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



Exhibit 99.8 Deloitte & Touche LLP
BCE Place
181 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2V1
Canada Tel: (416) 601 6150
Fax: (416) 601 6151
www.deloitte.ca
    
    (Deloitte Touche Logo)
 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT We consent to the use of our reports dated February 5, 2004, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Brookfield Properties Corporation for the year
ended December 31, 2003. (Deloitte Touche Signature)
Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
May 18, 2004     COMMENTS BY AUDITORS FOR UNITED STATES READERS ON DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES REPORTING STANDARDS In the United States of America, reporting standards for auditors require the
addition of an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph)
outlining changes in accounting principles that have been implemented in the
financial statements and/or when there are changes in accounting principles
that have a material effect on comparability of Brookfield Properties
Corporations financial statements. As discussed in Note 1(m) to the
consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting
for stock-based compensation to conform to the new Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook recommendations Section 3870. Also, as
discussed in Note 1(o), the Company adopted Accounting Guideline 14 issued by
the CICA in connection with the disclosure of guarantees. Our report to the
shareholders of the Company dated February 5, 2004 is expressed in accordance
with Canadian reporting standards, which do not require a reference to such
changes in accounting principles in the auditors report when the changes are
properly accounted for and adequately disclosed in the financial statements. (Deloitte Touche Signature)
Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
February 5, 2004   (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Logo)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rubicel CARDENAS-MENDOZA, also known as Caesar Cardenas-Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Cardenas-Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant

No. 14-41406 Cons. w/No. 14-41407 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/21/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rubicel Cardenas-Mendoza, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ru-bicel Cardenas-Mendoza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Cardenas-Mendoza has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT - 99.2

                                  MOSSIMO, INC.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Manuel Marrero, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/      Manuel Marrero
-----------------------
         Manuel Marrero
         Chief Financial Officer
         October 30, 2002
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, Arthur C. Wiener, Chief Executive Officer of Galey & Lord, Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 28, 2002, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/ Arthur C. Wiener 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ElixirGaming Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Clarence Chung,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Andy Tsui, VicePresident Finance and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    |   | /s/ Clarence Chung                    |   | Dated: | November 10, 2009 |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------|
|   |   | Clarence Chung                        |   |   |                   |
| Title: |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |                   |
|   |   |                                  |   |   |                   |
|   |   |                                  |   |   |                   |
| By:    |   | /s/ Andy Tsui                         |   | Dated: | November 10, 2009 |
|   |   | Andy Tsui                             |   |   |                   |
| Title: |   | Chief Accounting Officer              |   |   |                   |

 

 

This certification is made solely for the purposes of18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard containedtherein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
Exhibit
      23.1








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
      333-124568 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 21, 2007, relating to the
      financial statements of Shumate Industries, Inc., which appear in this Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB of Shumate Industries, Inc. for the year ended December
      31, 2006.








/s/
      Malone & Bailey, PC





Malone
      & Bailey, PC


www.malone-bailey.com


Houston,
      Texas





March 21, 2007
David D. HOLLOWAY, Appellant, v. Johna HOLLOWAY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1709

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 13, 2018

Susan W. Savard and Jennifer R. Lawson, of Green Family Law, P.A, Orlando, for Appellant.

Julie F. Weinberger and Morgan A. Weinberger, Kissimmee, for Appellee.

WALLIS, J.

*1308Former husband, David Holloway, appeals from a final order granting his supplemental petition for modification of alimony and awarding former wife, Johna Holloway, a portion of her attorney's fees. Former husband raises numerous arguments attacking the trial court's decision to modify his monthly alimony obligation and to require him to pay former wife alimony arrears. Finding no error in the trial court's decision to modify alimony and to award alimony arrears, we affirm as to those points. We reverse, however, the court's order awarding former wife attorney's fees because that decision is not supported by the record.

"An award of attorney's fees in a dissolution proceeding depends upon the relative financial circumstances of the parties." *Kouzine v. Kouzine*, 44 So.3d 213, 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). When considering the relative financial circumstances of the parties, the court must determine whether one party has a need for such fees and whether the other party has the ability to pay them. *Id.* It is error for the trial court to require one party to pay attorney's fees where both parties are in equal financial positions. *Id.* at 216.

Here, the evidence established that both parties are in a similar financial position, and they are equally able to pay their own attorney's fees. Therefore, it was error for the court to order former husband to pay a portion of former wife's attorney's fees. *See**id.* (finding court abused its discretion in requiring husband to pay one-half of wife's attorney's fees where parties were in equal financial positions); *Price v. Price*, 951 So.2d 55, 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (requiring husband to pay wife's attorney's fees error where husband was in no better financial position than wife to pay her fees). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's award of attorney's fees to former wife.

AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part.

SAWAYA and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R.Dale McKinney, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|                    | /s/ R. Dale McKinney                                  |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 9, 2004 | R. Dale McKinney                                      |
|                    | Executive Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee Bentley FARKAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7559

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: May 5, 2017

Lee Bentley Farkas, Appellant Pro Se.

Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lee Bentley Farkas appeals the district court’s orders denying his “motion to forfeit direct proceeds of crime or substitute assets” and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Farkas,*No. 1:10-cr-00200-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 3 & entered Oct. 4, 2016; filed & entered Oct. 21, 2016); *see Pornomo v. United States,*814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that issues raised for first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances); *Young v. United States,*489 F.3d 313, 316 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[A] criminal forfeiture is part of the defendant’s sentence and must be challenged on direct appeal or not at all.”); *United States v. Pelullo,*178 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir. 1999) (recognizing that “the order of forfeiture entered at sentencing is a final order with respect to the defendant from which he can appeal,” as it “conclusively determines all of the defendant’s interest in the forfeited property” and “the defendant generally has no standing to participate in the ancillary proceeding that takes place after the forfeiture order is entered at sentencing”). We deny Farkas’ emergency motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order. 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*
Bruce SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. Solange AVALLONE, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3653

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Rigoberto HERNANDEZ v. STATE

CR-15-1513

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 12, 2017

Affirmed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Doubleshot, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 61691

)

Under Contract No. N6835-06-C-0416 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Alan Shulman

 Chief Executive Officer

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Samuel W. Morris, Esq.

 DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Srikanti Schaffner, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

 Defense Contract Management Agency

 Carson, CA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute which is the subject of the appeal having been settled, the appeal is

hereby dismissed with prejudice subject to reinstatement only in the event the 

settlement is not consummated. Any request to reinstate the subject appeal must be 

filed within 90 days of the date of this Order.

Dated: November 15, 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61691, Appeal of Doubleshot, Inc., 

rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: November 15, 2023

MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Charles BURGESS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7666

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 11, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Albert Chaiies Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Cortney Randall, Edward R. Ryan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to amend the district court’s amended criminal judgment.* We conclude that Burgess’ motion was in substance a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion challenging- the amended criminal judgment.

The district court’s order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burgess has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*

*

 Burgess noted an appeal from the district court’s November 16, 2016 orders denying his motion to amend, his motion to reconsider, and his request for a subpoena duces tecum but confines his appeal to the denial of his motion to amend the amended criminal judgment.
**Exhibit 10.10****FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE**     This First Amendment To Lease (“First Amendment”) is daed as of February ___, 2001 and is byand between Westlake North Associates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Landlord”), andhomestore.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Tenant”), and amends the lease between Landlord andTenant dated as of March 1, 2000 (“Lease”). Landlord and Tenant hereby agree as follows:     1. Defined Terms. All terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning as thedefined terms of the Lease.     2. Lease Remains in Effect. Except as modified by this First Amendment, the Leaseremains in full force and effect.     3. Reduction in Letter of Credit Amount. The first sentence of Section 4 of ExhibitL-Letter of Credit is deleted and replaced with the following;“If the conditions of this Section 4 are met, the face amount of the Letter of Credit shallbe reduced by $809,166 on March 14 of each year, commencing with the first reductionoccurring on March 14, 2001.”     4. Change to Letter of Credit Expiration Date. The first sentence of Section 2 ofExhibit L-Letter of Credit is revised to provide that the initial expiration date of the Letter ofCredit is March 14, 2001.     5. Commencement Date. The parties stipulate that the Commencement Date of theLease occurred on August 1, 2000.     The parties have executed this First Amendment in Los Angeles, California, as of the date setforth above.       Landlord: Tenant:       Westlake North Associates, LLC Homestore.com, Inc.       By: /s/ [illegible signature] By: /s/ Catherine Kwong Giffen              Name:   Name: Catherine Kwong Giffen              Title:   Title: Senior Vice President/Human             Resources & Administration
#### John D. HILLIN, Petitioner-Appellant v. D.J. HARMON, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Seagoville, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-11642 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 31, 2017

*291John D. Hillin, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John D. Hillin, federal prisoner # 25915-001, seeks leave to appeal in forma pauper-is (IFP) from the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In that petition, he challenged his sentences imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for one count of possession of child pornography, three counts of distribution of child pornography, and seven counts of receipt of child pornography.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Hillin is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. See *Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Section 2241 is the procedural vehicle for challenging the manner in which . a sentence is being executed, whereas a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the vehicle for collaterally attacking a federal conviction and sentence. *Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Hillin is challenging the length of his Alabama sentences, his claims fall under the purview of § 2255 rather than § 2241. *See id.*A § 2255 motion must be filed in the sentencing court. § 2255(a); *Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I.,*821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987). Further, Hillin’s sentencing arguments fail to show that he falls under § 2255’s “savings clause.” *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 903-04 (5th Cir. 2001):

Hillin has no nonfrivolous argument that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction or by certifying that his appeal would not be taken in good faith. Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. Because Hillin’s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Biology of 
Development and Aging Integrated Review Group; Developmental 
Therapeutics Study Section, February 24-25, 2022, 9:30 a.m. to 7:00 
p.m., which was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2022, 
87 FR 2877, FR DOC 2022-00962.
    This meeting is being amended to change the Contact Person from 
Nicholas J. Donato to Lambratu Rahman Sesay, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 804-H, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
905-8294, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99b8b9c9cd78b98919498978a9c8a9880b9979091d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c3e2e3939722e3d34313d322f392f3d251c323534723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>. The meeting dates, times, and 
meeting location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: February 10, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03310 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX 10.10 Compensation for Independent Members of the Board of Directors






Exhibit 10.10

Compensation for Independent Members of the Board of Directors
	
		
	Compensation Element
	Description

	Initial Term
	Directors will serve an initial three-year term

	Cash Compensation
	Directors will receive annual cash compensation of $60,000, inclusive of Board and committee meeting attendance fees.  The Audit Committee and Compensation Committee Chair roles will receive an additional retainer of $10,000 for Audit and $6,000 for Compensation.

	Stock Options
	Directors will receive options with an annual grant value of $90,000.  Options will time vest annually over three years (i.e. 1/3, 1/3, 1/3).

	Investment
	Directors will hold a minimum of $250,000 in Rexnord stock within five years of appointment (including vested options)

	Expenses
	Rexnord will reimburse Directors for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses related to their duties as a Director.

	D&O Insurance
	Rexnord will maintain D&O insurance of at least $50 million annually.

	Indemnification
	Rexnord will indemnify Directors to the fullest extent allowed by law.