alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 CHICO’S FAS, INC. 
 EXECUTIVE BONUS PROGRAMS 

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT 
 This Participation Agreement is entered into this 12th day of April, 2012, by and between Chico’s FAS, Inc. (the “Company”) and Pamela Knous (the “Participant”). 

WHEREAS, the Participant is a key employee of the Company selected by the Company to participate in one or more executive bonus programs
(the “Programs”); and 
 WHEREAS, as a condition to receiving any bonus payable pursuant to any of the Programs, the
Participant acknowledges and agrees to be bound by the following condition: 
 Repayment of Bonus. If (a) within the
two-year period immediately following payment of any Bonus under any Program the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the Company, as a result of misconduct, with any financial reporting
requirement under the securities laws, and (b) the Participant is subject to automatic forfeiture under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or knowingly engaged in the misconduct, was grossly negligent in engaging in the
misconduct, knowingly failed to prevent the misconduct or was grossly negligent in failing to prevent the misconduct, then the Participant shall reimburse the Company for the amount of any such Bonus paid under any Program. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Participation Agreement on the date first written above. 

 

			
	CHICO’S FAS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 







 
			
		
	Title:	 	 EVP HR

	
	PARTICIPANT:
	
	 Pamela Knous

	Participant’s Name – Please Print
	
	 





	Participant’s Signature
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

ARTHUR J. SMITH,

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2167 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 73 DB 2015

Attorney Registration No. 19964

(Allegheny County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3

rd day of October, 2018, upon consideration of the 

Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint 

Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is granted, and Arthur J. Smith is 

suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of five years, 

retroactive to July 5, 2015. He shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

Respondent shall pay the costs incurred by the Disciplinary Board in the 

investigation and prosecution of this matter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SCB COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         387,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,449,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                   140,000
<INVENTORY>                                    659,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,113,779
<PP&E>                                      36,132,206
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,565,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             143,268,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,388,841
<BONDS>                                     63,344,015
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       246,719
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,279,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               143,268,781
<SALES>                                     74,769,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            74,769,235
<CGS>                                       50,988,093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,988,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,782,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,079,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,612,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,566,186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,046,587
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,046,587
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of New York Telephone Company, Appellant. William F. Canough, as Commissioner of Assessment of the City of Syracuse, Respondent. (2 Proceedings —1941 and 1940 Assessments.)

Submitted July 20, 1943;

decided October 7, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 290 N. Y. 537.)
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Financial Officer,

As Adopted
Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, F. Clay Creasey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Toys R Us, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ F. CLAY CREASEY, Jr.                          
|F. Clay Creasey, Jr.                              
|Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)                     
|                                                  
|June 13, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Grady MYERS, AKA Too Tall, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50080

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 10, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed August 23, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mack Jenkins, Wilson Kyung Park, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Max Shiner, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Frances S. Lewis, Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

David Andrew Schlesinger, Esquire, Jacobs *&*Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

To the extent a plea agreement is capable of more than one interpretation, we “constru[e] any ambiguities in the defendant’s favor.” *United States v. Heredia,*768 F.3d 1220, 1230 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the government breached paragraph 30 of the plea agreement because it argued for the higher drug quantity, at several points, thereby encouraging the court to impose a higher sentence. In light of this breach, “we must remand this matter to a different judge, although in doing so we ‘intend no criticism of the district judge by this action, and none should be inferred.’ ” *United States v. Whitney,*673 F.3d 965, 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting *United States v. Johnson,*187 F.3d 1129, 1136 n.7 (9th Cir. 1999)).

A minimal or minor participant adjustment under § 3B1.2 is available if the defendant was substantially less culpable than his co-participants. *United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court failed to compare Myers’s conduct to that of his co-conspirators. That was error and, on remand, the district court shall reconsider Myers’s eligibility for a mitigating role reduction.

We vacate Myers’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing before a different district court judge.

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS EPA METHOD 26A Determination of HCl & HF Emissions Guardian Fiberglass Inwood, WV Line 1 Melter Baghouse Stack Run Number 1 2 3 Avg Date: 02/22/12 02/23/12 02/23/12 ---  Net Time of Test, minutes 240 240 240 --- Tstart Test Start Time 1228 755 1210 Tend Test End Time 1631 1158 1612 --- Pb ar Barometric Pressure, in. Hg 29.00 28.84 28.91 28.92 P g Static Pressure, in. Hg 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 P S Stack Pressure, Absolute, in. Hg 29.019 28.859 28.929 28.936 V M Actual Meter Volume Sampled, cu. ft. 164.1 160.3 168.3 164.2 H Avg. Delta H, in. H 2 0 1.35 1.28 1.41 1.35 T M Avg. Gas Meter Temp., Deg. F 72.7 68.0 81.8 74.2  Dry Gas Meter Correction Factor 1.006 1.006 1.006 1.006 V STD Volume Sampled at Stand. Cond., cu. ft. 159.1 156.0 160.0 158.3 V STD M Volume Sampled at Stand. Cond., cu.m 4.51 4.42 4.53 4.48 V C Volume of Water Collected, ml 64.6 49.0 47.6 53.7

. V WC Volume of Water Vapor at Std. Cond.,SCF 3.04 2.31 2.24 2.53 B WS Moisture Content of Gas Stream 0.019 0.015 0.014 0.016 P MV Percent Moisture in Stack 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.6 M FD Mole Fraction of Dry Gas 0.981 0.985 0.986 0.984 M d Mole. Wt. Stack Gas, Dry Basis, lb/lb mole 29 29 29 29 M S Mole. Wt. Stack Gas, Wet Basis, lb/lb mole 28.637 28.682 28.690 28.670 C p Pitot Tube Constant 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PS Avg. Sqrt. Delta P, in. H20 0.822 0.791 0.811 0.808 T S Avg. Stack Temp., Deg. F 120.92 124.04 130.13 125.0 V S Avg. Stack Velocity, ft/sec 49.3 47.7 49.1 48.7SUMMARY OF RESULTS EPA METHOD 26A Determination of HCl & HF Emissions Guardian Fiberglass Inwood, WV Line 1 Melter Baghouse Stack

A Area Stack, ft2 3.98 3.98 3.98 3.98 Q SD Gas Volume Flow, Dry Std. Cond. CFM 10,180 9,776 9,993 9,983 Q A Actual Gas Volume Flow, CFM 11,768 11,377 11,713 11,619 Q SW Gas Volume Flow, Wet Std. Cond., CFM 10,374 9,921 10,133 10,142 D n Sample Nozzle Diameter, inches 0.215 0.215 0.218 0.216 A n Area of Nozzle, ft2 0.00025 0.00025 0.00026 0.00025 I Percent Isokinetic 102.8 104.9 102.4 103.3 PPR Process Pull Rate, lbs/hr 6,822 6,827 6,827 6,825 PPRS Process Pull Rate, tons/hr 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 Back Half Analysis - Hydrogen Chloride - Method 26A

mn Hydrogen Chloride Catch, mg <0.0617 <0.0674 <0.0611 <0.0634 C s Hydrogen Chloride Concentration, gr/dscf <0.000006 <0.000007 <0.000006 <0.000006 C a Hydrogen Chloride Concentration, mg/dscm <0.0137 <0.0152 <0.0135 <0.0141 C AW Hydrogen Chloride Emission Rate, lbs/hr <0.00052 <0.00056 <0.00050 <0.00053 E Hydrogen Chloride Emission Rate, lbs/TGP <0.00015 <0.00016 <0.00015 <0.00015 Back Half Analysis - Hydrogen Fluoride - Method 26A

mn Hydrogen Fluoride Catch, mg <0.0632 <0.0691 <0.0625 <0.0649 C s Hydrogen Fluoride Concentration, gr/dscf <0.000006 <0.000007 <0.000006 <0.000006 C a Hydrogen Fluoride Concentration, mg/dscm <0.0140 <0.0156 <0.0138 <0.0145 C AW Hydrogen Fluoride Emission Rate, lbs/hr <0.00053 <0.00057 <0.00052 <0.00054 E Hydrogen Fluoride Emission Rate, lbs/TGP <0.00016 <0.00017 <0.00015 <0.00016
#### Harriet D. Green, Resp’t, *v.*Harriet E. Griswold, App’lt.

*Geo. Walton Oreen,*for resp’t; *A. R. Dyett,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 23 N. Y. State Rep., 218.
#### CHILDRES v. THE STATE.

Appeal from Travis county.

*Indictment*— Variance.—The indictment being for swindling, and it being alleged therein that the money obtained was “currency *316bills” — this discription is material and the proof not showing that the money obtained was in currency bills the variance is fatal. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6628 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6628

   To provide direct hire authority to the Director of the Bureau of 
                                Prisons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2023

 Mr. Grothman (for himself, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Bucshon, 
  Mr. Norman, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Trone, Mr. 
 Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Ciscomani, and 
Ms. Van Duyne) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Accountability, 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 provide direct hire authority to the Director of the Bureau of 
                                Prisons.

