alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 1439** 

LAWRENCE F. GLASER, individually and on behalf of Kimberly, Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
and
MAUREEN GLASER, individually and on behalf of Kimberly, Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser , Plaintiff ,

v.
ENZO BIOCHEM, INCORPORATED; HEIMAN GROSS; BARRY WEINER; ELAZAR RABBANI; SHARIM RABBANI; JOHN DELUCCA; DEAN ENGELHARDT , Defendants

- Appellees ,
and

RICHARD KEATING; DOUG YATES; JOH N DOE, 1

- 50 ,
Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Gerald Bruce Lee , District Judge. ( 1:02

- cv
- 01242

- GBL )

Submitted : September 29, 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011

Before K ING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Lawrence F. Glaser, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Howard Chase, MORRISON & COHEN, LLP, New York, New York; Robert Richardson Vieth, COOLEY, GODWARD & KRONISH, LLP, Rest on, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Lawrence F. Glaser appeal s the district court ’ s order
denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60

and motion for sanctions , whic h were filed in his civil action.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc. , No. 1:02

- cv
- 01242

- GBL
(E.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2011) . We dispense wi th 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.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.1






Amendment Number Four to the

SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Excess Plan

As Amended and Restated Effective July 1, 1999




WHEREAS, SunTrust Banks, Inc. (the Corporation) has adopted and currently sponsors the
SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Excess Plan, as amended and restated effective July 1, 1999 and
subsequently amended (the Excess Plan); and



WHEREAS, Section 9.8 of the Excess Plan permits the Compensation Committee of the
Corporation’s Board of Directors (the Compensation Committee) and its delegates to amend the Excess
Plan; and



WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee has delegated authority to the Benefits Plan Committee and
the Deferral Plan Committee, as applicable, or their delegates, to take actions to adopt and
implement amendments approved by the Compensation Committee, without further authorization of the
Compensation Committee except for any matters that the Board believes will have a material
financial impact on the Corporation; and



WHEREAS, the undersigned is a Senior Vice President of the Corporation and a member of both
the Benefits Plan Committee and the Deferral Plan Committee.



NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Excess Plan is amended and modified as set forth in the
attached Exhibit 1, effective as of January 1, 2007.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Benefits Plan Committee, acting on behalf or the Corporation as
authorized by the Compensation Committee, has caused this Amendment Number Four to the Excess Plan
to be executed by its duly authorized member.



EXECUTED this 31st day of December 2007.



	 	 	 
	PLAN COMMITTEE:

	 	ATTEST
	By: /s/ Donna D. Lange

	 	By: /s/ Ingrid Emmons
	Title: Senior Vice President

	 	Title: GVP, Corporate Benefits
	 

	 	







 



1



AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO THE

SUNTRUST BANKS, INC. 401(k) EXCESS PLAN

As Amended and Restated Effective July 1, 1999




The SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Excess Plan, as amended and restated effective July 1, 1999, and
subsequently amended, is further amended as set forth below, effective as of January 1, 2007:



1. Section 4.6 is added to the Excess Plan effective January 1, 2007, as set forth below:




	4.6	 	True-Up Matching Contributions. The Committee, in its sole and complete discretion, may for
any Plan Year direct the Employers to make True-Up Matching Contributions as soon as
practicable after the end of the Plan Year. Beginning in the 2007 Plan Year, unless the
Committee decides otherwise and notifies Participants before the beginning of any Plan Year,
each Participant who defers the statutory maximum under the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan,
and who also elects to defer Eligible Compensation other than salary to the SunTrust Banks,
Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan (STIDCP) for the Plan Year, will receive a True-Up Matching
Contribution for such deferrals, subject to the annual Compensation Limit described in Section
2.2.






2
<PAGE>

Exhibit (4)(12)

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                                SERIES J WARRANT
                                       OF
                        MARKETING WORLDWIDE CORPORATION

This Amendment No. 1 (this "Amendment"), dated as of September 27, 2007, by and
among Marketing Worldwide Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
and Vision Opportunity Master Fund, Ltd. (the "Purchaser") hereby amends the
Series J Warrant (No. W-J-07-01) to purchase shares of Common Stock of the
Company dated April 23, 2007 and issued to the Purchaser (the "Warrant"). Terms
used in this Amendment without definition shall have the meanings given them in
the Warrant.

WHEREAS, the Company and the Purchaser entered into the Series A Convertible
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of April 23, 2007
wherein the Purchaser was issued the Warrant;

WHEREAS, the Company and the Purchaser now desire to amend the Warrant as more
fully set forth herein; and

WHEREAS, this Amendment will be effective when it is executed by the Company.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements hereinafter
set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the each of the parties, the
parties hereby amend the Warrant as follows:

1. Section 7: Ownership Cap and Exercise Restriction. Section 7 is hereby
deleted in its entirety.

2. Section 9: Definitions. The definition of "Warrant Price" in Section 9 is
hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "Warrant Price"
initially means $0.50, as such price may be adjusted from time to time as shall
result from the adjustments specified in this Warrant, including Section 4
hereto.

