alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1


                                                       VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
                                                       2300 FIRST CITY TOWER
                                                       1001 FANNIN STREET
                                                       HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-6760
                                                       TELEPHONE (713) 758-2222
                                                       FAX (713) 758-2346
                                                       www.velaw.com


                                December 4, 2002

NEON Systems, Inc.
14100 Southwest Freeway, Suite 500
Sugar Land, Texas  77478

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We have acted as counsel for NEON Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), with respect to certain legal matters in connection with the
registration by the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), of the offer and sale of up to 2,597,829 shares of Common
Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the "Shares") as follows: (i) 2,292,829
Shares may be issued pursuant to the NEON Systems, Inc. 2002 Stock Plan (the
"2002 Plan") and (ii) 305,000 Shares may be issued pursuant to the NEON
Systems, Inc. 2002 Director Option Plan (the "Director Plan" and collectively
with the 2002 Plan, the "Plans").

     In connection with the foregoing, we have examined or are familiar with the
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company, as amended, the Bylaws of
the Company, the Plans, the corporate proceedings with respect to the issuance
of the Shares, and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed in connection
with the registration of the Shares (the "Registration Statement"), and such
other certificates, instruments and documents as we have considered necessary or
appropriate for purposes of this opinion.

     Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that when the Shares are
issued in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Plan and agreement,
they will be validly issued and fully paid and non-assessable.

     The foregoing opinion is limited to the laws of the United States of
America and the State of Texas, the Constitution of the State of Delaware and to
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, as interpreted by federal
courts and the courts of the State of Delaware.

     We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement. In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are
within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the
Securities Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.

                                Very truly yours,

                                Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
DTRA Reasonable Accommodation Request

CUI

ATTENTION

Use this space to indicate categories, limited dissemination controls, special

instructions, points of contact, etc. if needed.

ATTENTION

All individuals handling this information are required to protect

it from unauthorized disclosure.

Handling, storage, reproduction, and disposition of the attached document(s) must

be in accordance with 32 CFR Part 2002 and applicable agency policy.

Access to and dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information shall be

allowed as necessary and permissible to any individual(s), organization(s), or

grouping(s) of users, provided such access or dissemination is consistent with or in

furtherance of a Lawful Government Purpose and in a manner consistent with

applicable law, regulations, and Government-wide policies.

CUI

Controlled by:

CUI Categor(ies):

LDC or Distribution Statement:

POC:

DTRA Form 123 (JUNE 2022) (ADOBE LIVECYCLE ES)
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DTRA Reasonable Accommodation Request

Privacy Act Statement

AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. 209, 211, 216, 217, 625; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 2 U.S.C. 1220 and EO 9397 (SSN).

PURPOSE: To investigate facts and circumstances surrounding reported situations involving issues associated with Equal Opportunity statutes.

ROUTINE USE(S): To manage programs, produce reports, and to control various aspects of program processes. Information may also be disclosed to the

EEOC, or to another Federal Agency, including the Department of Defense (DoD), to carry out their legally authorized functions.

DISCLOSURE: Voluntary, however; failure to furnish the information may delay the process.

1. NAME (Last, First, MI):

2. POSITION TITLE / PAY SCHEDULE / OCCUPATIONAL CODE / PAY

BAND:

3. SUPERVISOR:

4. DUTY LOCATION:

5. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST:

ATTACHMENTS: Yes No

6. SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE: 7. DATE:

8. REMARKS: (e.g. If the supervisor approves the accommodation after reviewing all documents, please indicate what accommodation(s) are being approved)

9. SUPERVISOR APPROVAL: 10. SUPERVISOR DISAPPROVAL: 11. DATE:

DTRA Form 123 (JUNE 2022) (ADOBE LIVECYCLE ES)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4157
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER R. WOODBERRY, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-4333
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER R. WOODBERRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge; Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-99-168; CR-02-40) Submitted: December 22, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.- 2 - Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher R. Woodberry, Appellant Pro Se. William Earl Day, II, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Christopher Woodberry appeals from the two judgments of the district court convicting him of conspiring to distribute cocaine and ecstasy and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000) (No. 03-4333); and revoking his supervised release on a prior conviction for conspiring to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000) (No. 03-4157). Finding no error, we affirm. Woodberry claims that the district court erred in denying his various motions to withdraw his guilty plea. Our review of the plea colloquy discloses that it was conducted in full compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Moreover, Woodberry makes no claim of actual innocence and raises no additional factors that call into question the validity of his plea. Accordingly we deny relief on this claim. See United States v. Moore , 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). Woodberry also claims that the district court erred in denying his motion for recusal and that it became an “advocate for the plea agreement.” (Appellant’s informal br. at 18). Nothing in our review of the record of the district court discloses a reasonable factual basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality. Consequently, we deny relief on this claim. SeeIn re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987).- 4 - We affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny Woodberry’s pending motions for discovery, to correct transcripts, to supplement the record on appeal with the name of a confidential informant, for a copy of the Government’s information, to hold the case in abeyance pending resolution of outstanding motions, to file a second supplement seeking an audiotape copy of his sentencing proceeding, and to compel a Government response to pending motions. 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.

