alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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  JCP&L  Transition  Funding  LLC
("Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Earl T. Carey, President 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:

      (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/Earl T. Carey
                                        -------------------------
                                               Earl T. Carey
                                                 President
                                        (Chief Executive Officer)
                                            November 13, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ROSHANAK KHADEM, AKA Roxanne 

Khadem, AKA Roxy Khadem, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-50245 

D.C. No. 

2:18-cr-00288-SVW-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, HURWITZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Roshanak Khadem challenges her sentence for conspiracy to commit 

healthcare fraud. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

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

FILED

NOV 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

here.1 We affirm. 

Khadem did not object to her sentence below but now argues that the 

sentencing judge failed to “adequately explain” it. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). “Where a procedural sentencing error is raised for the first time on 

appeal, it is reviewed for plain error.” United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 800 

(9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The sentencing judge’s explanation of 

Khadem’s sentence was not plainly erroneous, particularly given that the 

sentence’s one-month upward departure from the Guidelines range was “minor.” 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 50 (“[A] major departure [from the Guidelines range] should be 

supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.”). The sentencing

judge “set forth enough” to show that he “considered the parties’ arguments and 

ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” 

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (citation omitted). He sentenced 

Khadem after a two-day sentencing hearing, explained the variance between the 

Guidelines range and the sentence, and referenced Khadem’s offense, history, and

characteristics. 

Despite this adequate justification, Khadem contends that the sentencing

1 Khadem’s Motion to Strike Government’s Answering Brief, filed May 11, 2023, 

is DENIED. Khadem has made no showing that the government violated Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 or its obligations under the plea agreement by 

citing the Presentence Investigation Report in its brief. 
3 

judge did not explain the components of her sentence. To the extent that this 

argument is a disguised attempt to challenge the sentencing judge’s calculation of 

the Guidelines range, it fails. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel agreed 

that the Guidelines range was calculated correctly given the sentencing judge’s 

findings. On appeal, Khadem alleges that the sentencing judge never made those 

findings. The record belies this assertion. The sentencing judge determined 

Khadem’s criminal history category, the loss amount, and the applicability of the 

leadership-role enhancement and did not plainly err in doing so.

AFFIRMED.
1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FAA Docket No. 16-02-08

CITY OF SANTA MONICA’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO FAA’S O RDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1. The City of Santa Monica, California (“th e City”) moves, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.11(a), for an extension of time to respond to the FAA’s Order to Show Cause in the abovecaptioned matter.

2. On March 26, 2008, the FAA “direct[ed] the City of Santa Monica to show cause why the FAA should not supplement the existing Part 16 i nvestigation with the facts pertaining to the adopted Ordinance and expedite said investigation and issuance of the initial determination pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.11.” Order to Show Caus e at 8. The FAA gave the City ten (10) days from the date of the Order to respond to its Order to Show Cause. Id

. 3. The City requests an additional 20 days to respond to the Order to Show Cause, or until April 25, 2008. A 20-day extension is approp riate, because under 14 C.F.R. § 16.103 a person has 30 days to submit a response when the FAA or ders an investigation. Here, the Order to Show Cause is tantamount to a new investig ation, because the 2002 investigation has been dormant for over five years. Accordingly, the City should be given 30 days to respond, as it would under 14 C.F.R. § 16.103.2 4. Additionally, adequately responding to the F AA’s Order to Show Cause will take the City longer than ten days because, since, apparentl y, this will be the only opportunity for the City to respond before the rendering of a Director’s Determination, the City will be required not only to fully brief the matter for the FAA but also to submit all of its extensive documentary evidence in support of its position. Ten days is simply an inadequate amount of time for the City to respond to the FAA’s Order and constitu tes a denial of “due process.”

5. Finally, an extension of time is necessary since the City is submitting a Freedom of Information Request (“FOIA”) to be handled on an expedited basis with regard to information in the possession of the FAA relevant to this Pr oceeding, including the Computer Model revealed by the FAA for the first time at the Santa Moni ca City Council meeting on March 25, 2008. It would unduly prejudice the City, if it was require d to submit its Response prior to obtaining the information requested.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of March, 2008:

s/ Arthur P. Berg Arthur P. Berg Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 730 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 New York, New York 10019

Thomas R. Devine Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 905 Washington, D.C. 200363 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to FAA’s Order to Show Cause on the following party at the following address by email only :

Kelvin L. Solco Acting Director Office of Airport Sa fety and Standards kelvin.l.solco@faa.gov

Dated this 28th day of March, 2008: s/ M. Brooke McKinley M. Brooke McKinley
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4486 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4486

