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


    EXHIBIT
10.2

    


      

    March 30,
2009

     

    
      Ronald L.
Havner, Jr.

      c/o Karl
Swaidan

      Hahn
& Hahn LLP

      301 E
Colorado Blvd #900

      Pasadena,
CA, 91101-1977

    

    
    

    


    
      	
            	
              Re: 

            	
              General
      Finance Corporation

            


    

     

    Dear Mr.
Havner:

     

    You and I
each acquired a substantial number of restricted shares of common stock of
General Finance Corporation when the acquisition of Pac-Van business was
completed in October 2008.  In your case, you acquired over 1.8
million shares of General Finance Corporation common stock, while I received
over 1.1 million shares of the common stock.

     

    All of the common stock we acquired in
connection with the October 2008 Pac-Van acquisition was valued at $7.50 per
share.  As you are well aware, the common stock today trades
substantially below the $7.50 per share value.

     

    I currently own 3,776,805 shares of
common stock and warrants of General Finance Corporation (collectively, the
“Shares”).

     

    The share
price of the common stock of General Finance Corporation has declined from
October 2008 to the present.  Following this decline in the share
price, you have asked, and I have agreed, not to sell any of my Shares for a
period of four years from the date of this letter without your prior
consent.

     

    I trust this agreement will demonstrate
my long-term commitment to General Finance Corporation and all of its
shareholders.

     

    
      
        	 
      	
                Very
      truly yours,

                 

                /s/
      Ronald F. Valenta

                 

                Ronald
      F. Valenta
# SECNAV Del Toro Outlines Top Priorities on Maritime Dominance, People, Strategic Partnerships

### 8 Oct 2021

More Details            WASHINGTON (Oct. 8, 2021) Cover of released strategic guidance by Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro.  (U.S. Navy graphic)                        Cover for Strategic Guidance from Secretary of the Navy                            WASHINGTON (Oct. 8, 2021) Cover of released strategic guidance by Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro.  (U.S. Navy graphic)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Luke LambornVIRIN: 211008-N-NO101-001

The One Navy-Marine Corps Team: Strategic Guidance articulates Del Toro’s vision to build, train and equip the Naval Forces to deter, and if necessary win conflicts and wars in support of the defense strategy and national security priorities.

    “We have to make the right investments today, so that we have the right capabilities tomorrow to deter and defeat any adversary,” said Del Toro. “We must act with urgency now as we rise to meet unprecedented challenges, and it’s this sense of urgency that’s the driving force behind the strategic guidance for the Department.”

Del Toro’s top priorities – maintaining maritime dominance, empowering our people, and strengthening strategic partnerships – builds on Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin’s vision of integrated deterrence, with an agile and ready force.

“Maximizing the Navy and Marine Corps maritime dominance in an era of strategic competition will define the Department’s mission for the next several years,” said Del Toro. “Our global economy, and the self-determination of free nations everywhere, especially in the Indo-Pacific, depends on sea power.”

The strategic guidance also builds on Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David H. Berger’s Force Design 2030 to modernize the expeditionary posture of the Marine Corps and implements Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday’s Navigation Plan to expand our fleet capabilities for distributed operations.

“Implementation of this guidance is critical,” added Del Toro. “Building the future capability we need to compete globally while taking care of our Sailors, Marines and military personnel requires a fully integrated Navy and Marine Corps team.”

Download Document - "HERE"
Consent of Mo Molavi
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada” effective date January 16, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 “Mo Molavi”Name:
Mo Molavi, P. Eng.Title:
Mining Services Manager, Principal Mining Engineer
Mandingo BOOBYYAA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0771

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Consent of Kevin Scott
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the New Afton Project, British Columbia, Canada” dated December 31, 2009, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 “Kevin Scott”Name:
Kevin Scott, P. Eng.Title:
former Principal Metallurgist andGeneral Manager Vancouver Office
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1246 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1246

To amend the Small Business Act to allow ranchers and farmers to use an 
 alternative calculation for a maximum loan amount under the paycheck 
                          protection program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2021

  Mr. Kind (for himself and Mr. Fortenberry) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act to allow ranchers and farmers to use an 
 alternative calculation for a maximum loan amount under the paycheck 
                          protection program.

    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 ``Paycheck Protection Clarification 
for Producers Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM LOAN CALCULATION FOR FARMERS OR 
              RANCHERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7(a)(36)(V)(i) of the Small Business Act 
(as amended by the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, 
Nonprofits, and Venues Act (Public Law 116-260)) is amended by striking 
subclause (I) and redesignating subclauses (II) and (III) as subclauses 
(I) and (II), respectively.
    (b) Effective Date; Applicability.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        amendments made by subsection (a) shall be effective as if 
        included in the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136; 134 Stat. 281) 
        and shall apply to any loan made pursuant to section 7(a)(36) 
        of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)) before, on, or 
        after the date of enactment of this Act, including forgiveness 
        of such a loan.
            (2) Exclusion of loans already forgiven.--The amendments 
        made by subsection (a) shall not apply to a loan made pursuant 
        to section 7(a)(36) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
        636(a)(36)) for which the borrower received forgiveness before 
        the date of enactment of this Act under section 1106 of the 
        CARES.
                                 <all>
```
A. F-K., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4392

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Matthew Natalizio, Chief Financial Officer of CytRx Corporation, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of CytRx Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.          Date: May 19, 2006 /s/ MATTHEW NATALIZIO         Matthew Natalizio    Chief Financial Officer
#### Carrie S. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-15237

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 26, 2017

Carrie S. Armstrong, Pro Se

Gabrielle H. Brumbach, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Carrie S. Armstrong appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation and state law defamation claims arising out of her employment as a registered nurse at a California state prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In her opening brief, Armstrong fails to address how the district court erred in granting summary judgment and thus this issue is waived. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); *Acostar-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Armstrong’s untimely opposition to the motion for summary judgment because Armstrong failed to file a motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), establishing excusable neglect. *See Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.,*654 F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “it is never an abuse of discretion for a district court to exclude untimely evidence when a party fails to submit that evidence pursuant to a motion, as Rule 6(b) expressly requires”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Byron JONES, DOC# R48176, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2234

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Leroy MORANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-0004

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Angelo M. WHITE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4080

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Annual Report of Salon Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Elizabeth Hambrecht, President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); 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/ Elizabeth Hambrecht
June 22, 2004                                 Elizabeth Hambrecht
                                              President, Chief Financial Officer
                                              and Secretary
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







CytRx
Corporation


Los
Angeles, California




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S­3 (Nos. 333-100947, 333-109708, 333-106629, 333-109708, 333-133269,
333-142591 and 333-147605) and Form S­8 (Nos. 333-84657, 333-68200,
333-91068, 333-93305, and 333-12339) of CytRx Corporation of our reports dated
March 11, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedules, and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control
over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.













Los
Angeles, California


March 11,
2009
# Bataan ARG, 26th MEU(SOC) to Return to Homeport 

## From Amphibious Squadron 8 Public Affairs 

Since December, the Bataan ARG and the 26th MEU(SOC) have conducted training, exercises, and operations in the U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command areas of responsibility in support of maritime stability and security in defense of U.S., allied, and partner interests.

"Throughout our time in the U.S. Fifth and U.S. Sixth Fleet regions, the Sailors and Marines of the Bataan ARG and 26th MEU(SOC) showcased the unique capabilities that we bring as a response force to our allies and partners," said Amphibious Squadron 8 Commodore, Capt. Martin Robertson. "Our presence in the Eastern Mediterranean was exactly what our nation needed: an integrated Navy and Marine Corps force ready to respond when called upon."

Completing this transit and entering the Atlantic Ocean is a major milestone and one of the last scheduled operations of the Bataan ARG and the 26th MEU(SOC)’s nearly 8-month deployment.

The Bataan ARG is comprised of the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5), Harpers Ferry-class dock landing ship USS Carter Hall (LSD 50), and San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19). The ships deployed from Norfolk, Virginia, July 10, and have conducted training, exercises, and operations to support maritime stability and security in defense of U.S., allied, and partner interests.

The 26th MEU(SOC) serves as one of the Nation’s premier crisis response forces capable of conducting amphibious operations, crisis response, and limited contingency operations, to include enabling the introduction of follow-on forces and designated special operations, in support of theater requirements of the Geographic Combatant Commander. Coupled with the BAT ARG, the 26th MEU(SOC) serves as a premier stand-in force with a full complement of all-domain capabilities to operate persistently within the littorals or weapons engagement zones of an adversary.

Headquartered in Naples, Italy, NAVEUR-NAVAF operates U.S. naval forces in the U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command areas of responsibility. U.S. 6th Fleet is permanently assigned to NAVEUR-NAVAF and employs maritime forces through the full spectrum of joint and naval operations.

For more information, please contact Amphibious Squadron 8 Public Affairs Team, CPR8PAO@lhd5.navy.mil.
Deaderick Dumont JAMISON v. STATE

CR-15-1191

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary M. Morrow, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 658]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered April 24, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his claim that his sentence was harsh and excessive *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733 [1998]; *People v Boykin,*1 AD3d 525 [2003]; *People v*
      *585
      *Barnes,*306 AD2d 537 [2003]; *People v Eaddy,*302 AD2d 473 [2003]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Dewayne PITTMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10251 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 28, 2017

Emily Baker Falconer, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq., Law Office of Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Randy DeWayne Pittman, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Randy Pittman pleaded guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was *176sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release (“SR”). The term of SR exceeds the statutory maximum term for Pittman’s offense, as the parties agree. *See*18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2); *United States v. Vera,*542 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2008). The judgment is therefore VACATED as to the term of SR, and this matter is REMANDED to modify the sentence consistently with § 3583(b)(2).

To the extent that Pittman reurges the arguments he originally put forth in his response to counsel’s now-withdrawn motion filed pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he does not have the right to hybrid representation or simultaneous representation by himself and counsel. *See United States v. Villafranca,*844 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1393, 197 L.Ed.2d 568 (2017). After the close of briefing, counsel filed a motion to withdraw at the request of Pittman, and Pittman filed a motion to proceed *pro se.*Neither counsel nor Pittman has established a “conflict of interest or other most pressing circumstances” warranting removal of counsel. Fifth Circuit Plan Under the CJA § 5B. The motions are therefore DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *176published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. '
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Donald Boggus, Jr., Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ J. Donald Boggus, Jr.                                                  
|J. Donald Boggus, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer August 12, 2005