3. Full Force and Effect. Except to the extent the Warrant is modified by this
Amendment, the other terms and provisions of the Warrant shall remain unmodified
and in full force and effect.

* * *

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 to the
Series J Warrant as of the date first above written.

The Company:

MARKETING WORLDWIDE CORPORATION


By: /s/ MICHAEL WINZKOWSKI
    --------------------------------
    Name:  Michael Winzkowski
    Title: President & CEO


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:
VISION OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND, LTD.


By: /s/ ADAM BENOWITZ
    --------------------------------
    Name:  Adam Benowitz
    Title: Director
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOHN CARL REYNOLDS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 50048

D.C. No. 8:11

- cr

- 00008

- CJC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER

, and OWENS , Circuit Judges.

John Carl Reynolds appeals from the district court’ s judgment and

challenges the 51

- month s entence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

aiding and abetting and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a) and 1341. W e

dismiss in part and affirm in part

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 50048

Reynolds contends that the district court erred by applying a sentencing

enhancement for his abuse o f a position of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. The

government contends that this claim is barred by a valid appeal waiver. Reviewing

de novo, we conclude that the provision of the appeal waiver stating that Reynolds

waives the right to appeal “the procedures and calculations used to determine . . .

the sentence” unambiguously encompass es this claim. See United States v. Harri s,

628 F.3d 1203, 1205

- 06 (9th Cir. 2011).

Reynolds next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Reynolds ’s sentence

. See

Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The high

- end sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality

of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and Reynold s ’s history of

fraudulent behavior

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jhonny TINOCO-OROZCO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-50490.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 20, 2005.

*887Mark A. Young, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David R. Reed, Esq., Law Office of David R. Reed, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suit*887able for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jhonny Tinoco-Orozeo appeals his 97-month sentence following a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Tinoco-Orozco was sentenced before the Supreme Court issued its decision in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Because we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906 (9th Cir.2005) (extending the *Ameline*remand to cases involving non-constitutional *Booker*error).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### Effects of the Truckee, California, earthquake of September 12, 1966

By: Reuben KachadoorianR.F. YerkesArvi O. Waananen

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir537

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (4.46 MB pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

The Truckee, Calif., earthquake of September 12, 1966, had a magnitude of 5.4 on the Richter scale, as reported by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. It was felt over an area extending from San Francisco eastward to Salt Lake City and from Bakersfield northward beyond Chico, Calif. Ground breakage due to seismic shaking occurred in unconsolidated alluvium along a zone about 10 miles long that trends about N. 30° E. and extends from a point west of Prosser Reservoir, 4 miles northeast of Truckee, to Hoke Valley. The concentration of ground breakage along this zone suggests that it may be related to a subsurface northeastward-trending fault rather than to buried extensions of the northwestward-trending faults that dominate the regional geologic structure.

Other effects of the earthquake include the following: (1) Damage to Prosser and Boca Dams, (2) minor damage to several bridges on Interstate Highway 80, (3) several earthquake-generated slumps or landslides on Interstate Highway 80 between Boca Dam and the California-Nevada boundary, (4) damage to the caretaker's house at Boca Dam and a lumber shed at Loyalton, (5) damage by falling rocks to the Farad powerhouse, to the wooden flume which supplies water to the powerhouse, and to the Southern Pacific Lines in Truckee Canyon, (6) minor damage to water wells and water distribution systems, particularly at Truckee, and (7) rejuvenation of springs throughout the Truckee-Russel Valley area.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 10.5

----

|   | H. ThomasHicks |                          |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------------|
|   |           |                          |   |
|   | By:            | /s/ H.      Thomas Hicks |   |
|   |           | H.      Thomas Hicks     |   |
|   |           |                          |   |
|   |           |                          |   |

|   | URS      Corporation,a Delaware corporation |                                                   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |                                                   |   |
|   | By:                                         | /s/ Martin      M. Koffel                         |   |
|   |                                        | Name:      Martin M. Koffel                            |   |
|   |                                        | Title:      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|   |                                        |                                                   |   |

----
**Exhibit 10.10**

**Application Letter for Drawing of Bank Loan Facility**

 No. Jie 2005 Zong 1145042R-3

**To: Shenzhen Branch, China Construction Bank**

In accordance with the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement (No. Jie 2005 Zong 1145042R, hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”) entered into by your company and us, Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd., we’d like to apply for the drawing of the loan facility under the Agreement.

