alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3


 


Quinpario
Acquisition Corp. 2


12935
N. Forty Drive, Suite 201


St.
Louis, MO 63141


 


_____________,
2014


  


Quinpario
Partners LLC


12935 N.
Forty Drive, Suite 201


St. Louis,
MO 63141


 


Ladies and
Gentlemen:


 


This
letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the
registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of the securities of Quinpario Acquisition Corp. 2 (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier
of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case
as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”),
Quinpario Partners LLC shall make available to the Company certain office space and administrative and support services as may
be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 12935 N. Forty Drive, Suite 201, St. Louis, MO 63141 (or any successor
location). In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay Quinpario Partners LLC the sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective Date
and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. Quinpario Partners LLC hereby agrees that it does not have any right,
title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”)
to be established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may
have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not
seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


	 	Very
    truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	QUINPARIO
    ACQUISITION CORP. 2
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:
	 	 	Title:


 


AGREED TO
AND ACCEPTED BY:


 


	QUINPARIO
    PARTNERS LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 2

- 00 093

- C V



### ____________________

JAMES TAYLOR, INDIVIDUALLY AS WRONGFUL DEATH

BENEFICIARY OF DORIS HAYNIE AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE

OF DORIS HAYNIE

, Appellant

V.

ACTAVIS, INC., ACTAVIS TOTOWA, LLC, ACTAVIS ELIZABETH,

LLC, MYLAN, INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN

BERTEK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND UDL LABORATORIES, INC.

, Appellee s

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 260th District Court

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. D

- 090397HC

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, James Taylor, Individually as Wrongful Death Beneficiary of Doris

Haynie and on Behalf of The Estate of Doris Haynie

, and the appellees, Actavis, Inc.,

Actavis Totowa, LLC, Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,

Inc., Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and UDL Laboratories, Inc.

, filed a joint motion2 to dismiss this appeal. The motion is voluntarily made by the parties prior to any decision

of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 . We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Opinion Delivered March 28, 2013

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
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 on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 of Dutch Gold Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel W. Hollis, Chief Executive 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:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date: May 24, 2011





/s/Daniel W. Hollis


Daniel W. Hollis, Chief Executive Officer and Director


(principal executive officer)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47226-47227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21829]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 47227]]

amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Initial Review 
Group; Biological Aging Review Committee.
    Date: October 5-6, 2017.
    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott Pooks Hill, 5151 Pooks Hill Rd., 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Bita Nakhai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Branch, 
National Institute on Aging, Gateway Bldg., 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7701, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96f8f7fdfef7fff4d6f8fff7b8f8fffeb8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5dbd4deddd4dcd7f5dbdcd49bdbdcdd9bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 4, 2017.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-21829 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Altair Nanotechnologies Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, William P. Long, Chief Executive 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 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 results of operations of the
Company.

         /s/ William P. Long
         -----------------------------
             William P. Long
             Chief Executive Officer

August 13, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Loknaud Ramkisson, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 447]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered August 11, 1995, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the trial court’s *Allen*charge *(see, People v Allen,*164 US 492) coerced the jury into returning a verdict and was an insufficient response to a juror’s note indicating that she was being pressured by other members of the jury. This argument is unpreserved for appellate review as the defense counsel neither requested a specific charge nor objected to the *Allen*charge on the specific grounds the defendant now raises *(see, People v Perdomo,*204 AD2d 358; *People v Velez,*150 AD2d 514, 515). In any event, the defendant’s claims are meritless.

The defendant’s claim of ineffective counsel is similarly without merit. Viewing the defense counsel’s performance in its entirety, in conjunction with the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, the defendant enjoyed meaningful representation at all stages of the trial *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147; *see also, People v Johnson,*184 AD2d 732, 733; *People v Blackman,*173 AD2d 482, 483; *People v Badia,*159 AD2d 577, 579).

The defendant’s remaining claims are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.
MultiSoft-2014.10.31 -  EX10.1












December 15, 2014 


Multi Soft II, Inc.
4400 Biscayne Boulevard; 10th Floor
Miami, FL 33137


Re:    Amendment No. 4 to Revolving Credit Promissory Note


Reference is made to the Revolving Credit Promissory Note (the “Revolver”) dated April 23, 2012 in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants contained and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree to increase the Commitment Amount, as defined in the Revolver, from $300,000 to $350,000 and extend the Maturity Date of the Revolver to December 31, 2017 from December 31, 2015.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 4 to the Revolving Credit Promissory Note to be duly executed and attested, all as of the date first written above.


BORROWER:


MUTLI SOFT II, INC., a Florida Corporation




By:    /s/ Robert M. Lundgren        
Name:    Robert M. Lundgren
Director


LENDER:


VECTOR GROUP LTD., a Delaware Corporation




By:    /s/ Marc N. Bell            
Name:    Marc N. Bell
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of the Chief Accounting Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Eric J. Schoen, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Vermillion, Inc.;
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                         
|------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------
|Date: May 30, 2012 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Eric J. Schoen      
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | Eric J. Schoen          
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Accounting Officer
#### Noll GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Intervenor-Appellee, v. Dennis BROCKWAY; Robert Stewart; Stewart Miles & Associates, Defendants-Appellees, and J.J. Zavoshy; Y.W. Zavoshy; H & H Properties; Zavoshy Rev. Inter Vivos Trust, Defendants. Tamara Thompson; Disabled Rights Action Committee (a Utah non-profit corporation), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gohres Construction Co., a Nevada corporation; Marc Gohres, Defendants, and Michael E. Turk, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 05-35647, 06-15042.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 7, 2008.

Ken Nagy, Esq., Keeton & Tait, Lewi-ston, ID, Maria E. Andrade, Esq., Law Offices of Maria E. Andrade, Boise, ID, Richard F. Armknecht, III, Esq., Lindon, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*1090Candy W. Dale, Esq., Hall Farley Ober-recht & Blanton, Kirtlan G. Naylor, Esq., Carlton R. Ericson, Esq. Naylor & Hales, Boise, ID, Joshua H. Reisman, Esq., Stanley W. Parry, Esq., Curran *&*Parry, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

J. Nick Crawford, Brassey, Wetherell, Crawford & Garrett, LLP, Boise, ID, for Defendants.

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
<PAGE>

                               VIALOG CORPORATION

          CALCULATION OF SHARES USED IN DETERMINING NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                       September 30,         September 30,
                                    --------------------  --------------------
                                      1999       2000       1999       2000
                                    ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
<S>                                 <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Common stock, beginning of
 period...........................  8,661,722  9,471,102  3,693,672  9,133,569
Weighted average common shares
 issued during period, net........     77,503     25,199  3,933,948    207,631
Common stock options and warrants
 using the treasury stock method..        --         --         --         --
                                    ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
                                    8,739,225  9,496,301  7,627,620  9,341,200
                                    =========  =========  =========  =========
Net loss (in thousands)...........  $  (2,478) $  (3,731) $  (9,403) $  (6,009)
                                    =========  =========  =========  =========
Basic and diluted net loss per
 share............................  $   (0.28) $   (0.39) $   (1.23) $   (0.64)
                                    =========  =========  =========  =========
</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3190 

To restore the rule that agreements between manufacturers and retailers, 

distributors, or wholesalers to set the price below which the manufacturer’s product or service cannot be sold violates the Sherman Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2009 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To restore the rule that agreements between manufacturers 

and retailers, distributors, or wholesalers to set the price 

below which the manufacturer’s product or service cannot 

be sold violates the Sherman Act. 

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 ‘‘Discount Pricing Con5 sumer Protection Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3190 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MINIMUM RESALE PRICE MAINTE2 NANCE. 

3 Any agreement setting a price below which a product 

4 or service cannot be sold by a retailer, wholesaler, or dis5 tributor shall violate section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 

6 U.S.C. 1). 

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

8 This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of 

9 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REQUIRED
      BY RULE 13A - 14(B) OR RULE 15D - 14(B) AND 18 U.S.C. 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Inova Technology Inc.





On
      Form
      10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange  Commission  on  the date hereof (the *“Report”* ),
      I, Bob
      Bates, Chief Financial  Officer of  the  Company,  certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, 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.


By:
              /s/
                Bob
                BatesBob
                    Bates
                  Chief
                    Financial Officer
                  *February
                    15, 2008*
#### McColers *vs.*The State of Georgia.

[Jackson, C. J., not presiding, on account of providential cause.]

Where a misdemeanor was tried in a county court, and from the judgment therein a *certiorari*was taken to the superior court, and upon its dismissal the defendant excepted, the bill of exceptions should have been served upon the solicitor general of the circuit, and not upon the solicitor of the county court; and for a failure to serve the solicitor general, the writ of error will be dismissed.

Writ of error dismissed.

September 23, 1884.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(B) OR RULE 15D - 14(B) AND 18 U.S.C. 1350




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inova Technology Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report" ), I, Bob Bates, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, 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.




By: /s/ Bob BatesBob BatesCFOSeptember 17, 2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SEALED APPELLANT 1, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10212

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 28, 2011.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sealed Appellant 1 appeals the revocation of his supervised release following a conviction for a controlled substance offense. Appellant has served the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon revocation, and the district court imposed no further term of supervised release. Therefore, Appellant has no “concrete and continuing injury,” and there is no case or controversy over which this court may exercise jurisdiction under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution. *Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43*364(1998). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED as MOOT.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Edward Suydam, the Chief Executive Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-Q of Nano Mask for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.  /s/ Edward Suydam Edward Suydam Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) Nano Mask, Inc.  January 5, 2012
#### Joseph-Allan Quiza SORIANO; Michael-Allan Quiza Soriano, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-75127.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 15, 2011.

*732Nancy Ellen Miller, Esquire, Law Offices of Reeves & Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.

Kathryn McKinney, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *732*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph-Allan Quiza Soriano and Michael-Allan Quiza Soriano, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding petitioners failed to show prejudice where they both testified that they personally had had no problems in the Philippines. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 899-90 (9th Cir.2003) (prejudice results when the performance of counsel “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion to reopen. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

Petitioners’ contention that the immigration judge was biased and hostile, and precluded them from presenting their asylum claim is not supported by the record.

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ claim that they are now eligible to adjust them status based on their marriages to United States’ citizens because they failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Michael J. Marx, the Chief Financial Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-Q of Nano Mask for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.   /s/ Michael J. Marx Michael J. Marx Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  January 27, 2012