paragraph will occur on the regular payroll payment dates for
the Company beginning with the first regular payroll payment date that occurs
on or after the date that is 45 days after your termination or resignation (with the first payment to include the full
amount owed for continuation of Base Salary for the payroll period to which
such payment date relates and any prior payroll periods for which payment was
not yet made).  2.All
other provisions of the Letter Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
according to their respective terms, and nothing contained herein shall be
deemed a waiver of any right or abrogation of any obligation otherwise existing
under the Letter Agreement except to the extent specifically provided for
herein.  [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed
as a sealed instrument by the Company and by the Executive as of the date first
above written.   NEUROMETRIX, INC.By:
  /s/ Shai N. GozaniName: Shai N. GozaniTitle:   President and CEO/s/ Guy DanielloGuy Daniello  2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Wayne Myers v. Pennymac Corporation

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00740

- CV

Trial court case number: 2018

- 23761

Trial court: 333rd District Court of Harris County

Appellant has filed a motion to order a supplemental reporter’s record. Appellant complains that the record is deficient and must be corrected and supplemented. Appellant also stated that a motion for extension of time to file the appellant’s brief, whic h was due on March 15, 2019, would be filed contemporaneously with this motion to order a supplemental reporter’s
record. But, no motion for extension of time to file the brief was included or filed contemporaneously.

Although appellant claims that “[s]eve ral exhibits offered and admitted into evidence a t [the ] temporary injunction and summary judgment hear ing (s) are missing,” appellant does not s tate
wh ich specific exhibits are missing. Appellant also states that the reporter’s record is “inaccurate

in sev eral respects.” But, a ppellant does not explain in what ways the reporter’s record is deficient and without more specific information, this Court is unable to order any supplemental records or

exhibits

. Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion to order a su pplemental reporter’s record without prejudice to the filing of an amended motion with greater specificity as to the deficiencies and missing exhibits.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Justice Richard Hightower

_____________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ March 19, 2019

__
Case: 1:20-cv-00420 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/19/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:50Case: 1:20-cv-00420 Document #: 105-10 Filed: 07/30/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1378

Case: 1:20-cv-00420 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 01/19/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:51Case: 1:20-cv-00420 Document #: 105-10 Filed: 07/30/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1379
##### 



th th
 
 
 US Dataworks, Inc.  Senior Secured Convertible Notes
  Company Securities Purchase Agreement Investors Notes Shareholder Shareholders
 Put
 1 Sugar Creek Center Blvd., 5th Floor, Sugar Land Texas 77478
tel.: (281) 504-8100, fax: (281) 504-8101




---



##### 



Purchase Price
 Proposed Put Closing Date 1 Sugar Creek Business Center Blvd., Fifth
Floor, Sugar Land, Texas 77478; fax: (281) 504-8101. Put Closing Date




---



##### 








---



##### 



EACH PARTY HEREBY
IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE, AND AGREES NOT TO REQUEST, A JURY TRIAL FOR THE
ADJUDICATION OF ANY DISPUTE HEREUNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY
TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.




---



##### 



[Signature Page Follows]




---



##### 



/s/ CHARLES E. RAMEYCHARLES E. RAMEY/s/ JOHN L. NICHOLSONJOHN L. NICHOLSON
 Agreed and accepted this 13th of November, 2007 by: HIGHBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LLCBy:
    
    /s/ Scott M. WallaceName:
Title:
    
    Scott M. Wallace
Senior Vice PresidentCASTLERIGG MASTER INVESTMENTS LTD.By:
    
    Sandell Asset Management Corp.By:
    
    /s/ Patrick T. BurkeName:
    
    Patrick T. BurkeTitle:
    
    Senior Managing Director




---



##### 



Cranshire Capital, L.P.By:
    
    /s/ Lawrence A. Prosser

Name: Lawrence A. ProsserTitle:
    
    CFO  Downsview Capital, Inc.
#### Henry D. Tuck, Etc., *v.*M. W. Ogburn, Etc.

Fraudulent Conveyance — Recitals In Deed Not Evidence Against Stranger.

The recitals in a deed, although evidence as between the parties thereto, are not evidence as against those who are not parties or privies.

Principal and Surety — Indulgence—New Promise to Pay Usurious Interest.

Where indulgence is given the principal at the instance of the . surety, a new promise upon the part of the principal debtor to pay usurious interest will not release the surety.

Principal and Surety — Sale of Principal's Property at a Sacrifice — Duty of Surety to Make Property Bring Debt.

Where the property of the principal is sold under execution, it is the duty of the surety to make it bring its value, if he desires to be relieved from liability.

APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT.

February 3, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:'

The conveyance by the Appellant Tuck to Mrs. Farrar was fraudulent as to the creditors of Tuck. There is no proof in this case of the payment by Mrs. Farrar to Tuck of the com sideration expressed in the deed. The evidence does not establish any indebtedness by Tuck to Mrs. Farrar and the mere rcitals in the deed although evidence as between the parties *327thereto, are not evidence as against those who are not parties or privies. So far as this conveyance is to operate against the claim of the appellee it stands as if not one dollar of consideration had been paid by Mrs. Farrar for all the interest of Tuck in his father’s estate. 3 Bush p. 402. Tuck is in no condition to escape liability by reason of the indulgence to the principal debtor in the execution. This indulgence as the sheriff swears was given at the instance of Tuck, and the new promise upon the part of the principal debtor to pay usurious interest does not1 release the sureties. If the property levied on sold at a sacrafjce it was the fault of the sureties as it was their duty to make it pay the debt, if they desired to be relieved from liability.

*McPherson, Chaplin, for appellant.*

*H. A. Phelps & Son, R. T. Petree, for appellee.*

Judgment affirmed.
H. Res. 426

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 13, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3534) to improve congressional deliberation on

proposed Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to

comply with section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

by chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Rules. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the bill

shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered

as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
2

•HRES 426 EH

The bill shall be considered as read. During consideration of

the bill for further amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the

basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has

caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional

Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.

Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone

until a time during further consideration in the Committee of

the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment;

and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another

electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the

minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series

of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening mo-
3

•HRES 426 EH

tion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
No. 14,794.

#### Baker et al. *v.*Bourne et al.

*Descent.*— Nephews *and Nieces.*— Take *per Capita, and not per Stirpes.*— The nephews and nieces of an intestate, being next of kin, inherit directly from him, and not through their parents, and, all standing in the same degree of relationship, take in equal portions.

From the Decatur Circuit Court.

*B. W. Baker, J. K. Ewing, G. Ewing, M. D. Tackett*and *B. F. Bennett,*for appellants.

*J. D. Miller*and *F. E. Gavin,*for appellees.

Coffey, J.

This was a suit for the partition of the land described in the complaint, instituted by the appellants against the appellees in the Decatur Circuit Court.

At the request of the parties the court made a special finding of the facts in the cause, and stated its conclusions of law thereon.

It appears from the special finding of facts that Benjamin F. Williams, who resided in Butler county, in the State of Ohio, died intestate on the 2d day of June, 1888, the owner in fee of the land described in the complaint in .this cause. The said Williams left neither a widow, child or children, *467
      *nor*the descendants of a child or children, nor father or mother nor brother or sister, but left as his only heirs at law the following nephews and neices and grand-nephews, to wit: Marsh W. Baker, John W. Baker and Hannah Frazee, children of Sarah Baker, deceased, who was a sister of the said Benjamin F. Williams, and who departed this life prior to the death of the said Williams; and, also, Marsh Bourne, Ezra Bourne, David Bourne and Nancy Marshall, children of Mary Bourne, a sister who died prior to the death of the said Williams; also, Brazilla Inman, only child of Sarah Inman, a deceased daughter of the said Mary Bourne, and Carl E. Bourne and Earl Bourne, only children of Virgil Bourne, a deceased son of Mary Bourne, deceased.

Filed March 17, 1891.

Sarah Inman and Virgil Bourne both died prior to the decease of the said Benjamin F. Williams.

Upon these facts the court stated as a conclusion of law . that the nephews and nieces of the said Benjamin F. Williams each took an equal share in the land described in the complaint.

The assignment of error calls in question the correctness of the conclusion of law stated by the circuit court.

This case is ruled by the conclusion reached in the case of *Cox*v. *Cox,*44 Ind. 368, and the case of *Blake*v. *Blake,*85 Ind. 65.

The nephews and nieces being the next of kin to Benjamin F. Williams, inherited directly from him, and not through their parents, and, all standing in the same degree of relationship, took in equal portions.

The court did not err in its conclusions of law.

Judgment affirmed.

