alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41485

Conference Calendar

 

BRANDON LEE MORRISON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL PURDY, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-C-97-254

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Brandon Lee Morrison, federal prisoner # 25272-008, appeals

the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the

Bureau of Prison’s refusal to consider him eligible for a

reduction to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). He

argues that the BOP’s policy of not considering eligible

prisoners convicted of drug trafficking offenses for which the

sentences were enhanced under the Sentencing Guidelines for

possession of a firearm is an impermissible interpretation of 
No. 97-41485

-2-

§ 3621(e)(2)(B)’s “nonviolent offense.” His argument is

foreclosed by this court’s decision in Venegas v. Henman, 126

F.3d 760, 763-65 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1679

(1998).

AFFIRMED.
No. 50889.

#### Petition 6508-R of Willy Grunwald (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared from the evidence herein that the merchandise was bought by the petitioner from his brother in Spain; that this was the only transaction between them in this type of merchandise; that the customs broker requested information as to value from the appraiser but could obtain none; and that petitioner gave all the information he had to the appraiser. After consideration of the evidence, the court was of the opinion that the petitioner acted without intention to misrepresent the facts or to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the goods. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit 13.2

SECTION 906 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 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 of Given Imaging Ltd. (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Zvi Ben David, Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:

(1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Zvi Ben David |
|   |   |   |   |   |  

 

 

 

Name: 

Zvi Ben David

 

 

 

 

Title: 

Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date: March          25, 2005

 

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Given Imaging Ltd. and will be retained by Given Imaging Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
Exhibit 10.6
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 2019 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 2019 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN (this “Amendment”) is approved and adopted by the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Progyny, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), as of December 17, 2020 (the “Effective Date”).
WHEREAS:
(A)       The Company grants Awards to Participants under the Company’s 2019 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”; capitalized terms used herein without definition have the meanings specified in the Plan), which Plan governs the terms of such grants.
(B)       The Committee considers it to be in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan to provide for the acceleration of vesting of an Award (unless the vesting is contingent on the attainment of a performance condition) in the event of the termination of the applicable Participant’s Continuous Service as a result of the death of such Participant;.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1.         AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN
Options and Stock Appreciation Rights: Section 4(f) of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting the following at the end thereof: “Effective December 17, 2020, the vesting of an Option or a SAR held by a Participant shall accelerate in full in the event that such Participant’s Continuous Service ends as a result of such Participant’s death (unless the vesting is contingent on the attainment of a performance condition).”.
Awards Other than Options and Stock Appreciation Rights.  Section 5(a)(iii) of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting the following at the end thereof: “Effective December 17, 2020, the vesting of a Restricted Stock Award or RSU Award ((unless the vesting is contingent on the attainment of a performance condition) granted to a Participant shall accelerate in full in the event that a Participant’s Continuous Service ends as a result of such Participant’s death.”.
2.         MISCELLANEOUS
2.1       Effectiveness. The amendment pursuant to this Amendment shall become effective as of the Effective Date.
2.2       Relationship to and Effect on the Plan.
(a)       Except as expressly amended hereby, in all other respects, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.
​



(b)       This Amendment is supplemental to, and shall be read as one with, the Plan.  This Amendment may not be amended, changed or modified except in writing the Committee.
2.3       Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware.

2
​
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the EnergySouth, Inc. (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Charles P. Huffman, 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, 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, as amended; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 9, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Charles P. HuffmanCharles P. HuffmanSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
No. 68648.

protests 63/4022 and 62/ 12626(A) (NewYork).

#### Daido Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
-0476 IN THE MATTER OF: G.M., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 25, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2022

04/18/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0476
No. 66716.

#### Robert Bosch Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/28945.

Protest abandoned February 6, 1962. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. CRIMINAL NO. 04-506-2

KEVIN JENKINS

ORDER

AND NOW, to wit, this day of , 2006, it is hereby ORDERED

and DECREED that Defendant's Motion for a JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL pursuant to

Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is GRANTED.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________________

J.

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS Document 126 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 3
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. CRIMINAL NO. 04-506-2

KEVIN JENKINS

MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO RULE 29 OF THE

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Kevin Jenkins, by and through his counsel Peter Levin, Esquire, respectfully

requests this Court to enter a Judgment of Acquittal, and in support therefore avers the

following:

1. On May 10, 2006, the Defendant was convicted of Count 1, 3, 4 and 7 in the above

captioned matter.

2. Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of conspiracy to

commit carjacking and using a firearm in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit carjacking.

3. Counsel has ordered the transcripts from the trial and requests permission to file a

memorandum of law after the transcripts have been reviewed.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant a

Judgment of Acquittal and that he be permitted to file a Memorandum of Law when the

notes of testimony have been provided to counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

2865

___________________________________

Peter A. Levin, Esquire

1927 Hamilton Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130

(215) 563-3454

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS Document 126 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Peter A. Levin, Esquire, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the

within Motion has been served upon by First Class Mail to:

Jennifer Chun, Esquire

Assistant United States Attorney

615 Chestnut Street

Suite 1250

Philadelphia, PA 19106

2865

PETER A. LEVIN, ESQUIRE

Dated: 5/15/06

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS Document 126 Filed 05/16/06 Page 3 of 3
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 873

____________ ROBERT D. MORRIS , Appellant,

vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.
[ January 26, 2018 ]

