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



Exhibit 10.7
 CONNETICS CORPORATION
 1995 DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN
 (as amended by the Board of Directors on February 17, 2001,
effective by vote of the stockholders as of May 17, 2001)
(as further amended by the Board of Directors on December 13, 2001 and February 10, 2005)
 Purposes of the Plan
  Definitions
 Board
 Code
 Common Stock
 Company
 Continuous Status as a Director
 Director
 Employee
 Exchange Act
 Option
 Optioned Stock
 Optionee
 Outside Director
 Parent
 Plan
 -1-




---



##### 



Share
 Subsidiary
 Stock Subject to the Plan
  Administration of and Grants of Options under the Plan
 Administrator
 Procedure for Grants
      -2-




---



##### 



Powers of the Board
 Effect of Boards Decision
 Suspension or Termination of Option
 -3-




---



##### 



Eligibility
  Term of Plan; Effective Date
 Term of Options
 Exercise Price and Consideration
 Exercise Price
 Fair Market Value
 Form of Consideration
 Exercise of Option
 Procedure for Exercise; Rights as a Shareholder
   -4-




---



##### 



Termination of Status as a Director
 Disability of Optionee
 Death of Optionee
   Nontransferability of Options
 -5-




---



##### 



Adjustments Upon Changes in Capitalization; Corporate Transactions
   Time of Granting Options
 Amendment and Termination of the Plan
 Amendment and Termination
 -6-




---



##### 



Effect of Amendment or Termination
 Conditions Upon Issuance of Shares
 Reservation of Shares
 Option Agreement
 Shareholder Approval
 -7-
ex10-20.htm




Exhibit 10.20

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 



5
Exhibit 23.01




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration  Statement
#333-85767 of The Keller Manufacturing  Company,  Inc. (the Company) on Form S-8
of our reports  dated  February  15,  2002,  appearing  in and  incorporated  by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Keller Manufacturing Company,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Louisville, Kentucky
March 28, 2002
#### CORDELL CONSULTANT, INC. MONEY PURCHASE PLAN AND TRUST, a Virginia Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eliot C. ABBOTT, Abbey L. Kaplan, Steven I. Silverman, Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan *&*Berlin, P.L., a Florida Professional Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15488

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 21, 2017)

*868Irwin R. Gilbert, Jimmy Wayne Mintz, Kelley Kronenberg, W Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Joel D. Eaton, Ramon A Rasco, Alexander Rundlet, Podhurst Orseck, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Eliot C. Abbott

Deborah S. Corbishley, Richard Harvey Critchlow, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Miami, FL, Marilyn Golub Kohn, Kluger Kaplan Silverman Katzen *&*Levine, PL, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Abbey L. Kaplan

Edward R. Shohat, Jones Walker, LLP, Miami, FL, Richard Harvey Critchlow, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Miami, FL, Marilyn Golub Kohn, Kluger Kaplan Silverman Katzen & Levine, PL, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Steven I. Silverman

Howard David DuBosar, Daniela A. Gordon, Robert Cory Sheres, The DuBosar Law Group, PA Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant-Appellee Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.L.

Before JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and PROCTOR,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable R. David Proctor, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

With the benefit of oral argument, and following a review of the record, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants for the reasons set forth by the district court.

AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6604 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to install permanent fencing around 

the United States Supreme Court Building or grounds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2023 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to install permanent 

fencing around the United States Supreme Court Building or grounds. 

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 ‘‘No Fencing at the 

5 United States Supreme Court Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING USE OF FUNDS FOR PERMANENT 

7 FENCING AROUND UNITED STATES SUPREME 

8 COURT BUILDING OR GROUNDS. 

9 (a) PROHIBITION.—No Federal funds may be used 

10 to install permanent fencing around— 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6604 IH

1 (1) the perimeter of the United States Supreme 

2 Court Building; or 

3 (2) the perimeter of the Supreme Court 

4 grounds, or any portion thereof, described in section 

5 6101(b) of title 40, United States Code. 

6 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in sub7 section (a) shall be construed to prohibit the repair or re8 placement of fencing that was in existence on the date of 

9 enactment of this Act around an area described in sub10 section (a). 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.1

 

GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES INCOME TRUST

 

Summary of Trustee Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Trustees of Government Properties Income Trust (the “Company”) for services as trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $35,000, plus a fee of $750 for each meeting attended.  Up to two $750 fees are payable if a board meeting and one or more board committee meetings are held on the same date.

 

·                  The chairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the nominating and governance committee, each of whom is an Independent Trustee, receive an additional annual fee of $10,000, $5,000 and $5,000, respectively.

 

·                  Each Trustee receives a grant of 2,000 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).

 

·                  The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred from their attending certain continuing education programs.
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2010
(the Report), I, Dan Amadori, 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, based on my knowledge, 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.

|                        |                              
|----------------------- | -----------------------------
|Date: February 28, 2011 | /s/ Dan Amadori              
|                        | Dan Amadori                  
|                        | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        | (Principal financial officer)

---
Exhibit
32.3














CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE


OFFICER
REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING


FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS









I, Neil
Smit, the President and Chief Executive Officer of CCH II, LLC and CCH II
Capital Corp. (the "Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify that, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission:




·
            fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and




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









/s/ Neil
Smit


Neil
Smit


President and Chief
Executive Officer


March 21,
2008
#### Salvador RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee.

No. 23324.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1966.

*320Ernest T. Reich, Houston, Tex., for appellant.

James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., William B. Butler, Robert C. Maley, Jr., Thomas L. Morrill, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, JONES and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court affirming a determination by the Secretary of Health. Education and Welfare that appellant is not entitled to disability benefits under the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. Secs. 405(g), 416(i) (1) (A) (1964). After a careful review of the record, we agree that the Hearing Examiner applied correct legal standards and that his findings are supported by substantial evidence. However, the judgment of the District Court must be vacated due to a significant amendment in 1965 to the pertinent disability provision. Prior to 1965, “disability” was defined as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of an impairment which could be expected “to be of long-continued and indefinite duration * * 42 U.S.C. Sec. 416(i) (1) (A) (1964). The amendment alters the required time period to one which “has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 416(i) (1) (A) (Supp.1965). The Secretary agrees that appellant’s condition presently may be incapacitating and that appellant may be able to recover under the 1965 amendments. Thus the judgment of the District Court is vacated with directions to the District Court to vacate the order of the Secretary and to direct the Secretary to reconsider the matter in light of the 1965 amendments.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roman SANCHEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41079 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

*268Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Roman Sanchez-Garcia, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roman Sanchez-Garcia 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). Sanchez-Garcia 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*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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yvonne Marie FOUNTAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7505

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Yvonne Marie Fountain, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Kent, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, *77Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:-

Yvonne Marie Fountain seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate of appealability 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 Fountain has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fountain’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of ap-pealability, 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*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6214 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to modify False Claims Act 

procedures, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2023 

Mr. ARRINGTON (for himself and Mr. PANETTA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to modify False 

Claims Act procedures, 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 ‘‘False Claims Amend5 ments Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FALSE CLAIMS PROCEDURE. 

7 Section 3729 of title 31, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(e) PROVING MATERIALITY.—In determining mate10 riality, the decision of the Government to forego a refund 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6214 IH

1 or to pay a claim despite actual knowledge of fraud or 

2 falsity shall not be considered dispositive if other reasons 

3 exist for the decision of the Government with respect to 

4 such refund or payment.’’. 

5 SEC. 3. POST-EMPLOYMENT WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIA6 TION. 

7 Section 3730(h)(1) of title 31, United States Code, 

8 is amended by inserting ‘‘current or former’’ after ‘‘Any’’. 

9 SEC. 4. GAO REPORT. 

10 Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 

11 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

12 shall submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of 

13 sections 3729 through 3733 of title 31, United States 

14 Code (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘False Claims Act’’) 

15 during the time period beginning on the date of enactment 

16 of the False Claims Amendments Act of 1986 (Public Law 

17 99–562; 100 Stat. 3153) and ending on the date of enact18 ment of this Act, which shall include— 

19 (1) a description of the benefits and challenges 

20 of enforcement efforts under the False Claims Act; 

21 and 

22 (2) information on the amounts recovered by 

23 the Government under the False Claims Act since 

24 the date of enactment of the False Claims AmendVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:54 Nov 11, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6214.IH H6214

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6214 IH

1 ments Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–562; 100 Stat. 

2 3153). 

3 SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY. 

4 The amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of this 

5 Act shall apply to any case under the False Claims Act 

6 that is filed on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**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 Annual Report of Tween Brands, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended February 3, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael W. Rayden, Chairman of the Board of Directors of theCompany and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.        Dated: April 2, 2007          /s/ Michael W. Rayden       Michael W. Rayden      Chairman of the Board of Directors and      Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  
83
#### Robert Michael MILLER, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

No. 16-2433

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2017

Decided: June 6, 2017

Robert Michael Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Katrina Marie Lederer, Katherine Michelle Smith, U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Michael Miller seeks review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s or*132der dismissing his whistleblower retaliation appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no error in the MSPB’s decision. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the MSPB. *Miller v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.,*No. DC-1221-16-0071W-1 (M.S.P.B. June 16, 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2013

p1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2013

147429

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147429

COA: 312438

Ottawa CC: 11-035720-FH

JERRY BROWN JENNINGS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jeffrey Steven Marx v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00109-CV

Trial court case number: 7723

Trial court: 33rd District Court of Burnet County

Appellant’s Motion to Furnish the Reporter’s Record filed April 29, 2015 is DENIED, as 

the court reporter filed an information sheet on May 8, 2014 stating there is no reporter’s record.

Appellant previously filed an affidavit of indigence with this Court, which was forwarded 

to the trial court. The trial court, by letter of April 20, 2015, informed this Court there has been 

no hearing on indigence nor has there been any contest to the affidavit. Therefore, Marx is 

indigent for purposes of this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(f), (i).

The trial court clerk has previously filed a record on indigence, but the full record has not 

been filed. We note that this appeal is not from the underlying conviction, which has previously 

been appealed and affirmed in cause number 03-98-00412-CR, but rather from an Order to 

Withdraw Funds dated October 31, 2015. We ORDER the trial court clerk to file the clerk’s 

record at no cost to appellant within 30 days of the date of this order, and also forward the 

record to appellant at no cost. 

Appellant’s brief will be due 30 days from the date the clerk’s record is filed. TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.6(a). Due to the age of this appeal, no extensions of this deadline will be granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 5, 2015