alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amended 2006 STOCK OPTION PLAN Of WATAIRE INTERNATIONAL, INC.  (Formerly, Cimbix Corporation)   The following shall replace Section 5.1 and Section 6.2 of Wataire International, Inc. (the Company) 2006 Stock Option Plan dated October 3, 2006 in its entirety:  5.     SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN.  5.1.     Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 11.6, the number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan shall not exceed 11,000,000 shares of Common Stock. Shares of Common Stock that are issued under the Plan or that are subject to outstanding Incentives will be applied to reduce the maximum number of shares of Common Stock remaining available for issuance under the Plan.  6. STOCK OPTIONS.  6.2 Number. The number of shares of Common Stock subject to the option shall be determined by the Committee, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 11.6. The number of shares of Common Stock subject to a stock option shall be reduced in the same proportion that the holder thereof exercises a SAR if any SAR is granted in conjunction with or related to the stock option. No individual may receive options to purchase more than 1,000,000 shares in any year,unless a greater number is approved by the Board of Directors.   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Company has caused this Amendment to the 2006 Stock Option Plan, hereunto duly authorized, as of the 9th day of January 2007.  Per: Wataire International, Inc.   /s/ Robert Rosner /s/  Nand Shankar __________________________ ___________________________ Robert Rosner Nand Shankar    /s/  Richard Jordan /s/  Max Weissengruber __________________________ ___________________________  Richard Jordan Max Weissengruber
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 38

 40

 42

 44

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

05/29

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
EXHIBIT 99.2


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


     In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of ebank Financial Services, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Wayne W. Byers, Chief Financial 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) 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/  Wayne W. Byers
                                              ---------------------
                                              Wayne W. Byers
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              May 15, 2003

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


<PAGE>
No. 67748.

#### Cajo Trading, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/15057, etc. (Mobile).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40568

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS TORRES-LOPEZ, also known as Juan Torres Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-2651-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Carlos Torres-Lopez (Torres) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry

following deportation after conviction of an aggravated felony in violation of

8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court sentenced Torres to 77 months in

prison. In this appeal, Torres argues that the district court erred when it

assessed one criminal history point under former U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) in light of

the amendment deleting this provision and that his 77-month sentence is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 11, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-40568 Document: 00511569291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2011
No. 10-40568

substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the

sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Because Torres did not raise in the district court his argument regarding

§ 4A1.1(e), our review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct.

1423, 1429 (2009). Torres was sentenced prior to the effective date of

Amendment 742, which eliminated criminal history points based on recency by

deleting former § 4A1.1(e). United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines

Manual, Supp. to Appendix C, Amendment 742, pp. 354-56 (Nov. 1, 2010). 

Therefore, the district court correctly applied former § 4A1.1(e). See United

States v. Windham, 991 F.2d 181, 182-83 (5th Cir. 1993).

Torres also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

Because Torres objected in the district court to the substantive reasonableness

of his sentence for the same reasons he raises here, we review the district court’s

application of the guidelines is de novo and its findings of fact is for clear error. 

See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

Torres’s arguments regarding the district court’s consideration of various

sentencing factors amount to nothing more than his disagreement with the

court’s weighing of those factors and the appropriateness of his within-guidelines

sentence. Torres’s disagreement does not suffice to show error in connection

with his sentence. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66

(5th Cir. 2008). Torres has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that

attaches to his within-guidelines sentence, nor has he shown that his sentence

was unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United

States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-40568 Document: 00511569291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2011
No. 51297.

#### Protests 103181-K, etc., of Maryland Distillers Products Co. et al. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328) and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination, due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ returns as verified by the affidavits of the importers. The protests were sustained to this extent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BASKIN-ROBBINS, USA, CO. : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

: NO. 02-4062

SCOTTIE D. CHO, ET AL : 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of August, 2002, upon review of the record, the Court

notes that Complaint was served by personal service on 7/2/02. The Court further notes that a

pleading has not been filed in the above captioned action in response to the Complaint. You may

file a request with the Clerk for entry of default in accordance with Rule 55 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

If a Request for Default is not filed by August 14, 2002, the court will enter an

order dismissing the case against the above named defendant(s) for lack of prosecution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

 

