alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (1) TO Corporate Strategies,
LLC CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


 


 


This amendment is made and entered into effective January 2,
2012, and modifies the referenced Consulting agreement that was signed December 30, 2011, effective January 1, 2012 between Texas
Gulf Energy, Inc., formerly known as Global Nutech, Inc. and Corporate Strategies, LLC.


 


The section of the agreement that reads:


 


1.3INCENTIVE
COMPENSATION. Consultant shall be granted incentive compensation of 3,600,000 shares of BOCL’s common stock, par
value $0.00001 per share (the “Incentive Shares”), which Incentive Shares shall vest and be distributed to Consultant
as follows: (i) one-third (or 1,200,000 Incentive Shares) on January 15, 2012, (ii) one-third (or 1,200,000 Incentive Shares) on
January 15, 2013; and (iii) one-third (or 1,200,000 Incentive Shares) on January 15, 2014, except that no Incentive Shares are
to be issued in any amount to Consultant if such amount would result in the Consultant being deemed as the beneficial owner of
more than 9.9% of BOCL’s shares of outstanding common stock, unless Consultant provides its prior written consent to such
issuance. In the event of a change of control or sale of BOCL, all of the Incentive Shares shall immediately vest and be issued
by BOCL.


 


Is amended and adopted as follows:


 


		1.3	INCENTIVE COMPENSATION. Consultant shall
be granted incentive compensation of 3,600,000 shares of BOCL’s common stock, par value $0.00001 per share (the “Incentive
Shares”), which Incentive Shares shall vest and be distributed to Consultant as follows: All 3,600,000 shares issued
as of January 1, 2012 or as soon as practicable after that date, they shall be subject to clawback as follows, (i) one-third (or
1,200,000 Incentive Shares) are not subject to clawback, (ii) 2,400,000 are subject to clawback until January 15, 2013; and (iii)
one-third (or 1,200,000 Incentive Shares) are subject to clawback until January 15, 2014, except that no Incentive Shares are to
be issued in any amount to Consultant if such amount would result in the Consultant being deemed as the beneficial owner of more
than 9.9% of BOCL’s shares of outstanding common stock, unless Consultant provides its prior written consent to such issuance.
In the event of a change of control or sale of BOCL, all of the Incentive Shares shall immediately vest and be issued by BOCL.



 


 


 


 


All other terms and conditions of the agreement are hereby ratified.
This amendment is adopted and substituted in place of the original effective the date first written above.


 


	Signed:	 	Signed:
	 	 	 
	/s/ David Mathews 	 	/s/ Timothy J. Connolly
	Texas Gulf Energy, Inc.	 	Corporate Strategies, LLC
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 Depomed, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Tammy L. Cameron, Interim Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
|   | Date:  November 7, 2008                        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                |
|   |                                                |
|   | /s/ Tammy L.  Cameron                               |
|   | Tammy L. Cameron                                    |
|   | Interim  Principal Accounting and Financial Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04589]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4635-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]


Washington; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Washington (FEMA-4635-DR), dated January 5, 2022, and related 
determinations.

DATES: The amendment was issued January 27, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident for 
this declared disaster has been changed to severe storms, straight-line 
winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-04589 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### John Graham, Appellant, *v.*Adia A. Selover, Respondent.

(Argued December 13, 1872;

decided December 17, 1872.)

Decided upon the facts in the case.

*Joseph A. Shoudy*for appellant.

*Coles Morris*for the respondent.

Beckham, J.,

reads opinion for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
#### IN RE: Allana BARONI, Debtor, Allana Baroni, Appellant, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2005-17, Appellee.

No. 15-60082

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 30, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed September 22, 2017

Richard Lawrence Antognini, Law Office of Richard L. Antognini, Grass Valley, CA, for Appellant

Adam N. Barasch, Esquire, Attorney, Jan T. Chilton, Bernard Kornberg, Attorneys, Bernard Kornberg, San Francisco, CA, for Appellee

Before: W. FLETCHER and' IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BARKER,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, United States District Judge for the District of Southern Indiana, sitting by designation.

*563MEMORANDUM **

Allana Baroni appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment to Wells Fargo. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1).

The undisputed facts in the record established that Wells Fargo possessed Bar-oni’s promissory note indorsed in blank. As the holder of a negotiable instrument, Wells Fargo is entitled to enforce the note in Baroni’s bankruptcy case. Cal. Com. Code §§ 1201(b)(21)(A), 3301.

Baroni now argues that notes secured by a deed of trust to real property are nonnegotiable and that the statute of frauds prohibits Wells Fargo from enforcing the note. Because she failed to raise these arguments to the bankruptcy court or BAP, they are waived. *In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig.,*618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010). In any event, both arguments lack merit.

First, a negotiable instrument may be accompanied by a deed of trust. Cal. Com. Code § 3104(a)(3); *Wilson v. Steele,*211 Cal. App. 3d 1053, 1061, 259 Cal.Rptr. 851 (1989).

Second, the failure to satisfy the statute of frauds merely renders a contract voidable, not void. *Masin v. Drain,*150 Cal. App. 3d 714, 717, 198 Cal.Rptr. 367 (1984). Baroni lacks standing to challenge assignments as voidable. *See Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp.,*62 Cal. 4th 919, 939-40, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845 (2016).

Finally, because we hold that Wells Fargo is entitled to enforce the note as the holder of a negotiable instrument, we do not address whether it could alternatively enforce the note through an unbroken chain of title,1

AFFIRMED.

**

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

1

. Since we do not address Wells Fargo’s chain of title, we deny Baroni’s contested motion, filed September 19, 2016, for judicial notice of a purported assignment of the deed of trust.
#### Maria Dorazio, as Administratrix of the Estate of Francesco Dorazio, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*New York Telephone Company, Defendant, and United Bottle Supply Corporation, Appellant.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*726
      *James H. Brassel*and *Fred L. Gross*for motion.

*Robert McGowan Smith, Joseph Lonardo*and *Joseph P. Rudden*for plaintiff-respondent, opposed.

*Irving W. Young, H. N. Wells*and *Ralph W. Brown*for defendant New York Telephone Company, opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that the movant may appeal as of right from so much of the determination of the Appellate Division as modifies the recovery against the movant.

On such appeal as of right it may review only the judgment against the appellant and not the judgment as to appellant’s codefendant as to which latter judgment appellant is not a party aggrieved.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kevin Lamont JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50056 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

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

Kevin Lamont Johnson, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Lamont Johnson 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). Johnson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir, R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 JANUARY 15, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-12774

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00321-CR-WS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EARL LAPRADE MILLER, III,

a.k.a. Boomie,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(January 15, 2009)

Before DUBINA, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur J. Madden, III, appointed counsel for Earl Laprade Miller, III, in this
direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct and there are

no arguable issues of merit. Therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Miller’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
#### In the Matter of the Last Will, etc., of Emily L. De Russy, Deceased.

*Abram Kling,*for app’lt; *Edward C. James,*for resp’t.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 37 N. Y. State Rep., 646.
#### The State v. Butterfield.

]. Appeal: practice: criminal case: t&ial on abstract: abstract defective. Where an abstract of the record is filed in this court in a criminal case, the appeal will be tried on such abstract alone, and the transcript will not be considered; and where the abstract fails to present a case disclosing errors, no reversal can be had.

2. -: -: rulings on evidence: defective abstract. A reversal cannot be had on the ground that offered evidence was improperly excluded, when the abstract fails to show what the offered evidence was, or that it was material.

*Appeal' from Bremer Disin'iot Gourt*— IIon. G. *W.*Ruddick, Judge.

*87Saturday, October 22.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of forgery. His case is now brought here by his counsel.

*M. E.*Billings, for appellant.

*A. J. Balcer,*Attorney-general, for the State.

Beck, J.

i. appjsai,: practice: criminal case: trial on abstract: abstraet defectIve-I. This case is presented for our consideration upon a printed abstract of the record, and must be here tried thereon. Upon a proper showing we will, in ... . ,. . criminal cases, suspend the rules requiring . r ° abstract and printing, and permit defendants to ** **submit their cases upon the written transcript of the record. But we were not asked to do this. Where a case is submitted to us upon an abstract, either written or printed, it will be determined thereon. The defendant may choose the manner in which his case shall be presented here. When it is submitted upon an abstract, we cannot be required to determine it upon the transcript. It was not the purpose of the rules to require both the transcript and abstract to be considered, but rather that the abstract shall take the place of the transcript. The abstract in this case fails to show that it contains all the evidence submitted upon the trial, and upon the deteiunination of a motion to quash the indictment, and it shows affirmatively that all the instructions are not presented in it. The abstract, therefore, fails to present a case disclosing errors in the rulings of the court upon the motions to quash the indictment, and to arrest judgment, and for a new trial.

2 deneffdefectiveabstract. II. Evidence was introduced by defendant tending to prove an intention on his part to remove from the state. witness giving this testimony was then asked to state the place to which the defendant prop0geq to remove. An objection to the question was sustained. The abstract fails' to show the materiality ol the evidence. We cannot presume that it was material, thus *88presuming error in the court’s ruling, but will rather presume the ruling was correct.

III. Certain questions were asked a witness for defendant by his counsel as to defendant’s character since the charge the same. was made for which he was indicted, and a stipulation as to the same matter was offered in evidence by defendant; but this evidence was rejected. We cannot say the rulings were erroneous, for the reason that neither the questions, the facts proposed to be proved, nor the stipulation are shown by the abstract.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
              RAMP SERIES 2006-RS6 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of October 30, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among  Residential  Asset  Mortgage  Products,  Inc., as depositor,  Residential
Funding Company, LLC, as master servicer, and U.S. Bank National Association, as
trustee,  does hereby  certify  that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:  /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
     -------------------------
      Name: Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
#### Rebecca K. YARBROUGH, As personal representative of the estate of Brady Kent Stevenson, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross Appellant, v. David MORGAN, In his official capacity as sheriff of Escambia County, Florida, et al., Defendant-Appellee, Iris Tatom, ARNP in her Individual capacity, Brandi Clouser, RN in her individual capacity, Alecia K. Craft, RN in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 16-15905

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 30, 2017)

J. Alistair McKenzie, McKenzie Law Firm, PA, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*621John W. Jolly, Jr., Jolly Peterson Truck-enbrod, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants-Appellants

Before WILSON and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and WOOD,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Defendants/Appellants Iris Tatom, Brandi Clouser, and Alecia Craft appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. “[W]e lack interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds where the sole issues on appeal are issues of evidentiary sufficiency.” *Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85*F.3d 1480, 1485 (11th Cir. 1996). Here, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity was based on its “find[ing] that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Tatom, Clouser, and Craft were deliberately indifferent to [the prisoner’s] serious medical need.” And the only issue raised by the defendants in their appellate brief is “[w]hether there was sufficient evidence to support a permissible inference as a matter of law that any of [the defendants] were deliberately indifferent to a known medical need.” Br. of Appellants at 2 (“Statement of the Issue”); see also *id.*at iii (“The appeal presents a factually complex question concerning whether there was evidence sufficient to .defeat summary judgment .... The issue which arises is whether there was sufficient evidence of the subjective intent of the [defendants] to support an inference that any of ... them was deliberately indifferent to a known serious medical need.”).

Because the “sole issues on appeal are issues of evidentiary sufficiency,” *Cottrell,*85 F.3d at 1485, we lack interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.
#### In the Matter of Morris H. Siegel, Respondent, against Harold J. Crawford, a Justice of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Respondent. Mae Harding, Intervener, Appellant.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*725
      *E. F. W. Wildermuth*for motion.

*Lawrence 8. Timen*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements, on the ground that an appeal lies as of right.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32(b)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                       OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB
                         OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
                    FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 2003

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.
(the "Issuer"). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2003.

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 27, 2003 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 that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.

This certification is executed as of October 22, 2003.


                              /s/ Michael R. Sayre
                             -----------------------
                             Chief Financial Officer
#### Herma R. Mitchell, Appellant, *v.*Carrie L. Mitchell et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Argued April 6, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*780
      *Stanley Ide LaCov*and *Leo Fixler*for appellant.

*Arthur L. Burchell*for Carrie L. Mitchell et al., respondents.

*Merwin F. LeVine*and *Solon Weit*for Prudential Insurance Company of America, respondent.

*781
      *Albert Hirst*for New York State Association of Life Underwriters, *amicus curiae,*in support of respondents’ position.

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.