alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.8





 Exhibit 10.8 

ST FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 

AMENDMENT TO 2008 STOCK PLAN 

On May 21, 2015, the shareholders of ST Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) at a duly called annual meeting of
shareholders approved an amendment to the ST Financial Group, Inc. 2008 Stock Plan (the “Plan”) to increase the number of shares of Company common stock available for issuance under the Plan from 2,600,000 to 3,500,000 shares. 

 

	
	
	/s/ Dean O. Bass
	Dean O. Bass, Chairman and CEO
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

PABLO MARQUEZ-GARDUZA,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5084M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( X ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (/) Defendant stipulated to detention without prejudice

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 May 11, 2006.

____s/ Karen L. Strombom______________

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05084-GHK Document 7 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Felipe A. Pati,  President,  Chief Executive  Officer and Director of Digital
Valleys Corp.  (the  "Company"),  hereby certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (a)  the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the year ended
          April 30, 2009, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit
          32 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


By: /s/ Felipe A. Pati
   ---------------------------------------------------
Name:  Felipe A. Pati
Title: President Treasurer, Secretary, and Director
       (Principal Executive and Principal Financial
       and Accounting Officer)

Date:  August 7, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of
this Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
From: dvand@iw.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:48:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dorothy Vandendriessche

Marshall, MN 56258
From: johnny_helms@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:07:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Johnny & Vivian Helms

Gastonia, NC 28056
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 11 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 11

 Commemorating ``Juneteenth Independence Day,'' June 19, 1865, the day 
     on which slavery finally came to an end in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 23, 1997

 Mr. Lott (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Levin, and Ms. Moseley-Braun) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Commemorating ``Juneteenth Independence Day,'' June 19, 1865, the day 
     on which slavery finally came to an end in the United States.

Whereas news of the end of slavery came late to frontier areas of the country, 
        especially in the American Southwest;
Whereas the African-Americans who had been slaves in the Southwest thereafter 
        celebrated June 19 as the anniversary of their emancipation;
Whereas their descendants handed down that tradition from generation to 
        generation as an inspiration and encouragement for future generations;
Whereas Juneteenth celebrations have thus been held for 130 years to honor the 
        memory of all those who endured slavery and especially those who moved 
        from slavery to freedom; and
Whereas their example of faith and strength of character remains a lesson for 
        all Americans today, regardless of background or region or race: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the annual observance of 
June 19 as Juneteenth Independence Day is an important and enriching 
part of our country's history and heritage.
    That the celebration of Juneteenth provides an opportunity for all 
Americans to learn more about our common past and to better understand 
the experiences that have shaped our Nation.
    That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the National 
Association of Juneteenth Lineage as an expression of appreciation for 
its role in promoting the observance of Juneteenth Independence Day.
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE ATTILA CZINEGE,

Defendant.

No. CR06-109P

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S

MOTION IN LIMINE FOR AN

ORDER DECLARING THE LAW

APPLICABLE TO, AND

PERMITTING PROOF SUPPORTING,

HIS DEFENSE OF COERCION AND

DURESS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion in limine for an order declaring the

law applicable to, and permitting proof supporting, his defense of coercion and duress. (Dkt. No. 47). 

In his opening brief, Defendant argued that Canadian law should supply the standard by which his

defense of coercion and duress is evaluated. In a supplemental memorandum, Defendant argues that if

the Court finds that the more stringent law of the United States applies, Defendant should still be

permitted to present testimony on the defense of duress. (Dkt. No. 52).

Having reviewed the papers and pleadings submitted by the parties, the Court GRANTS in

part and DENIES in part Defendant’s motion. The Court finds and ORDERS as follows:

(1) The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to the extent he seeks an order providing that

the admissibility of testimony relevant to his defense of coercion and duress should be determined by

reference to the law of Canada. While Defendant’s argument is creative, Defendant cites no

Case 2:06-cr-00109-JLR Document 59 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ORDER - 2

persuasive authority for the proposition that the law of Canada should be applied in this criminal

proceeding.

(2) The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to the extent that he seeks to leave to offer

evidence regarding a duress defense under the law of the United States. There are three elements to a

duress defense: (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) a well-grounded fear that

the threat will be carried out; and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. 

