alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.1**

----

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 lastminute.com plc (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: January 20, 2003 | /s/ Brent Hoberman        |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | Name:                                                        | Brent Hoberman |
|                   | Title:                                                       | Chief Executive Officer |

|                   |                                                                                                             |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: January 20, 2003 | /s/ David Howell                 |
|                   | Name:                                                                                                            | David Howell |
|                   | Title:                                                                                                           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Unemployment rates by county,

2023 annual averages

(U.S. rate = 3.6 percent)

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Local Area Unemployment Statistics

SOURCE:

5.0% or higher

4.5% to 4.9%

4.0% to 4.4%

3.5% to 3.9%

3.0% to 3.4%

2.5% to 2.9%

2.4% or lower
# TOC

# Tbl 1

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Table of Contents

# Tbl 2

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Table of Contents

# Tbl 3

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Table of Contents
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4096

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Salome Gee Perez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 9, 2006

Filed: October 23, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Salome Gee Perez appeals the 100-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. His counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the sentence is

unreasonable.
-2-

We disagree. In sentencing Perez within the undisputed Guidelines range, the

district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically noting

Perez’s mental health needs; and nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the

sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-64 (2005)

(appellate courts must review sentences for unreasonableness; sentencing courts must

take into account Guidelines and other § 3553(a) factors ); United States v. Tobacco,

428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be

unreasonable if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have

received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,

or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of judgment in

weighing them); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence

within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and defendant bears

burden to rebut that presumption), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5364 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5364

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 5505 Stevens Way in San Diego, California, as the ``Earl B. Gilliam/
                Imperial Avenue 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 5505 
Stevens Way in San Diego, California, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Earl B. Gilliam/Imperial Avenue 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 ``Earl B. Gilliam/Imperial 
Avenue Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00135-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 17th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 017-291527-17

Before Pittman, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

ROBERT WILLIAM SCOTT BAUER; BRAXTON MINERALS, L.L.C.; AND 

BRAXTON MINERALS II, L.L.C., Appellants

V.

JOHN BRADLEY ASHBURN AND POST OAK APPALACHIA, L.L.C., Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert William Scott Bauer; Braxton Minerals, L.L.C.; and Braxton Minerals II, 

L.L.C. attempt to appeal from the trial court’s judgment signed on December 6, 2018. 

Appellants filed a motion for new trial on January 7, 2019, and the notice of appeal 

was therefore due March 6, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. However, appellants did 

not file their notice of appeal until April 15, 2019.

On April 22, 2019, we notified appellants that we were concerned we may not 

have jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. We cautioned that unless they or any party desiring to 

continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before Thursday, May 2, 2019, a 

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss this appeal for 

want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We have not received a 

response.

We do not have jurisdiction over an appeal absent a timely filed notice of 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 25.1(b); Howlett v. Tarrant Cty., 301 S.W.3d 840, 

843 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (citing Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997)). Accordingly, because the notice of appeal 

was untimely, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

Delivered: May 23, 2019
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                           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 Matritech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John S. Doherty, Jr.,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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/ John S. Doherty, Jr.

John S. Doherty, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


         In connection with the filing by Rush Financial Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
2005 (the "Report"), I, Dewey M. Moore, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) and 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 operation of the Company.





                                            /s/ Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  August 19, 2005



This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent as shall be expressly set forth by
specific reference in such filing.
49. Certification and licensing status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over by employment status, 2015 annual averages

Total

With a 

certification, 

but no 

license

With a 

license2 Total

With a 

certification, 

but no 

license

With a 

license2

Civilian noninstitutional population 250,801 44,696 5,461 39,235 206,104 100.0 17.8 2.2 15.6 82.2

 Civilian labor force 157,130 38,984 4,739 34,244 118,146 100.0 24.8 3.0 21.8 75.2

 Employed 148,834 37,930 4,575 33,356 110,903 100.0 25.5 3.1 22.4 74.5

 Usually work full time 121,492 32,627 4,017 28,610 88,865 100.0 26.9 3.3 23.5 73.1

 Usually work part time 27,341 5,303 558 4,745 22,038 100.0 19.4 2.0 17.4 80.6

 Unemployed 8,296 1,054 165 889 7,243 100.0 12.7 2.0 10.7 87.3

 Not in the labor force 93,671 5,713 722 4,991 87,958 100.0 6.1 0.8 5.3 93.9

1 A person may have more than one certification or license.

2 Persons with a license may also have a certification.

NOTE: Certifications are issued by a non-governmental certification body and convey that an individual has the knowledge or skill to perform a specific job. A license is 

awarded by a government agency and conveys a legal authority to work in an occupation. 

Employment status

Number of persons (in thousands) Percent distribution

With a certification or license1 With a certification or license1

Total

Without a 

certification 

or license

Total

Without a 

certification 

or license
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthis Amendment No. 1 on Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kim R.Payne, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Kim R.  Payne                                   |     |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|
| Kim R. Payne                                        |     |
| *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* | * * |

 

November 9, 2007

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-START>                                                      JAN-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                                                        JUN-30-1997 
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                               1 
<CASH>                                                                    9,475 
<SECURITIES>                                                              1,379 
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            34,385 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  0 
<INVENTORY>                                                                   0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         69,081 
<PP&E>                                                                   79,426 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           15,955 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          160,218 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    85,788 
<BONDS>                                                                  48,400 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0 
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0 
<COMMON>                                                                    105 
<OTHER-SE>                                                                8,030 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            160,218 
<SALES>                                                                       0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                        187,106 
<CGS>                                                                         0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           190,334 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                           (890)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                        2,435 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          (4,773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                  0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                      (4,773)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0 
<CHANGES>                                                                     0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                             (4,773)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                             (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             (0.46)
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert DEMEULANAERE, et al., and Universal Cash Register Corporation, Plaintiffs, Universal Machines, Inc., C. E. Schroeder and Marcel Anthony D’Ochaine, Intervener-Plaintiffs, v. ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Ohmer Corporation, The National Cash Register Company and John O. Ekblom, Defendants, Raymond Flasselaerts, Andre Matthyssens and Auguste Lambiotte, Applicants for Intervention.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 2, 1957.

See, also, 23 F.R.D. 686.

Amen, Gans, Weisman & Butler, New York City, for plaintiffs.

*690Fulton, Walter & Halley, New York City, for intervener-plaintiffs.

Cahill, Gordon, Reindel & Ohl, New York City, for defendants Rockwell Mfg. Co., Ohmer Corp. and John O. Ekblom.

Shearman & Sterling & Wright, New York City, for defendant National Cash Register Co.

Littauer & Ullman, New York City, for intervener-applicants.

PALMIERI, District Judge.

This is an application by three individuals, Raymond Flasselaerts, Andre Mat-thyssens and Auguste Lambiotte, to intervene in this action pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The action is under the Sherman Act for treble damages based upon an alleged conspiracy on the part of defendants to monopolize interstate and foreign commerce in cash registers. See 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15, note.

It appears that the intervener-plain-tiffs already in this action, whose interests are identical with those of the applicants, were permitted to intervene by order of Judge Bondy pursuant to stipulation of the parties. It further appears that all the questions of law and fact indicated by the proposed complaint of the applicants are identical with the questions of law and fact already at issue in this action. Indeed, it was conceded upon the argument by counsel for the defendants that the proposed complaint is identical with the complaint of the prior interveners, except for the parties and amount of interest. Moreover, it is substantially similar to the complaint of the plaintiffs.

Since I can discern no prejudice or delay to the defendants in view of the applicants’ expressed willingness to be bound by all proceedings, discovery and stipulations performed to date in this action, except as to those portions thereof made by plaintiffs with respect to applicants’ ownership or interests in the patents involved, the application is granted as an exercise of discretion pursuant to the permissive provisions of Rule 24(b). See Moore, Federal Practice, 2d Ed. Vol. 4, p. 59 et seq.

I understand there is now pending before Judge McGohey a motion by defendants to dismiss this action. The order herein should abide the entry of the order pursuant to Judge McGohey’s decision and shall be entered only in the event the motion is denied and on two days’ notice.
BPI 2012 10-K - EX-10.73






Exhibit 10.73
ADDENDUM TO THE CAMPUSCARE ® SUPPORT AGREEMENT BETWEEN 
CAMPUS MANAGEMENT CORP. AND 
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC. 
Purpose of Addendum: Add Talisma® CRM
This Addendum, effective upon the mutual execution by the parties hereunder, is incorporated into and made a part of the CampusCare Support Agreement (the “CampusCare Agreement”) between Campus Management Corp. (“CMC”) and Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (“Customer”), dated as of February 15, 2005, as amended.  All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the CampusCare Agreement.  The CampusCare Agreement shall be amended, as follows:
		
	1.
	Contemporaneously with this Addendum, Customer is executing the Addendum to the Software License Agreement in order to add an unlimited concurrent user license to use the Talisma CRM Licensed Program.  Accordingly, the incremental Premium CampusCare fees for the unlimited concurrent user license to Talisma CRM, for the period of February 28, 2013, through December 31, 2013, are as follows.




	
		
	License
	Cost

	Talisma CRM
	$[***]

	TOTAL
	$[***]




2.Full payment of the non-refundable fee is due and payable on or before February 28, 2013.
Customer shall promptly pay, indemnify and hold CMC harmless from all sales, use, gross receipts, GST, value-added, personal property or other tax or levy (including interest and penalties) imposed on the services and deliverables provided, other than taxes on the net income or profits of CMC.  Subject to any applicable laws, the foregoing shall not apply to the extent Customer is formed as a not for profit organization and promptly provides CMC an applicable tax exempt certificate.  All prices quoted exclude taxes.
Except as expressly stated herein, all other terms of the CampusCare Agreement, as amended, remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.         CAMPUS MANAGEMENT CORP.
By:     /s/ Daniel J. Devine        By:     /s/ Anders Nessen    
Print: Daniel J. Devine            Print: Anders Nessen    
Title: CFO                Title: CFO    
Date: 6/29/12                Date: 6/29/12    


[***] Confidential portions of this document have been redacted and filed separately with the Commission.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Smith, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 891]

*907The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Considering the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, the defendant’s trial counsel provided him with meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; *People v*Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147-148 [1981]). The defendant’s disagreement with his trial counsel’s strategies and tactics does not establish that his trial counsel provided him with less than meaningful representation *(see People v Ryan,*90 NY2d 822, 824 [1997]; *People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Quito,*43 AD3d 411 [2007]).

However, on the record before us, it is not clear whether the court sentenced the defendant as a second felony drug offender pursuant to Penal Law § 70.70 (3) (b) (i), or as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony pursuant to Penal Law § 70.70 (4) (b) (i) *(see*CPL 400.21). As the People correctly concede on appeal, the defendant should have been sentenced as a second felony drug offender pursuant to Penal Law § 70.70 (3) (b) (i). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kangs County, for resentencing, at which time the court shall clearly set forth that the resentence imposed is made pursuant to the defendant’s proper status as a second felony offender pursuant to Penal Law § 70.70 (3) (b) (i) *(see People v Chisolm,*15 AD3d 154, 155-156 [2005]). Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.