alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Employment Offer Letter - Kenneth W. Ludwig



 Exhibit 10.12 
  

			
	

	  	May 10, 2006

 Mr. Ken Ludwig 
 Dear Ken: 
 Amedica is pleased to offer you the position of Global Marketing Director at a salary of $4,807.00 per average semi monthly pay period
which equates to $125,000.00 per year. This position is exempt. Amedica provides a drug free work environment; therefore, this offer is conditioned upon you taking a drug test and such test results are negative. Amedica will arrange and pay for this
test. We anticipate your employment to begin on May 31, 2006 which will be your hire date. 
 Upon your hire date, you will be nominated to receive an
incentive stock option award for 50,000 shares of Amedica’s common stock, subject to a 4-year vesting schedule, 10-year option life and approval by Amedica’s Board of Directors. We feel that these stock options are a valuable part of your
total compensation package. 
 As part of this offer, you will be eligible for Amedica’s complete benefits program, including medical, dental, life and
long term disability insurances and our 40l(k) retirement plan. Also included are Amedica’s 10 paid holidays, 5 days of personal/sick leave and 10 days of vacation per year. When you report to work, you will be provided with more detailed
information regarding our complete policies and benefits programs. 
 Your employment at Amedica assumes an obligation to maintain confidentiality of
Amedica’s business information and that of its clients, partners and suppliers. By safeguarding such confidential information, Amedica earns the respect and further trust of our clients, suppliers and partners. Thus, as a condition of your
employment, you will be required to sign a standard confidentiality agreement. 
 Amedica is committed to maintaining its leading technology position in the
orthopedic implant field and to the commercialization of revolutionary orthopedic implant products for treatment of joint diseases. Our success depends upon bright, dedicated staff such, as yourself. If you are in agreement with the terms of this
letter, please sign below and return one original to our offices. 
  

					
		 		 	Sincerely,
			
	 615 Arapeen Drive Suite 302
  
 Salt Lake City, UT 84108
  
 (801) 583-5100 (phone)
  
 (801) 583-8635 (fax)

 
 www.amedicacorp.com
	 		 	 /s/ Eugene B. Jones
 Eugene B.
Jones
 Vice President, Finance & CFO
  
 Agreed to and Accepted by:
 /s/ Ken
Ludwig        5-22-06
 Ken Ludwig
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

August 4, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00170

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B.R. AND P.Y.R., CHILDREN

, From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009

- CI

- 09297 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 20, 2016, the day Appellant’s brief was due, we suspended the appellate timetable to allow the parties to mediate. On July 22, 2016, after the parties could not agree on a date and time to mediate, we reins tated the appellate timetable and Appellant’s brief was due. To date, Appellant has not filed either (1) a motion for extension of time to file the brief or (2) the brief.

We ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within TEN DAY S of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a) , 42.3(b), (c); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio , 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1998, no pet.) . Appellant ’ s written response must include a reasonable explanation for Appellant ’ s failure to timely file the brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a).
If Appellant fail s to show cause as ordered, this appeal may be dismissed without further notice. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c); Elizondo , 975 S.W.2d at 63

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 4th da y of August, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### State v. Woodard

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 150

No. 239P06

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-597)

Denied 03/08/07
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 Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 27, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Pullen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert W. Pullen   
|Robert W. Pullen       
|Chief Executive Officer
|Date: August 5, 2008   

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



30
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1425
CLYDE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, guns and robbery narcotics department; ATF; U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; STATE GOVERNMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cv-00651-WDQ) Submitted: September 11, 2007 Decided: September 13, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clyde Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Clyde Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable cause of action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. FBI , No. 1:07-cv-00651-WDQ (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2007). 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
MDCA-2015.06.30-Exhibit 10.2




Exhibit 10.2




June 11, 2015






Mitchell Gendel, General Counsel
MDC Partners Inc.
745 5th Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10151






                RE: Resignation from Board of Directors


Dear Mitch,


                This letter confirms my resignation as a member of the Board of Directors of MDC Partners Inc., effective as of July 1, 2015.  I will continue to serve as an executive officer (Vice Chairman) of MDC Partners notwithstanding my resignation from the Board of Directors, and I will continue to be covered by MDC Partners’ D&O insurance coverage. 