Miller, J., took no part in the decision of this cause.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6733

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TAURUS DOUGLAS PHILLIPS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-95-786, CA-97-1837-4-22) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Taurus Douglas Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Phillips , Nos. CR-95-786; CA-97-1837-4-22 (D.S.C. Apr. 8, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
31.2



Certification
of Principal Financial Officer



I,
Kimberly R. Peery, certify that:



| | 1. | I
    have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Stereotaxis, Inc.;                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | Based
    on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
    to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
    to the period covered by this report.



|Date:
    April 9, 2020 | /s/
    Kimberly R. Peery        
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------
|                        | Kimberly
    R. Peery            
|                        | Chief
    Financial Officer      
|                        | Stereotaxis,
    Inc.            
|                        | (Principal
    Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 491 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 25, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order, 
any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider a concurrent 
resolution providing for adjournment of the House and Senate for the 
Independence Day district work period.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

New RiverPharmaceuticals, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement No. 333-121102 on Form S-8 of New River Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 4, 2005, except as to note 13 to the consolidated financial statements, which is as of March 23, 2005, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of New River Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of January 2, 2005 and December 28, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flowsfor each of the fiscal years ended January 2, 2005, December 28, 2003 and December 29, 2002, which report is included in the January 2, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of New River Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Roanoke, Virginia 

March 29, 2005
1 

NO. 01-13-00816-CV 

In The 

First District Court of Appeals of Texas 

at Houston 

Retaka Romeo Nelson, Appellant vs. Shannon Brochette Nelson, Appellee 

On Appeal From 

District Court No. 308, Cause 2012-04063 

Harris County, Texas 

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY EN BANC RECONSIDERATION 

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS: 

Appellant requests this court stay consideration of his pending motion for en 

banc reconsideration, pending the outcome of his 1) pending motion to remand for 

lost or destroyed records, and 2) his pending motion for leave to supplement. The 

remand and supplement motions would be mooted by this court’s premature ruling 

on the pending en banc motion for reconsideration. Appellant would be harmed if 

he is precluded from the relief within both motions, which are both subject to 

inclusion into the pending motion for en banc reconsideration by amendment or 

supplementation. This motion was filed in good faith to establish due-order-ofpleadings, and not for the sake of delay or harassment. 

ACCEPTED

01-13-00816-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/6/2015 2:21:11 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/6/2015 2:21:11 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2 

Conclusion 

This court should grant Appellant’s emergency request to stay consideration 

of his pending motion for en banc reconsideration, so that it can first consider his 

pending motion to remand for lost or destroyed records, and his pending motion 

for leave to supplement, in due-order-of-pleadings. 

Prayer 

WHEREFORE, Appellant prays that the Court grant the relief requested 

herein and such further relief, at law or in equity, to which it may be entitled. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Retaka Nelson 

Retaka Nelson 

P.O. Box 7367 

Los Angeles, CA 90007 

Tel: (832) 590-9295 

Email: thetakesta@gmail.com 

Appellant-Petitioner, Pro Se 

Certificate of Compliance 

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, I hereby certify that the number of words in 

this document are 408. I have relied on the word count of the computer program 

used to prepare the document. 

/s/ Retaka Nelson 

Retaka Nelson 
3 

Certificate of Conference 

In that Shannon’s appellate counsel is opposed to Appellant’s pending 

motion to remand for lost or destroyed records, and his pending motion for leave to 

supplement, it is suffice to infer that she opposes this motion to stay. 

/s/ Retaka Nelson 

Retaka Nelson 

Certificate of Service 

 I certify that a true copy of all documents herein was served in accordance 

with Tex. R. App. P. 9.5 on each party as follows: 

Shari Goldsberry Via E-Serve on 7/6/2015 

Texas Bar No. 24038398 

Marina Bay Dr. Suite #108 

League City, TX 77573 

Ph: (281) 533-3030 

Fx: (281) 533-3033 

Email: shari@goldsberrylaw.com 

Attorney for Appellee, Shannon Nelson 

/s/ Retaka Nelson 

Retaka Nelson
Building Trust and Con

Why Trustworthy Voting S

Require Institutionalized D

Douglas W. Jones

jones@cs.uiowa.edu

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/vo

Associate Professor of Computer S

University of Iowa

Member and Past Chair,

Iowa Board of Examiners for Vo

Machines and Electronic Voting Sy
 We cannot extend unsuperv

to anyone

 Without effective oversight, 

be abused (Enron, Worldcoothers)

 We trust cooperating adver

2-party systems

 The problems lie in adminis

rules as much as they lie in system standards
Who must we trust 

 The FEC/NASED source code 

 An impossible job (SAIC) 2 strikes out of 2 (Compuwar

 Every other step exempt from 

 Closing the polls (Georgia, C Pre-election setup (many stat
Exhibit 31.08

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND
15d-14(a),

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ruth Porat,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Google Inc.; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: March 29, 2016



|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ RUTH PORAT                                                                 
|Ruth Porat                                                                     
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)