alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.12

                        SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Joseph M. Murphy, President and Chief Executive Officer, is employed on an
at-will basis and is paid an annual salary of $200,150. Mr. Murphy also
receives, as do all other TelVue employees, health, dental, disability and life
insurance benefits as well as a contribution of 2.5% of his annual salary to
TelVue's 401K Plan. Mr. Murphy, like all other TelVue employees, is eligible to
receive stock option grants under the TelVue Stock Option Plan.

Jesse Lerman, Executive Vice President of Engineering, is employed on an at-will
basis and is paid an annual salary of $153,140. Mr. Lerman also receives, as do
all other TelVue employees, health, dental, disability and life insurance
benefits as well as a contribution of 2.5% of his annual salary to TelVue's 401K
Plan. Mr. Lerman, like all other TelVue employees, is eligible to receive stock
option grants under the TelVue Stock Option Plan.

Randy Gilson, Vice President of Technical Services, is employed on an at-will
basis and is paid an annual salary of $128,213. Mr. Gilson also receives, as do
all other TelVue employees, health, dental, disability and life insurance
benefits as well as a contribution of 2.5% of his annual salary to TelVue's 401K
Plan. Mr. Gilson, like all other TelVue employees, is eligible to receive stock
option grants under the TelVue Stock Option Plan.

John Fell, Secretary, Treasurer and Controller, is employed on an at-will basis
and is paid an annual salary of $111,150. Upon satisfaction of certain
conditions, he is eligible for a $2,000 annual bonus. Mr. Fell also receives, as
do all other TelVue employees, health, dental, disability and life insurance
benefits as well as a contribution of 2.5% of his annual salary to TelVue's 401K
Plan. Mr. Fell, like all other TelVue employees, is eligible to receive stock
option grants under the TelVue Stock Option Plan.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARWIN KNIGHT, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 08-0301-KD-C

OFFICER LANE, et. al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to Darwin

Knight’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 26), the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this

Court. It is CERTIFIED that this appeal is not taken in good faith in that the plaintiff has failed to

show that he has a non-frivolous issue to be presented to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Therefore, Plaintiff Knight’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 13th day of April 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00301-KD-C Document 29 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 1
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

ANHAM FZCO ) ASBCA Nos. 62210, 62211

)

Under Contract No. SPM300-12-D-3571 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Richard P. Rector, Esq.

Ryan P. Carpenter, Esq.

Dawn E. Stern, Esq.

 DLA Piper LLC (US)

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Daniel K. Poling, Esq.

 DLA Chief Trial Attorney

J. Maxwell Carrion, Esq.

Katherine B. McCulloch, Esq.

Steven C. Herrera, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

 DLA Troop Support

 Philadelphia, PA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: July 22, 2021

KENNETH D. WOODROW

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62210, 62211, Appeals of ANHAM 

FZCO, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 22, 2021 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
EXHIBIT 32.2

                               TELVUE CORPORATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Fell, Controller
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: 05/17/10                          /s/ John Fell
                                        -------------
                                        John Fell
                                        Treasurer-Controller
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     JUNE 30,1999  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MAGNITUDE INFORMATION SYSTEMS,  INC.
     AND SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000838796
<NAME>                        Magnitude Information Systems, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                         401,121
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  325,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,646
<INVENTORY>                                      8,670
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,378,327
<PP&E>                                         294,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                 165,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,703,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,488,921
<BONDS>                                        374,890
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        352
<COMMON>                                         1,548
<OTHER-SE>                                     824,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,703,130
<SALES>                                        348,003
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               348,003
<CGS>                                           84,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  605,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,119,954
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             132,843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,594,527)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,594,527)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,594,527)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Historic Preservation Properties 1989
LP ("HPP'89") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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 his knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 HPP'89.


/s/ Terrence P. Sullivan
--------------------------
Terrence P. Sullivan
General Partner

(Performing similar functions of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer)

Date:  August 8, 2003
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Anthony E. Applebaum, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.





Date:   March 16, 2010/s/ANTHONY E. APPLEBAUMAnthony E. ApplebaumPrincipal Financial and Accounting





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Gilbert Young *v.*Laban J. Bradford.

Vendor and Purchaser — Vendor’s Lien — Foreclosure.

Where the petition in an action to foreclose a vendor’s lien did not show the sum for which the land was sold nor state that the notes sued on were purchase-money notes, it will not authorize a judgment for the sale of the land.

APPEAL PROM BRAOKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 2, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The petition in this cause did not authorize a judgment for the sale of the land described therein. It does not show the sum for which the land was sold, nor does it state that the notes sued on were executed for the purchase price of such land.

The land was sold on the 18th of February, 1868, and the notes were not executed until the 17th of June thereafter.

There is nothing in the petition showing any connection whatever between the sale of the land and the execution of the notes, and it is not to be presumed that any connection exists.

The amended answer tendered on the 5th of December, 1872, is made part of the record, and although it was not allowed to be filed, this fact authorizes this court to answer it. the notes were executed is part of one of the two tracts alleged to

If it be true that the tract of land for the purchase price of which have been sold and conveyed by Daniel Coleman to Charles Burress, and that N. D. Coleman, who is charged to be the vendor of appellee, release all claim to said lands to the heirs of Burress, then appellee holds no such title as will authorize him to have a specific, performance of his contract of sale to appellant.

*63
      *Robt. K.*Smith, *for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*

It is distinctly alleged that by his bond he agreed to convey with general warranty, and although the bond is not on file, yet for the purposes of the motion to file the amended answer this allegation must be taken as true.

The judgment is reversed and upon the return of the cause ap-pellee should be allowed to amend his petition and the amended answer of appellant which is complete within itself will be filed. Further proper proceedings will then be had.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4 -**  **6 087** 

JACOB D. PEYTON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD CLARKE , Director , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the We stern District of Virginia , at R oanoke
. Glen E. Conrad , Chief District Judge. ( 7 :1 3

- cv - 0 0 5 66

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Jacob D
. Peyton , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jacob D. Peyton seeks to appe al the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is deb atable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling i s debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peyton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Written Statement of the President and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2002
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Ronald Mustari
Ronald Mustari
November 14, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4807 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4807

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
140 Sacramento Street in Rio Vista, California, as the ``Adam G. Kinser 
                         Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 140 
Sacramento Street in Rio Vista, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Adam G. Kinser Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Adam G. Kinser Post Office 
Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
11198.

#### HENDRIX *et al. v.*THE STATE.

Decided March 2, 1920.

In view of the evidence and the issues in this case, the court, whether so requested to do or not, should have charged the jury to the effect that if no conspiracy or concert of action between the defendants was shown by the evidence, each would, be responsible only for wounds inflicted by himself, and if the evidence showed that only one of them killed the person with whose homicide they were charged, only that one could be found guilty. Failure to give such a charge requires that a new trial be granted.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Bockdale superior court — Judge Hutcheson. December 6, 1919.

*C. R.*Vaughn, *King & Johnson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*George M. Napier, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

Father and son were jointly indicted for murder and tried together. The evidence shows that each of them shot at the deceased; that several shots were ñred, and the wounds, as well as the bullets taken from the bodjq disclosed that pistols of different caliber were used. The evidence fails to point out *13which wound or wounds caused the death. It is the duty of the judge in charging the jury, even without being requested to do so, to cover every material issue in the case. The defendants insisted that there was no conspiracy between them to do any unlawful act of violence to the deceased, but that he made an assault on the father, shooting him, and that the father shot in self-defense, and the son in defense of his father, each acting independently. They insist that the court ignored their theory that the defendants were acting independently, and that “in the absence of a conspiracy or concert of action on the part of both defendants, or of the procurement one by the other, each was responsible only for the wounds inflicted by himself, and would not be legally responsible for the wounds inflicted by the other, so that if under such circumstances one shot and killed the decedent, the jury would not be authorized to find both guilty.” As there is evidence which would authorize a charge on conspiracy, the judge should have charged thereon, and it was error, demanding the grant of a new trial, for the court to fail to charge that if the evidence showed no conspiracy or concert of action, then each of the defendants would be responsible for the wounds inflicted by himself only, and if the evidence showed that only one of them killed the deceased, then one alone would be guilty.

When the above principles are applied in the trial of this case, the errors in the charge complained of will be cured. It is not necessary to pass upon the other alleged errors, as it is not likely that they will reappear on another trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Humphrey Brock, Jr.

, * From the 104th District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 17957B

.

Vs. No. 11

- 11

- 00252

- CR * August 22, 2013

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
**Exhibit 32**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GraniteBroadcasting Corporation (the Company) on Form10-Q for the period ended June30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the Form 10-Q), we, W. Don Cornwell and Lawrence I. Wills, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuantsection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of ourknowledge:

(i)                   theForm 10-Q fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirementsof section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

(ii)                the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated:August 14, 2006

 
|        |   | /s/     W. DON CORNWELL   |   |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |   | W. Don Cornwell                                    |   |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer                            |   |   |
|   |   |                                               |   |   |
|   |   |                                               |   |   |
|   |   | /s/     LAWRENCE I. WILLS |   |   |
|   |   | Lawrence I. Wills                                  |   |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer                            |   |   |

 

 

----
# United Sta tes Co urt o f Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 July 1, 2014 Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS , Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge Nos. 12-2706 & 13-2045 S US AN GOLDMAN, Tr ustee of Goldman Li v i ng Tr ust U/A/D December19, 2000, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. JAMES R. GAGNARD and MICHELLE GAGNARD,

Defendants-Appellants
. Appeal fr om the Uni ted S tates Di str i ct Cour t for the Nor ther nDi s tr i ct of Illi noi s, Easter n Di v i si on. No. 1:11-cv -08843 John W. Dar rah, Judge
.

O R D E R The opini on of thi s cour t i ssued on June 27, 2014, i s amended as follows: On page 1, i n the capti on, “Defendants-Appell ees ” should be “DefendantsAppell ants .”
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph JOHNSON, Jr., a/k/a Joseph R. Johnson, a/k/a Joe Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7781.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 6, 2001.

Joseph Johnson, Jr., pro se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

*235PER CURIAM.

Joseph Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions filed in his criminal case and granting his motion to correct the judgment and conviction order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Johnson,*No. CR-96-180-A (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 11, 2000; entered Oct. 16, 2000). 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.*