    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 ``BOP Direct-Hire Authority Act''.

SEC. 2. DIRECT HIRE AUTHORITY FOR BUREAU OF PRISONS.

    (a) Direct Hire Authority.--The Director of the Bureau of Prisons 
may appoint, without regard to the provisions of subchapter I of 
chapter 33 (other than sections 3303 and 3328 of such chapter), 
qualified candidates to any positions in the competitive service at 
Bureau of Prisons facilities.
    (b) Sunset.--The authority under subsection (a) shall expire on the 
date that 96 percent of the total number (as of the date of enactment 
of this Act) of competitive service positions at all such facilities 
are occupied.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JESUS MARIA FELIX-ENRIQUEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10617

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00744-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Linda R. Reade, District Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted November 18, 2014*** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jesus Maria Felix-Enriquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute

FILED

DEC 1 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 Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief United States District Judge for

the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction

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

The government contends that this appeal is barred by an appeal waiver. 

Because the district court advised Felix-Enriquez that he could appeal, we decline

to enforce the waiver. See United States v. Buchanan, 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

Felix-Enriquez contends that his guilty plea was invalid because the district

court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(H) by advising him

that he faced “a term of supervised release of at least three years,” rather than

advising him that he faced a maximum life term of supervised release. Because

Felix-Enriquez did not object to the adequacy of the plea colloquy before the

district court, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Dominguez

Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004). Felix-Enriquez has failed to show a reasonable

probability that, but for the Rule 11 error, he would not have pleaded guilty. See

id. 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10617
#### Jordan v. The Wapello District Court *et al. (Two Cases.)*

Saloon Nuisance: injunction : constitutionality or statute.

*Original proceedings in this court on certiorari.*

Filed, June 8, 1888.

Per Curiam.

These are proceedings in *certiorari*in which writs were issued from this court to the district court of Wapello county.

The causes are submitted to us upon the petitions for the writs and the returns thereto, without any arguments or appearance of counsel. It appears from the petitions and returns that an action in equity was brought in the district court against the plaintiff herein, in which he was enjoined from keeping and maintaining a saloon nuisance, and that a temporary injunction was issued which he violated, and for which violation he was adjudged guilty of contempt; and that a permanent injunction was decreed against him which he also violated. He seeks by these proceedings in *certiorari*to set aside said proceedings for contempt upon the ground that the law authorizing the same is unconstitutional and void, and.he sets up certain proceedings in the district and circuit courts of the United States, and claims that by reason thereof he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state. These proceedings in the federal courts are founded upon the alleged unconstitutionality of the laws of this state under which the injunction and contempt proceedings were had. As the supreme court of the United States has in effect determined that question, and as the plaintiff herein does not appear to prosecute these actions, they will be

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hugo Ivan CASTANEDA, also known as Takua, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11592 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

*816James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Hugo Ivan Castaneda, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Hugo Ivan Castaneda 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). Castaneda 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.
Exhibit 99.4 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gregory McCunn, Chief Financial Officer of Asanko Gold Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (i) the Annual Report on Form 40-F/A, Amendment No. 1 of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Annual Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  April 21, 2014/s/ Gregory McCunnGregory McCunnChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
ENCLOSURE 2

CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

As required by 40 CFR 51.102(a), a public comment period to provide the opportunity to 

submit oral and written comments concerning a proposed revision to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan was held from October 7 to 

November 6, 2013.

As required by 40 CFR Part 51.102(a) and (d)(1) and (2), the public was given notice of 

the comment period and hearing in the Virginia Register of Regulations, along with the 

location of the proposal for public inspection, on October 7, 2013. The attached copy of 

the notice provides the evidence required by Section 2.1(f) of Appendix V of 40 CFR 

Part 51.

The Regional Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was notified 

of the public comment period. This notification follows the requirements of 40 CFR Part 

51.102(d).

The complete record of the public comment period, along with any comment received 

and responses thereto, is located at the Air Division of the Department of 

Environmental Quality. The department contact to access this information is the 

Director, Air Division. A summary of the comment received and responses thereto is 

attached.

TEMPLATES\SIP-PLAN\PLN02

SIP\STAGE II\RIC-MP\RMP-SIP-2.DOC
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8025

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DEMARIO ANTWAIN HOPKINS, a/k/a Mario,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District

Judge. (CR-98-37-5-6-FO, CA-01-194-5-F)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demario Antwain Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. John H. Bennett, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Demario Antwain Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Hopkins, Nos. CR-98-37-5-6-

FO; CA-01-194-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2001). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED