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


 


Rachel Boulds, CPA, PLLC


6371 S. Glenoaks Street


Murray, UT 84107


(801) 230-3945


 





 



 


Engagement Letter for
Accounting / CFO Services


 


December 1, 2014


 


RE: WirelessConnect Inc.


 


TO: Mr. Rick Bjorklund:


This letter is to set forth the terms
and objectives of our proposed engagement and the nature and limitations of the services I will provide to your company until mutually
changed.


 


		A.	Agreed Upon Services. Effective upon the execution of this agreement I will serve in the position
of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for WirelessConnect, Inc. and its subsidiaries. In the capacity as CFO for the Company my responsibilities
will include, but are not limited to.



 


		1)	Responsible for all accounting functions for the Company and its subsidiaries while maintaining
strict accounting procedures and implementing of operational best practices.



 


		2)	Prepare the Company’s quarterly and year-end financial statements and Form 10-Q and 10-K
and work with the Company, attorneys and auditor in order to ensure quarterly and year end financials are filed by the required
SEC deadline.



 


		3)	Ensure that effective internal controls are in place and ensure compliance with GAAP and SEC rules
for financial reporting.



 


		4)	Sign any necessary corporate documents.



 


		5)	Perform any and all duties that are reasonable and that are customarily performed by a person holding
a similar position.



 


		B.	Professional Fees. Compensation will be paid as follows:



 


1)    Months 1 - 6, a monthly consulting fee
of $1,250 and $750 worth of common stocks in accordance with Rule 144.


 


2)    Months 7 - 12, a monthly consulting fee of $1,500
and $500 worth of common stocks in accordance with Rule 144.


 


3)    Months 13 - 24, a monthly consulting fee of $2,000
and $250 worth of common stocks in accordance with Rule 144.


 


		C.	Factors Affecting Professional Fees. Professional fees are based on several factors, the most important
of which include time and labor involved; skill requisite to perform the professional services properly, and any special circumstances
or projects that may arise. Taking these factors into consideration it may in the future become necessary to increase my compensation.
Any increase will be mutually discussed and agreed upon.



 






    	 



    	 



    

 


Please
date and sign a copy of this letter and return it to acknowledge your agreement with the terms of this engagement.


 





	Sincerely,	 
	 	 
		 
	Rachel Boulds, CPA	 


 


Response: This letter correctly sets forth
the understanding of WirelessConnect Inc, on behalf of the Company.


 


	 	 
		 
	Rick Bjorklund, CEO and Chairman
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Renhuang Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Li Shaoming, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





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





(2)  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
                February 13, 2007
            /s/
                Li ShaomingBy: 
                Li ShaomingIts: 
                Chief Executive Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Renhuang Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Renhuang Pharmaceuticals,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of AmeriVest Properties Inc., a Maryland real estate investment trust (the "Issuer"), hereby certifies
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (the "Annual Report") of the Issuer for the year ended December 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78 m(a)) and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer

|/s/KATHRYN L. HALEKathryn L. Hale Chief Financial
OfficerApril 29, 2005 |  |  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 23.1     Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statement (Form S-8, Nos. 333-60629 and 33-707145) of our report dated June 14, 2006, except for Note A, to which the date is September 30, 2006, with respect to the financial statements of Dexterity Surgical, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2005.    /s/   Akin, Doherty, Klein & Feuge, P.C.    Akin, Doherty, Klein & Feuge, P.C. San Antonio, Texas March 27, 2007
#### Joseph R.C. et al., Appellants, v Bronx Underground LLC, Defendant, and First Lutheran Church of Throggs Neck et al., Respondents.

[987 NYS2d 161]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered April 10, 2013, which granted the motions of defendants First Lutheran Church of Throggs Neck (the Church) and David Rose for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the Church, in this action where infant plaintiff was injured when he was struck in the head by an unidentified participant at a music event held at the Church’s premises and hosted by defendant Bronx Underground LLC. The Church owed no duty to supervise the subject music event, or to otherwise retain control of its premises *(see McGlynn v St. Andrew Apostle Church,*304 AD2d 372 [1st Dept 2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 508 [2003]).

Dismissal of the complaint as against Rose was also proper where Rose, a principal of Bronx Underground LLC, did not *584commit an affirmative tort so as to subject him to personal liability to plaintiff *(see Peguero v 601 Realty Corp.,*58 AD3d 556, 559 [1st Dept 2009]). Nor did Rose exercise complete dominion over the LLC alleged to have committed the wrong *(see Brito v DILP Corp.,*282 AD2d 320 [1st Dept 2001]; *see also Mendez v City of New York,*259 AD2d 441 [1st Dept 1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions, including that the motion court improperly resolved issues of credibility on a motion for summary judgment, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.
eM&MXi^-L

•tfr<Z p/9*/iP-fi'iy> Rf&-£</&\.J%-£afy'&£-£*''

"1/fM f/^C'U Ttf&,

,^n££Em^22i3io^ML^B^

^aTQ^GRf^ffN7%L~APPEALS

7^;L 7 ?~> ,

o go 52 33 /l>0 M//Isn't/? 5 '•
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              21
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                       217
<INVENTORY>                                      6,041
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,798
<PP&E>                                           6,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,892
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,006
<SALES>                                         19,951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,951
<CGS>                                           13,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    804
<INCOME-TAX>                                       411
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                393
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       393
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7552

DAVID ROBINSON, 

Petitioner – Appellant, 

v. 

VANCE LAUGHLIN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND, 

Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:10-cv-01800-PJM) 

Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 21, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, for Appellee The Attorney 

General of the State of Maryland. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

David Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition 

and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. These orders are

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

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

(2006). 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). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 10.3A**

**AMENDMENT NUMBERONE****TO THE****ALABAMA NATIONAL BANCORPORATION****PLAN FOR THE DEFERRAL OF COMPENSATION****BY NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS OF THE SUBSIDIARYBANKS**

**WHEREAS,**Alabama National BanCorporation (“ANB”) maintains the Alabama National BanCorporation Plan for theDeferral of Compensation by Non-Employee Directions of the Subsidiary Banks (the “Plan”); and

**WHEREAS,**pursuant toSection 7(d) of the Plan, ANB reserved the right to amend the Plan; and

**WHEREAS,**currently, the non-employee directors of two ofANB’s subsidiary banks (National Bank of Commerce of Birmingham and First American Bank) are eligible to participate in the Plan; and

**WHEREAS,**the Board of Directors of ANB has approved an amendment to the Plan such that non-employee directors of a third subsidiary bank, Community Bank of Naples, National Association, shall also be eligible to participate in thePlan.

**NOW, THEREFORE,** the Plan is hereby amended effective as of February 17th, 2000 as follows:

1.  Amend Exhibit A to the Plan by adding the following to the list of eligiblesubsidiary banks:

Community Bank of Naples, National Association

2.  All of the other terms, provisions and conditions of the Plan not herein amended shall remain in full force and effect.

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** ANB has caused this amendment to be executed by duly authorized representatives this 17th day of February, 2000.

 

| **ATTEST:**                               |                    | **ALABAMA NATIONAL BANCORPORATION** |
|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|  /s/   KIMBERLY MOORE |                    | By:                            | /s/   WILLIAM E. MATTHEWS, V |
|                                           |                    |                                |  |
| Its:                                      | **Corporate Secretary** |                                | Its: | **Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer** |
|                                           |                         |                                     |  |  |

[SEAL]
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
 TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
 OF
 TOTAL IDENTITY CORP.
 (Under Section 607.0602 of the Florida Business Corporation Act)
 
 The undersigned, being the President and Chief Executive Officer of TOTAL IDENTITY CORP., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the Business Corporation Act of the State of Florida (the "Corporation"), bearing document number S68597, does hereby certify that the following resolutions were duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation as required by Section 607.0602 of the Florida Business Corporation Act:
 
 RESOLVED , that the series of Preferred Stock, denominated as the Corporations Series A Preferred Stock and consisting of 250,000 shares, be eliminated and restored to the status of authorized but unissued Preferred Stock, subject to future designation by the Board of Directors in accordance with the authority conferred upon it in the Corporations Articles of Incorporation, as amended.
 
 RESOLVED , that the series of Preferred Stock, denominated as the Corporations Series B Preferred Stock and consisting of 500,000 shares, be eliminated and restored to the status of authorized but unissued Preferred Stock, subject to future designation by the Board of Directors in accordance with the authority conferred upon it in the Corporations Articles of Incorporation, as amended.
 
 RESOLVED , that Article IV of the Corporations Articles of Incorporation  SHARES  be and the same hereby is amended, by adding to the end thereof, the following:
 
 The series of Preferred Stock, denominated as the Corporations Series A Preferred Stock and consisting of 250,000 shares, is hereby eliminated and restored to the status of authorized but unissued Preferred Stock, subject to future designation by the Board of Directors in accordance with the authority conferred upon it in the Corporations Articles of Incorporation, as amended.
 
 The series of Preferred Stock, denominated as the Corporations Series B Preferred Stock and consisting of 500,000 shares, is hereby eliminated and restored to the status of authorized but unissued Preferred Stock, subject to future designation by the Board of Directors in accordance with the authority conferred upon it in the Corporations Articles of Incorporation, as amended.
 
 The foregoing resolutions and amendment were duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation by Unanimous Written Consent in Lieu of Meeting dated June 25, 2004. There are no issued or outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock or Series B Preferred Stock and Shareholder approval of these Articles of Amendment is not required under Section 607.0602 of the Florida Business Corporation Act.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, has executed these Articles of Amendment as of June 25, 2004.
 
 
 TOTAL IDENTITY CORP.
 By: /s/ Matthew P. DwyerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
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 Renhuang Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending October 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Zuoliang Wang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the
Report:





(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 operation of the Company.




/s/Zuoliang WangZuoliang
      WangChief
      Financial Officer and Director
                    (Principle
      Financial Officer)




Dated:
September 9, 2009
#### Yumi ITO, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The TOKIO MARINE AND FIRE INSURANCE CO., LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-55253.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 2008.*

Filed June 16, 2008.

Thomas F. Mortimer, Jr., Esq., Law Offices of Thomas F. Mortimer, Jr., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas M. Thornton, Esq., Nelsen Thompson Pegue & Thornton, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ALDISERT ** and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Yumi Ito appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee The Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd. (“Tokio Marine”).

Ito’s claims are barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. The “discovery rule” does not render Ito’s claims timely because Ito’s July 1998 letter to the California Insurance Commissioner demonstrates that, at that time, she suspected wrongdoing on the part of Tokio Marine, was aware of the factual basis for her claims and had an incentive to file suit. *See Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.,*44 Cal.3d 1103, 245 Cal.Rptr. 658, 751 P.2d 923, 927-928 (1988). Because Ito has not pleaded a civil conspiracy, the last overt act rule cannot save her claims. *See Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.,*24 Cal.3d 773, 157 Cal.Rptr. 392, 598 P.2d 45, 53 (1979). Additionally, because Ito’s reliance on alleged promises of reimbursement made by Tokio Marine was not reasonable, the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not prevent Tokio Marine from asserting that Ito’s claims are barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. *See Mills v. Forestex Co.,*108 Cal.App.4th 625, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 273, 298 (2003).

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Ito’s request for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing pursuant to Rule 56(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because the evidence Ito sought would not have created an issue of material fact.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2741 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2741

     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
                    project, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2009

  Mr. Walden introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
                    project, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 16__ the following:

``SEC. 16__. CITY OF HERMISTON, OREGON, WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE 
              PROJECT.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the City 
of Hermiston, Oregon, is authorized to participate in the design, 
planning, and construction of permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse 
water in the City of Hermiston, Oregon.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the costs of the project 
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operation and maintenance of the project described in subsection 
(a).''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 16__ the 
following:

``Sec. 16__. City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
                            project.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Frank Errico et al., Appellants, v Ellen Healy et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 25]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated February 25, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated April 18, 1997, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination *(see,*CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 25, 1997, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 18, 1997, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 18, 1997, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to establish an issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.