PER CURIAM.
We have for review Robert D. Morris’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Morris’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Morris’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in
Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This Court stayed Morris’s appeal pen ding the disposition of Hitchcock v.
State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017) , cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017) . After this- 2

-

Court decided Hitchcock , Morris responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this c ase. After reviewing Morris’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Morris is not entitled to relief. Morris was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eight to four , and his se ntence of death became final in May 2002. Morris v.
State , 811 So. 2d 661, 664 (Fla. 2002 ). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to
Morris’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we
affirm the denial of Morris’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Morris , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so
ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock
v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct . 513 (2017) , is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Polk County, Donald G. Jacobsen , Judge

- Case No. 531994CF003961A1XXXX- 3

-

James Vig giano, Jr. , Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Ann Marie Mirialakis , and Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, for Appel lant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Scott A. Browne, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee
* 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 March 7, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41390 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaint iffAppellee,

versus MARCO ANTONIO MARTIN-PARADA,
DefendantAppellant.

------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-659-ALL

------------------------------------------------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Marco Antonio Martin- Parada (Martin) appeals his sentence following his guilty plea
conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S.
466 (2000). Martin’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by A lmendarez-Torres v. United States ,523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998 ). Although Marti n contends that A lmendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of t he Supreme Court would overrule A lmendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct.
298 (2005). Martin properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
Martin also argues that the district court reversibly erred under United States v. Booker , 543
U.S. 220 (2005), by sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application o f the Sentencing
Guidelines. The Government concedes that Martin has preserved this issue for appeal. The Government, however, has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. See
United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Martin’s sentence is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for resentencing.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR
RESENTENCING.
EXHIBIT 18.1

March 21, 2000

Horizon Offshore, Inc.
2500 City West Blvd.
Suite 2200
Houston, Texas 77024

Re:  Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2000

Gentlemen/Ladies:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

We have been informed that, as of January 1, 2000, the Company changed from the
straight-line method of accounting for depreciation to the units of production
method. The annual depreciation based on utilization of each vessel will be less
that the greater of 25 percent of annual straight-lined depreciation or 50
percent of the cumulative straight-lined depreciation rate. According to the
management of the Company, this change was made to record depreciation in the
periods that more accurately reflect the decline in value during such periods,
taking into account the nature of these assets and Horizon's business.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we have
reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial reporting,
in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion stated below is
based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to an
acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under the
circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.

We have not audited the application of this change to the financial statements
of any period subsequent to December 31, 1999. Further, we have not examined and
do not express any opinion with respect to your financial statements for the
three months ended March 31, 2000

Very truly yours,
Before the First Division,

June 18, 1964

No. 68655.

protests 63/10515, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Exhibit Sales Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, not chiefly used for the amusement of children, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 J. Crew Group, Inc. and J. Crew
Operating Corp. (collectively, the "Company") of Form 10-Q for the period ending
November 2, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott M. Rosen, Executive Vice - President and
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, to 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.



                                            By:  /s/ Scott M. Rosen
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Scott M. Rosen
                                               Executive Vice - President and
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               December 5, 2002
# C_2016343EN.01003701.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/37

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine

(Case C-155/16) (1)

1

(2016/C 343/50)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT
10.11


 


STOCK
PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This
Stock Purchase Agreement is dated as of this 25” day of March, 2019 by and between Matthew Wolfson (the ASeller”) and
Petar Gajic (the “Buyer’).


 


WHEREAS,
the Buyer is an employee of Electromedical Technologies, Inc., a Delaware company (the “Company”); and


 


WHEREAS,
previously, the Seller had orally agreed to sell 500,000 of his shares of the Company (the “Shares”) to the Buyer
for the par price per share which Seller paid for his shares of the Company; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Seller and Buyer agree that it is in their best interest to memorialize in writing the sale of the Shares.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, representations and warranties contained herein, and other good
and valuable consideration, and with the intent that, upon consummation of the transactions contemplated herein, and upon the
terms set forth herein the parties hereby agree to as follows:


 


	1.	The
    Seller agrees to sell, and Buyer agrees to purchase, the Shares for $50.00.


 


	2.	Seller
    represents that he has good and marketable title to the Shares. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
    as of the date


 


first
written above.


 


SELLER:
MATTHEW WOLSON BUYER: PETAR GAJIC.


 


Mathew
fson Petar Gajic


 


11-ZU1U


 


Yur
I-JIU45


 


Notice
to Purchaser - In the event that this check is lost, misplaced or Cashier's Check - Customer Copy


 


stolen,
a sworn statement and 90-day waiting period will be required prior to replacement This check should be negotiated within 90 days


 


Void
After 90 Days


 





 


Fifty
and 00/100 Dollars ToThe MATTHEW WOLFSON


 




    


     


    

 


Order
Of 500,000 SHARES PURCHASE Remitter (Purchased By): PETAR GAJIC


 


Bank
of America, N.A. PHOENIX, AZ
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 National Equipment Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Rodgers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/
KEVIN RODGERS

Kevin
Rodgers
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002

---

QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION 

 :

 v. :

 :

FERNANDO PEÑA : NO. 03-487-09

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of December 2015, upon consideration of Defendant Fernando

Peña’s “Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” (Docket No. 707), and all

documents filed in connection therewith, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying

Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John R. Padova, J. 

______________________

John R. Padova, J.

Case 2:03-cr-00487-JP Document 723 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 1