alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
09-3772-cv(L), 09-4206-cv(XAP)

Lore v. City of Syracuse

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

1 At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

2 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on

the 2nd 3 day of March two thousand twelve.

4 Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE,

5 ROBERT D. SACK,

6 GERARD E. LYNCH,

7 Circuit Judges.

8 _____________________________________________________

9 THERESE LORE,

10 Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,

11 - v. - Nos. 09-3772-cv,

12 09-4206-cv

13 CITY OF SYRACUSE,

14 Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

15 CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN

16 FALGE in his individual and official capacity; FIRST DEPUTY CHIEF

17 DANIEL BOYLE in his individual and official capacity; DEPUTY CHIEF

18 ROBERT TASSONE in his individual and official capacity; CITY OF

19 SYRACUSE MAYOR ROY BERNARDI in his individual and official

20 capacity; LIEUTENANT MIKE RATHBUN in his individual and official

21 capacity; CAPTAIN MIKE KERWIN in his individual and official capacity;

22 RICK GUY, CITY CORPORATION COUNSEL, in his individual and official

23 capacity; MICHAEL LEMM, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN

24 DOE, in his individual and official capacity,

25 Defendants-Cross-Appellees.

26 _____________________________________________________

27 In our February 2, 2012 opinion ("Opinion") in the above-captioned appeal, this

28 Court set forth (1) its affirmance of certain parts of the district court's judgment, (2) its vacatur of

29 certain other parts of the judgment, and (3) its conditional rulings on the remaining parts of the

30 judgment, dependent on certain elections to be made by plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant

31 ("Plaintiff") in this Court and on remand in the district court.
1 Plaintiff has timely elected, in accordance with Paragraph (C) of the Conclusion

2 section of the Opinion, to withdraw so much of her appeal as challenged the summary dismissal

3 of her claims under the New York Human Rights Law with respect to her removal from the

4 position of public information officer in the defendant-cross-appellee police department.

5 Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as set forth in Paragraphs (A), (B), (D), and

6 (E) of the Conclusion section of the Opinion; and the matter is remanded to the district court for

7 further proceedings in accordance with Parts IV and V of the Opinion and Paragraphs (B), (D), and

8 (E) of the Conclusion section of the Opinion.

9 The mandate shall issue forthwith.

10 FOR THE COURT:

11 CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court

12

13

14

- NEXTRECORD -
**EXHIBIT 32.1**



**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**



In connection with the quarterly report of Business.vn, Inc (the "Company") on the annual report Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                     
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |     |                                                                                                                                                     



|Dated: September 19, 2016 | By: | */s/ ROBERT STEVENS*                      | 
|------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------- | 
|                          |     | Court Appointed Receiver in #A14-709484-P | 
|                          |     | Acting under its Statutory Authority      |
**Exhibit 10.21.1**

**AMENDMENT NO. 2****TO****1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN**

               This Amendment No. 2 to the Catalina Marketing Corporation 1999 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) is certified below by the President and theSecretary of Catalina Marketing Corporation (the “Corporation”). Section 6 of the Plan was amended by action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation on April 25, 2002, which amendment was approved by the stockholders of Corporation onJuly 25, 2002. Pursuant to such amendment, the second sentence of Section 6 of the Plan was amended to read in its entirety as follows:

> 
     “The aggregate number ofShares which may be issued upon exercise of Options under the Plan shall not exceed Nine Million Nine Hundred Thousand (9,900,000).”

               This Amendment is hereby certified by the President and the Secretary of the Corporation. 

|                              |   |        |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Daniel D. Granger        |   |   |   |
|                              |   |   |  |
| Daniel D. Granger, President |   |   |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Walker Interactive Systems, Inc. Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,755
<SECURITIES>                                    19,286
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,401
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,852
<PP&E>                                          22,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         16,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,267
<CGS>                                            8,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    140
<INCOME-TAX>                                        48
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        92
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.17



RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT  
(Ratable Period of Restriction Ends in Thirds)


Brighthouse Financial, Inc. confirms that, on [grant date] (the “Grant Date”), it granted you, [name], [number] Restricted Stock Units. Your Restricted Stock Units are subject to the terms and conditions of the Brighthouse Financial, Inc. 2017 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) and this Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (this “Agreement”), which includes the Award Agreement Supplement (the “Supplement”). Please note that the Supplement includes terms for forfeiture of your Restricted Stock Units under some circumstances.


Standard Terms.


(a) These terms are the “Standard Terms” and will apply to your Restricted Stock Units except in so far as Sections S-1 (“Change of Status”), S-2 (“Change of Control”), or S-14 (“Restrictive Covenants”) of the Supplement apply. If Shares are paid to you, you will receive evidence of ownership of those Shares.


(b) The Period of Restriction for your Restricted Stock Units will end in stages on the first business day in March on or following each of the first three anniversaries of the Grant Date. Each portion of your Restricted Stock Units subject to a different Period of Restriction shall be referred to as a “Unit Tranche” and during its Period of Restriction as an “Outstanding Unit Tranche.” The Period of Restriction for one-third (1/3rd) of your Restricted Stock Units (rounding down to the nearest whole number of Restricted Stock Units, the “First Unit Tranche”) will begin on the Grant Date and end on the first business day in March on or following the first anniversary of the Grant Date. The Period of Restriction for one-third (1/3rd) of your Restricted Stock Units (rounding down to the nearest whole number of Restricted Stock Units, the “Second Unit Tranche”) will begin on the Grant Date and end on the first business day in March on or following the second anniversary of the Grant Date. The Period of Restriction for each of your Restricted Stock Units not included in either the First or the Second Unit Tranches (the “Third Unit Tranche”) will begin on the Grant Date and end on the first business day in March on or following the third anniversary of the Grant Date.


(c) Each Unit Tranche will be due and payable in the form of Shares after the conclusion of the Period of Restriction applicable to that Unit Tranche, at the time specified in Section S-7 (“Timing of Payment”).


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has caused this Agreement to be offered to you, and you have accepted this Agreement by the electronic means made available to you.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO THE CIVIL

PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE :

:

:

:

: NO. 735

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13 th day of June , 202 2

, Kimberly A. Brown , Esquire, Allegheny

County

, is hereby appointed as a member of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee for a

term of six years , commencing July 1, 20 22

.
Exhibit 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Jenkins, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Tasker Capital Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer and
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 small business issuer is made
known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls 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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

April 29, 2005

/s/  Robert Jenkins
-----------------------
Robert Jenkins
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of eOn Communications Corporation (Registrant) I, James W. Hopper, Chief
Executive Officer of Registrant, 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: October 29, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    JAMES W.
HOPPER 
|                       |  |  |  | James W. Hopper        
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of eOn Communications Corporation
(Registrant) I, Lee M. Bowling, Chief Financial Officer of Registrant, 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: October 29, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    LEE M.
BOWLING  
|                       |  |  |  | Lee M. Bowling         
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer





These certifications accompany each report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
Marvin FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-146

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1508 

To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency guidance, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2021 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself and Mr. GOLDEN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency 

guidance, and for other purposes. 

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. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guidance Clarity Act 

5 of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT REQUIRED. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

8 (1) AGENCY; RULE.—The terms ‘‘agency’’ and 

9 ‘‘rule’’ have the meanings given those terms in sec10 tion 551 of title 5, United States Code. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1508 IH

1 (2) GUIDANCE.—The term ‘‘guidance’’— 

2 (A) means an agency statement of general 

3 applicability, intended to have a future effect on 

4 the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth 

5 a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical 

6 issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regu7 lation; and 

8 (B) does not include— 

9 (i) a rule promulgated pursuant to no10 tice and comment under section 553 of 

11 title 5, United States Code; 

12 (ii) a rule exempt from rulemaking re13 quirements under section 553(a) of title 5, 

14 United States Code; 

15 (iii) a rule of agency organization, 

16 procedure, or practice; 

17 (iv) a decision of an agency adjudica18 tion under section 554 of title 5, United 

19 States Code, or any similar statutory pro20 vision; 

21 (v) internal guidance directed to the 

22 issuing agency or other agency that is not 

23 intended to have a substantial future effect 

24 on the behavior of regulated parties; or 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1508 IH

1 (vi) internal executive branch legal ad2 vice or legal opinions addressed to execu3 tive branch officials. 

4 (b) REQUIREMENT.—Each agency shall include a 

5 guidance clarity statement as described in subsection (c) 

6 on any guidance issued by that agency on and after the 

7 date of enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT.—A guidance 

9 clarity statement required under subsection (b) shall— 

10 (1) be displayed prominently on the first page 

11 of the document; and 

12 (2) include the following: ‘‘The contents of this 

13 document do not have the force and effect of law 

14 and are not meant to bind the public in any way. 

15 This document is intended only to provide clarity to 

16 the public regarding existing requirements under the 

17 law or agency policies.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Alton BRYAN, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CITIBANK, NA, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1058

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 01, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.
#### Gilberto Ivan RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, West Palm Beach Field Office, Anouchka Castro, U.S. Attorney General, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-10535 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/19/2016

*772Eduardo Rigoberto Soto, Eduardo Soto *&*Associates, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Theo Nickerson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Jessica Elise Elliott, Wifredo A- Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gilberto Ivan Ramirez appeals the dismissal of his petition for review of the denial of his application for naturalization. He contends that the district court erred when it ruled that the date of his conviction for an aggravated felony rendered him permanently ineligible for naturalization. We affirm.

We review *de novo*a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. *Leib v. Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Transp. Comm’n,*558 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2009).

To become a naturalized citizen, an applicant must establish and maintain “good moral character” while residing in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). An applicant cannot establish good moral character if he was convicted of an aggravated felony on or after November 29, 1990. 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(l)(ii). Aggravated felonies include drug trafficking crimes. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). A conviction can be “a formal judgment of guilt, of the alien entered by a court.” *Id.*§ 1101(a)(48)(A). And “if adjudication of guilt has been withheld,” a conviction occurs when “(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty ... and (ii) the judge has ordered some, form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed.” *Id.*§ 1101(a)(48)(A)(i)-(ii).

The district court correctly concluded that Ramirez’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine occurred after November 29, 1990. Ramirez was not convicted until the district court accepted his plea, adjudicated his guilt, imposed his sentence, and entered its judgment in January 1991. *Mejia Rodrigues v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,*629 F.3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir. 2011). The detention order entered in June 1989 was not a punishment because it was unrelated to Ramirez’s guilt or innocence. The district court determined that Ramirez was a flight risk and a danger to the community and ordered him detained pending the outcome of his criminal case. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 9, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-13828

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-80132 CV-WPD

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES I. FREMER,

JAYSON S. KLINE, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

 (May 9, 2005)

Before ANDERSON, HULL and GIBSON*, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We decline to address the applicability of Regulation § 32.9, because that

___________________

* Honorable John R. Gibson, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by

designation.
2

 issue was not raised in the district court. Appellants may request that the district

court address the issue on remand. 

With respect to the merits, we have carefully considered the several

arguments of appellants, both in brief and at oral argument. However, we readily

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the

preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.