alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.9


 


	
     

    
	Gold
    Coast Advisory, LTD
	130 Shore Road, Suite 235, Port Washington, NY 11050 516-944-0081



 


January 15, 2020


 


Gentlemen:


 


This agreement is between VisionCare Inc. and its subsidiaries and
affiliates, (collectively, the “Company”) and Gold Coast Advisory, LTD. Under this agreement, the Company and Gold Coast
Advisory, LTD agree to hereby extend the termination date of their Financial Advisory Agreement dated November 8, 2018 until December 31,
2020. Except for the extension of the term, all other terms of the Financial Advisory Agreement shall remain the same.


 


Please confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth our agreement
by signing and returning to Gold Coast Advisory the copy of this letter enclosed herewith.


 


Very truly yours,


 


	GOLD COAST ADVISORY, LTD	 
	 	 
	By:	          	 
	Steven Cohen	 
	President	 


 


Accepted and Agreed 


to as of the date first 


written above:


 


	VISIONCARE, INC	 
	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Richard Powers	 
	Name:	Richard Powers	 
	Title:	EVP & CFO
EXHIBIT 32.2

                        Certification of CFO 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 Crested Corp. (the "Company") on
Form  10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report"), Robert Scott Lorimer,
Chief  Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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  his  knowledge,  that:

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

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




                                            /s/  Robert  Scott  Lorimer
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Robert  Scott  Lorimer,
                                         Chief  Financial  Officer
                                         May  17,  2004


This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes  of  Section  18  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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


                                      -16-
<PAGE>
#### Vincent ATANMO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-16921.

D.C. No. CV-01-03639-TEH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2002.*

Decided July 30, 2002.

Before FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and WHELAN **, District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Thomas J. Whelan, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner appeals the district court’s denial of stay of deportation and habeas relief. We dismiss.

Petitioner’s final order of deportation became effective on November 20, 1984. Petitioner remained at large in the United States for more than 16 years. On September 26, 2001, while in INS custody, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus with the district court and sought an immediate stay of deportation. The district court denied both requests.

On September 28, 2001 Petitioner initiated this appeal and sought an emergency stay of deportation. The stay request was immediately denied. On September 29, 2001 the INS deported Petitioner to Nigeria.

Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his underlying deportation order. Once deported, Petitioner’s habeas petition became moot, because the only relief requested was a stay of deportation. *Hose v. INS,*180 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir.1999) *(ien*bane) (holding that habeas petition requesting relief from deportation was rendered moot by Petitioner’s removal from the United States).

Because Petitioner has been removed from the United States, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant habeas relief.

PETITION DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 241 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef 

Conservation Act of 1998. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 241 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tropical Forest and 

3 Coral Reef Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

5 Section 806(d) of the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef 

6 Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431d(d)) is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: 

8 ‘‘(9) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2022. 

9 ‘‘(10) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2023. 

10 ‘‘(11) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2024. 

11 ‘‘(12) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2025. 

12 ‘‘(13) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2026.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 19, 2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 241 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef 

Conservation Act of 1998.
Exhibit 31.2   Certifications   I, Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American General Finance Corporation (the 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 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. The registrants other certifying officer and 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  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:November 8, 2007/s/Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer   45
#### Eugene PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-237.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 1970.

Eugene Peterson, in Pro. Per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SPECTOR, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his motion to set aside and vacate his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. Appellant’s conviction, along with those of his accomplices, was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. See Barber et al. v. State, Fla.App., 226 So.2d 35.

The order now being reviewed recites as its basis that the grounds asserted by appellant in his motion to vacate were matters which were or could have been raised in appellant’s direct appeal to this court. We agree with the able trial judge.

Each of the matters raised by appellant in his motion to vacate clearly were matters which could or should have been raised on the direct appeal, except perhaps for appellant’s present claim that he was denied the benefit of the assistance of competent counsel. None of the other claims go to the question of the trial court’s jurisdiction to enter the judgment nor is it contended that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law. There is no showing that appellant’s trial resulted in a denial or infringement of his constitutional rights so as to render the judgment of conviction vulnerable to collateral attack. See Austin v. State, 160 So.2d 730 (Fla.App.1964). Appellant’s claim directed to assistance of counsel is wholly without merit. Appellant was represented by able and dedicated counsel from the office of the Public Defender for the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Gadsden County, Florida. No defendant is guaranteed an acquittal by the constitution. Failure to be acquitted is too often blamed on defense counsel. This, of course, is a convenient place to lay the blame. However, defense counsel, no matter how ingenious he may *224be, cannot prevent the State from demonstrating defendant’s guilt through the use of lawful trial procedures. Taking note of the nature of the jury’s verdict in appellant’s case, defense counsel, who is now charged with incompetency, would have done a far better job for his client had the client not seen fit to break into the feed store or motor company with the intent to steal.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2550 

To require GAO review of certain TSA screening protocols, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2021 

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself and Miss RICE of New York) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require GAO review of certain TSA screening protocols, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Traveling Parents 

5 Screening Consistency Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW. 

7 Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

8 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

9 shall conduct a review of the Transportation Security Ad10 ministration’s (TSA) implementation of the Bottles and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2550 IH

1 Breastfeeding Equipment Screening Act (Public Law 

2 114–293), as well as the effectiveness of TSA in ensuring 

3 screening protocol clarity and screening consistency relat4 ing to the screening of formula, breast milk, purified de5 ionized water for infants, and juice. Such review shall in6 clude the following: 

7 (1) Consider whether TSA effectively manages 

8 consistency of screening protocol applications for 

9 formula, breastmilk, purified deionized water for in10 fants, and juice. 

