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


 Exhibit 10.1 

Aqua America, Inc. 
 Non-Employee Directors’
Compensation, effective January 1, 2018
 At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 13, 2017, the Board of Directors of Aqua America, Inc., upon
the recommendation of its Executive Compensation Committee, approved the following directors’ compensation for the non-employee directors of Aqua America, Inc.: (1) an annual cash retainer of $80,000; (2) an annual cash retainer for the
Chair of the Executive Compensation Committee of $12,500; (3) an annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee of $12,500; (4) an annual cash retainer for the Chair of the Corporate Governance Committee of $10,000; (5) an annual cash
retainer for the Chair of the Risk Mitigation Committee of $10,000; (6) an annual cash retainer for the Lead Independent Director of $25,000; and (7) an annual stock grant to non-employee directors of $80,000. All directors are reimbursed for
reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board or Committee meetings.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v. JOSHUA THOMAS WRIGHT, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 418 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 27th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

August 11, 2004

 

Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr.,the Chief Executive Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

1.               thatthis periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc..

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles  T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer         |
|   | and  President                   |

 

----
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 297

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25, 1998

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of both Houses.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, June 25, 1998, it stand adjourned

4 until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, or until noon

5 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem-
2

HCON 297 RDS

1 able pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

2 whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses

3 or adjourns at the close of business on Friday, June 26,

4 1998, Saturday, June 27, 1998, or Sunday, June 28,

5 1998, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader,

6 or his designee, in accordance with this concurrent resolu7 tion, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday,

8 July 6, 1998, or such time on that day as may be specified

9 by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to

10 recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after

11 Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section

12 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

13 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

14 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

15 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead16 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

17 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

18 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 1998.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 Certification
of CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual
Report of BF Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results of
operations as of and for the periods covered therein.
 
 **BF
      ENTERPRISES, INC.**Date: May 12,
      2005
    By:
    /s/ S. Douglas
      PostVice President, Treasurer
      and Chief Financial Officer
  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.
#### Juan Carlos OCHOA-HUERTA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-72419

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Juan Carlos Ochoa-Huerta, Pro Se

OIL, Karen L. Melnik, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Carlos Ochoa-Huerta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for re*908view of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Espino-Castillo v. Holder,*770 F.3d 861, 863 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Ochoa-Huerta has not established any error in the agency’s determination that his conviction under Nevada Revised Statute §§ 205.760, 193.330 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, because it requires proof of “intent to defraud” as an element of the crime. *See Espino-Castillo,*770 F.3d at 863-64 (recognizing the “longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude,” and a “court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves moral turpitude” (alterations, citations, and quotation marks omitted)); *Castrijon-Garcia v. Holder,*704 F.3d 1205, 1209 n.2 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court looks to the underlying crime in determining whether a conviction for attempt constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude). Accordingly, Ochoa-Huerta is ineligible for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach, and the BIA was not required to address, Ochoa-Huerta’s remaining contentions regarding his alleged controlled substance conviction. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA); *see also Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*908ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)








The
undersigned, as the Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of Matria
Healthcare, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, which
accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Matria Healthcare, Inc. at the dates and
for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.







MATRIA HEALTHCARE, INC.May
      6, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Jeffrey
      L. HintonJeffrey
      L. HintonSenior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer








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 Matria Healthcare, Inc. and will be
retained by Matria Healthcare, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.





The information in this Exhibit 32.2
shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be
expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martin Wade, III, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Broadcaster, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)):

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November 14, 2007



| |                                                                        
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                        
| | /s/ MARTINWADEIII                                                      
| | Martin Wade, III,
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2427

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jackie Harris

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

Submitted: July 9, 2021

Filed: July 20, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jackie Harris appealed pro se the judgment entered by the district court1 after

he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement

1The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
containing an appeal waiver. Because there was an issue whether the appeal was

timely filed, we appointed counsel who then moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver

and challenging the factual basis for the firearm count of conviction.

Assuming the issue is properly before us, we conclude the district court did not

err in determining that there was a factual basis for Harris’s plea to the firearm count

based on the stipulated facts, the undisputed facts in the presentence report, Harris’s

statements at his plea hearing, and the district court’s colloquy with him. See Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3); United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 2011)

(plain error review); United States v. Spencer, 439 F.3d 905, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2006). 

We granted Harris an extension of time in which to file a pro se supplemental

brief and have carefully considered that brief. Most of the issues he raises fall

squarely within the scope of his appeal waiver. The assertion that his guilty plea was

not knowing and voluntary because it was tainted by the ineffective assistance of

counsel might fall outside the waiver, but the assertion is contrary to his sworn

statements at the change-of-plea hearing and is therefore not cognizable on direct

appeal. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 & n.3 Cir. 2010). Finally,

we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of

the waiver.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001006762
<NAME> ARCA CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          28,131
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,381
<PP&E>                                       3,522,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                 152,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,646,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          165,184
<BONDS>                                      3,577,673
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           206
<OTHER-SE>                                    (96,734)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,646,329
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               552,716
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  455,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               111,974
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             249,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (264,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (264,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                162,926
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (101,216)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022207EN.01003801.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — SFD v EUIPO — Allmax Nutrition (ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION)

(Case T-35/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ALLNUTRITION DESIGNED FOR MOTIVATION - Earlier EU word marks ALLMAX NUTRITION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 207/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SFD S.A. (Opole, Poland) (represented by: T. Grucelski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Allmax Nutrition Inc. (North York, Ontario, Canada)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 (Case R 511/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Allmax Nutrition and SFD.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SFD S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SFD S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,101
<INVENTORY>                                        741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,264
<PP&E>                                           2,952
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,164
<BONDS>                                          2,548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,053
<OTHER-SE>                                    (37,156)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,609
<SALES>                                          6,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,282
<CGS>                                            5,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       499
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,229)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,229)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         976,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,329,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,686,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,680,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,918,000
<PP&E>                                       4,264,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,791,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,007,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,159,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,870,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (792,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,007,000
<SALES>                                     28,891,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,891,000
<CGS>                                       10,463,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,463,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,956,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               743,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             431,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,959,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,065,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,894,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,894,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.30)
        

</TABLE>