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


    Exhibit
10.7

     

    January
28, 2008

    


    Floyd
Warkol, Chief Executive Officer

    KSW
INC.

    37-16
23rd Street

    Long
Island City, NY 11101

    


    Dear Mr.
Warkol:

    


    Bank of
America, N.A, is pleased to renew the availability period for your Two Million
and 100/100 Dollars ($2,000, 000.00) Line of Credit documented by Facility No. 1
of the Loan Agreement dated April 1, 2007 (including any previous amendments,
the “Agreement”). The availability period shall now expire on April 1, 2009 (the
“Expiration Date”). All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.

    


    I also
want to take this opportunity to thank you for your business. I believe we can
continue to provide your company with the same high level of customer service
and expertise.

    


    If you
have any questions, please contact your Client Manager, Victoria E. Scolaro at
(631) 547-7720.

    


    


    
      	
              By:

            	
                   

            	
              /s/
      Eileen A. Santucci

            	
                                                                                                     

            
	 
      	 
      	
              Eileen
      A. Santucci, Document Administrator
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

I, Clinton H. Severson, Chief Executive Officer of Abaxis, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (1)    | the   Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification   is attached as an exhibit (the “Report”),   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities   Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | (2)    | the   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the   Registrant.                                                                                                  |

Dated: February 9, 2006

|   | By:    | /s/   Clinton H. Severson               |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                         |
|   |   | Clinton   H. Severson                   |
|   |   | President   and Chief Executive Officer |

----
* 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. 96-40331 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSEPH PAUL PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-95-CR-206-1

- - - - - - - - - - September 30, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joseph Paul Perez appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and possession of marijuana, in violation of § 841(a). Perez argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the controlled substances discovered in his vehicle in which he was traveling. Perez argues that the traffic stop resulted in a custodialNo. 96-40331 - 2 -

** Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). interrogation which required Miranda ** warnings prior to obtaining his consent to search the vehicle. The district court did not err in denying Perez’s motion to suppress seized evidence because Perez was not in custody prior to his arrest and, therefore, his rights under Miranda did not attach. See Berkemer v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984). Assuming arguendo that Perez was in custody at the time the police officer requested consent to search, the failure to give Miranda warnings to a suspect during a custodial interrogation does not vitiate a valid, voluntary consent. See United States v. Garcia , 496 F.2d 670, 673-75 (5th Cir. 1974) (holding that Miranda warnings are not required to be administered to a suspect in custody in order to validate a consensual search), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 960 (1975). AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 2 FISCAL QUARTERS ENDED JULY 12, 1998 (AS ADJUSTED)
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-12-1998
<CASH>                                      21,384,819
<SECURITIES>                                 9,621,679
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,859,629
<ALLOWANCES>                                   216,785
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,399,834
<PP&E>                                     238,242,672
<DEPRECIATION>                              42,321,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             299,108,056
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,425,086
<BONDS>                                    153,192,096
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  95,645,579
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               299,108,056
<SALES>                                     41,960,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,520,543
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               39,655,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,058,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                470,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                   180,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            290,265
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   290,265
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
Raymond DELGADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3507

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 1, 2015

p0325

Order 

Clerk

April 1, 2015

150134

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150134

COA: 308654

Kent CC: 11-007667-FC

MELVIN JAMES MARSHALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals 

judgment that affirmed the trial court’s scoring of Offense Variable (OV) 13, and we 

REMAND this case to the Kent Circuit Court for resentencing. 

The trial court assessed 25 points for OV 13. But pursuant to MCL 777.43(2)(c), 

“[e]xcept for offenses related to membership in an organized criminal group or that are 

gang-related, . . . conduct scored in offense variable 11 or 12” must not be scored under

OV 13. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, the defendant’s acts of resisting or 

obstructing the police would have been properly scored under OV 12, but it erred in 

concluding that those acts were “related to membership in an organized criminal group”

or “gang-related.” Therefore, the trial court erred in scoring OV 13 because, without the 

resisting or obstructing, there may not have been “3 or more crimes against a person.” 

MCL 777.43(1)(c). Because the erroneous scoring of OV 13 changed the applicable 

guidelines range, the defendant is entitled to resentencing. See People v Francisco, 474 

Mich 82 (2006).

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Kenneth Y. Tanji, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within such entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: November 13, 2007



/s/ Kenneth Y. TanjiKenneth Y. TanjiExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.7


 


 


 


 


 


 


March 17, 2009


 


Mark Ianni


 


Dear Mark:


 


The 2009 bonus plan reflects the goals for our company this coming year.  Your bonus is based on Adjusted EBITDA (Earnings Before Income Tax Depreciation Amortization), as reported to our sub-debt lenders.


 





	
            7.50%
 	
            of your cumulative salary if the company achieves Adjusted EBITDA of
 	
            $  8,000,000
 
	
            15.00%
 	
            of your cumulative salary if the company achieves Adjusted EBITDA of
 	
            $  8,800,000
 
	
            22.50%
 	
            of your cumulative salary if the company achieves Adjusted EBITDA of
 	
            $  9,600,000
 
	
            30.00%
 	
            of your cumulative salary if the company achieves Adjusted EBITDA of
 	
            $10,400,000
 
	
            37.50%
 	
            of your cumulative salary if the company achieves Adjusted EBITDA of
 	
            $11,100,000
 
	
            50.00%
 	
            of your cumulative salary if the company achieves Adjusted EBITDA of
 	
            $12,100,000
 
	
            62.50%
 	
            of your cumulative salary if the company achieves Adjusted EBITDA of
 	
            $13,100,000
 
	
            75.00%
 	
            of your cumulative salary if the company achieves Adjusted EBITDA of
 	
            $14,100,000
 





 


In addition, you will earn 12.5% of your cumulative salary if, in the opinion of the Compensation Committee, you meet the goals outlined in the document provided to you separately and the company achieves at least $8 million in adjusted EBITDA.


 


I will send a quarterly update in conjunction with our earnings announcement to update you on the performance of the company versus the bonus plan.


 


The 2009 bonus period covers the fiscal months of February 2009 through January 2010.  You must be an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time the bonus is paid to be eligible to receive your bonus.


 


I am hopeful that we will make some bonus this year!


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ Peter Edison


 


Peter Edison
steam_record - Fwd: Fw: RE: Arizona Publi c Service's Cholla Power Plant ELG ICR (0113)

>>> Deborah Bartram 8/27/2010 9:11 AM >>> Helpline - please save this email in the Extension Requests folder and forw ard to the steam_record email box.

>>> steamhelp 8/27/2010 9:10 AM >>>
FYI

>>> <Jordan.Ronald@epamail. epa.gov> 8/26/2010 10:03 PM >>>

-----Forwarded by Ronald Jordan/DC/ USEPA/US on 08/26/2010 10:03PM -----

To: Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: Carl.Woolfolk@aps.com Date: 08/26/2010 07:41PM cc: Douglas.Lavarnway@aps.com, Ken.Miller@p innaclewest.com, Susan.VonStein@aps.com Subject: RE: Arizona Public Service' s Cholla Power Plant ELG ICR (0113)

Dear Mr. Jordan:

My name is Carl Woolfolk, I am the Fossil Environmen tal Operations Regulatory Manager at Arizona Public Service Company (APS). I left you a voicemai l last night and this morning regarding one of our coal plant’s response to the ELG ICR.

In particular, on August 9, the Cholla Po wer Plant’s #2 generati on unit suffered an equipment failure which shut down the unit. The Cholla plant is a baseload generation unit, which APS relies on to provide power to metr opolitan Phoenix. At this time of year in the desert, all our baseload generation units across the company are at or near capacity, and the loss of the unit at the Cholla plant has re quired APS to redirect all of its engineering efforts away from completing the ICR and focused on restoring the unit and bringing it back on line. But for this emergency situation, A PS would have been able to meet the original deadline.

Therefore, the Cholla Power Pl ant is requesting a 30 day extens ion to respond to the ICR. Please email me or call me if you have any questions or concer ns. APS greatly appreciates EPA consider its em ergency request.

Sincerely

Carl D. Woolfolk
Regulatory Manager From: steamhelp

To: steam_record@ERG.COM

Date: 8/27/2010 9:12 AM

Sub j ect: Fwd: Fw: RE: Arizona Public Servic e's Cholla Power Plant ELG ICR (0113) Pa g e 1 of 2

8/26/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C778184DO

...APS Fossil Environmental Operations
606/250

‐ 5385

Email Firewall made the following annotations

--------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NOTICE --- This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or printo ut. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e-mail. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for an y delay or errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Pa g e 2 of 2

8/26/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C778184DO

...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL

AND SCOT SPENCER

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC.

AND RICHARD BERNARD

Unauthorized Air Transportation,

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules

Enforcement Proceeding

DOT -OST -1995-272

formerly Docket 49233

STATUS REPORT

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and

settlement negotiations.

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486.
2

There have been no further settlement discussions.

Date: May 30,2014

Respectfully submitted,

~/Jjv/~

Blane Workie

Acting Assistant General Counsel for

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

V nh Q. Nguyen

S nior Trial Attorney

U ited States Department of Transportation

o Ice of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

1 00 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

R om 96-429

ashington, D.C. 20590

T L: 202-366-9342

F 202-366-7152
3

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of May, 2014, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following:

Original

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

By First Class Mail

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder

Chief Administrative Law Judge

Office of Hearings, M-20

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20590

TEL: (202) 366-2142

FAX: (202) 366-7536

By First Class Mail

Scot Spencer

SBD Aircraft Services

255 S Leland Norton Way

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408

Scot Spencer

22604 Esplanada Circle

Boca Raton, Florida 33433
Case: 1:18-cv-00427-TSB-KLL Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/10/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 26
Case: 1:18-cv-00427-TSB-KLL Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/10/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 27
Case: 1:18-cv-00427-TSB-KLL Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/10/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 28
Case: 1:18-cv-00427-TSB-KLL Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/10/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 29
Case: 1:18-cv-00427-TSB-KLL Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/10/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 30
Case: 1:18-cv-00427-TSB-KLL Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/10/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 31
Case: 1:18-cv-00427-TSB-KLL Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/10/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY THOMAS HEWITT,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:18-ev-350

Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

ve

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the parties’ Joint Motion for
Attorney’s Fees. (ECF No. 25.) Upon reviewing the motion, the Court GRANTS the parties’
Joint Stipulation for an Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act
(EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and awards Plaintiff $4,044.90 in attorney fees, expenses, and
costs. The award of attorney fees, costs, and expenses will fully satisfy and settle all Plaintiff's
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 that may be payable in this case.

Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff and can be offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that
Plaintiff owes the United States, pursuant to the decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130
S. Ct. 2521 (2010). If counsel for the parties can verify that Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt
subject to offset, the Defendant agrees to direct that the award be made payable to Plaintiff's

attorney pursuant to an EAJA assignment duly signed by Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
|~3' ore Ln
DATE ED: A. SARGUS, JR.

CHIE! ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE