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

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

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

| Dated:  November 16, 2009 | By:    | /s/  Kyle Kennedy                                              |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   | Kyle Kennedy                                                        |   |
|                                |   | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

----
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JOHNY RACHMAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71960

Agency No. A043-543-914

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2010** 

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

Johny Rachman, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “[W]e review

for whether substantial evidence supports a finding by clear, unequivocal and

FILED

JAN 06 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71960

convincing evidence that [Rachman] abandoned his lawful permanent residence in

the United States.” Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.

2003). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence support’s the agency’s determination that the

government met its burden of showing that Rachman lacked a continuous,

uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the eight years he lived

in Indonesia. See Chavez-Ramirez v. INS, 792 F.2d 932, 937-38 (9th Cir. 1986)

(substantial evidence supported finding abandonment of lawful permanent

residence where alien spent two and a half years in country of citizenship after the

exigency which caused her to return had passed); cf. Khodagholian, 335 F.3d at

1007-09.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### ALEXANDER WILLIAMS Respondent. *vs.*HOLMES & PROVOST, Appellant.

Al’PEAL FROM THE KENOSHA CIRCUIT COURT.

A motion to dismiss an appeal from a Justice of the Peace is a final determination of the cause in the circuit court, and an appeal lies therefrom.

Motions made in the progress of a cause are no part of the record proper, and mast he made such in order to he noticed on error or appeal.

*By the Court,*

Smith J.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed. In *Kavanaugh vs. Titus, 5*Wis. Rep., 143, and in several other cases, we have held that motions made in the progress of a cause are not part of the record, and can only be made so by bill of exceptions, duly settled. There is no bill of exceptions in this case, and hence the motion and ruling of the court below are not properly before us.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


OF THE


MEDGENICS, INC.


STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE MARCH 5, 2012)


 


WHEREAS,
Medgenics, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Medgenics, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective
March 5, 2012) (the “Incentive Plan”);


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to and subject to Section 9.14 of the Incentive Plan, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company
may amend the Incentive Plan at any time;


 


WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the Incentive Plan to increase the maximum number
of shares of the Company’s common stock authorized to be issued under the Incentive Plan by 1,700,000, from 2,478,571 to
4,178,571; and


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 9.14 of the Incentive Plan, an amendment that materially increases the aggregate number of shares that
may be issued under the Incentive Plan generally must be approved by a majority of votes cast by the stockholders of the Company
in accordance with applicable stock exchange rules.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, effective as of the date of approval by a majority of votes cast by the stockholders of the Company in accordance
with applicable stock exchange rules, the Incentive Plan is hereby amended in the following particulars:


 


		1.	The first sentence of Section 4.01 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



 


“          4.01    Number
of Shares. The maximum number of shares authorized to be issued under the Incentive Plan shall be 4,178,571 shares
of the Company’s Common Stock (all of which may be granted as Incentive Stock Options); provided, however,
that for so long as the Company’s Common Stock is admitted for trading on the Official List of the United Kingdom Listing
Authority or on AIM, the market operated by London Stock Exchange plc, on the date of grant of any Award hereunder (the ‘Relevant
Grant Date’), the aggregate number of shares in respect of which Awards granted on or after December 4, 2007 and which remain
outstanding and unexercised shall not exceed 12% of the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock issued and outstanding
on the Relevant Grant Date.”


 


		2.	In all other respects the Incentive Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      35,355,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,266,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,621,000
<PP&E>                                     134,143,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,228,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             181,807,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,040,000
<BONDS>                                     63,416,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       61,461,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               181,807,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,794,000
<CGS>                                       29,134,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,343,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             134,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (817,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (817,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary Means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Dennis Silverio et al., Appellants, v Jairo E. Betancourt et al., Defendants, and John C. Ng et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 572]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), entered *469January 6, 2003, as granted the separate oral applications of the defendants John C. Ng and Carol L. Ng, the defendant Yves Crevecouer, and the defendants Alan I. Goldstein and Linda Baff, pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence, for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the plaintiffs’ notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting the oral application of the defendants John C. Ng and Carol L. Ng to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them and substituting therefor a provision denying that oral application; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants John C. Ng and Carol L. Ng, is reinstated, and a new trial is granted.

The trial court properly granted the oral application of the defendant Yves Crevecouer to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him because the evidence demonstrated that Crevecouer had only seconds to react to an emergency situation and that he acted reasonably under the circumstances *(see Roantree v Kurre,*255 AD2d 433 [1998]; *Yusupov v Supreme Carrier Corp.,*240 AD2d 660 [1997]; *DiPaolo v Buono,*235 AD2d 386 [1997]; *Madden v Mullet,*211 AD2d 623 [1995]). The trial court also properly granted the oral application of the defendants Alan I. Goldstein and Linda Baff to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them because there was no evidence that the defendant Goldstein negligently operated the vehicle owned by Baff.

However, the trial court erred in granting the oral application of the defendants John C. Ng and Carol L. Ng to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The evidence presented at trial raised issues of fact as to whether the defendant John C. Ng, the driver of the vehicle owned by the defendant Carol L. Ng, was at fault in the happening of the accident. Accordingly, we reinstate the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants John C. Ng and Carol L. Ng, and grant a new trial. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3596 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3596

    To ensure that health insurance issuers and medical malpractice 
insurance issuers cannot engage in price fixing, bid rigging, or market 
       allocations to the detriment of competition and consumers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2009

  Mr. Conyers (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, and Ms. DeGette) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To ensure that health insurance issuers and medical malpractice 
insurance issuers cannot engage in price fixing, bid rigging, or market 
       allocations to the detriment of competition and consumers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health Insurance Industry Antitrust 
Enforcement Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    It is the purpose of this Act to ensure that health insurance 
issuers and medical malpractice insurance issuers cannot engage in 
price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of 
competition and consumers.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTIVITIES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing in the Act of 
March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq., commonly known as the 
``McCarran-Ferguson Act''), shall be construed to permit health 
insurance issuers (as defined in section 2791 of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91) or issuers of medical malpractice 
insurance to engage in any form of price fixing, bid rigging, or market 
allocations in connection with the conduct of the business of providing 
health insurance coverage (as defined in such section) or coverage for 
medical malpractice claims or actions.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION TO ACTIVITIES OF STATE COMMISSIONS OF INSURANCE AND 
              OTHER STATE INSURANCE REGULATORY BODIES.

    Nothing in this Act shall apply to the information gathering and 
rate setting activities of any State commission of insurance, or any 
other State regulatory entity with authority to set insurance rates.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LANCE BISHOP STEGLICH, a/k/a Robert Rock,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District

Judge. (3:00-cr-00063-JHM; 7:06-cv-00055-JPJ)

Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: January 8, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance Bishop Steglich, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lance Bishop Steglich appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his pleading captioned as “An

Independent Action Motion for Reconsideration Writ of Habeas

Corpus.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Steglich, Nos. 3:00-cr-00063-JHM; 7:06-cv00055-JPJ (W.D. Va. May 3, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the quarterly report of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Zhilin
Li, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a)or
15(d) of the Securities and 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.


                                        By: /s/ Zhilin Li
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Zhilin Li
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           August 14, 2006
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted),  Shirley Yin, Chief Financial Officer of Oplink Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:




1.The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended July 3, 2011, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for the periods covered by the Annual Report.




In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set her hand hereto as of the 16th day of September, 2011.







By:
/s/ Shirley YinShirley YinChief Financial Officer







This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
EX-10.4




					
		 	 Confidential Materials omitted and filed seperately with the

Securities and Exchange Commission. Double asterisks denote omissions.
	 	Exhibit 10.4

 EXHIBIT C 
 2013 International Annual Grant Long-Term Incentive Program 
 Award Date:

 March 15, 2013 
 Unit
Allocation Ratio: 
  

									
	 Wright Express
 Job Category
	  	PSUs	 	 	RSUs	 
	 All Levels
	  	 	60	% 	 	 	40	% 
	 New Hire
	  	 	varies	  	 	 	varies	  

 PSU = Performance Based Restricted Stock Units 
 RSU = Restricted Stock Unit 
 Vesting Schedule: 

The award vests at a rate of one third each year over a 3-year period beginning on the first anniversary of the award date. 

Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Calculations: 
 The number of PSUs vesting under this 2013 International Annual Grant Program is based on the following: 
  

																					
	 	  	Payout
%(1)(4)
	 	 	EBIT (40%)
(2)	 	 	PPG Adj
Revenue
(60%)(3)	 
	 	  	 	 	 	Perf 
Level(3)	 	 	$(,000)	 	 	Perf 
Level(3)	 	 	$(,000)	 
	 Threshold
	  	 	25	% 	 	 	80.0	% 	 	$	[**	] 	 	 	85.0	% 	 	$	[**	] 
		  	 	50	% 	 	 	90.0	% 	 	$	[**	] 	 	 	92.5	% 	 	$	[**	] 
	 Target
	  	 	100	% 	 	 	100.0	% 	 	$	[**	] 	 	 	100.0	% 	 	$	[**	] 
		  	 	125	% 	 	 	101.5	% 	 	$	[**	] 	 	 	101.0	% 	 	$	[**	] 
	 Target/Max
	  	 	150	% 	 	 	103.0	% 	 	$	[**	] 	 	 	101.5	% 	 	$	[**	] 
		  	 	175	% 	 	 	105.0	% 	 	$	[**	] 	 	 	102.5	% 	 	$	[**	] 
	 Max
	  	 	200	% 	 	 	107.0	% 	 	$	[**	] 	 	 	103.5	% 	 	$	[**	] 

  

	(1)	Threshold ANI performance must be achieved for any PSUs to vest. 


	(2)	EBIT means International Business Unit Earnings before Interest and Taxes and any Allocations of Corporate Expenses to the Business Unit and shall be calculated
consistently with Corporate Adjusted Net Income as reported in the Corporation’s Form 10-K filing reporting the Corporation’s results for 2013 and may be adjusted to exclude the following items (if any): losses from discontinued
operations, the cumulative effects of changes in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, any one-time charge or dilution resulting from any acquisition or divestiture, the effect of changes to our effective federal or state tax rates,
extraordinary items of loss or expense, and any other unusual or nonrecurring items of loss or expense, including restructuring charges. Interest means interest related to the senior credit facility. This calculation does not exclude Operating
Interest as reported on the income statement. The Compensation Committee may exercise discretion to include all or part of an item of loss or expense. 


	(3)	PPG Adjusted Revenue is reported 2013 Revenue for the International Business Unit adjusted for the difference between reported 203 2 PPG and Board-approved budgeted
2013 PPG of A$[**] (per liter) Australian. 


	(4)	Shares granted are ratable between payout levels.
#### Mayor and Council of the City of Athens, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Crawford W. Long *et al.,*defendants in error.

The judgment of a superior court rendering a *mandamus*absolute, cannot be brought up by writ of error to this court under sections 3213, *et seq.,*of the Code, in reference to injunctions and other extraordinary remedies in equity. (R.)

*496*Mandamus.*Practice in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court. July Term, 1874.

This case was sought to be brought'up to ’this court under the provisions of the Code in reference to injunctions and other extraordinary remedies in equity. The bill of exceptions was filed to a judgment making a *mandamus*absolute. Counsel for plaintiff in error moved to have the case entered on the docket for the present term. The motion was overruled, the court enunciating the principle embraced in the above head-note.

Cobb, Erwin & Cobb ; T. W. Rucker ; S. P. Thurmond, for plaintiff in error.

Speer *&*Thomas, for defendants.
#### Michelle Lieber, Appellant, v Ford Motor Corporation, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[773 NYS2d 327]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John F. O’Donnell, J.), entered September 30, 2002. The order granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the complaint in a products liability action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in this products liability action premised upon the second collision doctrine *(see generally Garcia v Rivera,*160 AD2d 274, 276-277 [1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 801 [1991]; *Burgos v Lutz,*128 AD2d 496, 497 [1987]). Plaintiffs expert testified that the 1991 Mustang manufactured by defendant, in which plaintiff was a rear seat passenger when she was injured, was defectively designed because the rear bumper lacked sufficient stiffness and the spare tire was dangerously positioned. Plaintiff, however, failed to present proof “that there was a feasible alternative design which would have avoided the harm to the extent [that her] injuries were enhanced by the second collision” *(Burgos,*128 AD2d at 497). Because plaintiff failed to present a prima facie case, the court properly granted defendant’s motion *(see id.*at 498). Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred in directing a bifurcated trial *(see Darwak v Benedictine Hosp.,*247 AD2d 771, 772 [1998], *appeal dismissed*92 NY2d 845 [1998]; *Meyers v Fifth Ave. Bldg. Assoc.,*90 AD2d 824, 825 [1982]). Present — Green, J.E, Hurlbutt, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0337 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ISAIAH JAMES PEHRINGER ,

Defendant 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 September 6, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

July 28 2022

07/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0337