**One.     **We’d like to apply for the bank loan of RMB Thirty Million Yuan (RMB 30,000,000yuan).

**Two.     **The term of this bank loan shall be six months.

**Three.**     The purpose of this bank loan is for production working capital. 

**Four.     **Interest Rate and Interest

(1)     Loan in RMB 

1.     Interest Rate

The interest rate for the bank loan is 5.481% per year fixed for the whole bank loan term.

2.     Penalty Interest Rate

The penalty interest rate is fixed at 10.962% per year in case that we use the bank loan for purpose other than that stated in this application letter;  

The penalty interest rate is fixed at 8.2215% per year in case that we delayed in repayment of the loan.

3.     The interest will be calculated from the date of transfer of the loan into the account of borrower. The interest will be calculated by the day and the daily interest = monthly interest/30 = annual interest/360. In case that we fail to pay the interest on time, the compound interest will be imposed from the next day.

----

4. Payment of Interest 

The interest will be paid monthly at the 20th day of each month. 

(2)     Loan in Foreign Currency

N/A

**Five.**     Repayment Plan

We will repay the principal of the loan according to the following schedule:

Date: August 23, 2006, Amount: RMB 30,000,000.00 yuan

**Six.**     This letter shall come into effect once it is signed by the legal representative (or authorized representative) of us and stamped with the company chop of us. This letter is an appendix and an integral part to the Agreement. This letter is irrevocable. We will perform  our obligations strictly in accordance with the Agreement and its appendix. Please review and approve our application.

**Seven**.     This letter has three originals.

Applicant: Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. (stamp) Legal Representative (person in charge): Li Xiangqian

Date: February 22, 2006

After examination, we approved the above application.  Shenzhen Branch, China Construction Bank (stamp) Person in charge or authorized representative: (signature):_______

Date: February 22, 2006
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1666 

To prohibit the implementation of certain rules of the National Labor 

Relations Board relating to the posting of notices on unionization. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2011 

Mr. THUNE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of certain rules of the National Labor Relations Board relating to the posting 

of notices on unionization. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Employer Free Speech 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE. 

7 The proposed rule issued by the National Labor Rela8 tions Board entitled ‘‘Notification of Employee Rights 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1666 IS

1 Under the National Labor Relations Act’’ (76 Fed. Reg. 

2 54006 (August 30, 2011)) shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 74-5988.

#### Hohensee *v.*Muir, U. S. District Judge.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 44308.

#### Protest 28106-K of Selsi Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

It was stipulated that these hair hygrometers are similar to those the subject of Abstract 42039. The claim at 2734 percent under paragraph 372 was therefore sustained.
---

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

In connection with the annual report of Pacific Rim Mining
Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Thomas C. Shrake, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §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
this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|              | Thomas C. Shrake     
|------------- | -----------------------
|July 23, 2012 |                        
|              | Thomas C. Shrake       
|              | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and will be retained by
Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---
---

CONSENT OF AUTHOR

July 24 , 2009



Pacific Rim Mining Corp. #1050  625 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 2T6

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

|Re: | Pacific Rim Mining
      Corporation
|--- | ------------------------------------
|    | Consent                             

The undersigned hereby consents to being named in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended April 30, 2009 (the Form 20-F).

I confirm that I have read the Form 20-F and have no reason to
believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained
therein or that the written disclosure contains any misrepresentation, confirm
that the information contained therein accurately represents the information
that supports the written disclosure and confirm that such matters are within my
knowledge as a result of the services performed by me.

Sincerely,

William Gehlen

---
#### Michael CARINDA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-1945.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 19, 1999.

Ian S. Seitel of Ian S. Seitel, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robert R. Wheeler, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KLEIN, J.

Appellant, a veterinarian, appeals his conviction for two counts of using drugs on *515a race horse. Appellant worked with another veterinarian, Dr. Plante, and they were charged with “milkshaking” horses, i.e., forcing a large dose of sodium bicarbonate, sucrose and water down horses’ throats in order to enhance their performance. *Plante v. Department of Bus. and Prof'l Regulation,*685 So.2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

This offense took place in 1993, and appellant correctly argues that the trial court erred in giving the present standard jury instruction on principals which was not adopted until 1995. *Hooper v. State,*703 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We held in *Hooper*that the newer instruction, under which it is easier to convict, cannot be applied to a crime which preexisted it because it is an ex post facto violation.

The state argues that we should find, as we did in *Hooper,*that the erroneous instruction is harmless. In *Hooper*there was such extensive evidence that the appellant was a substantial participant in the crimes, not merely a principal, that we concluded that the error was harmless. Similarly, in the present case, there was also overwhelming evidence that the appellant was a participant. He admitted that he mixed the substance, delivered it to the groom, and instructed the groom as to how to administer it to the horse. His defense was that he did not do it to enhance the horse’s performance, but rather to ease the horse’s pain after the race. We thus find that the error in the principal instruction was harmless and, also, without further discussion, that the court correctly denied appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

Affirmed.

POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.