AFFIRMED
chji_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 



Shaanxi East Mining Co.,Ltd Equity Transfer Agreement


 


Transferor: Shaanxi Changjiang Mining & New Energy Co.,Ltd


 


(Party A)


 


Transferee: Zhang Hong Jun (Party B)


 


This agreement is regarding the equity transfer issue of Shaanxi East Mining Co.,Ltd, which is signed in the office on Dec 25th, 2013.


 


After friendly consultations conducted in accordance with the principles of equality and mutual benefit, the parties have reached the following agreements:


 


Article I: Party A agrees to transfer its 30% equity (The amount of capital contribution: RMB 2,700,000 ) of Shaanxi East Mining Co., Ltd at the price of RMB 2,700,000 to Party B , and Party B agrees to buy the above equity at this price.


 


Article II: Party B agrees that it will pay RMB 2,700,000 equity transfer funds in the form of monetary funds to Party A in 15 days after both parties signed the agreement.


 


Article III: Part A guarantees that its transferred equity to Party B is owned legally by itself and has complete disposition right. The equity has not been conducted pledge registration, has not been frozen by judiciary, and has no equity dispute. Otherwise, all liability arising therefrom, shall be undertaken by Party A.


 


Article IV: After the equity transfer, the rights and obligations of Party A in Shaanxi East Mining Co.,Ltd should be transferred to Party B.


 


Article V: This agreement shall become effective after both parties signed and sealed.


 





	Party A’s signature or seal 	Party B’s signature or seal
	
Chen Wei Dong 

	Zhang Hong Jun
	 	Dec 25, 2013
No. 11-1542.

#### Cray *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                 STEVENS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              COMPUTATIONS OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                 (UNAUDITED)
                (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)



                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                                  March 31,
                                                             -----------------
                                                              2000       1999
                                                             ------     ------
 <S>                                                        <C>        <C>
 Basic and diluted:

   Weighted average shares outstanding - basic                9,502      9,492
   Assumed exercise of $1 million of 10% convertible
     subordinated notes at $0.50 per share - anti-dilutive        -          -
   Assumed exercise of Series A and B stock options
     (Treasury stock method)                                      -          -
                                                             ------     ------
 Total common share equivalents - diluted                     9,502      9,492
                                                             ======     ======
 Net income (loss)                                          $(2,141)   $    43
                                                             ======     ======
 Per share amounts  -- Basic and fully diluted:

 Net income (loss) - basic                                  $(0.22)    $ 0.005
                                                             ======     ======
 Net income (loss) - diluted                                $(0.22)    $ 0.005
                                                             ======     ======
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ruben RUIZ-GAONA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40696 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ruben Ruiz-Gaona, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ruben Ruiz-Gaona 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). Ruiz-Gaona 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-41160 and No. 333-85870 and Forms S-3 No. 333-85312,
No. 333-85314, and No. 333-98305) of US Unwired Inc. of our report dated
March 28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of US Unwired Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2002.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Houston, Texas
March 28, 2003
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-1341

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JESSICA ORTIZ, a/k/a MARTA,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Torruella, Chief Judge,

Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

George F. Gormley and George F. Gormley, P.C. on brief for

appellant.

Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael D.

Ricciuti, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.

May 3, 2000
Per Curiam. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) requires

that any detention order issued under section 3142(e) “shall

(1) include written findings of fact and a written statement

of the reasons for the detention . . . .” See also United

States v. Moss, 887 F.2d 333, 337-38 (1st Cir. 1989) (per

curiam) (written detention order which simply stated that

the court had made a “full review” of the evidence and that

defendant had failed to rebut the presumption was

insufficient under section 3142(i)). The district judge’s

written order of detention in this case provides no written

statement of the reasons for the detention decision. In

such circumstances, meaningful appellate review is

impossible, especially where the magistrate judge ordered

appellant released and did provide a written statement of

the reasons for that decision.

Therefore, we remand the matter with directions to

the district judge to provide a written statement, by May

23, 2000, of the reasons for his decision to detain the

appellant.

Remanded.
Exhibit 31.3



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14(A) AND 15D-14(A), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John T. Rickard, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Till Capital Ltd.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 27, 2017



|By: | /s/ John T. Rickard     | 
|--- | ----------------------- | 
|    | John T. Rickard         | 
|    | Chief Executive Officer |
APPENDIX D 

HAVCP Service Day Mini-Grant Program Appeals Procedure 

Final funding decisions are made by the Election Assistance Commissioners. After notification of award 

or denial, applicants have 10 business days to request to review the application’s scores and appeal the 

decision based on one of the following criteria: 

- Incorrect information was provided by the EAC.

- Historically underrepresented groups will be denied services without HAVCP funding

- Scores are not representative of work done by the program

Appeals must be addressed to the commissioners and received in writing by the deadline outlined in the 

notice of funding decision. Appeals must include a written justification for the appeal based on one or 

more of the above criteria. Appeals not based on the above criteria will not be considered. 

The commission will make a final decision about all appeals within 60 days of receipt.
No. 11-9856.

#### Poole *v.*Carteret County Sheriff’s Department et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Second Amendment to
                             PLM International, Inc.
                     1998 Management Stock Compensation Plan

          This Second Amendment to PLM International, Inc. 1998 Management Stock
Compensation  Plan (the  "Amendment")  is made as of May 28, 1999, as authorized
and  approved  by the  Board  of  Directors  of  PLM  International,  Inc.  (the
"Company").  All  capitalized  terms used herein that are not otherwise  defined
shall  have  the  same  meaning  as set  forth  in  the  1998  Management  Stock
Compensation Plan, as amended on April 29, 1999 (the "Plan").

         WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan provides that, upon the occurrence of a
Change in  Control  (as  defined  in the  Plan),  the Board may in its  absolute
discretion,  and among other things, accelerate any vesting schedule to which an
Award is subject,  or cause to lapse any  repurchase or other rights the Company
may have with respect to Common Shares acquired by a Participant pursuant to the
grant, vesting or exercise of an Award.

         WHEREAS,  the Board has  determined  to amend the Plan to provide  that
upon the occurrence of a Change in Control,  the vesting of Awards granted under
the Plan shall  automatically  accelerate  and any  restrictions  on such Common
Shares acquired by a participant  pursuant to the grant,  vesting or exercise of
an Award shall fully lapse.

         WHEREAS,  Section  17 of the Plan  allows  the Board to take  action to
amend the Plan as described above.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

          1.  Automatic   Acceleration.   The  first  paragraph  of  Section  12
(Acquisitions and Other Transactions) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced
in its entirety as follows:

               "Upon the  occurrence of a Change in Control (as defined  below),
          any vesting schedule to which an Award is subject shall  automatically
          accelerate  so  that  such  Award  shall  be  fully  vested  as of the
          occurrence  of the  Change in  Control;  and any  repurchase  or other
          rights the Company may have with respect to Common Shares  acquired by
          a Participant  pursuant to the grant,  vesting or exercise of an Award
          shall automatically lapse.

          2. Express Amendment.  Except as specifically amended herein, the Plan
shall remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  Company  has  caused  this  Amendment  to be
executed as of the date first written above.

PLM INTERNATIONAL, INC.


By:      ___________________________

Title:   ___________________________



<PAGE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Form 10-Q of Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Noven)
for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane M. Barrett, Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Noven, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Noven. /s/ Diane M. BarrettName:
    Diane M. BarrettTitle:
    Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    May 3, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. 33
*

 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40081

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN L. MILLS, JR.,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-99-CR-231-1

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

September 28, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent John L. Mills, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mills has received a copy

of counsel’s motion and brief. Although he requested and was granted an extension of time to file

a response, Mills failed to file a response to the motion to withdraw. Our independent review of

counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL

IS DISMISSED. See 5TCIR. R. 42.2.
### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 14, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Supporting Documents for 2017-2025 Light- Duty (LD) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards - Non-Copyrighted Website References to s upport the Solar Panel Credit Discussed in Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document for the Final Rule

FROM: Arvon L. Mitcham, Program Manager/Engineer

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memo covers documents for website references c ontained in Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2017-2025 Light-Duty (LD) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards Final Rule. The following web addresses for the re ferences are listed below and a copy of the webpage as it appears for each web address is inclu ded in the docket:

• http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-199 0/redbook/atlas/;

• http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/ver sion1/derate.cgi; and

• http://global.kyocera.com/reliability/file02.html.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00089-CV 

IN RE STEPHAN J. SULLIVAN AND 

MAJEL E. SULLIVAN

RELATORS

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 24, 2014 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).