11 (2) Evaluate the need for TSA to update and 

12 revise procedures for such screening. 

13 (3) Assess whether TSA effectively tracks pas14 senger complaints related to such screening to mon15 itor trends and identify inconsistencies. 

16 (4) Evaluate TSA’s communications and infor17 mation sharing practices for passengers, air carriers, 

18 and airports relating to screening protocols for such 

19 screening. 

20 (5) Evaluate TSA’s policies regarding the 

21 screening of passengers with nursing products, in22 cluding the extent to which such passengers are 

23 more likely to receive secondary screening. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2550 IH

1 (6) Make recommendations for improving 

2 TSA’s overall screening practices relating to such 

3 screening. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. • WASHINGTON, D.C. • 20220 • (202) 622-2960

FOR RELEASE AT 3:00 P.M. Contact: Michelle Smith

January 31, 1994

TREASURY ANNOUNCES MARKET BORROWING REQUIREMENTS

The Treasury Department on Monday announced that its net market borrowing for 

January-March 1994 is estimated to be $45 billion with a $20 billion cash balance on March 

31. The Treasury also announced that its net market borrowing for April-June 1994 is 

estimated to be in a range of $15 to $20 billion, with a $30 billion cash balance at the end of 

June.

In the quarterly announcement of its borrowing needs on November 1, 1993, the 

Treasury estimated net market borrowing during the January-March quarter to be in a range 

of $60 to $65 billion, assuming a $20 billion cash balance on March 31.

Actual market borrowing in the quarter ended December 31, 1993 was $84.6 billion, 

while the quarter-end cash balance was $49.7 billion. On November 1, the Treasury had 

estimated market borrowing for the October-December quarter to be $85.2 billion, with an 

end-of-quarter cash balance of $35 billion. Larger receipts and lower outlays resulted in the 

higher balance on December 31, while actual market borrowing was approximately the 

amount that was estimated in November.

LB-621 Revised
#### INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. James D. HAYNES et al., Appellees.

No. 71-755.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 10, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Daniel NELSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50009.

D.C. No. CR-01-01857-B.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

David Daniel Nelson appeals his conviction by guilty plea to importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. Nelson’s contention that the indictment should be dismissed because §§ 952 and 960 are unconstitutional under *Ap-prendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is fore*864closed by *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1109-11 (9th Cir.2002) (section 960), and *United States v. Varela-Rivera,*279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2002) (section 952). His contention that the indictment should be dismissed because it did not allege mens rea as to drug type and quantity is foreclosed by *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2521 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct 

a study on the feasibility and advisability of furnishing 

doula services to certain veterans, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2521 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Delivering Optimally 

3 Urgent Labor Access for Veterans Affairs Act of 2022’’ 

4 or the ‘‘DOULA for VA Act of 2022’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FEASIBILITY AND ADVISABILITY STUDY ON DOULA 

6 SUPPORT FOR VETERANS. 

7 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 

8 carry out a study on the feasibility and advisability of fur9 nishing doula services to covered vetearns. Such study 

10 shall include an analysis of— 

11 (1) measures taken by other Federal, State, 

12 and local entities to ensure the appropriate certifi13 cation of doulas; and 

14 (2) the extent to which such measures, or simi15 lar measures, may be adequate for purposes of such 

16 furnishment. 

17 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the 

18 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall sub19 mit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the House 

20 of Representatives and the Senate a report on the findings 

21 of the study under subsection (a) that shall include a de22 termination by the Secretary as to whether furnishing 

23 doula services to covered veterans is feasible and advisable. 

24 (c) COVERED VETERAN DEFINED.—In this section, 

25 the term ‘‘covered veteran’’ means a pregnant veteran or 

26 a formerly pregnant veteran (with respect to doula services 
3 

•HR 2521 EH

1 to be furnished post-partum) who is enrolled in the patient 

2 enrollment system of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

3 under section 1705 of title 38, United States Code. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 1, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2521 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to confor other purposes. furnishing doula services to certain veterans, and duct a study on the feasibility and advisability of
* 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 October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50244 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISIDRO SALAS-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-2137-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Isidro SalasFlores raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Colin V. DOWDS, Appellant, v. William King PECK, Appellee.

No. 69-385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 26, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**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 Annual Report of QMIS Finance Securities Corporation (formerly “Lightman Grant, Inc”) (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Chin Yung Kong, 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; and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
#### Derrick Curtis FLOURNOY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants, and Littlejohn, Deputy; Dacus, Deputy, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-15155.

D.C. No. CV-97-06151-AWI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*844Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Derrick Flournoy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Flourney alleged that Littlejohn and Da-cus placed him in serious risk of injury and failed to protect him from attack by a violent cell mate. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Littlejohn because Flournoy put forth no evidence to show that Littlejohn was made aware of or disregarded threats to Flournoy’s safety prior to the attack. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837,114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (holding that prisoner must show that “the official [knew] of and disregarded] an excessive risk to inmate ... safety”). Moreover, summary judgment for defendant Dacus was proper because Flournoy did not put forth any evidence to dispute that Dacus responded reasonably to the alleged risk of harm subsequent to the attack. *See id.*at 844-45.

Flournoy was given fair notice of his obligations under the summary judgment rule. *See Rand v. Rowland,*154 F.3d 952, 957-58 (9th Cir.1998).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Flournoy’s motion for appointment of counsel because Flournoy did not show exceptional circumstances. *See Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991).

Flournoy’s other contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
Order entered October 1, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01596-CV

STEFFANY JACKSON, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 417-02539-2011

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s September 26, 2013 unopposed second motion for an extension 

of time to file a brief. Appellee shall file its brief on or before October 21, 2013. We caution 

appellee that no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE