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



COPY OF PURCHASER'S CHECK 

 

SECTION 83(b) ELECTION 

[FOR REGULAR INCOME TAX - NONQUALIFIED OPTIONS] 

[FOR AMT AND DISQUALIFYING DISPOSITION PURPOSES - INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION] 

ELECTION UNDER SECTION 83(b) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE 

The undersigned Taxpayer hereby elects, pursuant to Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, to include the excess, if any, of the fair market value of the property described below at the time of transfer over the amount paid for such property, as compensation for services in the calculation of: (1) regular gross income; (2) alternative minimum taxable income or (3) disqualifying disposition gross income, as the case may be. 

1. TAXPAYER'S NAME: 

TAXPAYER'S ADDRESS: 

 

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: 

 

2. The property with respect to which the election is made is described as follows: _______ shares of Common Stock of ______________________________ Gas and Oil Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") which were transferred upon exercise of an option by Company, which is Taxpayer's employer or the corporation for whom the Taxpayer performs services. 

3. The date on which the shares were transferred pursuant to the exercise of the option was _______________, _____ and this election is made for calendar year _____. 

4. The shares received upon exercise of the option are subject to the following restrictions: The Company may repurchase all or a portion of the shares at the Taxpayer's original purchase price under certain conditions at the time of Taxpayer's termination of employment or services. 

5. The fair market value of the shares (without regard to restrictions other than restrictions which by their terms will never lapse) was $___ per share at the time of exercise of the option. 

6. The amount paid for such shares upon exercise of the option was $___ per share. 

7. The Taxpayer has submitted a copy of this statement to the Company. 

THIS ELECTION MUST BE FILED WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ("IRS"), AT THE OFFICE WHERE THE TAXPAYER FILES ANNUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS, WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE SHARES, AND MUST ALSO BE FILED WITH THE TAXPAYER'S INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR. THE ELECTION CANNOT BE REVOKED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE IRS. 


	
Dated:

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

Taxpayer's Signature
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6484

ROBERT ALEX ZANDER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

HARLEY LAPPIN; KIM WHITE; GERALDO MALDONADO, JR.; RONALD W. 

RIKER; TRACY W. JOHNS; JOSEPH P. YOUNG; KENNETH MOTTERN, 

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:08-ct-03117-FL)

Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: March 10, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Alex Zander, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Alex Zander appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his civil action filed pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. Zander argues on appeal, as he did below, that the 

actions of prison officials rendered those remedies 

“unavailable” to him. 

“[A]n administrative remedy is not considered to have 

been available if a prisoner, through no fault of his own, was 

prevented from availing himself of it.” Moore v. Bennette, 517 

F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008). Thus, “when prison officials 

prevent inmates from using the administrative process . . ., the 

process that exists on paper becomes unavailable in reality.” 

Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, 

the district court is “obligated to ensure that any defects in 

exhaustion were not procured from the action or inaction of 

prison officials.” Aquilar-Avellaveda v. Terrell, 478 F.3d 

1223, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007). 

In this case, the district court did not address 

Zander’s allegations that prison officials hindered his ability 

to exhaust his administrative remedies. We therefore vacate the 

district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants 

and remand for a determination of whether the grievance 
3

procedure was “available” to Zander within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2006) so that he could administratively 

exhaust his claim. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
#### Moretrench Corporation, Appellant, vs. Wilke, Receiver and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Genrich & Genrich,*attorneys, and *Herbert L. Terwilliger*and *James A. Fitzpatrick*of counsel, all of Wausau.

For the respondents: *Anna Mae Davis*of Madison, attorney, and *Bird, Smith, Okoneski & Puchner*of Wausau of counsel.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21- Subsidiaries of the Company as of March 6, 2003

Parent Level:     R.H. Donnelley Corporation (formerly known as The Dun &
                  Bradstreet Corporation), a Delaware corporation; publicly
                  traded on NYSE as "RHD"

         Tier 1 Subsidiary:      R.H. Donnelley Inc. (formerly known as The
                                 Reuben H. Donnelley Corporation), a Delaware
                                 corporation wholly owned by R.H. Donnelley
                                 Corporation

                           Tier 2 Subsidiaries:
                                        CenDon, L.L.C.*
                                        Get Digital Smart.com Inc.**
                                        R.H. Donnelley APIL, Inc**
                                        R.H. Donnelley CD, Inc.**
                                        R.H. Donnelley Publishing & Advertising,
                                        Inc.***

                                        Third Tier Subsidiary:

                                              R.H. Donnelley Acquisitions, Inc.,
                                              a Delaware corporation wholly
                                              owned by R.H. Donnelley APIL, Inc.


