alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.16

# SCHEDULE OF OFFICERSCHANGE
IN CONTROL AGREEMENT

The
Change in Control Agreement entered into by officers of Mestek, Inc. and the Company are
identical in all respects, except for the name of the officer and the date of execution.

Set
forth below is the identity of each officer of Mestek, Inc. and the date upon which the
above Change in Control Agreement was executed by such offices.

|Director and/or Officer | Year of Execution
|----------------------- | -----------------
|
|
|
|R. Bruce Dewey          |                  
|William S. Rafferty     |                  
|Stephen M. Shea         |
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Walter Industries, Inc.Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200218 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe accompanying Annual Report of Walter Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”),I, Joseph J. Troy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 8, 2007 |                      |
|---------------------------|---------------------------|
| * *                  | /s/ JOSEPH J. TROY        |   |
|                      | Joseph J. Troy            |
|                      | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
<PAGE>   1


                                 EXHIBIT NO. 11

                   STUART ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             STATEMENTS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                (Amounts In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended          Six  Months Ended
                                                             June 30,                   June 30,
                                                      ---------------------       ---------------------
                                                        1998         1997          1998          1997
                                                      -------       -------       -------       -------
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>  
Shares of common stock outstanding at
  beginning of period (1)                               6,934         6,828         6,920         6,828

Weighted-average shares issued during the period            1            --            12            --
                                                      -------       -------       -------       -------
Actual weighted average share outstanding
  for the period                                        6,935          6828         6,932         6,828

Dilutive stock options and warrants using
  average market price                                     --            --            --            --
                                                      -------       -------       -------       -------

Dilutive shares outstanding                             6,935         6,828         6,932         6,828
                                                      =======       =======       =======       =======

Net loss                                              $(2,724)      $(1,115)      $(4,328)      $(2,537)
                                                      =======       =======       =======       =======

Loss per share - basic and dilutive                   $ (0.39)      $ (0.16)      $ (0.62)      $ (0.37)
                                                      =======       =======       =======       =======
</TABLE>

(1)      This represents total outstanding shares of common stock less treasury
         shares.

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Michigan

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

NOTE: Amended 2023-01-31 to update 

header for Volume Gravimetric, I SVP 

(Rev.: September 2021)

Mass Echelon I

20 kg to 1 mg

Mass Echelon II

20 kg to 1 mg

50 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Mass Echelon III

500 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts

6000 lb to 3000 lb

Wheel Load Weighers

20 000 lb to 5000 lb

Volume Gravimetric, I

2 L to 100 mL

25 gal to 0.5 pt

Volume Gravimetric, I SVP

30 gal to 5 gal 

Volume Transfer, II

2000 gal to 5 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

100 gal to 20 gal 

2022 to 2023

____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2022-02-01 to 2024-02-01
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7595

MICHAEL L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; EUGENE NUTH; WILLIAM

FILBERT, Assistant Warden; JOSEPH E. MITCHELL;

FELICITE M. MORAN, Sergeant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-95-

1100-MJG)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney

General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Williams v. Lanham, No. CA-95-1100-MJG (D. Md. Sept. 13,

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.

AFFIRMED
Proposed technical changes to 

ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2011 January 30, 2013 
Backlog of Comments 

• By-product of work on Machine-readable table

ANSI/NIST-ITL and associated application pro

• Unearthed variety of 

– Editorial corrections – Technical clarifications 

• Some of the technical clarifications are approp

bring up during this Workshop 

• Brad intends to have the ANSI/NIST-ITL canv

on a small “update” at the same time as the Supplements 
Proposed technical changes 

• Character types 

– Alphabetic (Code A) is currently defined as “26 Eng

(both upper and lower case) or spaces” 

– “or spaces” was added after ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-200

breaks a large number of existing fields 
Proposed technical changes 

• Friction ridge generalized position / FGP (Fiel

– Current text reads “Users are required to use Reco

if transmitting a fingerprint image at greater than 20(510 ppi).” 

– However, FBI EBTS uses Type-7 records for 1000p

fingerprints are exchanged in Type-13, not Type-14

– Propose “Record Type-4 shall not be used to transm

fingerprint image at greater than 20.08 ppmm (510 
Proposed technical changes 

• Record Type-9: Minutiae data record 

– Request new fields that enable a latent examiner to 

• a fingerprint image with temporary lines • individual features with color for display, and a comm
Proposed technical changes 

• EFS corresponding points or features / CPF 

– Request changes to indicate optionally the location 

absent feature would have been expected 

– Request changing a “shall not be present” informati

optional 
Proposed technical changes 

• Record Type-13: Friction-ridge latent image re

– Request new fields that define 

• if a ruler (or other known scale) is present, to aid in th

processing of resolution for latent images 

• the method used to determine resolution for a Type-1
Proposed technical changes 

• Annex G missing XML elements 

– Field 9.901: Universal latent workstation annotation 

information / ULA 

– Field 9.902: Annotation information / ANN – Field 9.903: Device unique identifier / DUI – Field 9.904: Make/model/serial number / MMS 
Contacts 

Austin Hicklin John Mayer-Splain hicklin@noblis.org john.mayer-splain@n703-610-1995 703-610-2712
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Rodrigo Miguel Castelan, Appellant

No. 06-23-00244-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 354th District Court of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 34308CR). 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and 

Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Stevens. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that 

Castelan was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault under Section 22.021 of the Texas Penal 

Code, a first-degree felony. As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Rodrigo Miguel Castelan, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 4, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Memorandum of Understanding with Logility



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 Memorandum of Understanding 
 between American Software, Inc. and 
 Logility, Inc. 
  
 PURPOSE 
  
 This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into as of May 1, 2005 (the “Effective Date”) by American
Software, Inc. (hereinafter “ASI”) and Logility, Inc. (hereinafter “LGTY”) for the purpose of defining the roles and responsibilities of the parties as it relates to resale of New Generation Computing’s
(“NGC”) products. 
  
 GENERAL PROVISIONS

  
 A. Term and Termination 
 This MOU will remain in effective for twelve (12) months from the Effective Date and shall automatically renew for successive one-year periods, unless terminated by
either party for any reason with 30 days prior written notice. 
  
 B. Fees 
 1. Royalty – LGTY will pay a 30% royalty to ASI for the resale of NGC products. Such royalty
will be calculated based on the recognizable license fee revenues of the transaction after discounts and revenue recognition adjustments (e.g. reductions due to maintenance or services below fair market value). Furthermore, such discounts and
adjustments will be shared equally among ALL software components in the transaction based on relative List prices. 
 2. Maintenance –
maintenance (post-contract support) fees, including any resulting from revenue recognition adjustments, will be shared between the companies based on pro-rata license fees as calculated above. If, however, LGTY invoices Customer for 100% of the
contractual maintenance, then LGTY will remit within 30 days of receipt from Customer, ASI’s pro-rata share. 
 3. Professional Services
– any fees, subsequent to any revenue recognition adjustments, will be recognized by the party providing such services. 
  
 Example 
 Assumptions:
LGTY contracts with Customer X for $205k of software (including NGC products), plus maintenance at 18% per year ($36,900; assuming 18% represents fair value for both companies) and 2 free days of training (FMV = $5k) to be provided by LGTY.

  
 

 
  
 Result: LGTY would
recognize $185,000 in license fees net of a $15k royalty to ASI ($150k for LGTY products and $35k, net, for NGC products). ASI would recognize $50,000 in license fees and record a $35k third-party 








 
commission expense. The party performing the related services would recognize $5,000 in Services when performed. LGTY and ASI would recognize $27,675 (18% of
the $153,750) and $9,225 (18% of the $51,250), respectively, in maintenance revenue ratably over the related period. 
  
 C. Amendments 
 This MOU may be modified or
amended provided that any such modification or amendment is in writing and is signed by both parties. 
  
 D. Entirety of MOU 
 All terms and conditions
of this MOU are embodied herein. No other terms and conditions will be considered a part of this MOU unless expressly agreed upon in writing and signed by both parties. 
  
 BY SIGNATURE, THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS MOU AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE. 
  
  

									
	AMERICAN SOFTWARE, INC.	 	 	 	 LOGILITY,INC.

					
	BY:	 	/S/ JAMES C. EDENFIELD	 	 	 	BY:	 	/S/ J. MICHAEL EDENFIELD
Exhibit 32.2



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 Mines Management, 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, James H. Moore, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Mines Management, Inc.,, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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:  March 28, 2005



/s/ James H. Moore



James H. Moore

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<TABLE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
                                                                 ALLTEL CORPORATION
                                                  STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                            (Dollars and Shares in Thousands, except per share amounts)


For the Years Ended December 31,                          1999             1998              1997            1996           1995
--------------------------------                          ----             ----              ----            ----           ----
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>               <C>             <C>            <C>
Net income applicable to common shares                $782,745         $601,879          $651,248        $405,430       $369,577
Adjustments for convertible securities:
   Preferred stocks                                        173              174               206             220            236
                                                      --------         --------          --------        --------       --------
Net income applicable to common shares,
    assuming conversion of above securities           $782,918         $602,053          $651,454        $405,650       $369,813
                                                      ========         ========          ========        ========       ========

Weighted average common shares
    outstanding for the year                           312,841          305,344           307,884         308,160        305,253
Increase in shares which would result from:
    Exercise of stock options                            3,529            2,551             1,454           1,270          1,350
    Conversion of convertible preferred stocks             444              468               523             559            603
                                                       -------          -------           -------         -------        -------
Weighted average common shares,
    assuming conversion of above securities            316,814          308,363           309,861         309,989        307,206
                                                       =======          =======           =======         =======        =======

Earnings per share of common stock:

    Basic                                                $2.50            $1.97             $2.12           $1.32          $1.21
                                                         =====            =====             =====           =====          =====
    Diluted                                              $2.47            $1.95             $2.10           $1.31          $1.20
                                                         =====            =====             =====           =====          =====
</TABLE>






                                       31
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 11

- 00 042

- CV

IN RE Jaime LUEVANO

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 18, 2011, relator filed what we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus.

The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 Relator complains Judge Donna S. Rayes, presiding judge of the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County,

Texas has failed to rule on a writ of mandamus he filed in the trial court. The underlying proceeding is unknown.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Walden Residential
Properties, Inc. on Form S-11 of our report dated March 25, 1998 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Walden
Residential Properties, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 1997 and 1996 and
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1997 and our report
dated June 27, 1997 (October 1, 1997 as to Note 14) with respect to the combined
financial statements of Drever Partners, Inc. and affiliates for the years ended
December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1996, each appearing in the Prospectus, which is part of this
Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading "Experts"
in such Prospectus.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
October 5, 1998
FORM OF 5.51% SERIES C SENIOR GUARANTEED NOTE


DUE DECEMBER 1, 2017


THIS NOTE HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”) OR ANY APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS OF THE STATES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND MAY NOT BE SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH REGISTRATION OR AN APPLICABLE EXEMPTION THEREFROM.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS SINCLAIR, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0214-CG-B

WARDEN JERRY FERRELL, :

Respondent. :

ORDER

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

issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated March 15, 2010 is ADOPTED as the

opinion of this court. 

The court further finds that the petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

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

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00214-CG-B Document 17 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this registration statement on Form S-8, to be filed on or around
August 28, 1998, of our report dated May 27, 1998, on the consolidated financial
statements of WorldCom, Inc. included in WorldCom, Inc.'s Current Report on Form
8-K dated May 28, 1998 (filed May 28, 1998) and to all references to our Firm
included in this registration statement.



                                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Jackson, Mississippi,
August 27, 1998
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7537

TAURICE M. CRISP,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

THEODIS BECK,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02006-FL)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Taurice M. Crisp, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Taurice M. Crisp seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

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) (2000). 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. See 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 Crisp

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny

Crisp’s motion for transfer and 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
EXHIBIT 32.2




                            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 Magnitude  Information Systems,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the
"Form  10-QSB"),  I, Joerg H. Klaube,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify, as of the date hereof,  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,   that  the  Company's   Form  10-QSB  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 the
Company.


Dated:  May 7, 2006                 /s/ Joerg H. Klaube
                                        Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer