alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.33**McAFEE, INC.****Amendment of Stock Options**     By electing to amend your discount options, the outstanding Stock Option Agreements (the“**Agreements**”) related to grants number 32125 and 31443 under the McAfee, Inc. (the “**Company**”) 1997Stock Incentive Plan and the Networks Associates, Inc. 2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan (the“**Plans**”) by and between the Company and William Kerrigan (“**Optionee**”) are hereby amended asfollows:     Unless otherwise defined herein, initially capitalized terms shall have the same meanings asdefined in the Plan.     1. Effective Date. This Amendment of Stock Options and Election to Amend StockOptions (“**Amendment**”) is effective as of November 13, 2007 (the “**Effective Date**”).     2. Amendments to Exercise Price Per Share. (a) The exercise price of the options which vest January 1, 2005 or later,to purchase 21,876 shares of Company common stock under grant number 32125 ishereby increased to $16.75 per share; and  (b) The exercise price of the options which vest January 1, 2005 or later,to purchase 5,002 shares of Company common stock under grant number 31443 is herebyincreased to $15.26 per share.     3. Extension of Exercisability Period. The options granted under the Agreements shallremain exercisable until the date that is 90 days after the Company first becomes no longer subjectto a blackout with respect to its stock after the Effective Date of this Agreement; provided,however, that in no event shall such options be exercisable beyond the earlier of: (a) 10 yearsfrom the option’s date of grant, (b) the original expiration of the option’s term, or (c) December31, 2008.     4. Option Agreements. To the extent not expressly amended hereby, the Agreementsremain in full force and effect.     5. Entire Agreement. This Amendment, taken together with the Agreements (to the extentnot expressly amended hereby), and any duly authorized written or electronic agreement entered intoby and between the Company and Optionee relating to the stock option grants evidenced by theAgreements, represent the entire agreement of the parties, supersede any and all previouscontracts, arrangements or understandings between the parties with respect to the stock optiongrants evidenced by the Agreements, and may be amended at any time only by mutual written agreementof the parties hereto.     ***This Amendment must be properly completed and signed by you and delivered to Stephen R.Thompkins at McAfee, Inc., 5000 Headquarters Drive, Plano, Texas, 75024.***
 

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is effective as of the Effective Date.     **McAFEE, INC.** **OPTIONEE**       */s/ Stephen R. Thompkins* */s/ William Kerrigan*            *Signature* *Signature*       *Stephen R. Thompkins* *William Kerrigan*  *Vice President & Deputy General Counsel*           *Signed:*November 19,2007*       
-2-*
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer


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 BLS Media, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Brittany
Prager, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





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




/s/
      Brittany PragerBrittany
      Prager
                          Chief
      Executive Officer
                          March
      30, 2009
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
     **To the Board of Directors Of Spatializer Audio Laboratories, Inc.:**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-27453 and 333-41170) of Spatializer Audio Laboratories, Inc. of our report dated March 6, 2004,related to the consolidated balance sheets of Spatializer Audio Laboratories, Inc. and subsidiariesas of December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income,stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the annual report on Form 10-Kof Spatializer Audio Laboratories, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.
/s/ FARBER & HASS LLP
Oxnard, California
March 10, 2005
45
#### Michelle Edelstein, Respondent, v Ronald J. Edelstein, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 606]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered August 14, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, upon renewal, granted plaintiffs motion to hold defendant in contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders relating to pendente lite financial obligations, and directed incarceration of defendant for the lesser of 60 days or until he pays the sum of $436,527.24, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing on *568defendant’s stated financial inability to comply with all of the obligations contained in the orders.

As a matter of due process, a hearing is required on a contempt motion that will result in incarceration when the party opposing the motion asserts a defense of financial inability to comply *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 246 [3]; *Bergman v*Bergman, 84 AD3d 537, 539 [1st Dept 2011]). Here, in opposition to the original contempt motion, defendant requested a hearing on his ability to pay, and submitted evidence to show that all of his income was going toward paying his monthly pendente lite obligations for spousal and child support, as well as the mortgage and virtually all expenses of maintaining the marital residence, tuition for the parties’ five children, and other expenses of the household. He asserted that he could not continue to meet those obligations and also comply with the portions of the prior orders requiring him to pay additional lump sum amounts, including over $262,000 to a contractor to make repairs to the marital residence and $150,000 to the wife’s attorney for interim legal fees. He submitted a statement of net worth showing assets worth about $1.5 million, which he contended had no ready market value, and asserted that, even if those assets could be sold, he then would have no income with which to satisfy his continuing support obligations. Defendant also submitted an affidavit of the family’s long-time accountant concerning defendant’s income and opining that defendant could not comply with the additional orders requiring the lump sum payments without liquidating all of his assets. Plaintiff responded that defendant was being deceitful and hiding assets and income that would enable him to comply, pointing to inconsistencies in his submissions and to his comfortable lifestyle.

Upon renewal, plaintiff requested a hearing in connection with her contempt motion, and argued that no means other than contempt were available to obtain satisfaction because defendant’s disclosed income was insufficient and he had no remaining assets that could be sequestered or used to satisfy a money judgment.

Since the issue of defendant’s financial ability to comply with all of the obligations imposed by the court’s orders turns on issues of credibility, which cannot be resolved on the face of the submitted documents, a hearing is required before a determination can be made. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.
**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 Cubic Energy, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,as C.F.O., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Date: November 15, 2010 |                     |
|------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                         |                     |
| Signature:                   | /s/  Larry G. Badgley    |   |
|                         | Larry G. Badgley, C.F.O. |   |

 

----
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 578 

To better manage the national instant criminal background check system 

and terrorism matches. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2005 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. CLINTON, 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. REED, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To better manage the national instant criminal background 

check system and terrorism matches. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Terrorist Apprehension 

5 and Record Retention Act of 2005’’ or the ‘‘TARR Act 

6 of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 578 IS

1 SEC. 2. IDENTIFICATION OF TERRORISTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922(t) of title 18, United 

3 States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (6) 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘(7) If the national criminal background check 

6 system indicates that a person attempting to pur7 chase a firearm or applying for a State permit to 

8 possess, acquire, or carry a firearm is identified as 

9 a known or suspected member of a terrorist organi10 zation in records maintained by the Department of 

11 Justice or the Department of Homeland Security, 

12 including the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organiza13 tion File, or records maintained by the Intelligence 

14 Community, including records maintained under sec15 tion 343 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for 

16 Fiscal Year 2003 (50 U.S.C. 404n–2)— 

17 ‘‘(A) all information related to the prospec18 tive transaction shall automatically and imme19 diately be transmitted to the appropriate Fed20 eral and State counterterrorism officials, includ21 ing the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 

22 ‘‘(B) the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

23 shall coordinate the response to such an event; 

24 and 

25 ‘‘(C) all records generated in the course of 

26 the check of the national criminal background 
3 

•S 578 IS

1 check system, including the ATF Form 4473, 

2 that are obtained by Federal and State officials 

3 shall be retained for a minimum of 10 years.’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

5 (1) TITLE 18.—Section 922(t)(2)(C) of title 18, 

6 United States Code, is amended by inserting after 

7 ‘‘transfer’’ the following: ‘‘, except as provided in 

8 paragraph (7)’’. 

9 (2) OTHER LAW.—Section 617(a)(2) of the De10 partments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Ju11 diciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

12 2004 (118 Stat. 95) is amended by inserting after 

13 ‘‘or State Law’’ the following: ‘‘, except for informa14 tion required to be maintained by section 922(t)(7) 

15 of title 18, United States Code’’. 

Æ
#### Martin *v.*Kendrick *et al.*

The evidence warranted the verdict. The newly discovered evidence, if true, would only tend to discredit the plaintiff’s witnesses, and would throw no direct light of its own upon the controversy. The court did not err in denying a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

August 6, 1894.

Trover. Before Judge Harris. Carroll superior court. - April term, 1898.

C. W. Austin, for plaintiff in error. Oscar Reese, W. F. Brown, W. C. Adamson and C. P. Cordon, contra.

The suit was for the value of certain cross-ties, and plaintiffs had a verdict. The case turned on questions of fact and credibility of witnesses, the evidence being conflicting.
948 A.2d 586

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Daniel H. GREEN, Respondent.

Misc. Docket AG No. 65,

Sept. Term, 2007.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 27, 2008.

*ORDER*

This matter came before the Court on the Joint Petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Daniel H. Green, Esquire for a thirty (30) day suspension by consent.

The Court, having considered the Petition, it is this 27th day of May, 2008,

ORDERED that Daniel H. Green is suspended for a period of thirty (30) days effective August 1, 2008. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Daniel H. Green from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and the Clerks of all courts in this State that the attorney’s name has been so stricken.
Exhibit 31


 Re: Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-1, Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2007-1, issued pursuant to the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2007, among Morgan
Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., as depositor, Countrywide Home Loans
Servicing LP, as a servicer, Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., as a
servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as a servicer and
custodian, First NLC Financial Services, LLC, as responsible party,
and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee.

I, Steven Shapiro , certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
 Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by
 this report on Form 10-K of Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust
2007-1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

     2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
 made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
 Report;

     3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
 other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
 reports;

     4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except
as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
 fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
material respects; and

     5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
 criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
 except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material
instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as servicer and Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, as servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
as custodian and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee..


Date: March 28, 2008

/s/  Steven Shapiro
Steven Shapiro
Vice President
(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11699]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

United States Parole Commission

Public Announcement Pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine 
Act (Pub. L. 94-409) [5 U.S.C. Section 552b]

Agency Holding Meeting: Department of Justice, United States Parole 
Commission.

Date and Time: 10 a.m., Thursday, May 21, 2009.

Place: U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, 
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.

Status: Closed.

Matters Considered: The following matter will be considered during the 
closed meeting: Approval or disapproval of a hearing examiner 
appointment.

Agency Contact:  Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States 
Parole Commission, (301) 492-5990.

    Dated: May 14, 2009.
Rockne Chickinell,
General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-11699 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
```
exhibitindex

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.**EXHIBIT 15**
July 30, 2002  

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders ofSears, Roebuck and Co.

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accounts, of the unaudited interimcondensed consolidated financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the13-week periods ended March 30, 2002 and March 31, 2001, as indicated in ourreport dated May 1, 2002 (July 18, 2002 as to Note 7); because we did notperform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the 13-week period ended March 30, 2002, isincorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851, 33-64345,333-08141, and 333-52056 of Sears, Roebuck and Co; Registration Statement No.333-92082 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck Acceptance Corp.;Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears, Roebuckand Co. and Sears Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan; RegistrationStatement No. 333-56272 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the Sears 401(K) SavingsPlan (formerly, The Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees and theSears 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan); Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears,Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC Corp; Registration Statement No. 333-72514 ofSears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2001 Broad-Based Stock Option Plan; andRegistration Statement No. 333-87942 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2002Non-Employee Director Stock Plan.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
 

Chicago, Illinois
#### Barklee Realty Company LLC et al., Appellants, v Michael Bloomberg, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Decided October 22, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 479.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### In the Matter of De’Von M.F.C., Also Known as De’Von C., an Infant. Administration for Children’s Services et al., Respondents; Mustapha F., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 622]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother’s parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, Mustafa F. appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated January 18, 2011, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that he was not a father whose consent to the adoption of the subject child was required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Children’s Aid Society and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s determination that the appellant’s consent to the adoption was not required was supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see Matter of Julian J.C. [Juan C.],*96 AD3d 937 [2012]; *Matter of Jaden Dasani-Amru B. [Roy Alphonso B.],*74 AD3d 801 [2010]; *Matter of Serenity Anya C.,*60 AD3d 852 [2009]). The appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child through the payment of support *739and either regular visitation or other communication with the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; *Matter of Janette C. [Sean R.],*88 AD3d 787, 787 [2011]; *Matter of Martin V.L. [Martin L.],*88 AD3d 714, 715 [2011]; *Matter of Aaron P.,*61 AD3d 448, 448 [2009]; *Matter of Hassan Lawrence W.,*42 AD3d 573, 573-574 [2007]). Moreover, his “incarceration did not absolve him of the responsibility to provide financial support for the child, according to his means, and to maintain regular contact with the child or the petitioner” *(Matter of Jayquan J. [Clint J.],*77 AD3d 947, 948 [2010]; see *Matter of Martin V.L. [Martin L.],*88 AD3d at 715; *Matter of Kevin A., Jr.,*61 AD3d 859, 860 [2009]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.