United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir. 1984). The Ninth Circuit has noted

that “[f]actfinding is usually a function of the jury, and the trial court rarely rules on a defense as a

matter of law.” Id. At the same time, “[i]f the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support a

duress defense . . . the trial court should exclude that evidence.” Id. Here, the Court finds that

Defendant has made a sufficient offer of proof to permit him to present evidence regarding the duress

defense. 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: October 31, 2006

s/Marsha J. Pechman 

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00109-JLR Document 59 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Henry Christian OLSEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6467.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 19, 2005.

Henry Christian Olsen, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Henry Christian Olsen seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 10, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on March 14, 2005. Because Olsen failed to file a timely notice of appeal * or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 In addition, we note that this appeal is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as a previous appeal of the same district court order was previously dismissed. *See Olsen v. Angelone,*35 Fed.Appx. 384, 2002 WL 1068073, No. 02-6301 (4th Cir. May 29, 2002) (unpublished).
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA- 2012 - 1033 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM266AD

A330 - 27 - 3137, R02 --- 1/18/10 A330 - 27 - 3137, R01 --- 12/6/07 A330 - 27 - 3137 --- 3/20/07 A340 - 27 -4136, R02 --- 2/24/10 A340 - 27 -4136, R01 --- 12/6/07 A340 - 27 -4136 --- 3/20/07 A330 - 92 - 3046, R04 --- 7/16/10 A330 - 92 - 3046, R05 --- 11/7/11 A340 - 92 -4056, R03 --- 7/16/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Securities and Exchange Commission [Release No. 34-98680]
 The municipal advisors whose names appear in the attached Appendix, hereinafter referred to as the “registrants,” are registered as municipal advisors pursuant to Sections 15B(a)(1)(B) and 15B(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”). On August 29, 2023, a Notice of Intention to Cancel Registration of Certain Municipal Advisors, including the registrants, was published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     (Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-98208). The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing and stated that an order or orders cancelling the registrations would be issued unless a hearing was ordered. No request for a hearing has been filed by any of the registrants, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has not ordered a hearing. Pursuant to Section 15B(c)(3) of the Act, the Commission has found that each of the registrants is no longer in existence or has ceased to do business as a municipal advisor. Accordingly, *It is ordered*, pursuant to Section 15B(c)(3) of the Act, that the registration of each registrant be, and hereby is, cancelled. For the Commission, by the Office of Municipal Securities, pursuant to delegated authority.1 Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary.
 Appendix: Registrant name
SEC 
                             ID No.Betnun Nathan S
867-02495Christen Group, Inc
867-02467Southern Cross Financial Group LLC
867-02544OCONNOR & Co SECURITIES, INC
867-01245Capital Alaska LLC
867-02604Fray Municipal Securities
867-02064Massena Associates LLC
867-02569SUMMERS, CARROLL, WHISLER LLC
867-01938


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         17 CFR 200.30-3a(a)(1)(ii). Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2023-22349 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 06-82M

)

v. )

)

) DETENTION ORDER

STEVE ATTILA CZINEGE, )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

Offense charged:

Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine.

Date of Detention Hearing: March 7, 2006

 The Court, having conducted a contested detention hearing pursuant to Title 18

U.S.C. § 3142(f), and based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention

hereafter set forth, finds that no condition or combination of conditions which the defendant

can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety

of any other person and the community. The Government was represented by Jill Otake.

The defendant was represented by Carol Koller.

//

//

Case 2:06-cr-00109-JLR Document 9 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -2-

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) There is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the drug

offense. The maximum penalty is in excess of ten years. There is

therefore a rebuttable presumption against the defendant’s release based

upon both dangerousness and flight risk, under Title 18 U.S.C. §

3142(e).

(2) Further supporting the risk of flight is the defendant’s Canadian

citizenship with no ties to the U.S.

(3) Defendant admitted this offense is his third time smuggling drugs over

the border.

(4) Based upon the foregoing information, it appears that there is no

condition or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure

future Court appearances and/or the safety of other persons or the

community.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) The defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the

custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving

sentences or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private

consultation with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for

the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which

the defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States

Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court

proceeding; and

Case 2:06-cr-00109-JLR Document 9 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -3-

(4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United

States, to counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to

the United States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2006.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00109-JLR Document 9 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 3