As we discussed and agreed, this resignation will not be deemed to be a breach in any respect of my obligations as an executive officer under my Employment Agreement with MDC Partners.  Similarly, this resignation from the Board of Directors will also not be deemed to be “Good Reason” under my Employment Agreement.


To confirm, each of the parties’ respective obligations and responsibilities under my Employment Agreement will continue in full force and effect notwithstanding my resignation as a member of the Board of Directors of MDC Partners.


Sincerely,


/s/ Stephen Pustil


Stephen Pustil, Vice Chairman
MDC Partners Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                             80,029
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      47,639
<ALLOWANCES>                        4,502
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  133,304
<PP&E>                            259,615
<DEPRECIATION>                     63,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    344,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              81,783
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                       203,249
<COMMON>                              266
<OTHER-SE>                        (96,952)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      344,129
<SALES>                           170,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  170,353
<CGS>                             133,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     231,533
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                (13,081)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (69,326)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (69,326)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                          (2,879)
<NET-INCOME>                      (72,205)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (3.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (3.19)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.6


 





 





August 6 , 2015


Dr. Dragan Cicic

393 17th Street, Apt 1A


Brooklyn, NY 11215


Dear Dr. Cicic:


This letter hereby
amends your employment agreement, dated January 2, 2006, with Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Employment Agreement”).
Pursuant to this amendment your title will be Chief Medical Officer. All other provisions in the Employment Agreement, as amended,
shall remain the same.


To indicate your
acceptance of this agreement, please sign and date this letter in the space provided below and return it to me.


	Very truly yours,	 	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
	 	 	 	 
	ACTINIUM	 	DRAGAN CICIC
	PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Kaushik J. Dave	 	/s/Dragan Cicic
	 	Kaushik J. Dave	 	 
	 	
    Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 		 	 
	Date:  August 6, 2015	 	Date:  August 6, 2015
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Larico SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50008.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Michael Hurley, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel appointed to represent Antonio *651Larico Smith has requested leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Smith has filed a response to counsel’s motion to withdraw. Our independent review of the brief, Smith’s response, and the record discloses no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *651published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-44337) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of CTC Communications Group, Inc. (as successor to CTC Communications
Corp.), the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-17613) pertaining to the
1996 Stock Option Plan of CTC Communications Group, Inc., the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-68767) pertaining to the 1998 Incentive Plan, the
1996 Stock Option Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of CTC
Communications Group, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-
93735) pertaining to the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan for Non-Employee
Directors, the 1998 Incentive Plan and the 1993 Stock Option Plan, and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-44002) pertaining to the 2000
Flexible Stock Plan of CTC Communications Group, Inc., of our report dated
February 15, 2001 (except for Notes 4 and 6, as to which the date is March
14, 2001), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule
of CTC Communications Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the nine months ended December 31, 2000.


                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 2001
#### Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Respondent, v Amersino Marketing Group, LLC, et al., Appellants.

[974 NYS2d 393]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered December 6, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action for unpaid legal fees, granted plaintiff law firm’s motion for summary judgment in the principal amount of $87,995.34, and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim insofar as asserted against Wang individually, or, alternatively, seeking a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the fees, and Wang’s portion of those fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record establishes plaintiff’s entitlement to recover the unpaid legal fees that arose from its representation of defendants in two underlying actions. Contrary to defendants’ contention, the subject retainer agreement governs plaintiffs work on *429both underlying matters. In compliance with 22 NYCRR 1215.1, which mandates that retainer agreements contain an “explanation of the scope of the legal services to be provided” (22 NYCRR 1215.1 [b] [1]), the agreement specifies that plaintiffs services “will include legal representation and advice with respect to specific matters that you refer to the Firm.” Although defendants initially sought plaintiff to represent them in only one of the underlying actions, it is undisputed that they requested plaintiffs services with respect to the other action, shortly thereafter. Plaintiffs representation of defendants in the latter matter therefore falls within the ambit of the retainer.