----------------------
*        Delaware limited liability company, owned jointly by R.H. Donnelley
         Inc. and R.H. Donnelley Publishing & Advertising. Inc., which does
         business as R.H. Donnelley Publishing & Advertising and Sprint Yellow
         Pages(R).

**       Delaware corporations wholly owned by R.H. Donnelley Inc. Get Digital
         Smart is presently inactive.

***      Kansas corporation (formerly known as Sprint Publishing & Advertising,
         Inc.), wholly owned by R.H. Donnelley Inc., which now does business as
         R.H. Donnelley Publishing & Advertising and Sprint Yellow Pages(R).
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 is case suitable for decision **

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

NED/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS FILADELFO ALVARADO,

a.k.a. Carlos Alvarado Anaya,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70797

Agency No. A095-022-857

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Filadelfo Alvarado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection

FILED

DEC 28 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NED/Research 2 08-70797

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512

F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the

BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v.

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for

substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.

2006). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Alvarado’s claim that he is eligible for withholding of removal

based on his membership in a particular social group, namely, small business

owners in El Salvador who fear being harmed by gangs if they report them to

police. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005) (rejecting as a

particular social group “business owners in Colombia who rejected demands by

narco-traffickers to participate in illegal activity”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542

F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men

in El Salvador resisting gang violence”) (internal quotation omitted).

Accordingly, because Alvarado failed to demonstrate that he was persecuted

on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his withholding of

removal claim. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
NED/Research 3 08-70797

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Alvarado did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with

the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government. See Zheng v.

Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### SUSAN JENKINS v. B. W. JENKINS and others.

*Bower not assignable out of Certain*Lands.

On petition for dower, it appeared that the land was acquired and the marriage took place prior to the “ dower act ” of 1867 (restoring the common law right of dower) and the husband conveyed the same in 1872 without the concurrence of the wife; *Held*that the husband had a vested right to sell which was not impaired by the act, and his single •deed passed the title free from the claim of dower.

*(Sutton*v. *Askew,*63 N. C., 172 ; *Holliday*v. McMillan, 79 N. C., 315 ; *Bruce*v. *Strickland,*81 N. 0., 267; O'Connorv. Harris, *Id,,*279, cited and approved.)

Petition for Dower heard at Spring Term, 1879, of Yad-kin Superior Court, before *Schenek, J,*

This was a petition-for the assignment of dower to the plaintiff, Susan'Jenkins, a widow of Francis Jenkins, in the lands described in the petition, which cameffiy appeal from the probate court to the superior court, and His Honor being of opinion that plaintiff was not entitled to dower in the land in controversy gave judgment accordingly and the plaintiff appealed.

*209
      *Messrs. Watson & Glenn,*for the plaintiff.

The defendants were not represented in this court.

Dillard, J.

From the statement of the case of appeal,, we collect that the petitioner intermarried with Francis-Jenkins before the passage of the act of 1867, restoring to-married women their common law right of dower; that her-husband owned the tract of land in which dower is claimed anterior to the marriage, and conveyed the same during the-coverture (in 1873) to the defendants, B. W. Jenkins and Malinda Jenkins in fee simple without the joinder of the-wife in the deed.

On these facts submitted to His Honor in the court below, he held and so adjudged that the plaintiff was not entitled, to dower, and on the appeal to this court a question is made-, as to the correctness of the ruling.

We concur with His Honor. In *Sutton*v. *Askew,*66 N. C., 172, it was ruled that a husband who married and owned lands before the dower act of 1867 enlarging the right of dower, had a vested right to sell and convey such lands by his single deed ; and that it was incompetent to the legislature-to impair that -right by giving the wife a right of dower-therein and making it necessary that she should be joined) in the husband’s deed therefor. The ruling of the court has been since referred to and approved in the cases of *Holliday*v. *McMillan,*79 N. C., 315; *Bruce*v. *Strickland,*81 N. C., 267; *O’Connor*v. *Harris, Id.,*279. Upon the authority, of these cases and the reasons on which they were decided,. we hold that the deed of the husband executed to the defendants was effectual to pass the title free from plaintiff’s claim to dower, although she was not a party to the deed.

There is no error. Judgment of the court below is affirmed, and this will be certified.

No error. Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84915-84916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24689]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4830-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Georgia; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4830-DR), dated September 30, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 14, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include permanent work 
under the Public Assistance program for the following areas among those 
areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared 
a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 30, 
2024.

    McIntosh County for Individual Assistance.
    Columbia, Glascock, Jefferson, Johnson, McDuffie, Montgomery, 
Richmond, Telfair, and Wheeler Counties for permanent work 
[Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and 
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures 
[Categories A and B], including direct Federal assistance, under the 
Public Assistance program).
    Dodge, Thomas, and Warren Counties for Public Assistance, 
including direct Federal assistance (already designated for 
Individual Assistance).
    Dooly, Grady, McIntosh, and Monroe Counties for Public 
Assistance, including direct Federal assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036,

[[Page 84916]]

Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-24689 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 32

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 on Form 10-Q of SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify to their knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2012 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William C. Stone                             
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | William C. Stone                                 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                    



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2012 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Patrick J. Pedonti                           
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Patrick J. Pedonti                               
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

State of Connecticut

&

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

)

)

)

)

Trading Agreement &

Order No. 8293

Modification 1

Whereas, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Sikorsky Aircraft

Corporation (Respondent) having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement

and Order 8293 issued on April 14,2010, do now, by mutual agreement, modify said Trading

Agreement and Order as follows:

I. Delete paragraph B.14 and substitute the following therefore:

Reporting: No later than March 1 of every year after issuance ofthis Trading Agreement

and Order, the Respondent shall submit to the Commissioner a written report containing

copies of all ofthe records required pursuant to Paragraph B.12 ofthis Trading Agreement

and Order. The Commissioner may prescribe the forms to be used for the submission of

these reports. The Respondent shall submit these reports on such forms, if prescribed by

the Commissioner.

All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order No. 8293 issued by the

Commissioner acting under Chapter 446c, Sections 22a-6, 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a-176, and 22a-l77

of the Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.

(Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford. CT 06106-5127

www.ct.gov/dep

An Equal Opporfunity Employer
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation 2 Trading Agreement

and Order No. 8293

Modification I

Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and

Order without further notice,.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

Signature: "-~

Name: 5. C-a $Q.$ll n-±-a .

Title: V'P Prodrl C1?Jhk:"--YS"""-----__

Date: 9/;5/10 ,

Issued as a modification of an Order ofthe Commissioner of Environmental Protection

c~).k GarY, S. ~ofie, Director

En ~neerMg & Enforcement Division

Bureau ofAir Management

CITY OF STRATFORD

MAILED CERTIFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Certified Document No.

0'1- rt -J-oro

Date

-------------------------------------
<pre>

Exhibit 31.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officer of Vote Power Corp. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that:

(i) the Annual Report  on Form 10-KSB of  the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2007 , as amended, (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a)  or Section 15(d),  as applicable, of  the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.


Dated:  April 14, 2008                        /s/   Inti Shaikh
                                              ---------------------------
                                              Inti Shaikh
                                              CEO
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


[BANK OF AMERICA LOGO]



                                             Agency Administrative Services 5596



August 22, 2001

TO:          ALL PARTICIPANT BANKS


REF:         COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION
             $3,000,000,000.00 AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT


NOTICE OF COMMITMENT REDUCTION


Pursuant to Section 2.07 of the above-referenced credit agreement, Bank of
America, as Agent has received a request for a Ratable Reduction of Commitments
in an aggregate amount of $750,000,000.00. The new Aggregate Commitment will be
$2,250,000,000.00. The EFFECTIVE DATE of this Ratable Reduction will be MONDAY,
AUGUST 27, 2001, which is 3 Business Days after receipt of the notice.


*THE BANK PRO RATA SHARES ARE LISTED ON THE ATTACHED PAGE.


Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.


Best Regards,

Bank of America N.A., as Agent


Brian Graybill
Credit Services Representative
(925) 675-8414
Order entered April 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01386-CV

HARRY DAVIS D/B/A FIRST HOME CONSULTING, Appellant

V.

CITIBANK, NA, AS TRUSTEE FOR, WAMU SERIES 2007-HE2 TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-12737

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s April 24, 2013 amended second motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief. Appellant shall file his brief on or before May 22, 2013. We caution appellant 

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

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 20 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Cummins FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2010
- 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on February 18 , 2011 b etween Cummins and EPA and included the following individuals: Cummins: Jackie Yeager , Jon Dickson , Gary Salemme , and Brian Mormino EPA: By ron Bunker and Angela Cullen
The discussion focused primarily on clarificati ons of the proposed regulatory language.