R. Barclay Surrick, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04062-RBS Document 5 Filed 08/01/2002 Page 1 of 1
Attachment A

 :

02-2635 SHIRK :

02-2735 WATSON :

02-2736 HOOD :

02-2737 HART :

02-2738 JOHNSON :

02-2681 SHIRK :

02-2845 KINIUK :

02-3166 HRYCYK :

02-3168 GREEN :

02-3169 SAKEWICZ :

02-3170 HENDRICKS :

02-3171 PALMER :

02-3172 BERRY :

02-3175 SOLOMON :

02-3176 ROMANOWSKI :

02-3177 O’DONNELL :

02-3448 HARTMANN :

02-3449 ROCKS :

02-3450 REED :

02-3451 GAMBLER :

02-3452 MACAULEY :

02-3630 ALIBERT :

02-3631 VISCO :

02-3632 DANCSECS :

02-3847 HAMMOND :

02-3848 POTTER :

02-4095 SMITH :

02-4096 SEARFOSS :

02-4097 GEARINGER :

02-4101 FRYE :

02-4338 ZIMMERMAN :

02-4339 MEYER :

Case 2:02-cv-04095-ER Document 6-2 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04095-ER Document 6-2 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.



---



In connection with the Annual Report of Hartville Group, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Christopher Chaney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:



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



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



Dated: April 12, 2004



/s/ Christopher ChaneyChristopher Chaney, Chief Financial Officer
#### NUNN v. HUMPHREY, Warden.

No. 220.

United States District Court M. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 19, 1948.

Petitioner pro se.

*857Arthur A. Maguire, U. S. Atty., of Scranton, Pa., and Charles W. Kalp, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Lewisburg, Pa., for respondent.

FOLLMER, District Judge.

Petitioner had a hearing and an order was entered denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Nunn v. Humphrey, D.C.M.D.Pa., 79 F.Supp. 8. He now, in a petition directed against the Clerk of the Court, has filed in forma pauperis a blanket request for copies of records,1 being records in the habeas corpus referred to in this memorandum. This is not a request under Section 2250 of the New Federal Judicial Code for certified copies of documents in connection with a pending application for writ of habeas corpus, since final ■action dismissing the writ has been had in this Court. Nor is the question of furnishing a' transcript on appeal" under Section 1915 of the New Federal Judicial Code here involved, since no appeal is now pending.

It was not intended that the taxpayer’s money should be spent indiscriminately to satisfy the mere whinis of such applicants. In this petition he asks for a copy of the" Response. The records show that a copy was served upon him at the time of filing. As for Respondent’s Briefs, there were none. The issue was a simple one of fact, and required no briefs. A certified copy of the indictment was introduced' into evidence; the only purpose of which was to show that the indictment did charge the transportation, of a 1947 Fofd. He saw this" exhibit,2 he now knows it does so charge, and if he had made proper inquiry prior to filing his petition for writ bf habeas ■corpus the irresponsible allegation in relation thereto should not have been made by him. Certainly no purpose'is how served by furnishing *á*copy to him.'free-of cost. As to the transcript of testimony, even if ■an ■ appeal in forma pauperis is hereafter sought and allowed, no necessity for his obtaining a complete copy of the 43 pages of testimony is now apparent. Certainly no less should be required than that in a forma pauperis proceeding, a person seeking copies free of charge should set forth sufficient 'information to enable a determination of the necessity for such copies as are requested, and the pertinency thereof to some matter then pending. Whether the necessity of furnishing copies of records for use in preparing a brief in an appellate proceeding should, under Section 1915(b) of the New Federal Judicial-Code, be determined by this Court or ' the Appellate Court, calls for no decision at this time. The application is refused.

1

 The request (following a form previously presented by another petitioner) asks that the government make and furnish free of charge:

> “(a) Complete Transcript of the hearing in Habeas Corpus action no. 220 (testimony of witnesses.)

> “(b) Copies of all Exhibits entered by the Respondent in Habeas Corpus Action No. 220, inclusive.

> “(c) Copies of the Respondents Briefs, Response and/or any documents or object entered and filed within said Court by the aforesaid.”

2

 Part of Respondent’s Exhibit No. 1.
---

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 

I, Luz Villanueva, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alternet
      Systems Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009 (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 Alternet Systems Inc..                                                              

Dated: April 14, 2010

| | /s/LuzVillanueva                          
| | ------------------------------------------
| | Luz Villanueva                            
| | Secretary, Treasurer,                     
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
| | Accounting Officer)                       
| | Alternet Systems Inc.                     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Alternet Systems
Inc. and will be retained by Alternet Systems Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
February 16, 1948

No. 52180.

protest 106445-K.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

C. D. 1077. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 15, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 06-14303

__________________________

D.C. Docket No. 05-00176-CV-WDO-5

STEVE CANNON, DAWN CANNON, In their

official capacity as Administrators of the Estate of 

Josh Cannon,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

JOHN CAREY BITTICK, MATTHEW PRICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

 

(May 15, 2007)

Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and LIMBAUGH,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

 

*Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 

 Missouri, sitting by designation.
2

Steve and Dawn Cannon, as surviving parents of Josh Cannon, and as

executors of Josh’s estate brought suit against Monroe County, Georgia Sheriff

John Carey Bittick and Deputy Sheriff Matthew Price, alleging a Fourth

Amendment violation by the use of excessive force which resulted in Josh’s death

while he was in the custody of the Sheriff. This is an appeal from the district

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff and his deputy.

The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court erred in

finding Price’s actions were “objectively reasonable” under the circumstances and

no Fourth Amendment violation occurred; and (2) whether the district court erred

in finding that since Price did not commit a constitutional violation, there was no

viable § 1983 claim against Sheriff Bittick for failure to train.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying

the same legal standards as the district court. McCormick v. City of Fort

Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is

appropriate if the evidence establishes “no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

56(c); McCormick, 333 F.3d at 1243. The evidence, and all reasonable inferences,

must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movants, here Steve and

Dawn Cannon. McCormick, 333 F.3d at 1243.
3

This is a most unfortunate and tragic case, yet after reviewing the record,

reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude

that there is no merit to any of the arguments made by the Cannons in this appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on all of

Cannons’ claims. 

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 9, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-61094 Summary Calendar

JOHN JEFFERY FERENDEZ, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A76-334-421

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * John Jeffery Ferendez (“Ferendez”), a citizen of Singapore, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ denied Ferendez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).No. 02-61094 -2- Ferendez argues that this court should apply a less deferential standard to the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s findings because the BIA issued no opinion and because the decision was made by a single board member. This argument lacks merit. See Moin v. Ashcroft , 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003)

. Ferendez argues that the IJ erred in determining that his testimony was not credible. The IJ found that Ferendez was not credible because his testimony was inconsistent with the State Department’s 1998 country report on Singapore and because he gave false information to an Immigration Officer in order to avoid apprehension. The IJ’s credibility finding is a reasonable interpretation of the record and is supported by the record. Therefore, this court will not reverse this finding. See Chun v.

INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Ferendez contends that he qualifies for asylum because the record supports his assertion that he endured persecution because of his opposition to the Singapore government. After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992); Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 302-304 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Ferendez has not made the requisite showing for asylum, he was not eligible for a withholding of removal. Mikhael , 115 F.3d at 306 & n.10.No. 02-61094 -3- Finally, Ferendez argues that the IJ erroneously denied withholding of removal under the CAT. Considering the evidence presented, the record does not compel the finding that Ferendez met his burden to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in Singapore. Accordingly, Ferendez’s petition for review is DENIED.
No. 63551.

protests 298270-K, etc. (New York).

#### Frederik Lunning, Inc. *v.*United States,

*416Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vases in mineral colors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62694, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 13(a).2

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Peter G. Maier, is the Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of INFICON Holding AG (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company
of the Company's Report on Form 20-F on or about March 31, 2004 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

            (A)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) and 78o(d)) and

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


Date: March 31, 2004    By: /s/ Peter G. Maier
                           --------------------

Peter G. Maier
Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLINNIE DAVIS :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4113

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04113-SD Document 8 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 59935.

#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States,

protest 643687-G (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3


                           RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT FROM
   
                          THE REGISTRANT TO S. JOHNSON
    


During June 1998, Cygnet agreed to grant Steven P. Johnson 15,000 shares of
restricted common stock of Cygnet on or about the effective date of the split-up
transaction, subject to certain conditions.