alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


 








 



 


December 5, 2018


 


Dear Ms.
Zhilin Li,


 


On behalf of the Board of Directions and the Company,
I am pleased to welcome you to join the Board of the China Pharma Holdings, Inc as a director. The compensation is $16,000 per
year. I look forward to working with you. Your appointment date is December 5, 2018 with a term of three years.


 


If you agree to the terms and conditions stated above,
please sign and date this letter below.


 


I look forward to working with you and sincerely
hope that your service will be enjoyable and rewarding.


 


Sincerely


 


	Chairman of the Board	 
	 	 
	China Pharma Holdings, Inc.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Zhilin Li	 
	 	 	 
	Date:	Dec. 12, 2018	 




 


Response:


 


This letter correctly sets forth the understanding
of Ms. Zhilin Li.


 


	By:	/s/ Zhilin Li	 
	 	 	 
	Date:	Dec. 12, 2018	 



 


 


	No. 17 Jinpan
    Rd, Haikou, Hainan, China 570216	Fax: 86-898 66811730
	Phone: 86-898 66812660	www.chinapharmaholdings.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0092 IN THE MATTER OF: F.S., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 9, 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

September 3 2020

09/03/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0092
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.06

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
     TO RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON INC.


            SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON INC., a Delaware Corporation (the
"Corporation") having its registered office at Corporation Trust Center, 1209
Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, in the County of New Castle, hereby
certifies to the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware that:

            FIRST: Article I of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation is hereby amended so as to read in its entirety as follows:

                                      "NAME

            The name of the corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
"Corporation") is:

                         SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS INC."

            SECOND: The Board of Directors of the Corporation by requisite vote
adopted a resolution which set forth the foregoing amendment to the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation, in accordance with Section 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, declaring that the amendment to the
Restated Certificate of Incorporation as proposed was advisable and directing
that it be submitted for action thereon by the sole stockholder of the
Corporation.

            THIRD: The amendment has been consented to and authorized and
approved by the holder of all the issued and outstanding stock of the
Corporation, entitled to vote, by a written consent given in accordance with the
provisions of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

<Page>
                                                                               2


            FOURTH: This Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation shall be effective on August 1, 1990.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. has caused this
Certificate to be signed on this 19th day of July, 1990 in its name and on its
behalf by a Vice Chairman of the Board and attested by its Secretary, pursuant
to Section 103(a) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

                                     /s/ David S. Hershberg
                                    --------------------------------------
                                          David S. Hershberg
                                          Vice Chairman



ATTEST:   /s/ Maureen Boyan
         ------------------------
            Maureen Boyan
            Secretary
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 96-40227

Summary Calendar

_______________

MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WAYNE SCOTT,

Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

*****************************************************************

MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WAYNE SCOTT,

Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CV-240)

_________________________

June 21, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published except under the limited circumstances set forth

in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Magoon appeals the dismissal of his suit under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Magoon contends that medical personnel should

have performed an x-ray on his back and should have concluded that

his prior back injuries precluded him from working. His complaints

are, at best, either allegations of negligent treatment or disputes

regarding the type of treatment he received and, thus, do not

evidence constitutionally inadequate treatment. See Johnson v.

Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985).

Magoon avers that he has been denied access to the court.

Although the magistrate judge should have addressed Magoon’s courtaccess claim, Magoon has not identified any reversible error. See

Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1237

METASEBYA KASSA MEKONEN, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-894-838) Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: June 30, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Keith S. Blair, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Metasebya Kassa Mekonen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Mekonen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Mekonen cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the Board’s finding that Mekonen failed to establish that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense 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. PETITION DENIED
#### Charlie William JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28438.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 27, 1956.

No attorney for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the possession of beer and wine for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $300.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed, and no motion for rehearing will be entertained in this case.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03669]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Allergy, Immunology, and 
Transplantation Research Committee (AITC) Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: March 18, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G31B, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Video Assisted Meeting).
    Contact Person: James T. Snyder, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G31B, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5060, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6ccc7cbc3d588d5c8dfc2c3d4e6c8cfce88c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e288838f8791cc918c9b868790a28c8b8acc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 16, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03669 Filed 2-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID PAUL HEALY,

 

 Appellants,

v.

SIMONE BARRON,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00027-CV

Appeal from the

352nd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas 

(TC# 352-286480-16)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is a motion to withdraw filed by Appellee’s counsel on appeal. 

The motion is GRANTED. The Court has changed its records to reflect that Simone Barron will 

appear as pro se. The Appellee is to notify this Court immediately in writing if new counsel has 

been retained.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

PACIFIC
MERCANTILE BANCORP

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007

The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ NANCY A. GRAY                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|                     |  |  |  | Nancy A. Gray, Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                     
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission on its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6339

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUDI BERNARD SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-88-200, CA-96-887-2) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rudi Bernard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Michelle Lecocq, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find noreversible error. The district court dismissed the case after Appellant failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. We note that Appellant’s Rule 59 motion could not be construed as objections to the magistrate judge’s report because they were not filed within the time period set for filingsuch objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith , Nos. CR-88-200; CA-96-887-2 (S.D.W. Va., Feb. 4 & 27, 1997). We dispense 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.

DISMISSED
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

CALVIN J. HILL, INDIVIDUALLY NO. 2021 CW 1508

AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE

SUCCESSION OF ELNORA JOHNSON

HILL

VERSUS

TMR EXPLORATION, INC., PARK

EXPLORATION, INC., AND VITOL

RESOURCES, INC. 

MARCH 28, 2022

In Re: New Hampshire Insurance Company, National Union Fire

Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., and AIG

Specialty Insurance Company, applying for supervisory

writs, 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of West

Baton Rouge, No. 41245. 

BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

JMM

WIL

EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

EPUTY C ERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00141-CR

JAVIER CARBAJAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 371st District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1496658D)

January 10, 2019

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth_________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID GEORGE CHANDLER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

SHARON BLACKETTER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-35019

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-01777-PK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ancer L. Haggerty, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 1, 2010** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: RYMER, GOULD and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner David George Chandler (“Chandler”) seeks habeas corpus relief

from his conviction in Oregon state court. We review the district court’s denial of

habeas relief de novo. Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 2000). 

FILED

FEB 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

Chandler carries the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he

is entitled to habeas relief, Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825, 835 (9th Cir. 2002),

and is only entitled to such relief if the state court decision he challenges was

“contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Since Chandler has failed to

identify any clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,

holding that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel cannot be forfeited

through particularly egregious conduct, the district court properly denied his

application.

Although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the right to counsel

can be forfeited, the Court has also never held to the contrary, and has held that

another fundamental Sixth Amendment right—the right to be present at one’s own

trial—can be forfeited through misconduct. See Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S.

17, 19-20 (1973) (per curiam); Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 342-43 (1970). 

Between Chandler’s progression of court-appointed attorneys—all of whom were

apparently discharged due to Chandler’s machinations—and Chandler’s own boast

that he “kn[e]w of many ways to drag this on indefinitely, and . . . w[ould] not

hesitate to do so” in a letter to the prosecutor, there was ample evidence indicating
-3-

that Chandler, like the defendant in Allen, was engaging in “conduct . . . to avoid

being tried on the charges brought against him.” Allen, 397 U.S. at 346.

Most importantly, Chandler has failed to identify—and we cannot find—any

Supreme Court case clearly establishing that the right to counsel cannot be

forfeited through a defendant’s misconduct. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Crater v.

Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]f habeas relief depends upon the

resolution of an ‘open question in [Supreme Court] jurisprudence,’ § 2254(d)(1)

precludes relief.” (quoting Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 76 (2006)).

AFFIRMED.
### Docket No: FAA

- 2015

- 8430 Dir iD: 2015

- NM

- 093

- AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6 / 1 2 /15

Regional Airline Association 6/ 1 2 /15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots As sociation Robert Hackman 6/1 2 /15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 6/ 1 2 /15
#### Henry MORGAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27292.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1955.

*74No attorney on appeal for appellant.

; Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the: punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.00.

No statement of facts, or bills of exception appear in the record.

The judgment herein recites that the jail term was probated.

In compliance with the holding in Gilderbloom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 272 S.W.2d 106, the judgment herein is reformed so as to eliminate the provision for probation and, as reformed, is affirmed.
EXHIBIT32-2

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Hesperia Holding, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Steve Chaussy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  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.
 

/s/Steve Chaussy                       

SteveChaussy

ChiefFinancial Officer

May14, 2004