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








Exhibit 10.74


November 12, 2018
Stacey Renfro


Re: Amendment to Offer Letter
Dear Stacey:
Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc. (“Company” or “The Vitamin Shoppe”) amends its offer letter to you dated October 12, 2018 (the “Offer Letter”) as follows:
Section 6 Sign-on Equity is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language:
		
	6.
	Sign-On Equity Grant. As an inducement for you to accept employment with the Company and subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors:




		
	a.
	on or about November 9, 2018, pursuant to The Vitamin Shoppe’s 2018 equity incentive plan (the “Plan”), you will receive a one-time sign-on grant/award of that number of shares of restricted stock with a fair market value (as defined  in the Plan)  of $100,000 as of the grant date; and




		
	b.
	upon the Company’s next regularly scheduled grant issuance in 2019 for similarly situated executives pursuant to the Plan, you will receive a one-time sign-on grant/award of that number of performance share units (“PSUs”), with a fair market value  of  $150,000 as of the grant date. 


The grant of restricted stock and PSUs will be subject to terms regarding time-based and/or performance-based vesting over a period of continued employment, and forfeiture and repayment provisions if you breach certain covenants regarding confidentiality, trade secrets, non-competition or have engaged in fraud, all of which will be set forth in grant agreements to be entered into between you and the Company. Each of the grants will be made pursuant to an individual award agreement that shall contain substantially the same terms as similar awards granted under the Plan.
All other terms and conditions of the Offer Letter remain in effect without amendment.








Please indicate your acceptance by returning a signed copy of this Amendment to the Company.
Regards,


/s/ Teresa Orth


Teresa Orth
SVP, Human Resources


CC:      Sharon Leite, CEO




Acknowledgment:


I have carefully read and fully understand the foregoing Amendment to Offer Letter. I understand that by accepting employment with the Company, I agree to arbitrate any dispute arising out of my employment as set forth in the Company’s Dispute Resolution Program, which I will be required to sign prior to beginning my employment. I further understand that my employment with the Company is at-will, which means that either I or the Company may terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without cause.




/s/ Stacey Renfro                        November 12, 2018
Stacey Renfro                                  Date
Clifton McNeil BROOKS Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1286

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 4, 2018

Clifton McNeil Brooks Sr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellant's response to the Court's order of March 28, 2018, the Court has determined that the notice of appeal failed to invoke the Court's jurisdiction to review the June 6, 2017, Order Denying Defendant's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to a Belated Appeal in a timely manner. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  ("Section  906"),  H. Douglas Saathoff, the Chief
Executive  Officer  of  Nighthawk  Systems,  Inc.  and  Daniel P. McRedmond, the
Principal  Accounting  and Financial Officer of Nighthawk Systems, Inc., certify
that  (i)  the  Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly
presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of
operations  of  Nighthawk  Systems,  Inc

A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Nighthawk Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Nighthawk Systems,
Inc.  and  furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


Date:  April  15,  2005          /s/  H.  Douglas  Saathoff
                                 --------------------------------------
                                 H.  Douglas  Saathoff
                                 Chief  Executive  Officer

Date:  April  15,  2005          /s/  Daniel  P.  McRedmond
                                 --------------------------------------
                                 Daniel  P.  McRedmond
                                 Principal  Accounting  and  Financial  Officer
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

CARLTEZ HART

NO. 2023 KW 0720

OCTOBER 10, 2023

In Re: Carltez Hart, applying for supervisory writs, 21st

Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, No. 

2201759. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

PMC

CHH

SMM
Gerald SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1787

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 11, 2018]

Gerald Smith, Mayo, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Gerald Smith appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. In his motion, Smith asserted that the trial court imposed an illegal fragmented sentence when it ordered his sentences for two burglary convictions to run concurrently, in part, and consecutively, in part. We agree that Smith's sentence is an illegal fragmented sentence. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

In 2005, following a jury trial, Smith was convicted of two counts of burglary of a dwelling and one count of petit theft. He was sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender to consecutive terms of fifteen years in prison for each count of burglary. For petit theft, he was sentenced to time served.

One week after Smith was sentenced, the trial court amended his burglary sentences, ordering them to run concurrently, in part, and consecutively, in part. Specifically, the court ordered the first ten years of each sentence to run concurrently, and the last five years of each sentence to run consecutively.

Imposing a sentence that is partly concurrent and partly consecutive to another sentence violates a defendant's right to "pay his debt to society in one stretch, not in bits and pieces." *Segal v. Wainwright* , 304 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1974) ; *see also**Francisco-Augustin v. State* , 695 So.2d 1299, 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Such a sentence is illegal under Rule 3.800(a). *Stroman v. State* , 837 So.2d 1070, 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

The state argues that under *Gladden v. State* , 556 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), Smith's sentence is not fragmented. In *Gladden* , the trial court ordered three twelve-year sentences to run concurrently but ordered the applicable three-year mandatory minimums to run consecutively. *Id.* at 1229. There, we determined that Gladden's sentence was not fragmented because the consecutive mandatory minimums would be fully served before Gladden finished serving the concurrent twelve-year sentences. *Id.* at 1230.

The state's reliance on *Gladden* is misplaced, because unlike in *Gladden* , the defendant's sentence here is fragmented. Smith's sentence requires him to serve the first ten years of each sentence simultaneously. Then he must serve the remaining *417five years of one sentence, while the remaining five years of the other sentence are put on hold to be served in the future. Because this is an illegal fragmented sentence, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

*Reversed and Remanded* .

Gerber, C.J., Taylor and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 4050

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
ISIAH PAUL MENDEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00185

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: March 22, 2022

Before DIAZ, THACKER, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Todd A. Smith, SMITH GILES PLLC, Graham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Steph en T. Inman, Assistant United States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Isiah Paul Mendez pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Mendez under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to 188 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Mendez challenges his classification as an armed career criminal, arguing that his prior N orth Carolina breaking or entering convictions did not qualify as violent felonies because North Carolina’s breaking or entering statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14

- 54(a), is broader than a generic burglary statute

. As we recently explained, this argument is fo reclosed by our decision in United States v. Mungro , 754 F.3d 267 , 272 (4th Cir. 2014)

. See United States v. Dodge , 963 F.3d 379, 382

- 84 (4th Cir. 2020) ( reaffirming that “ § 14

- 54(a), as interpreted by the North Carolina Supreme Court, sweeps no more broadly than the generic elements of burglary and therefore a conviction under that statute qualifies as an ACCA predicate conviction ” (internal quotation marks omitted) ), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1445 (2021). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s j udgment

. ∗ We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

∗ Although we placed this appeal in abeyance for United States v. Gary , 954 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2020), rev’d , Greer v. United States , 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021), it is clear after the decision in Greer that Mendez’s conviction does not run afoul of Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).
Lewis Franklin FEUQUAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2601

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

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

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard A. Ross, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
August 9, 2007



By:

/s/ Richard A. RossRichard A. RossChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
Aron LUNA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3526

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Danny Joseph FABRICANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17445

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 26, 2017

Danny Fabricant, Pro Se

Michael Alexander Ambri, USPX—Of-fice of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee

■ 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 **

Danny Joseph Fabricant, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his request for documents related to an informant who testified against him at a trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.,*836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Fabricant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant had not “conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” *Hamdan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,*797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth requirements for demonstrating adequacy of search for documents).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fabricant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) motion because Fabricant failed to show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. *See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. Food & Drug Admin.,*45 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth standard of review and concluding that district court did not abuse discretion in granting summary judgment in FOIA action before allowing an opportunity to conduct additional discovery).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fabricant’s motion for costs because Fabricant failed to establish that he was both eligible for and entitled to costs. *See Hiken v. Dep’t of Def.,*836 F.3d 1037, 1042-44 (9th Cir. 2016) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for fees and costs in a FOIA action).

All pending requests are denied, including appellant’s most-recently-filed request to correct appellant’s name.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Michael Anthony BLANCA a/k/a Michael Mejia, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-458

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark C. BUSACK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6761

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Mark C. Busack, Appellant Pro Se. Jar-od James Douglas, Erin Carter Tison, Assistant United States Attorneys, William J. Ihlenfeld, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark C. Busack appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to authorize payment of restitution from Busack’s inmate account and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United State v. Busack, No. 5:15-cr-00054-FEP-JES-1, 2016 WL 1559599, 2016 WL 3039886 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 18 & May 27, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
32.1


Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350


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 Arrayit Corporation(the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Rene A. Schena 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/  Rene
A. Schena





Rene A.
Schena


Chief
Executive Officer




April 15,
2009
* 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. 95-40665

Summary Calendar

 

BENNIE FINISTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHRISTOPHER WHITE; UNIDENTIFIED WELCH,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

UNIDENTIFIED ALFRED,

 Defendant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:94-CV-897

- - - - - - - - - -

June 13, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bennie Finister, Texas state prisoner #649506, requests

permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the appeal of

the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On March 4, 1997,

this court advised Finister that his appeal would be dismissed in

thirty days unless he moved to proceed IFP within the procedures
No. 95-40665

- 2 -

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as amended by the Prison Litigation

Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”). Although Finister timely responded,

the documents he filed do not comply with § 1915(a); the trust

fund account information covers the wrong six-month period. See

§ 1915(a). Accordingly, Finister’s motion for leave to proceed

IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED for want of

prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3. Should Finister wish to

reinstate his appeal, he is instructed to pay the $105 filing fee

to the clerk of the district court within 30 days from the date

of this order. Finister’s motion for injunctive relief is DENIED

without prejudice to his right to refile the motion should he

choose to pursue his appeal by paying the appellate filing fee.

MOTIONS TO PROCEED IFP AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DENIED;

APPEAL DISMISSED.
FLATR LLC, as Trustee Under the 16314 Caliente Land Trust, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3727

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 26, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7835
KARIM JEHAD KAHLIL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LUIS HAYES; BETH ARTHUR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00824-JCC) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karim Jehad KAHLIL, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Karim Jehad Kahlil appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kahlil v. Hayes , Case No. 1:06-cv-00824 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
John Daniel CROSBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-888

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Leonard TAYLOR, Appellant, v. CHENEY BROTHERS INC., et al., Appellee.

No. 1D17-4714

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 38



Consent of Knight Piésold Ltd.



We 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 references
to our name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report
on Feasibility Study for the Blackwater Project”, dated January 22, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New
Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2014 and we 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 27th day of March, 2015



|Knight
    Piésold Ltd. |                    
|----------------------- | -------------------
|                        |                    
|/s/
    Ken Brouwer     |                    
|By:                     | Ken Brouwer, P.Eng.
|Title                   | President
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1479 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds relating to rejoining the Joint 

Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2021 

Mr. BARR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds relating to rejoining 

the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, 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 ‘‘Iran Nuclear Deal Ad5 vice and Consent Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Fed8 eral funds may be obligated or expended in furtherance 

9 of rejoining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 

10 signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, by Iran and by 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1479 IH

1 France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the People’s 

2 Republic of China, the United Kingdom, and the United 

3 States (including all implementing materials and agree4 ments related to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) 

5 (in this section referred to as the ‘‘JCPOA’’) unless the 

6 Biden Administration submits in writing to the House of 

7 Representatives and the Senate its commitment to submit8 ting any JCPOA successor agreement to the Senate for 

9 advise and consent as a treaty rather than as an inter10 national agreement. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS