alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                               |                                 |                                                           |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                 |
|                          |                            |                                                      |
| August              18, 2006  |                            | /s/              Bo              Huang     |
|                               | Bo              Huang                |
|                               | Chief              Executive Officer |

|         |                                 |                                         |
|--------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|         |                                 |
|    |                            |                                    |
|         |                                 | /s/              Qiong (Laby) Wu   |
|         | Qiong              (Laby) Wu         |
|         | Chief              Financial Officer |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

DEVINE D. WARD, : 

Petitioner, Case No. 3:17-cv-301 

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

WARDEN, Ross Correctional Institution, 

Respondent. : 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate 

Judge Michael R. Merz (ECF No. 4), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

636(b), and noting a request for extension of time to file objections was granted in part and no 

objections were filed thereafter, and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition be DISMISSED with prejudice as 

barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner is DENIED any requested certificate of appealability 

and the Court hereby certifies to the United States Court of Appeals that an appeal would be 

objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. 

October 25, 2017. *s/Thomas M. Rose

 Thomas M. Rose 

United States District Judge
Exhibit
10.29


 


2010
Cash Incentive Plan


 


Purpose:


 


The terms of the 2010
Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) have been established to reward the executives
and other employees of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for
assisting the Company in achieving its operational goals through exemplary
performance. Under the Plan, cash bonuses, if any, will be based on both the
achievement of corporate goals and a review of personal performance, which is
determined at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) and/or the Board of Directors (the “Board”).  The overarching intent in setting and
achieving the goals is to build long term shareholder value.


 


Determination
of 2010 Cash Bonuses:


 


Target bonuses for
participants in the Plan will range from 5% to 60% of such recipient’s 2010
base salary, with a range for executives of 40% to 60% of such executive’s 2010
base salary. The maximum bonus that a participant will be eligible to receive
is 120% of such participant’s 2010 base salary and in no event will a bonus be
paid later than March 15 of the year following the year in which the bonus
was earned. The objective Company performance goals for each participant will
be based on meeting certain goals with respect to the Company’s financial
performance, including building the pipeline of potential product candidates
(weighted at 35%), clinical development of product candidates and developing
collaborations with respect to current or potential product candidates
(weighted at 40%), and the Company’s cash position at December 31, 2010
(weighted at 25% ), as well as other Company performance goals to be determined
by the Compensation Committee. The Board and Compensation Committee reserve the
right to modify these goals and criteria at any time or to grant bonuses to the
participants even if the performance goals are not met.
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 Sinoenergy Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bo Huang, chief
executive officer of the Company, and Shiao Ming Sheng, chief financial officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 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.
  
 /s/
      Bo HuangDate:  May
      20, 2009
              Bo
      Huang
                Chief
      Executive Officer/s/
      ShiaoMing ShengDate:  May
      20, 2009
              ShiaoMing
      Sheng
                Chief
      Financial Officer
  
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. §§1350)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §§1350),
the undersigned, James Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of
Capital Group One, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended November 30, 2001 of the Company (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

|                       |  |                                                               
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 4, 2003 |  | By: /s/ James StewartJames Stewart
    Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE :

FABIOLA SANCHEZ

,

RELATOR

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00161

- C V

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Fabiola Sanchez has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Honorable

Jesus Rodriguez, judge of El Paso County Court at Law No. 5, contending that the trial court

abused its discretion by issuing a temporary order. The petition is denied.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator generally must meet two requirements. First,

the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of

Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004)( orig. proceeding). Second, the relator must demonstrate

that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id . at 135

- 36. The burden is on the relator to show he

is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Ford Motor Co

. , 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005)(orig.

proce eding).2 After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that Relator has failed to

show entitlement to mandamus relief on this record. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus.

June 23, 2021

YVONNE T, RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTIANS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1998 FORM 10-KSB OF WASHINGTON BANCORP AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTRIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,448
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,858
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   659
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     19,122
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,131
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,131
<LOANS>                                         66,273
<ALLOWANCE>                                        388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,327
<DEPOSITS>                                      66,595
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,597
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                882
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  94,327
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,138
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  896
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,034
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,620
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,259
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,775
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       89
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,263
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         823
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.70
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                        89
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    171
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   226
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       46
<RECOVERIES>                                        14
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  388
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               370
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             18
        

</TABLE>
#### J. Dilley *ads.*The State.

Tried before his Honor Judge Evans, Charleston, January Term, 1837.

*Larceny.*— The defendant, with one Jacob Craig, was indicted for stealing a certain quantity of silver coin, and a volume of Humes’ History of England. They were a part of the crew of the schr. J. C. Calhoun, during a voyage to Matanzas. Whilst at Matanzas, they had no money. Captain Ross, the commander, said, that whilst he was abseut, one.evening, the cabin was entered by force, and his trunk taken out. It was broken open on the deck, and the money taken out, amounting to about ninety-five dollars, in Spanish and Mexican dollars. The book was in the cabin, and there were also some Cuba lemons. From appearances, he judged it had been done by some one familiar with the vessel. He suspected the prisoners, as they had left the vessel only the day before. He caused them to be arrested, and when searched, at the guard house, a key was found on Craig, who denied it was his. Dilley offered to go with them, and point out Craig’s chest. The key opened it, and on examination, money in specie, Spanish aud Mexi. can dollars, were found ; the 5th volume of Hume, and lemons like those in the cabin. Dilley had no chest. His clothes were kept in Craig’s. Craig claimed the money, and told many stories of the manner he had obtained it. Dilley claimed none of the money, but he admitted the book was in his possession, which he said he had borrowed from Cruise, the mate; but this, Cruise denied; he admitted he had loaned Dilley books, which had been returned, but Hume was not one of them. The only evidence to convict Dilley with the theft, was the book, which he might have come into the possession of honestly. Craig’s equivocation and falsehood, left no doubt of his guilt. Dilley behaved with much fairness, and apparent candor ; and I regret that I had not advised the jury to acquit him. They were both found guilty, but I think Dilley’s guilt doubtful, and that he should have a new trial.

JOSIAH J. EVANS.

*Ground of Appeal.*

Because the eonviction was wholly unsupported by the evidence offerred on the trial.

MITCHELL, *Defendant's Attorney.*

Mitchell, for motion.

In this case the Attorney General consenting to a ziew trial, it is accordingly ordered.

RICHARD GANTT,

J. B. O’NEALL,

J. S. RICHARDSON,

JOSIAH J. EVANS.

A. I\ BUTLER,
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 06 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (SUBSECTION (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
                                      CODE)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350 , chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Subjex Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (the
"Company"), does certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on
Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that: (1) the 10-QSB
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the 10-QSB
Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of the Company.

                                 By  /s/ Andrew Hyder

                                 Andrew Hyder, CEO (acting CFO)
                                 August 15, 2005
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-50053 No. 96-50147 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ABRAHAM RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------------- ABRAHAM RIVAS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus WACKENHUT PAROLE VIOLATOR FACILITY; U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE, Western District of Texas, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CR-170-1 cons. w/

No. SA-96-CV-2

- - - - - - - - - - September 11, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * In this consolidated appeal, Abraham Rivas appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana with intentNo. 96-50053 No. 96-50147 -2- to distribute and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (No. 96-50053), and the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition attacking the same conviction and sentence (No. 96-50147). Rivas has not shown “plain error” as to his contention that the district court’s jury instruction on the conspiracy count “constructively amended” the indictment. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert
. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995); United States v. Devoll , 39 F.3d 575, 579 (5th Cir. 1994), cert
. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1701 (1995). Rivas’ claim that the enhancement of his sentence was based on a state conviction that was imposed in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause is meritless. See United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2147-49 (1996). Assuming that Rivas properly raised his double-jeopardy claim in a § 2241 petition, such claim is meritless under the “dual sovereign” rule. See United States v. Moore , 958 F.2d 646, 650 (5th Cir. 1992); see Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch , 114 S. Ct. 1937, 1947 n.22 (1994).
AFFIRMED.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

The Cadata Corporation, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 61329, 61750 

) 

Under Contract No. W912BU-16-C-0016 et al. ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Daniel S. Willard, Esq. 

Daniel S. Willard, P.C. 

Bethesda, MD 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Maria T. Guerin, Esq. 

John A. Skarbek, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: November 5, 2018 

JAMES R. SWEET 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61329, 61750, Appeals of The 

Cadata Corporation, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Paula Zelesnik, :

:

Plaintiff(s), :

: Case Number: 1:17cv710

vs. :

: Judge Susan J. Dlott

Patricia Obarski, et al., :

:

Defendant(s). :

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Litkovitz filed on October 26, 2017 (Doc. 4), to whom this case was referred pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing

such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired November 9, 2017, hereby ADOPTS said

Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a) an appeal of any Order adopting the 

Report and Recommendation will not be taken in good faith, therefore, plaintiff is DENIED 

leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in 

the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in 

part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________

Judge Susan J. Dlott

United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

HAMILTON COUNTY JOB AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAIYANAH BEY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:17-cv-855

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 4), 

OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION (Doc. 5), AND

TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and entered a Report and 

Recommendation recommending this matter be remanded back to the state court from 

which it was removed. (Doc. 4). Defendant filed a timely objection (“Objection”). 

(Doc. 5).1

 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

 1 The Objection is not well-taken. The Objection does not offer any argument to rebut 

the Magistrate Judge’s correct conclusions that (1) Defendant, an Ohio resident, may not 

remove an Ohio state court case (28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)) and (2) in any event, Defendant 

has not established a basis for federal jurisdiction over this action. 
2

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in 

its entirety. 

Accordingly:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED; 

2. Defendant’s Objection (Doc. 5) is OVERRULED;

3. Defendant’s petition for removal (Doc. 3) is DENIED; 

4. This matter is REMANDED back to the state court from which it was 

removed; 

5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this Order would not be taken 

in good faith and, accordingly, Defendant is denied leave to appeal in forma 

pauperis; and 

6. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

8/1/18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ERNIE GEVAS, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action 2:17-cv-1115

Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

Magistrate Judge Jolson

LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ second Joint Motion for Extension. 

(Doc. 31). The parties seek a thirty-day extension of the dispositive motion deadline in order “to 

continue their exchange of meaningful settlement offers.” (Id. at 1). For good cause shown, the 

Motion is GRANTED. Consequently, any dispositive motion shall be filed by November 5, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 9, 2018 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-01115-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 32 Filed: 10/09/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 256