alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Nutra Pharma Corp., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rik Deitsch, the Chief Executive Officer
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:



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Dated: November 21, 2012                            |  |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                                                    |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Rik J. Deitsch                                  |  |  |  | 
|Rik J. Deitsch                                      |  |  |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |
Exhibit 10.18



 








Exhibit 10.18




PARTIAL WAIVER OF AUTOMATIC OPTION GRANT




     Reference is made that certain Restated Omnibus Incentive Plan (Formerly the Restated 1988
Executive Stock Option Plan) (the “Plan”) of CorVel Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), as amended and restated through June 27, 2006. Pursuant to Article III of the Plan, on
the date of the Company’s annual stockholders meeting, each eligible non-employee Board member of
the Company shall automatically be granted a non-statutory option (the “Automatic Grant”) to
purchase three thousand (3,000) shares of the Company’s Common Stock, as adjusted from time to time
pursuant to the terms of the Plan. On December 8, 2006, the Company effectuated a three-for-two
stock split in the form of a 50% stock dividend (the “Stock Split”). Accordingly, pursuant to the
terms of Section II.A.(ii) of Article III and Section V.C.(iii) of Article I of the Plan, the
number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock for which the Automatic Grant shall be made
subsequent to the Stock Split was automatically adjusted to equal an aggregate of four thousand
five hundred (4,500) shares as a result of the Stock Split. On August 2, 2007, at the Company’s
2007 annual stockholders meeting, the undersigned became entitled to receive an Automatic Grant for
four thousand five hundred (4,500) shares of the Company’s Common Stock.



     By executing below, the undersigned, as a non-employee Board member of the Company, hereby
permanently and irrevocably waives his right to receive the option adjustment for the additional
one thousand five hundred (1,500) shares of the Company’s Common Stock that resulted from the Stock
Split (the “Option Adjustment”), such that the Automatic Grant granted to him on August 2, 2007
shall only entitle him to purchase an aggregate of three thousand (3,000) shares of the Company’s
Common Stock, as adjusted for any future stock splits, stock dividends and the like occurring after
the date hereof. The undersigned further represents and warrants that he has not exercised any of
the Option Adjustment and that he is receiving nothing else in any way in consideration,
substitution or replacement of such Option Adjustment that is being waived hereby.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	NON-EMPLOYEE BOARD MEMBER:

 	 
	 	/s/
 	 
	 	Name 	 
	 	 	 
	 	ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:



CORVEL CORPORATION

 	 
	 	/s/ DANIEL J. STARCK
 	 
	 	Daniel J. Starck 	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FERNANDO NELSON AYALARAMOS, a.k.a. Jose, a.k.a. Nelson

Fernando Ramos-Ayala,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50481

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00242-PA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015** 

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Fernando Nelson Ayala-Ramos appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 87-month sentence for conspiracy to

interfere with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and

FILED

AUG 31 2015

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).
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and a crime of

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ayala-Ramos’s counsel has filed a brief stating

that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Ayala-Ramos the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to Ayala-Ramos’s

conviction. We accordingly affirm Ayala-Ramos’s conviction. 

Ayala-Ramos waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record

discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the sentencing waiver, we dismiss

Ayala-Ramos’s appeal as to his sentence. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d

974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

 

2 14-50481
No. 6032.

#### B. F. HOWELL vs. BAPTISTE PUISSEGUR.

Syllabus.

Questions of fact only are involved.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division “E,” No. 103,329. Pión. G. PI. Theard, Judge.

O. S. Livaudais, for plaintiff and appellee. .

P. L. Fourchy, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, EMIDE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The sole complaint of defendant ¡and appellant is that plaintiff has not with sufficient certainty accounted for the proceeds of the sale of four cows which plaintiff had agreed to sell for his account.

*183Opinion and decree, Feb. 25, 1914.

The cows were to be sold for slaughter or consumption and were separately marked and weighed as soon as received by plaintiff. On the same day they were sold, subject to health inspection after slaughter, and were immediately sent in the purchaser’s name to the slaughter pen. ■ After they were killed they were condemned as unfit for consumption, by the public health authorities, who, according to custom and regulations, confiscated the carcass. The hides, however, were preserved and sold for the- amount with which defendant is credited. The price received for the hides and the fact that the cows condemned were those belonging to defendant is conclusively established by the testimony. In fact plaintiff’s case throughout is proved with unusual precision and certainty and defendant’s appeal is wholly without merit.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DDSP team selected as a Distinguished Unit of the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps 

By Diana Dawa, DLA Distribution Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

PennsylvaniaDLADLA DistributionawardDLA Distribution Susquehanna
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **7 4**  **88**

TERENCE TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a T. Terell Bryan, a/k/a Terence Bryan , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,

v. SCDC; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS , Responde nt s – Appell e e s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 4 : 0 8

- c v - 0 1 5 9 0

- TLW )

Submitted : March 31 , 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER , SHEDD, and AG EE, Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.
Terence Terell Bryan , Appellant Pro Se
. Erin Mary Farrell, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina , for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terence Terell Bryan seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting the South Carolina Department of Corrections’ motion for summary judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty day s after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on March 16, 2009 . The notice of appeal was filed on
October 20, 2010
. *

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on t he notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Because Bryan failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we deny Bryan’s motions for a certificate of appealability and to appoint3 counsel. We disp ense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSE D
Exhibit 11


                                 THERMEDICS INC.

                        Computation of Earnings per Share


                                          1996           1995           1994
                                   -----------    -----------    -----------
   Computation of Primary Earnings
     per Share:

   Net Income (a)                   $26,831,000    $15,121,000    $10,837,000
                                    -----------    -----------    -----------
   Shares:
     Weighted average shares
       outstanding                   36,417,486     33,659,709     32,877,578

     Add: Shares issuable from
          assumed conversion of
          subordinated convertible
          debentures                  1,223,990              -              -

          Shares issuable from
          assumed exercise of
          options (as determined
          by the application
          of the treasury stock
          method)                       438,401              -              -
                                    -----------    -----------    -----------
   Weighted average shares
     outstanding, as
     adjusted (b)                    38,079,877     33,659,709     32,877,578
                                    -----------    -----------    -----------
   Primary Earnings per Share
     (a) / (b)                      $       .70    $       .45    $       .33
                                    ===========    ===========    ===========
#### Ex parte TRISM SPECIALIZED CARRIERS, INC., and Tri-State Motor Transit Company, Inc. (Re Roy A. REESE v. TRISM SPECIALIZED CARRIERS, INC., and Tri-State Motor Transit Company, Inc.).

1961980.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 19, 1998.

*52F. Timothy McAbee, Birmingham; and David P. Condon of Rives & Peterson, Birmingham, for petitioners.

Jerry Knight, Decatur, for respondent.

MADDOX, Justice.

In quashing the writ of certiorari, this Court should not be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. *Horsley v. Horsley,*291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973).

WRIT QUASHED.

HOOPER, C.J., and SHORES, HOUSTON, KENNEDY, COOK, SEE, and LYONS, JJ., concur.
No. 96-5677.

#### James *v.*Ryan.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 48863.

#### Protest 83957-K of Mrs. Grace Foley Davison (Nogales).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the papers in the record the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was held presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled
II 

Calendar No. 333 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2173 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, 

join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2012 

Mr. DEMINT (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LEE, Mr. PAUL, 

Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read the first time 

MARCH 8, 2012 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to 

refrain from such activities. 

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 ‘‘National Right-to5 Work Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2173 PCS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELA2 TIONS ACT. 

3 (a) RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.—Section 7 of the Na4 tional Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157) is amended 

5 by striking ‘‘except to’’ and all that follows through ‘‘au6 thorized in section 8(a)(3)’’. 

7 (b) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.—Section 8 of the 

8 National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amend9 ed— 

10 (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ‘‘: Provided, 

11 That’’ and all that follows through ‘‘retaining mem12 bership’’; 

13 (2) in subsection (b)— 

14 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or to 

15 discriminate’’ and all that follows through ‘‘re16 taining membership’’; and 

17 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘covered 

18 by an agreement authorized under subsection 

19 (a)(3) of this section’’; and 

20 (3) in subsection (f), by striking clause (2) and 

21 redesignating clauses (3) and (4) as clauses (2) and 

22 (3), respectively. 

23 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

24 Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) 

25 is amended by striking paragraph Eleven. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 333 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2173 

A BILL 

To preserve and protect the free choice of indiganizations, or to refrain from such activities. vidual employees to form, join, or assist labor orMARCH 8, 2012 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TYRONE DAVIS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 11 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-88918, 333-65912,333-76633, 333-76635, 333-75763, 33-56693, 33-69840, 33-31556, and 2-76939 on Form S-8 and in No.333-127677 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2007, relating to the financial statementsand financial statement schedule of Smith International, Inc. (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123r, “Share-Based Payment” as of January1, 2006 and SFAS No. 158, “Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and OtherPostretirement Plans” as of December 31, 2006) and management’s report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SmithInternational, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPHouston, Texas
* 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. 97-40468

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN W. BANOS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KATHY BROWN; WYLONDRA

FINLEY; SHIRLEY MACENTEE;

KATHY THOMPSON; TIA DIXON,

Mrs.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:97-CV-11

- - - - - - - - - -

August 15, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND DUHÉ, CIRCUIT JUDGES.

PER CURIAM:*

The magistrate judge improperly granted John Wesley Banos,

Texas prisoner # 545431, leave to proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis (IFP). Banos has at least three strikes, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars Banos from IFP status. See Banos v.

Garner, No. 96-CV-92 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 1996) (case dismissed as

frivolous; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution); Banos v.
No. 97-40468

-2-

Bush, No. 96-CV-219 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 1996)(case dismissed as

frivolous; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution); Banos v.

Shaw, No. 93-CV-45 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 1993)(case dismissed as

frivolous; district court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal).

Nothing in the record indicates that the exception to the

statutory bar applies in this case. IT IS ORDERED that the

earlier order granting leave to proceed IFP is VACATED. Banos

has thirty days in which to pay the $105 filing fee. Failure to

make a timely payment will result in the dismissal of the appeal

for want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3.1.2.

Banos’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or for a

preliminary injunction is DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED IF FULL FILING FEE NOT PAID.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
STERITEK, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN ITS FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0000720831
<NAME>  STERITEK, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         296,429
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  478,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,895
<INVENTORY>                                    107,108
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,072,288
<PP&E>                                       2,762,017
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,693,868
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,309,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          666,964
<BONDS>                                        432,658
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       640,844
<OTHER-SE>                                     568,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,309,526
<SALES>                                      4,714,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,714,542
<CGS>                                        2,731,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,731,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (423,882)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (523,882)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  45,334
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (478,538)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        

</TABLE>