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






  





  



Exhibit 10.1










2012 AMENDMENT TO THE 2006 STOCK PLAN


 


The following sections of the 2006 Stock Plan are hereby amended in their entirety, effective May 22, 2012:


 


Section 5.1 of the 2006 Stock Plan is amended to increase the available shares under the plan to 500,000 shares of common stock and to delete the 20% limitations of Section 5.1 from the plan. Section 5.1 is hereby amended in its entirety as follows:


 


“5.1 Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 5.3, the number of shares of Stock subject to Awards under the Plan may not exceed 500,000 shares of Stock. The shares to be delivered under the Plan may consist, in whole or in part, of treasury Stock or authorized but unissued Stock, not reserved for any other purpose.”
#### Odouri L. LYTES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6342

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Odouri L. Lytes, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Odouri L. Lytes seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or' judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate 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 petition 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 Lytes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lytes’ motion for equitable tolling, 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*
Exhibit 99.01
  SCHEDULE II-VALUATION
    AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
  Years
    ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
  Balance at


Charged to Costs





Write-offs Net


Balance at End ofBeginning of


and





of


ofYear


Expenses


Other


Recoveries


Year(In thousands)Allowance for Doubtful Accounts2009

$
3,716


$
1,312


$
2


$
(3,675
)

$
1,3552008


3,687



823



5



(799
)


3,7162007


3,122



1,271



(4
)


(702
)


3,687Valuation Allowance for Deferred Tax Assets2009

$
311,014


$
12,789


$



$



$
323,8032008


303,570



444











311,0142007


357,910



(54,340
)










303,570
#### Ignacio Alberto Gutierrez AGUIRRE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71291

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 19, 2017

Gita Beri Kapur, Attorney, Law Office of Gita Beri Kapur, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Manuel Palau, DOJ—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: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ignacio Alberto Gutierrez Aguirre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations and questions of law. *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004), We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Gutierrez Aguirre did not merit cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. *See Ridore v. Holder,*696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012). Gutierrez Aguirre’s contention that the BIA fully adopted the IJ’s decision and thus adopted any alleged errors is not supported by the record, and thus does not invoke our jurisdiction. *See Arteaga-De Alvarez v. Holder,*704 F.3d 730, 736 (9th Cir. 2012) (alien must present a colorable claim to invoke jurisdiction over a discretionary determination).

In light of this determination, we need not, and the BIA was not required to, address whether the IJ correctly determined that Gutierrez Aguirre was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or properly analyzed good moral character. *See Simeonov,*371 F.3d at 538; *Najmabadi v. Holder, 597*F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court’s review is limited to the grounds actually relied upon by the BIA). Accordingly, the BIA did not violate due process in declining to address these con*531tentions. *See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,*770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of deltathree, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: March 17, 2011
/s/ Effi BaruchEffi Baruch, Chief Executive Officer, President and Senior Vice

President of Operations and Technology (Principal Executive

Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Alan B. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

2016-2296

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

August 21, 2017

Raymond Jewell Toney, Law Office of Raymond J. Toney, Emeryville, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Brian D. Schenk, Midwest Military & Veterans Law, PLLC, Minneapolis, MN.

Eric Laufgraben, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Douglas K. Mickle, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr„ Joyce R. Branda; Patrick J. Hughes, Air Force Legal Operations Agency, United States Department of the Air Force, Joint Base Andrews, MD.

(Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
15481

#### CHARLESTON LIBRARY SOCIETY *ET AL.*v. CITIZENS & SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF S. C. *ET AL.*

(23 S. E. (2d), 362)

*471*Messrs. Hagoodt Rivers •& Young,, oí*Charleston, Counsellor Appellants,

*Mr. H. L- Brckmann, Messrs. Barnwell & Whaley,*and *Messrs. Mitchell & Horlbeck,*all. of Charleston, Counsel for Respondents,

*472December 22, 1942.

*Per Curiam:*

The disposition by this Court of a former appeal in this case is reported in 200 S. C., 96, 20 S. E. (2d), 623. The exceptions in the instant appeal challenge the correctness of that decision and counsel were allowed to argue against it pursuant to proper petition for the right. Upon consideration again of the question involved, the earlier decision mentioned is adhered to and the exceptions thereabout overruled. There is no necessity to again add to or elaborate upon the reasons clearly and ably stated by the trial Judge, whose decision was under review in the former appeal.

Other exceptions now presented relate to the alleged defense of laches, but the question was not urged in oral argument. However, it is so well disposed of in the Circuit Decree that so much of the latter as deals with it will be reported and is adopted as the judgment of this Court.

The exceptions are overruled and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Bonham and Messrs. Associate Justices Baker, Eishburne and Stukes concur.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 99.1   Press release



May 23, 1997          For further information contact:

                           David M. Bradley
                           Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
                           North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                           825 Central Avenue
                           Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                           515-576-7531



               NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. DECLARES DIVIDEND

David M. Bradley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of North
Central Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") announced today that the Company
declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $.0625 per share on the Company's
common stock for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 1997.  The dividend will be
payable to all stockholders of record as of June 13, 1997 and will be paid on
July 3, 1997.

The Company's common stock trades on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol
"FFFD".  The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, First Federal Savings Bank of
Fort Dodge, is a federally chartered savings bank headquartered in Fort Dodge,
Iowa.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Frank Bonino and Santa Caminito, Appellants, and Charles Noia, Defendant.

