alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 30, 2010

Robert Soper

203 Greystone Drive

Shavertown, PA 18708

Dear Bob:

Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement made as of April 2, 2009 and effective January 1, 2009 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 4 of the Agreement, the term of the Agreement shall
automatically renew for an additional term of three (3) years unless either party shall notify the other of its intention to terminate by notice delivered not later than one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the end of the current
term of June 30, 2011. The Employer and the Employee have determined to modify the Agreement as further set forth in this letter.

Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, entitled Term, is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in its stead:

4. Term

This
Agreement shall govern Executives employment with the Employer from the Effective Date through and including June 30, 2013. This Agreement, including this paragraph, shall automatically renew for an additional term of two (2) years
unless either party shall notify the other of its intention to terminate, or unless otherwise terminated as provided herein. Any such notice of intention to terminate shall be delivered not later than one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to
the end of the then current term and shall be effective at the end of such term, except as otherwise provided herein.

Paragraph 5 of
the Agreement, entitled Base Annual Salary, is hereby modified to delete the words and 5% of the then current Base Annual Salary each year thereafter from the second sentence thereof. Paragraph 5 of the Agreement is further
modified to add the following sentence at the end: Commencing January 1, 2011, and on each January 1 thereafter during the term of this Agreement, any increase in the Base Annual Salary shall be in accordance with the Employers
Compensation Performance Review Program.

In all other respects the Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect.

The parties hereunto set their hands as of the date above written to evidence their consent to the aforesaid modifications of the Agreement.

Downs Racing, L.P.

By: Mohegan Commercial
Ventures PA, LLC,

its General Partner



|    |  |                                 
|--- |  | --------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    MITCHELL GROSSINGER
ETESS
|    |  | Mitchell G. Etess Manager       

Accepted and agreed:

| |  |                       
| |  | ----------------------
| | 
| |  | /s/    ROBERT J.
SOPER
| |  | Robert Soper
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0652 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM045AD

MD90 - 57A026 --- 2/11/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket **MA Y BE VIEWED AT:**  Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### Simon Nicholas RICHMOND, Appellant v. COLEMAN CABLE, LLC, Jiawei Technology (HK) Ltd., Jiawei Technology (USA) Ltd., Shenzhen Jiawei Photovoltaic Lighting Co., Ltd., Atico International (Asia) Ltd., Atico International USA, Inc., Smart Solar, Inc., Test Rite Products Corp., Appellees

2016-1773

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 9, 2017

Theodore Frederick Shiells, Shiells Law Firm PC, Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. Also argued by Marcus Benavides, Benavides Law, Dallas, TX.

Mark Christopher Nelson, Dentons US LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appellees. Also represented by Richard Salgado; Kevin R. Greenleaf, Palo Alto, CA.

JUDGMENT

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Quarterly Report of Republic Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I,
William R. Falzone, Executive Vice President and Treasurer of the Company,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 9, 2003

/s/  William R. Falzone
---------------------------------------
William R. Falzone
Executive Vice President and Treasurer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Republic Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Republic
Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul John HANSEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-14082 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(June 26, 2017)

Tiffany H. Eggers, Nancy J. Hess, Len-nard B. Register, III, Robert G. Davies, John Ryan Love, Pamela C. Marsh, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Elaine Joan Mittleman, Law Office of Elaine J. Mittleman, Falls Church, VA, Paul John Hansen, Omaha, NE, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Hansen appeals his convictions for criminal contempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3), arguing that he was not given the notice required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a) *598for prosecution of criminal contempt, and that a grand jury subpoena does not qualify as a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).

I.

We review the district court’s conclusions of law *de novo. In re Reed,*161 F.3d 1311, 1313 (11th Cir. 1998).

Under Rule 42, any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution “on notice.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a). The district court must “give notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order[,]” and the notice must state the time and place of the trial, allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense, and state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt. Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(1), (A), (B), *&*(C). A con-temnor may not raise on appeal the inadequacy of a contempt notice unless he raised the inadequacy before the district court. *See Reed,*161 F.3d at 1317.

Here, Hansen failed to object the notice inadequacy in the district court and, thus, cannot raise the issue on appeal. *Id.*Notably, in his motion for judgment of acquittal, Hansen only questioned whether the government had sufficiently established a *prima facie*case.

II.

Hansen did not present to the district court in the first instance his objection that a grand jury subpoena does not qualify as a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). We therefore consider the objection for plain error. *United States v. Sosa,*777 F.3d 1279, 1294 (11th Cir. 2015). To demonstrate plain error, the defendant must show that there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *Id,*“Plain” error means that the legal rule is clearly established at the time the case is reviewed on direct appeal. *United States v. Hesser,*800 F.3d 1310, 1325 (11th Cir. 2015). Where the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error absent a decision of the Supreme Court or this Court explicitly resolving.the issue. *Id.*Such error must be so clearly established and obvious “that it should not have been permitted by the trial court even absent the defendant’s timely assistance in detecting it.” *Id.*Hansen has cited nothing in the decisions of the Supreme Court or this Court that renders his objection meritorious. He has not demonstrated error, much less plain error,

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 99.14**

VIA EDGAR 

**TO:**

**United States Securities and Exchange Commission**

**Re:**

**Asanko Gold Inc. (the "Company")**

**Annual Report on Form 40-F**

**Consent of Expert**

This consent is provided in connection with the Company's annual report on Form 40-F for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments thereto (the “**Annual Report**”), as filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Annual Report incorporates by reference, among other things, the Company’s Annual Information Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2013 (the “**Annual Information Form**”).

I, Doug Heher, **DO HEREBY CONSENT**, to:

·

the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Company’s Esaase Gold Project, Ghana, contained in the Annual Information Form, and

·

the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.
#### Scott A. WHITTINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 16-70199, 16-70200

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 4, 2017

Scott A. Whittington, Woodland, WA, Pro Se.

Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Richard Caldarone, Bridget Maria Rowan, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Tro-lio, Esquire, U.S. Tax Court, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Whitting-ton's requests for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Scott A. Whittington appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, after a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies and additions for tax years 2006 through 2011. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual determinations. *Hardy v. Comm’r,*181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s revised deficiency determination because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that Whittington failed to report income and Whittington did not submit any relevant evidence “showing that the deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” *Id.*at 1004-05.

The Tax Court properly upheld the Commissioner’s additions to taxes for Whittington’s failure to file a required tax return, to pay taxes as set forth in substitute for returns, and to pay estimated taxes. *See*26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1), 6651(a)(2), 6654(a); *see also id.*§ 6020(b)(2) (any substitute for return “made and subscribed by the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes”); *id.*§ 6651(g)(2) (any return made by the Secretary under § 6020(b) “shall be treated as the return filed by the taxpayer for purposes of determining the amount of the addition” under § 6651(a)(2)).

We reject as meritless Whittington’s contentions that the Tax Court erred in relying on substitute for returns, admitting evidence, and that he was denied due process.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF AUSTIN TEXAS LAWRENCE JAMES,JR §- IN THE JUDICIAL 252nd VS. §i^ DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS § JEFFERSON COUNTY TEXAS 

## CAUSE NO. 13-14-00380-CR C-^!^4^§^4?L 

## MOTION TO SUSPEND T.R.A.P RULE 9.3(b), Rule 211(a) NOV 03 2015 /i&S."Anns** oj. To the Clerk of Court, the Applicant stated above request-^the^ra, (Glof! 

### Court torSuspend T.R.^-A.P Rule 9.3(b), and Rule 211(a). The Applicant is unable to make the eleven (11) copies which is required by T.R.A.P Rule 211(a) and request the Court to provide the necessary copies. r-i, _.«, . 

# MBr nLEDIN 

# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS MOV 03 2615 

### AbelAcosta, Clerk 

## DATE: /0/3°//S~ SINCERELY REQUESTED:'

cc:File (\A/<yu<-^K JRENCE JAMES/ JR 

### TDCJ-ID#19406(57
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6649 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6649

  To facilitate non-motorized border crossings across the Gordie Howe 
             International Bridge, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2023

 Mr. Thanedar introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To facilitate non-motorized border crossings across the Gordie Howe 
             International Bridge, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bike the Border Act''.

SEC. 2. FACILITATION OF NON-MOTORIZED BORDER CROSSINGS ACROSS THE 
              GORDIE HOWE INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE.

    (a) In General.--The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection shall take such actions as may be necessary to effectively 
and vigorously facilitate, including through expedition, of non-
motorized, including bicycle and pedestrian, border crossings across 
the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
    (b) GAO Report.--Not later than two years after the date of the 
first day of public operation of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, 
the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a 
report that--
            (1) reviews the progress of the U.S. Customs and Border 
        Protection's handling of non-motorized, including bicycle and 
        pedestrian, traffic across the Bridge; and
            (2) includes--
                    (A) a determination regarding whether U.S. Custom 
                and Border Protection has facilitated, including 
                through expedition, such non-motorized border crossings 
                across the Bridge;
                    (B) recommendations regarding how U.S. Custom and 
                Border Protection may further such facilitation; and
                    (C) recommendations regarding what, if any, 
                incentives could be utilized to encourage such non-
                motorized traffic.
                                 <all>
```
#### ZWEIFEL vs. THE STATE.

Appeal from Comanche county.

*Illegal Sale of Liquor*— Indictment.—The indictment in these two cases were for selling liquors on election day. They charged simply that the accused did sell liquor on the 7th day of November, 1882, said day being then and there a day of general election for State and county officers, and that said election was then and there held. Held, that the indictment is insufficient in that it does not *56charge that the election was held in the precinct, town, village or city of defendant, or wherein the liquor was sold.

Reversed and dismissed.

Hurt, Judge.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134695 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134695 

 COA: 277504 

Muskegon CC: 02-047024-FC 

DWAYNE UNDREA JONES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

December 28, 2007 

 Clerk
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TAZIA K. STAGG,

Appellant,

v.

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Animal Control Division,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-1583

September 30, 2022

Appeal from the County Court for Hillsborough County; Daryl M. 

Manning, Judge.

Tazia K. Stagg, pro se.

Ricardo T. Cox, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                                                       May 24, 2002



United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549
U.S.A.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This is to confirm that our statutory auditors, Barbier Frinault & Associes,
member of Andersen, have provided us with a letter dated May 24, 2002 with
respect to their audit of the consolidated financial statements of Havas and its
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended, and their
report thereon dated May 24, 2002, in which they represented that this audit was
subject to the quality control system of Barbier Frinault & Associes for the
U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Barbier Frinault & Associes personnel working on
the audit, availability of U.S. national office consultation of Andersen, and
availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the
relevant portions of the audit.

Sincerely yours,


HAVAS

By:    /s/ Jacques Herail
       -------------------------------------
       Name:   Jacques Herail
       Title:  Executive Vice President and
               Chief Financial Officer
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 amended Annual Report of Power of the Dream Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Viktor Rozsnyay, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
the amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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





Date: November 5, 2010




/s/ Viktor RozsnyayViktor RozsnyayTitle:    President & Chief Executive Officer




This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26163]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing notice of a 
proposed subsequent arrangement under paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the 
Agreement for Cooperation between the American Institute in Taiwan and 
the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United 
States Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done at Washington 
on December 20, 2013 (123 Agreement).

DATES: This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 
November 19, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katie Strangis, Office of 
Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security 
Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-8623 or email: 
Katie.Strangis@nnsa.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This subsequent arrangement concerns the 
alteration in form or content of irradiated fuel elements which are 
subject to obligations to the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) 
pursuant to the 123 Agreement, and which are to take place in a hot 
cell laboratory at the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research (INER) in 
Lungtan, Taiwan. Approximately thirty-six irradiated light water 
reactor fuel rods are expected to be transferred to the INER hot cell 
laboratory for post irradiation examination and failure root cause 
analysis and 80 cans of spent fuel pool sludge from the Taiwan Research 
Reactor will be transferred to the hot cell laboratory for 
stabilization. These activities, in support of nuclear power-related 
research activities, are described in the ``Irradiated Fuels and 
Material Research Program from 2014 to 2020,'' dated October 2013 and 
in ``Summary of the Irradiated Fuels and Materials Research Program 
from 2014 to 2020.'' This subsequent arrangement is effective until 
December 31, 2020.
    In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement 
will not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United 
States of America.

    Dated: October 9, 2014.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anne M. Harrington,
Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2014-26163 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### Joseph Kirsch, Appellant, *v.*Edward A. Richards, as Executor of Vito Giglio, Deceased, Respondent.

Argued June 8, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*588
      *Herman S. Bachrach*and *Clarence G. Bachrach*for appellant.

*John P. McGrath, Reginald 8. Hardy*and *Gardiner Conroy*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.