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat distributions of 
 debt securities in a tax free spin-off transaction in the same manner 
              as distributions of cash or other property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 2010

 Mr. Hodes (for himself, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Mollohan, 
 Mr. Rahall, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Welch, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Ellison, Ms. 
Pingree of Maine, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Walz, Ms. 
  Schakowsky, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Massa, Mr. Peterson, Ms. McCollum, Mr. 
 DeFazio, Mr. Kagen, and Mr. Costello) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat distributions of 
 debt securities in a tax free spin-off transaction in the same manner 
              as distributions of cash or other property.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF SECURITIES OF A CONTROLLED CORPORATION 
              EXCHANGED FOR ASSETS IN CERTAIN REORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 361 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to nonrecognition of gain or loss to corporations; treatment 
of distributions) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(d) Receipt of Securities, etc., in Exchange for Assets in 
Certain Reorganizations.--If--
            ``(1) property is transferred to a corporation (hereinafter 
        in this subsection referred to as the `controlled corporation') 
        pursuant to a plan of reorganization described in section 
        368(a)(1)(D), and
            ``(2) pursuant to such plan of reorganization, stock or 
        securities in the controlled corporation are distributed in a 
        transaction which qualifies under section 355,
then any securities and nonqualified preferred stock (as defined in 
section 351(g)(2)) of the controlled corporation shall be treated as 
other property for purposes of subsections (a) and (b).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to distributions after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
Director Arrangements Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 

DIRECTOR ARRANGEMENTS AGREEMENT 

THIS DIRECTOR ARRANGEMENTS AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) dated as of October 2, 2015 is between Google Inc., a
Delaware corporation (“Google”), and Alphabet Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Alphabet”).
 RECITALS

 WHEREAS, Google has previously entered into offer letters with certain of the current members of Google’s Board of
Directors (the “Offer Letters) in respect of such individuals’ service to Google; 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors
of Alphabet has determined that it is in the best interests of Alphabet for Alphabet enter into an agreement with Google providing for Alphabet’s performance of obligations under the Offer Letters as if Alphabet, and not Google, were the
signatory thereto, from and after the date hereof, with Google having no further obligations under the Offer Letters from and after the date hereof; 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Google has determined that it is in the best interests of Google to agree to enter into such an
agreement; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, Google and Alphabet hereby agree as follows: 
 SECTION 1. OFFER LETTERS 

(a) Alphabet hereby agrees to assume to perform any and all obligations to the individual signatories under the Offer Letters from and after
the date hereof in accordance with the terms of such Offer Letters as if Alphabet, and not Google, were the signatory thereto and all references to Google therein were replaced with references to Alphabet, and from and after the date hereof, Google
shall have no further obligations under the Offer Letters. 
 (b) Each of Google and Alphabet agree that the individual signatories to the
Offer Letters and their heirs and assignees shall be express third-party beneficiaries of this Section 1 of this Agreement and entitled to enforce directly such section and the contractual rights against Alphabet under their Offer Letters
granted pursuant to this Section 1. 
 SECTION 2. MISCELLANEOUS 

(a) Each of Google and Alphabet will, from time to time and at all times hereafter, upon every reasonable request to do so by any other party
hereto, make, do, execute and deliver, or cause to be made, done, executed and delivered, all such further acts, deeds, assurances and things as may be reasonably required or necessary in order to further implement and carry out the intent and
purpose of this Agreement. 
 [Signatures Follow on Next Page] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Director Arrangements Agreement as of the
date first written above. 
  

			
	 GOOGLE INC.

	 a Delaware corporation

		
	 By:
	 	/s/ Christine Flores
		 	  

		 	Name: Christine Flores
		 	Title: Assistant Secretary
	
	 ALPHABET INC.

	 a Delaware corporation

		
	 By:
	 	/s/ Kent Walker
		 	  

		 	Name: Kent Walker
		 	Title: Assistant Secretary



  
 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 70421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28708]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday December 28, 2012

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room

STATUS: Closed

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the 
event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, 
an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the 
meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov
    Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-
5084.

Sauntia Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-28708 Filed 11-21-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 12 (a)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                     GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.
                           AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                                                          YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                       --------------------------------------------------------
(Dollar amounts in millions)                              1997        1996        1995        1994        1993
                                                       --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
<S>                                                    <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Earnings from continuing operations ................   $  3,256    $  2,817    $  2,415    $  2,085    $  1,567
Provision for income taxes .........................      1,166       1,231       1,105         864         642
Minority interest ..................................        121         167         140         139         134
                                                       --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
Earnings before income taxes and minority
 interest ..........................................      4,543       4,215       3,660       3,088       2,343
                                                       --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
Fixed charges:
 Interest ..........................................      7,762       7,402       6,731       4,598       3,585
 One-third of rentals ..............................        245         182         175         156         138
                                                       --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
Total fixed charges ................................      8,007       7,584       6,906       4,754       3,723
                                                       --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
Less interest capitalized, net of amortization .....         52          41          21           9           4
                                                       --------    --------    --------    --------    --------
Earnings before income taxes and minority
 interest, plus fixed charges ......................   $ 12,498    $ 11,758    $ 10,545    $  7,833    $  6,062
                                                       ========    ========    ========    ========    ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .................       1.56        1.55        1.53        1.65        1.63
                                                       ========    ========    ========    ========    ========
</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 447 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

expand the definition of firefighter to include apprentices and trainees, 

regardless of age or duty limitations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to expand the definition of firefighter to 

include apprentices and trainees, regardless of age or 

duty limitations. 

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; FINDINGS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Fairness Act’’. 

6 (b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

7 (1) approximately 50 percent of all firefighters 

8 start out as junior firefighters; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 447 IH

1 (2) Christopher Kangas was a 14-year-old full 

2 member of the Brookhaven, Pennsylvania Volunteer 

3 Fire Department who tragically died when he was 

4 hit by a car while he was responding on his bicycle 

5 to a fire alarm; and 

6 (3) because of his age, however, he is not recog7 nized under the Public Safety Officer’s Death Ben8 efit Act nor was he considered eligible to have his 

9 name added to the National Fallen Firefighter’s Me10 morial in Emmitsburg, Maryland. 

11 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF APPRENTICES AND TRAINEES IN 

12 DEFINITION OF FIREFIGHTER. 

13 Section 1204(4) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

14 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(4)) is amend15 ed by inserting ‘‘, regardless of age, status as an appren16 tice or trainee, or duty restrictions imposed because of age 

17 or status as an apprentice or trainee,’’ after ‘‘fire depart18 ment’’. 

19 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

20 The amendment made by this Act shall apply with 

21 respect to deaths and injuries which occur on or after May 

22 4, 2002. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.36


November 29, 2001


Stephen Oldfield

Dear Stephen:

Molecular Devices Corporation is pleased to confirm your promotion to the
salaried, exempt position of Vice President of Worldwide Marketing. In this
position you will report directly to me and be a member of the Leadership Team.

Your based salary will be $13,333.33 per month ($160,000 per annum) payable
semi-monthly on the 15th and last day of each month. As a member of the
management staff, you will be eligible to participate in the 2002 MDC Executive
Bonus Plan (bonus at Plan 40%).

Stephen, congratulations on your promotion. I look forward to working with you
in your new role and the contribution you can make to MDC's success.

Sincerely,

MOLECULAR DEVICES CORPORATION

/s/ Joseph D. Keegan

Joseph D. Keegan
President and Chief Executive Officer
### SERVED 

### JULY20, 2010 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICEOF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 1,1



### IN THE MATTER OF ROSL YNE MARIE ELDER, Respondent. FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0004 (Civil PenaltyProceeding) DMS NO. FAA-20 1 0-315



### ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S ORDER 

### CONTINUINGHEARING Forgood cause shown, and in the absence ofany objection from the Respondent, the motion ofcounsel for the Complainant to continue the hearing, now scheduled to begin on July 29,2010, is granted. The new hearing date is August 12,2010, and the venue remains Las Vegas, NY. A notice specifying the location and time ofthe rescheduled hearing will be issued shortly. 

### IT IS SO ORDERED.

Isaa D. Benkin AdministrativelawJudgeFAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0004 (Civil Penalty Action)

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COpy Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY Edward A. Lopez, Respondent's Former Counsel Venture Corporate Center 3440 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 415 Hollywood, FL 33021 TEL: 954-241-4205 FAX: 954-241-4206 Roslyne Marie Elder, Respondent 835 Sierra Vista Drive, Apt. 326 Las Vegas,:t\T\l 89169 TEL: 702-412-5640 YolandiaAyala Bernal, Complainant's Counsel Safety Enforcement Branch Office ofthe Regional Counsel SouthwestRegion, ASW-7E3; YAB Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 TEL: 817-222-5070 FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590 TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. I
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      29,867,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,105,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,908,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                141,749,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           178,629,000
<PP&E>                                       5,111,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,761,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             181,979,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      149,063,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,911,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               181,979,000
<SALES>                                     52,912,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,912,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            36,887,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,608,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,417,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,138,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,279,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14


</TABLE>