Defendants’ contention that individual defendant Wang could not be held personally liable for the legal fees, because the retainer was silent as to his personal guaranty of payment, is unavailing since Wang signed the retainer not only as the owner of defendant Amersino Marketing Group, LLC, but also individually *(compare Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder,*86 AD3d 406, 408 [1st Dept 2011], *affd*19 NY3d 511 [2012]). Also unavailing is defendants’ argument that Wang should be held liable for only the portion of the work done specifically on his behalf in his individual capacity. Wang and Amersino were sued jointly and severally, and Wang admitted that he would have been liable for the judgment if Amersino failed to pay. Accordingly, all legal work benefitted Wang and Amersino equally.

The court properly declined to grant defendants’ request for a hearing on the reasonableness of the fees, where defendants did not object to the invoices when they received them or within a reasonable time thereafter, establishing an account stated (see *Jaffe v Brown-Jaffe,*98 AD3d 898, 899 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Richter and Feinman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 32882(U).]
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of Interim Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, Gary M. Sawka, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of CAI International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of CAI International, Inc.
 
 Date: March 15, 2011By:
/S/    GARY M. SAWKAGary M. SawkaInterim Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald France, Appellant.

Submitted November 24, 2008;

decided February 11, 2009

Motion to vacate this Court’s November 7, 2008 preclusion order granted.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEVEN B. KING

, as Trustee of the Restated Trust of Denise Reale

, Appellant,

v.

SCOTT PORTMAN, RYAN COUGHLIN, SHERRY ZIMAND,

DARLENE LISS, FRANK J. REALE, JR., and

DEAN REALE, individuals, and KIMBERLY ANN COUGHLIN,

as Executri x /Personal Representative of the Estate of BARBARA MAYO

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 242

[ February 15, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Marc H. Gold , Ju dge; L.T. Case No. PRC 11

- 0003799

.

Steven L. Brannock and Sarah C. Pellenbarg of Brannock &

Humphries, Tampa, for appellant.

No appearance, for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., G ROSS and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Annual Report of Wellstone Filters, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Learned J. Hand, Chief Executive and Financial  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 result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  March 18,2009
By  /s/ Learned J. Hand
-----------------------------
     Learned J. Hand
     Chief Executive and Acting Financial Officer
    (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERIC LaVELLE MAY, AIS # 209534, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0479-WS-N

PAMELA BARBER, :

Defendant. :

ORDER

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

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this 

Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00479-WS-N Document 3 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Gregory S. Weishar, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of PharMerica Corporation;

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 29, 2008



/s/    GREGORY S.
WEISHARChief Executive Officer and Director
#### W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, v. I. C. HARRIS & CO., a corporation, and Hugh Harris, an individual, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 23501.

United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.

Sept. 18, 1964.

A. A. Caghan, Regional Atty., Robert A. Friel, Atty. in Charge, Detroit Office, U. S. Dept, of Labor, for plaintiff.

*117Milton Roberts, Detroit, Mich., for defendants.

THORNTON, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES filed by plaintiff herein, and

After oral argument in open court by counsel for the respective parties, consideration of the letter briefs filed by said counsel, and

It appearing to the Court that Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pursuant to the provisions of which the said interrogatories were submitted, provides that, “Any party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. * * and

It further appearing that interrogatories may not be served upon a person who is not a party (see 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 33.06), nor may the party serving the interrogatories select a particular person and direct that the interrogatories be answered by such person where such person is not a party (see Holland v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 28 F.R.D. 595), and

It further appearing to the Court that the interrogatories to which objections are hereby made by plaintiff, although entitled INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, contain the direction that they be answered under oath by “George Kraft, Jr. and Joseph Mazzara, in whose behalf this action has been brought by Plaintiff,” and

It further appearing to the Court that said Kraft and Mazzara are not parties to this action, the sole plaintiff being W. Willard Wirtz,

It is ordered that the OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGATORIES be and the same are hereby sustained.