alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29062]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on August 18, 1997, Guilford 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 6611 Tributary Street, Baltimore, Maryland 
21224, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of cocaine 
(9041) a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
    The firm plans to manufacture a cocaine derivative which is an 
intermediate for the production of dopascan injection. Cocaine 
derivatives are Schedule II controlled substances in the cocaine basic 
class.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than January 5, 1997.

    Dated: October 22, 1997.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-29062 Filed 11-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ROSHAUN NAKIA PORTER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-50084

D.C. No. 8:12-cr-00097-JLS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 26, 2016** 

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Roshaun Nakia Porter appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

AUG 02 2016

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).
Porter contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the

district court failed to grant a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b),

which authorizes the district court to depart when the defendant’s criminal history

category overstates the seriousness of his criminal history. Our review of a district

court’s decision whether to depart under section 4A1.3 is limited to determining

whether the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United

States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not

abuse its discretion in imposing Porter’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in

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

circumstances, including Porter’s criminal history and the violent nature of the

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

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50084
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the undersigned, Joseph A. D’Amato, Chief Executive Officer of Empire Resorts, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Laurette J. Pitts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, to his and her knowledge, that:
  The Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of the Company (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.
  March 18, 2011By:
/s/ Joseph A. D’AmatoJoseph A. D’AmatoChief Executive OfficerMarch 18, 2011By:
/s/ Laurette J. PittsLaurette J. PittsChief Financial Officer
 
 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 Empire Resorts, Inc. and will be retained by Empire Resorts, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Streuber’s Appeal.

*Corporations*— *Sale of corporate property*— *Class bill*— *Intervening stockholder*— Laches—Equity.

A petition to intervene in a class bill by a minority stockholder to restrain a sale of corporate property will be dismissed where it appears that the petitioners had two months’ notice of the contemplated corporate action and waited two months after action was taken before filing petition to intervene or taking any other proceedings, legal, equitable or otherwise.

Argued May 18, 1910.

Appeal, No. 48, Jan. T., 1910, by Louis Streuber and R. A. Cartwright, from decree of C. P. Elk Co., April T., 1909, No. 1, refusing the petition of Louis Streuber and R. A. Cartwright to intervene as plaintiffs in the case of Fred Koehler et al. v. St. Mary’s Brewing Company et al.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition for permission to intervene in a class bill of minority stockholders. Before Orvis, P. J., specially presiding.

The original bill was filed February 26, 1909, by certain minority stockholders of the St. Mary’s Brewing Company against that company and ffm. Kaul et al. and majority stockholders to restrain the corporation from selling and conveying to the Elk County Brewing Company its property and franchises illegally for less than a fair value.

On June 21, 1909, the petition of Louis Streuber and R. A. Cartwright to intervene as party plaintiffs was filed and dismissed by the court in the following opinion by Orvis, P. J., specially presiding:

And now, to wit, November 6, 1909, petition read and considered, it appearing to the court that the petitioners had notice of the corporate action on Feb*185ruary 27, 1909, as well as due notice of said intended action two months prior thereto, without resorting to any proceedings in law, equity or otherwise to prevent same, or had notice or should have had notice of the present bill having been filed and pending in the common pleas of Elk county, they are certainly guilty of not acting with promptness and have not shown reasons otherwise why their prayer should be granted. The prayer of the petitioners is therefore refused.

July 1, 1910:

*Error assigned*was decree dismissing petition.

*Alexander Simpson, Jr.,*with him *Paul Benson, J. A. Gleason, Louis Rosenzweig, Gunnison, Rilling & Fish,*and *Fred II. Ely,*for appellants,

cited: Wheelock v. Church, 119 Cal. 477 (51 Pac. Repr. 841); Nicrosi v. Calera Land Co., 115 Ala. 429 (22 So. Repr. 147); Fenwick v. Phillips, 3 Metc. (Ky.) 87; Belmont Nail Co. v. Iron & Steel Co., 46 Fed. Repr. 336; Forbes v. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 323; Campbell v. R. R. Co., 1 Woods, 368; Johnston v. Markle Paper Co., 153 Pa. 189.

*E. H. Baird, William A. Stone, Scandrett & Barnett*and *John G. Johnson,*for appellees.

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the refusal of the court below to allow the appellants to intervene in the proceeding which is the subject of the appeal No. 49, to the present term. It is dismissed, for the reason given by the court below in denying the petition to intervene.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Ronald Rowan, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Monarch Casino &Resort, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.               The Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

2.               The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| /S/  RONALD ROWAN                      |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Ronald  Rowan                          |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| March 15,  2010                   |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

I, David Koos, Chief Financial Officer of Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. (“Registrant”) certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Registrant.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

(a)      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting

 

Date:  August 14, 2012

 

By:   /s/ David R. Koos

Acting Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1


[KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP LETTERHEAD]


                                                            Exhibit 23.1

The Board of Directors
Corrpro Companies, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-74814) on Form S-8 and in the registration statement (No. 33-81035) on Form
S-3 of Corrpro Companies, Inc. of our report dated May 14, 1997, relating to
the consolidated balance sheet of Corrpro Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of March 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of income,
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report
appears in the March 31, 1997, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Corrpro Companies,
Inc.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Cleveland, Ohio 
June 12, 1997
ntri-ex101_6.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 



 

 

 

December 27, 2017

 

Mr. Michael P. Monahan

[Address Redacted]

 

RE:Second Amendment to Employment Agreement

 

Dear Mike:

 

Reference is hereby made to the letter agreement between us dated April 19, 2013, as amended by that letter agreement dated January 2, 2015 (as so amended, the “Agreement”).  The parties hereby agree to further amend the Agreement as of the date first set forth above on the terms set forth in this letter agreement (this “Second Amendment”).

 

With respect to the provisions in the Agreement set forth opposite the caption labelled “Annual Cash Bonus Opportunity”, the first sentence thereof is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced  with the following: “Commencing January 1, 2018, target annual bonus will be 75% of the then current Base Salary (provided that the Compensation Committee or the Board, as applicable, may, in its sole discretion, increase the target annual bonus from time to time).”  Except as expressly amended by this Second Amendment, the terms of the Agreement are unchanged and remain in full force and effect.  

 

To acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing, please sign this Second Amendment in the space provided below and return it to me.  Please retain a copy for your records.


Sincerely,

 

/s/ Dawn M.Zier

 

Dawn M. Zier

President and CEO

 

 

Agreed and accepted:

/s/ Michael P. Monahan

 

Michael P. Monahan
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 38

 40

 42

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with IA Global, Inc.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian Hoekstra, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report.  This certification is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.  /s/ Brian Hoekstra Brian Hoekstra Chief Executive Officer January 8, 2010  In connection with IA Global, Inc.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Scott, 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report.  This certification is being made for
the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically
required by law.  /s/ Mark Scott Mark Scott Chief Financial Officer January 8, 2010
Exhibit 8

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



|                                  |  |                              
|--------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Consolidated Principal Subsidiary |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                  | 
|Cosmos Regent Ltd                 |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                  | 
|Cyber Generation Limited          |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                  | 
|Great Windfall Agents Limited     |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                  | 
|Million Good Limited              |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                  | 
|Orion Tire Corporation            |  | The United States of America 
|                                  | 
|Orion (B.V.I.) Tire Corporation   |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                  | 
|Supreme Solutions Limited         |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                  | 
|Ventures Kingdom Limited          |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                  | 
|Wealth Faith Limited              |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                  | 
|Whole Good Limited                |  | British Virgin Islands
#### Mrs. Ruby R. GROVES v. Calvin GROVES.

No. 47248.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 15, 1973.

Marcus D. Gordon, Union, Leon Man-gum, Decatur, for appellant.

William H. Johnson, Jr., Decatur, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Newton County; L. B. Porter, Chancellor.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, INZER, SUGG & WALKER, JJ-

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2







CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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



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





|Date: August 20,
    2013 | By: | /s/ David R. Koos                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                          |     | David
                                                                                                                                                                                                  R. KoosActing Chief Financial Officer





A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authentications, 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 Bio-matrix Scientific Group, Inc. and will be retained by Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered December 4 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00374
- CR RODERICK BROWN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 56213
- U



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court sha ll conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective rep resentation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 13

- 00042

- CR

Leisa PHILLIPS , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR0193W Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 13, 2013
DISMISSED The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2 ). The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain agreement, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed to by the defendant ; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that defendan t’s case is a plea bargain case and he does not have a right of appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a04

- 13

- 00042

- CR

- 2

- certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made par t of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on January 29, 2013 , this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows defendant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State ,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order); T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 25.2(d); 37.1. No amended trial court certification has been filed; therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Do not publish