alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Issuance of an Officer RSU Retention Grant Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.7 

 

			
	 March 23, 2012
	  	Personal & Confidential

  

							
	 To:
	 	  
	 		  	
			
	 From:
	 	Thomas B. King, President and CEO	  	
			
	 RE:
	 	Issuance of an Officer RSU Retention Grant 	  	

 On March 28, 2012 or sooner subject to your acceptance of this offer, you will receive a Restricted Stock Unit grant for
             shares, which will vest fully on June 5, 2012. 
 We obviously have a
significant amount to accomplish in the near-term, as we push toward our ADASUVE PDUFA date and our EMA Day 121 response documents. We expect to maintain our GMP facility readiness and a few exploratory projects (including AZ-002). We have finalized
our near-term goals and key activities, and we have internally discussed our various roles and responsibilities as they relate to these goals and activities. 
 Your offer of RSU grant/vesting is based on the following conditions being satisfied: 
  

	 	(1)	You sign this memo, in the space provided below, and return it to Human Resources by no later than close of business on March 26, 2012; 


 

	 	(2)	You remain employed by Alexza through at least June 5, 2012; and 

  

	 	(3)	You must satisfactorily perform the tasks and responsibilities that are assigned to you. 

 Please note that you will need to update or amend your 10b5-1 plan with JMP, in order to efficiently sell these shares as they vest. We will work with you to update your plan to take into consideration
the vesting of these new shares. 
 Please note that your employment remains “at will,” meaning either you or the Company have the
right to terminate your employment without prior notice at any time and for any reason. Please do not hesitate to contact Human Resources, your SVP/VP or myself should you have any questions. 
 EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: 
 By signing below I represent that I understand the
referenced RSU grant will not vest unless I continue my employment with the company in my current position through at least June 5, 2012. I understand that the company is offering the ongoing employment and RSU grant described above in reliance upon
my representation. 
  

									
	Employee Signature:	  	  
	  	Date:
Bryan Purcell MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2305

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of M~Wave, Inc.
for the three months ended March 31, 2008, I, Joseph Turek, Chief Executive
Officer of M~Wave, Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
 
 (1) such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months
ended March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of M~Wave, Inc.
  
 Dated:  May
      15, 2008
              
              /s/ Joseph
      TurekJoseph TurekChief Executive Officer
#### IN RE: Albert Charles BURGESS, Petitioner.

No. 17-1172

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Albert Charles Burgess, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling the delivery of tapes of proceedings occurring in connection with his criminal prosecution. We conclude that Burgess is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Burgess is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in *283forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Jafran AHMED, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73176

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Usman Ahmad, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Usman B. Ahmad, PC, Long Island City, NY, for Petitioner'

Jason Wisecup, Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DÓJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER,- TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*291MEMORANDUM **

Jafran Ahmed, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order affirming the decision of an asylum officer during expedited removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Ahmed’s removal order because it was issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii). Ahmed does not challenge the removal order under any of the “strictly limited” exceptions in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) and our jurisdiction does not extend to his challenge to the validity of the expedited removal order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)(B) (challenge to whether alien was removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) must be made in habeas corpus proceedings); *Pena v. Lynch,*815 F.3d 452, 456 (9th Cir. 2016) (court lacks jurisdiction to review any constitutional or statutory claims related to the underlying expedited removal order).

Ahmed’s motion to stay his removal is denied as moot. The currently effective temporary stay of removal will expire upon the issuance of the mandate.

Ahmed’s motion to stay the mandate is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03611]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9960]
RIN 1545-BO59


Guidance on Passive Foreign Investment Companies; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulations 
Treasury Decision 9960 published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 
January 25, 2022. The final regulations regarding the treatment of 
domestic partnerships for purposes of determining amounts included in 
the gross income of their partners with respect to foreign 
corporations.

DATES: These corrections are effective on February 22, 2022, and 
applicable on or after January 25, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward J. Tracy at (202) 317-6934 (not 
a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations (TD 9960) subject to this correction are 
issued under section 951 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published on January 25, 2022 (87 FR 3648), the final 
regulations (TD 9960) contain errors that need to be corrected.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendments:

PART 1--INCOME TAXES

0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in 
part as follows:

    Authority:  26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *


Sec.  1.958-1  [Corrected]

0
Par. 2. Section 1.958-1(d)(3)(iii)(B)(3) is corrected by removing the 
word ``note'' and adding the word ``account'' in its place.

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2022-03611 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
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 INCA Designs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2008 (the Report), I, Stacy Josloff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Stacy Josloff      
|Stacy Josloff          
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 18, 2008        

A signed original of this certification 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.



- 9 -
AFS-12-530-E 

October 12, 2012 

 Exemption No. 8839C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26739 

Mr. David L. Jones 

Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

4455 South Blvd. 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8839. 

 It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of American Trans Air Training Corp. d.b.a. Aviation Institute of 

Maintenance (Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate USBT077S) for an 

extension of Exemption No. 8839. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general 

written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general 

curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

regarding public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, 

 and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8839 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 
2 

delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8839 to February 28, 2015, 

unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8839 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8839. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas G. Wiggans, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the
periods indicated.

|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: December 2, 2003                                                        
|                                                                              
|/s/ Thomas G. Wiggans

Thomas G. Wiggans
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David MANNING, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51189 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 2, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western *206District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David Manning, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent David Manning 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Manning 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.

Our review reveals a clerical error in the judgment. Manning' pleaded guilty to attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The judgment correctly describes the nature of the offense, but it incorrectly lists the applicable statutory provisions as 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) rather than 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. This matter is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

*

 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.
Travonta BERRY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Daniel JUNIOR, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2508

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 01, 2017

Following review of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the response and reply thereto, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

SUAREZ, SALTER and SCALES, JJ., concur.
Mr. Michael Wolfe, SCS International February 28, 2011 and Alice Tome, Abt

Associates, Inc.

He developed the process for SCS International. Most certifiers have labs but SCS does not and contracts out. He mentioned that the ASTM 1333 standard requires a large chamber and uses lots of material. He thinks that a small chamber test would be better. In China they are working on methods that use less sampling and more statistical analysis. They are not ISO accredited but have demonstrated equivalence and that is all that is required by CARB. They follow ISO guidelines but to actually get approved is very expensive and would reduce the profit. He says their internal audit caught items that ISO did not catch.

He started from scratch and it took him 150 hours for the application to CARB – this included writing the manual. He thinks that doing this again would take half the time, 75 hours. I'm estimating it was $9,000 - $15,000. SCS did have the quality systems in place.
#### In the Matter of Dontie S. Mitchell, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 906]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered May 10, 2002 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the possession of unauthorized organizational material. The charge stems from an investigation which led to the confiscation of material from petitioner’s cell containing, among other things, an unauthorized organizational symbol, 139 handwritten pages and 79 typed pages which were identified as unauthorized organizational material demonstrating petitioner’s membership and recruiting activities. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the adequacy of the *801misbehavior report. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal challenging the sufficiency of the misbehavior report ensued.

We affirm. It is well settled that “there is no requirement that the misbehavior report ‘itemize in evidentiary detail all aspects of the case’ ” *(Matter of La Bounty v Goord,*245 AD2d 675, 676 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 1002 [1998], quoting *Matter of Davis v Coughlin,*200 AD2d 904, 905 [1994]). Although the sheer volume of the confiscated material precluded it from being included with the misbehavior report, the misbehavior report nevertheless provided petitioner with sufficient detail to afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense *(see Matter of Sepe v Goord,*1 AD3d 667 [2003]; *Matter of Eckert v Selsky,*247 AD2d 728 [1998]). Furthermore, the hearing testimony demonstrates petitioner’s familiarity with the documents taken and negates his claim of prejudice resulting from the alleged insufficiency of the misbehavior report *(see Matter of Reynolds v Goord,*275 AD2d 854, 854 [2000]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ARNULFO RICARDO MARTINEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30323

D.C. No. 2:06-cr-02119-WFN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Arnulfo Ricardo Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

FILED

AUG 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
explain the sentence adequately in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

factors and his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States

v. Valencia–Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The

record reflects that the district court considered Martinez’s mitigating arguments

and the relevant sentencing factors but determined that a low-end, consecutive

sentence was warranted because Martinez violated supervised release by

committing another drug offense. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058,

1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

Martinez also contends that the district court imposed a substantively

unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

Martinez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing

factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Martinez’s breach of the

court’s trust. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1063.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-30323
#### Sayles v. Smith.

1. Appeal: certificate to evidence: date of: too late. 'The certificate of the judge to the evidence in this case was headed “May term, 1885,” that being the term when the ease was tried and submitted; but at the end, just before the judge’s signature, was the date, “ September 15, 1836.” *Held*that the certificate must be regarded as made ^ at the date last named, and that, being more than six months subsequent to the date of the decree appealed from, it was too late, and the appeal (the case being in equity) must be dismissed.

*Appeal from Guthrie Circuit Court.*

Thursday, March 10.

Action to quiet title. There was a decree for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.

*242
      *Lyman*Porter, for appellant.

*O. 8.*Fogg, for appellee.

Adams, Ch. J.

The appellee insists that the judge’s certificate to the evidence was not made within the time allowed for an appeal. The case was heard at the May term, 1885, and was then taken under advisement, and a decree rendered December 16, 1885. The evidence appears to have been certified September 15, 1886. The appellee’s abstract and transcript show the judge’s certificate to be in these words:

> “ *F. R. Sayles v. J. F. Smith.*

> “ In the Circuit Court of Guthrie County, Iowa, May Term, 1885.

> “I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript, together with the exhibits, records, and depositions therein referred to, contain all the evidence offered and objections made on the trial of the above-entitled cause.

> *“September,*15, 1886.

> .S. A. Callvert, Judge.

The appellant insists that the certificate appears *to*have been made at the May term, 1885; but we think otherwise. We think that term was mentioned, merely as the term at which the case was tried and submitted. The date at the bottom of the certificate was evidently intended to show the time when it was made. The certificate, then, was not made within the time allowed for an appeal, and the case must be

Dismissed.,