Argued May 27, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*Joseph A. Martinis*for Frank Bonino, appellant.

*Joseph K. Guerin*for Santo Caminito, appellant.

*Thomas Cradock Hughes, Acting District Attorney (Solomon A. Klein*of counsel), for respondent.

*542Judgments affirmed under the provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Oh. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 14, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00532

- CR

Daniel Cervantes SALAZAR

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR6992

Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his motion for rehearing is granted.

Having considered the motion for rehearing, we deny the motion.

_______________________________ __ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 14th day of August, 2019

.

__________________________ _________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### In re Charge Against TASALI

No. 15-1912

High Court of American Samoa Criminal Jurisdiction, Appellate Division

March 16, 1912

W. M. CROSE, Commandant U.S. Naval Station, *President of the High Court*

DECISION

A new trial is granted in this case, it being believed that the evidence as to the age of the girl Pulea is not conclusive, particularly as the defendant now avers that the testimony of Alesio and Pulea was false, and that through ignorance and lack of experience he failed to produce witnesses or to cross-examine the witnesses of plaintiff.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
               FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
               ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Dec-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-2-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 APR-1-2000
<CASH>                                           48,251
<SECURITIES>                                     12,749
<RECEIVABLES>                                    17,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       8,758
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 87,564
<PP&E>                                            7,975
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  118,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7,879
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             11
<OTHER-SE>                                      110,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    118,134
<SALES>                                          15,691
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 17,760
<CGS>                                             6,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     6,364
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  7,892
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4,575
<INCOME-TAX>                                        229
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4,346
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4,346
<EPS-BASIC>                                     $0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $0.36



</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2523

___________ Georgia Artz; Lisa Belgarde; * Emily Davis; and Sonia Zerr, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 14, 2008 Filed: May 2, 2008

___________ Before RILEY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The appellants in this matter, Georgia Artz, Lisa Belgarde, Emily Davis, and Sonia Zerr, are all employees of the Qu entin N. Burdick Memorial Health Care Facility (“the Facility”) which is operated by Indian Heath Services (“IHS”). They1 The Honorable Karen K. Klein, United Stat es Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota, to whom the case was refe rred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2- seek reversal of the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment on their Privacy Act claim. We affirm. As part of an earlier Priv acy Act investigation, the IHS officer in charge of Privacy Act matters prepared an investigative report, c oncluding that the appellants had violated the Privacy Act rights of certain co-workers. Those co-workers initiated a lawsuit, and the investigative report wa s released during discovery in that case. Subsequently, the appellants initiated this action, contending that their own Privacy Act rights had been violated when the inves tigative report was released in the prior lawsuit. We agree, however, with the district c ourt that the investigative report, which was filed chronologically by the Facility and was not subject to be ing retrieved based on any personally identifiable information, su ch as name or social security number, was not retrieved from a “system of records” as contemplated by the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) (“No agency shall disclo se any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the recordpertains . . . .”); see also § 552a(a)(5) (“‘[S]ystem of records’ means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigne d to the individual . . . .”); Doe v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 519 F.3d 456, 463 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Congress limited the type of disclosure that would lead to liability by proscribing only the disclosure of a record ‘contained in a system of records,’ not the disclosure of all records or information.”-3- (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b))). Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### Ronnie Joe VANZANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Berry WEISSGLASS; Dr. Theodolph Jacobs; Karen Huffman, Physician Assistant, Defendants-Appellees, and Carolina Center for Occupational Health; Director Dawn Frazier; Nurse Michael Murry, Defendants.

No. 17-6032

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2017

Decided: July 6, 2017

Ronnie Joe Vanzant, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Willcox Buyck, Gordon Wade Cooper, BUYCK SANDERS & SIMMONS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Joe Vanzant appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendants on Vanzant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action *729claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and the court’s order denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. *Vanzant v. Weissglass,*No. 8:15-cv-02876-RBH, 2016 WL 4607595 (D.S.C., Sept. 6, 2016 & Dec. 19, 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*
#### Helen E. Bing et al., Respondents, *v.*Consolidated Oil Corporation et al., Respondents. Charles F. Benbrook, Appellant.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 21, 1943.

*Robert J. Marcus*for appellant’s motion and in opposition to respondents’ cross motion to dismiss appeal.

*Walter M. Hinkle*and *Albert R. Connelly*for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to appellant’s motion.

Motion for order certifying that a constitutional question is involved herein dismissed.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion on the ground that the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning; of the Constitution.
#### Lewis Vincent HUGHES, in propria persona, Tax Parcel ID 665250-0040 and 665250-0030; Dean A. Arp, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William Raymond HINESLY, individually and severally; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35193

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 25, 2017

Lewis Vincent Hughes, Pro Se

Dean A. Arp, Pro Se'

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lewis Vincent Hughes and Dean A. Arp appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

*471Because Hughes and Arp have failed to address on appeal how the district court erred in dismissing their action, they have waived their challenge to the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

We reject as meritless Hughes and Arp’s contention regarding the authority of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Eduardo DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41156 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 14, 2017

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

Carlos Eduardo Delgado, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Carlos Eduardo Delgado 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). Delgado has filed a response, and he requests substitution of new counsel for his appointed attorney. The motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED as untimely. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Delgado’s response. 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 Cíe. 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.