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







            




November 30, 2017


Jeffrey Solomon
via personal delivery by hand


Dear Jeff:


This letter amendment (this “2017 Amendment”) sets forth the mutual agreement between you and Cowen Inc. (the “Company”) to amend your employment agreement, dated May 31, 2012 (your “Employment Agreement”).  Specifically, effective on the earlier of:  (i) January 1, 2018; or (ii) the effective date of the resignation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, your Employment Agreement is amended as follows:


		
	•
	References to “Cowen Group, Inc.” are changed to “Cowen Inc.”




		
	•
	In Section 1(y) and Section 3(a), the title “Chief Executive Officer of Cowen and Company, LLC” is changed to “Chief Executive Officer of Cowen Inc.”




		
	•
	In Section 1(y), subsection (iv) is replaced with the following: “(iv) any change in Executive’s reporting relationship such that he no longer reports directly to the Board”.




		
	•
	In Section 3(a), the last sentence is replaced with the following: “Executive shall report directly to the Board.”




This 2017 Amendment does not amend any other terms of your Employment Agreement, which remain in full force and effective.  You acknowledge that this 2017 Amendment does not entitle you to terminate your employment for Good Reason under your Employment Agreement.  Please sign below to indicate your acceptance of this 2017 Amendment. 


Sincerely,


Cowen Inc.
                        
    
	
		
	 
	By: /s/ Jane Gerhard
Jane Gerhard 
Head of Human Resources








AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
    


Signed:     /s/ Jeffrey Solomon            November 30, 2017            
Jeffrey Solomon                   Date 




Cowen Inc.
599 Lexington Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10022
T 646 562 1010
www.cowen.com
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Comments on the Interagency Science 

Consultation Draft IRIS Assessment of RDX (dated September 2014)

Date: October 28, 2014

_____________________________________________________________________________________

October 28, 2014

Comments on IRIS Draft Assessment on RDX from 

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIOSH offers the following suggested changes (in red) to Supplemental Information, 

Appendix A, page A-2.

Recommended Exposure Limit (REL)—1.5 mg/m3 TWA for up to a 10-hr workday during a 

40-hr workweek, short-term (15-minute) limit 3 mg/m3

Basis: agreed with OSHA proposed permissible exposure limit (PEL) in 1988 PEL Hearings

Skin designation indicates potential for dermal absorption

Basis: agreed with OSHA proposal for skin notation in 1988 PEL Hearings

OSHA is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

NIOSH is the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,432,252
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              191,561,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             325,750,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,710
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               325,750,262
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,568,106
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,854,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               499,914
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,235,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,714,064
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,541,336
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,172,728
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,172,728
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
#### Carston Carrell WOODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Carston Carrell Woodson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1816, No. 17-1817, No. 17-1818, No. 17-1819, No. 17-1821, No. 17-1822, No. 17-1825, No. 17-1826

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: January 8, 2018

Carston Carrell Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*116PER CURIAM:

Carston Carrell Woodson appeals the district court’s orders dismissing with prejudice his complaints under the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (2012), for failure to comply, by a specified deadline, with the court’s orders to pay the filing fees and to file amended complaints in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Woodson v. United States,*Nos. 3:17-cv-00185-REP; . 3:17-cv-00186-REP; 3:17-cv-00187-REP; 3:17-cv-00188-REP; 3:17-cv-00189-REP; 3:17-cv-00190-REP; 3:17-cv-00191-REP; 3:17-cv-00192-REP (E.D. Va., July 11, 2017). We grant Woodson leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and deny his motions to deconsolidate his eight nearly identical cases, his motions for default judgment, and his motions to vacate final district court order, 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BIOFIELD
CORPORATION FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES
THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,043,757
<SECURITIES>                                 2,527,052
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    555,372
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,279,035
<PP&E>                                         419,816<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,452,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,448,177
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,030
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,993,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,452,065
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,104,371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (8,761,872)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (13,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (8,775,472)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (8,775,472)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.87)
<FN>
<F1>PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT IS REPORTED NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION OF
$1,429,222.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro Munoz GALVAN, a.k.a. Abel Lemus, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10513

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 22, 2018

Richard J. Bender, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSAC — Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alejandro Munoz Galvan, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, 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 **

Alejandro Munoz Galvan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 196-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Galvan’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Galvan has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Galvan waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity.of the waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. *See id.*at 988.

To the extent that Galvan seeks to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address this issue on direct appeal. *See United States v. Rahman,*642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

*308Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT  32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Stephen M. Siedow, the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer of EQUICAP, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY, that:

     1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the year ended
          March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 3rd day of May, 2004.


                                            By:  /s/  Stephen M. Siedow
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Stephen M. Siedow
                                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                                      President and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to EQUICAP, INC. and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6729** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. JOSHUA JUSTON SEIBLES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

**No. 13**  **- 7076** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. JOSHUA JUSTON SEIBLES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 00461

- MBS

- 1; 3:13

- cv - 00712

- MBS )

Submitted : August 26, 2013 Decided: September 18, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.2 Dismissed in part ; affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion
. Joshua Juston Seibles, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Joshua Juston Seibles seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion , denying his motion to set aside his criminal judgment, and denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . The order denying Seibles’ § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifica te of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a de batable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Seibles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss th e appeal of4 the district court’s order denying habeas relief
. Likewise, w e have reviewed the record and Seibles’ claims with regard to the denial of his motion s to set aside the c riminal judgment and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s orders denying those motions. Finally, w e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART ; AFFIRMED IN PART
#### Donetta Michelle BYRD-SANDERS, Appellant v. CHILD SUPPORT, Appellee

No. 17-7110

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: November 20, 2017

Donetta Michelle Byrd-Sanders, Pro Se

Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, District of Columbia, Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

*7ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s June 5, 2017 order be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
# Official Journal L 232/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 232 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6620 September 2023 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 232

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6620 September 2023

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | BUDGETS |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2023/1752 of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2023 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

BUDGETS

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2023/1752 of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2023

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Budgetary remarks are only executable insofar as they do not modify or extend the scope of an existing legal base, impinge on the administrative autonomy of institutions and can be covered by available resources.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Great China Mania Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. 

 

Dated:  April 15, 2011

By: /s/ Yau Wai Hung

Yau Wai Hung

*Acting Principal Financial Officer*

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2062

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

W. EARL BRITT; JAMES C. FOX; JAMES C. DEVER, III; LOUISE W. 

FLANAGAN; TERRENCE W. BOYLE; MALCOLM J. HOWARD; JAMES C. 

GATES; REBECCA BEACH SMITH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,

District Judge. (5:16-ct-03211-CO)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) his complaint

filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the 

record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Davis v. Britt, No. 5:16-ct-03211-CO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 2016). 

We deny all of Davis’ pending motions, including his motions to 

remand, to appoint a guardian ad litem, to reconsider, for 

recusal, for leave to file supplemental brief, and for oral 

argument. 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
# Official Journal C 223/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.223.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 223 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5527 July 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.223.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 223

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5527 July 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 223/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2012/C 223/02 | New national side of euro coins intended for circulation | 2 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2012/C 223/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 223/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2012/C 223/02

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2012/C 223/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 223/04 | Call for proposals — ‘Support for information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP)’ — Implementation of information measures under budget heading 05 08 06 for 2013 | 4 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2012/C 223/04

Call for proposals — ‘Support for information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP)’ — Implementation of information measures under budget heading 05 08 06 for 2013

4

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN