alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETREA STETCO, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-72618 Agency No. A098-344-912
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 10, 2014 **

San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circ uit Judges, and PRATT, Senior District Judge. *** Petitioner, Petrea Stetco, is a Romanian citizen appealing the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

# FILED
MAY 12 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.Against Torture. Petitioner claims that he was subject to persecution on the basis of his Pentecostal Christian faith and that he fears future persecution if returned to Romania. The agency found him not credible. Adverse credibility determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence and will be upheld unless the evidence compels a different result. He v. Ashcroft , 328 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir. 2003). In a pre- REAL ID Act case, any inconsistency supporting an adverse credibility determinati on must go to the heart of the claim. Li v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). The heart of Petitioner’s claim is that he was threatened and mistreated on account of his Pentecostal faith. His prior Canadian petition, however, inconsistently attributed the same threats and mistreatment to retaliation by the Romanian mafia and former employees that he had supervised. The inconsistency is sufficient to support the adverse credib ility determination. There is no evidence compelling a different conclusion. DENIED
.

2
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 of Waste Industries USA, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his 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 as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Jim W. PerryPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 16, 2006
No. 62396.

#### Kenson International Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/10577 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of goatskins and sheepskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Nawi Noonoo & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 57, C. D. 1904), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7209** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
KUNTA KENTA REDD , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 7:08

- cr - 00043

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : November 12, 2015 Decided: December 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Kunta Kenta Redd , Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kunta Kenta Redd appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion to reduce his sentence. A district court’s decision on wheth er to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abu se of discretion, while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision is reviewed de novo. United States v. Munn , 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not abuse its di scretion in denying Redd’s motion.
See United States v. Smalls , 720 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we affir m the district court’s order. United States v. Redd , No. 7:08

- cr - 00043

- D

- 1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2014).
We deny Redd’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 76

Waiving certain enrollment requirements for the remainder of the first session

of the One Hundred Sixth Congress with respect to any bill or joint

resolution making general appropriations or continuing appropriations

for fiscal year 2000.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 8, 1999

Mr. THOMAS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on House Administration

JOINT RESOLUTION

Waiving certain enrollment requirements for the remainder

of the first session of the One Hundred Sixth Congress

with respect to any bill or joint resolution making general

appropriations or continuing appropriations for fiscal

year 2000.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the provisions of sections 106 and 107 of title 1,

4 United States Code, are waived for the remainder of the

5 first session of the One Hundred Sixth Congress with re6 spect to the printing (on parchment or otherwise) of the

7 enrollment of any bill or joint resolution making general
2

•HJ 76 IH

1 appropriations or continuing appropriations for the fiscal

2 year ending September 30, 2000. The enrollment of any

3 such bill or joint resolution shall be in such form as the

4 Committee on House Administration of the House of Rep5 resentatives certifies to be a true enrollment.

Æ
No. P68/150.

protests 65/25400, etc. (New York).

#### Harpers International, Inc. *v.*United States,

Eao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of electrical tape, composed wholly or in chief value of vinyl material, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Devon Tape Corp.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 507, C.D. 2856), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Record of Conversation Re: Exemption Petition FAA 2015 - 1083 SimCon Training Centers Date of Contact: 2JUL2015 FAA participant in conversation: Douglas Lundgren, Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS - 810 Industry Participant: Michael Young, Director of Training Operations, SimCon Training Centers

On this date I contacted Mr. Michael Young of SimCom to discuss their exemption request FAA 2015 - 1083. I informed him that in order to process this exemption request we needed more information in terms of eq uivalent level of safety and public interest. Mr. Young and I discussed what the company might propose as an alternative to the 50 hours aircraft pilot - in - command (PIC) time requirement of SFAR 108, and what the company’s experience and training current requirements are for their simulator and aircraft instructors. Mr. Young said that he would send in supplementary information to address these issues.
EXHIBIT 13.1f 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 Amended Annual Report of China Linen Textile Industry, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gao Ren, President and Chairman 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Gao RenGao Ren, President and Chairman April 12, 2010
No. 63995.

protest 59/22937 (New York).

#### Carl Hirschmann Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**          I, Wayne W. Byers, certify that:          1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ebank Financial Services, Inc.;          2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;          3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;          4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting;          5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 10, 2005         By:       /s/ Wayne W. Byers    Wayne W. Byers, Chief Financial Officer
From: Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>

To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/24/2010 03:52 PM

Subject: VI Letter to EPA on Seasonality of PVC Production

Dear Ms. Howard,

The VI has made prior comments on the potential bias that seasonal production rates may introduce into the PVC MACT rulemaking. The attached letter documents some of those periods of seasonal production for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding the information or its impact on the survey responses. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this document for the PVC rule development.

Regards,

Richard Krock Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute 1737 King Street Suite 390 Alexandria, VA 22314 Direct: 571.970.3392 Mobile: 571.216.4474 Fax: 571.970.3271 Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylinfo.org http://www.vinylindesign.com(See attached file: VI Letter to EPA on Resin Seasonality 09-24-10.pdf)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 25, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 25, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0209. ALPHONSO DRETT CURRY v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16CR222
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to June 22, 2021)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

None Available

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
Document

Exhibit 10.20





FORM OF OPTION COMMITMENT





AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
OPTION COMMITMENT




Notice is hereby given that, effective this ● day of ●, ● (the “Effective Date”) AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (the “Company”) has granted to ● (the “Service Provider”), an Option to acquire ● common shares of the Company (“Optioned Shares”) up to ● p.m. MT on the ● day of ●, ● (the “Expiry Date”) at an exercise price (the “Exercise Price”) of USD$●  per share (the “Options”).


Vesting: Optioned Shares may be acquired as follows: Twelve thirty-six (12/36) of the Optioned Shares will vest on the ● day of ●, ●. Thereafter, one thirty-six (1/36) of the remainder of the Optioned Shares will vest each month over a period of twenty-four months, commencing ● day of ●, ● and continuing up to and including ● day of ●, ●.


Term: The term of these Options is ten (10) years from the date of grant, unless otherwise determined by the board of directors of the Company.


This initial grant is intended to serve as an inducement for you to join the Company and to satisfy the requirements for inducement grants pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4) which permits the Company to issue you security-based compensation without shareholder approval in order to induce you to enter into an employment arrangement as an employee of the Company. For greater clarity, these Options are not being issued pursuant to the Company’s equity incentive plan; however, to the extent not otherwise specified in this Option Commitment, these options shall be governed with like terms and conditions as set out in the Company’s equity incentive plan.


The Initial Grant will be granted in accordance with the Company’s stock option grant polices and will be a non-statutory stock option. If your Start Date falls within a “blackout” period under the Company’s insider trading policy your initial stock options will be granted after the “blackout” period is lifted. 


To exercise your Options, deliver to the Company a written notice specifying the number of Optioned Shares you wish to acquire, together with cash, certified cheque or bank draft payable to the Company for the aggregate Exercise Price and the aggregate of any amounts required by law to be withheld by the Company on the exercise of such Options, or separate cash payments, 
119810919:v3








or certified cheques or bank drafts for such Exercise Price and such amount to be withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Service Provider may be obligated to comply with such other procedures and conditions implemented by the Company with respect to the payment, funding or withholding of such amounts to be withheld.


A certificate or a written notice, in the case of uncertificated shares, for the Optioned Shares so acquired will be issued by the transfer agent of the Company as soon as practicable after receipt by the Company thereof.




AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.




                        
Joe Miller
Chief Financial Officer
 


119810919:v3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD A. MCCURDY, JR., et al.

v.

NEWPORT CONTRACTORS, INC.

: 

: CIVIL ACTION

: 

: NO. 03-CV-6146

: 

ORDER

AND NOW, this_______ day of October, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Request

for Default Judgment, it is ORDERED that the request is GRANTED. It is FURTHER

ORDERED that Defendant shall pay Plaintiff the following:

1. For unpaid benefit contributions and working dues in the amount of eighteen

thousand, six hundred forty-four dollars and seventy two cents ($18,644.72).

2. For interest in the amount of two thousand, one hundred forty-five dollars and

fifty-one cents ($2,145.51).

3. For audit costs in the amount of three thousand, eight hundred dollars and zero

cents ($3,800.00).

4. For attorneys fees and costs in the amount of three thousand, one hundred fiftyseven dollars and fifty-four cents ($3,157.54).

The total sum of judgment for Plaintiffs is therefore twenty seven thousand, seven

hundred forty-seven dollars and seventy-seven cents ($27,747.77).

BY THE COURT:

_________________________

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:03-cv-06146-BWK Document 8 Filed 10/07/04 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

January 7, 1946

No. 50796.

#### Petitions 6494-R, etc., of Sears Roebuck & Co. (Chicago, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was established that the merchandise was entered upon the basis of the export values and that similar merchandise had been so entered for a number of years. In this ease, the appraiser returned upon the basis of the foreign value, a higher value than that upon which the merchandise was entered. Because of the war, no information was available, and appeals taken for reappraisement were subsequently abandoned. From a consideration of all the circumstances involved, the court held that the petitioner was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or to misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. *(Wroblewski*v. *United States,*28 C. C. P. A. 150, C. A. D. 137, followed.) The petitions were therefore granted.
Exhibit 10.67
 Sample
 Directors Compensation
Deferred Vested Restricted Stock Units  409A Election Form
Reliant Energy, Inc. 2002 Long Term Incentive Plan
 Director:
   If you do not enter a new date, payout will be made when
you leave the Board.
 Elect NewPayout DateGrant
    
    
    
    
    
    (month, day &DEFERRED VESTED AWARDS
    
    Date
    
    Vest Date
    
    Shares
    
    year)Deferred vested stock  initial awardDeferred vested stock  annual awardDeferred vested stock awardDeferred vested stock awardDeferred vested stock awardDeferred vested stock awardDeferred vested stock awardDeferred vested stock awardDeferred vested stock awardDeferred vested stock awardDeferred vested stock  annual awardDeferred vested stock  annual awardTOTAL DEFERRED VESTED AWARDS:
   I understand the terms of this 409A Election Form and I understand that if I do not make new
payout elections with this form and sign, date and return this form by December 31, 2008, then my
deferred vested units will pay out as provided in the Award Agreement.
  Mark M. Jacobs
    
    
    
    Directors SignaturePresident and CEODateDate
 Return to Wendi Bickett by 5:00 pm, December 31, 2008
August 8, 1951

No. 55811.

Suit 4663.

#### Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1277 reversed June 5, 1951. C. A. D. 458.
Before the Third Division,

March 18, 1953

No. 57169.

protest 197053-K (New York).

#### Rudy Patrick Seed Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed *(Lotus*corniculatus) similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc. (Alltransport, Incorporated)*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
University of Pittsburgh 

Bradford 

President 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Foxx: 

July21,2014 

300 Campus Drive 

Bradford, Pennsylvania !670l-2B9K 

Phone (Si-t) 36.2-7501 

F~x (814) 362-7640 

lalexand@pitt.edu 

V./WW .U pb. pitt.CdU 

! ',j ··~· ,! 

(:::) .... ~, 

,,., .. !,,._,! 

The University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, in response to DOT Order 2014-6-6 terminating EAS 

eligibility for Bradford Regional Airport, strongly supports the granting of a waiver request for the 

airport. 

Pitt-Bradford considers commercial air service to be a critical factor for the economy of our 

region. Convenient and economical commercial flights are particularly important to the university 

community. Faculty and staff frequently travel between Bradford and the University of Pittsburgh main 

campus in Pittsburgh. It is also important to the university that Pitt-Bradford students and prospective 

students have the option of flying to and from Bradford. 

Since Bradford's EAS service shifted from Pittsburgh to Washington and then to Cleveland in 

2008, Bradford has not been a viable transportation option for the Pitt-Bradford university community. 

The loss of a Pittsburgh airport connection has contributed to the steady decline in enplanements in 

Bradford. We are also aware from. our close relationship with the regional business community that 

Cleveland has been a much less convenient connection than Pittsburgh. 

We are confident that frequent and economical flights between Bradford and Pittsburgh, as 

proposed by Sun Air, will lead to a dramatic increase in enplanements above the required daily 

requirement of I 0 enplanements per day. Faculty, staff and students \vill resume using Bradford Regional 

Airport when service to Pittsburgh is restored. 

The granting of a waiver for Bradford is critical to the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford. Our 

location in a beautiful but remote part of Pennsylvania places us at a competitive disadvantage m 

attracting and retaining students, faculty and staff if we don't have commercial air service. 

Dr. Livingston Alexander 

President 

Sincerely, 

Craig A. Hartburg 

Chair, Advisory Board