alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7317

CALVIN ROBINSON-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JOHN MARTIN, Plaintiff, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; WILLIAM SMITH; MAJOR ROLLINS; JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer at the Maryland House of Correction Annex, in their individual and official capacities; JACK KAVANAUGH, Assistant Commissioner; A. DENNIS, Case Management, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99- 1640-AMD) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 28, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Calvin Robinson-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Michelle Eaves, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Calvin Robinson-Bey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson-Bey v. Corcoran , No. CA-99-1640-AMD (D. Md. filed Aug. 21, 2000, entered Aug. 22, 2000). 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
Mark WESTERGAARD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106833

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: April 16, 2019

Susan A. DeGeorge, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Eric S. Schmitt, Atty. Gen., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM

The movant, Mark Westergaard, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief relying on *State v. Bazell* , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 24.035. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the motion court's judgment denying the movant's Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b)(2).
|   | (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      registrant. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: September 25, 2008 | By:      | /s/ Ronald C.      Schmeiser             |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                     |                              | Ronald      C. Schmeiser                 |
|                     |                              | President,      Chief Executive          |
|                     |                              | Officer      and Chief Financial Officer |
|                     |                              |                                     |

----
Description of Compensatory Arrangements



 EXHIBIT 10.11 
 DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS 
 BETWEEN REGISTRANT AND NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

 Members of the Board of Directors who are not employees of Concur receive compensation for their services as directors as provided
below. 
 Each outside director who joined the Board prior to June 2003 was granted an option for 50,000 shares under the 1998 Directors
Stock Option Plan on the date he first became a member of the Board of Directors and, if he has served as a director continuously since the date of his original option grant, he is granted an option for 20,000 shares under the 1998 Directors Stock
Option Plan on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders. 
 Each outside director who joined the Board after June 2003 may select one
of the following two options. Under the first option, the outside director receives a cash stipend of approximately $35,000 per year, is granted an option for 40,000 shares under the 1998 Directors Stock Option Plan on the date he first becomes a
member of the Board of Directors, and, if he has served as a director continuously since the date of his original option grant, he is granted an option for 10,000 shares under the 1998 Directors Stock Option Plan on the date of each annual meeting
of stockholders. Under the second option, the outside director is granted an option for 60,000 shares under the 1998 Directors Stock Option Plan on the date he first becomes a member of the Board of Directors and, if he has served as a director
continuously since the date of his original option grant, he is granted an option for 20,000 shares under the 1998 Directors Stock Option Plan on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders. 
 Beginning March 2007, each outside director has the right to select one of the following two options in replacement of the rights described above. Under
the first option, the outside director receives a cash stipend of approximately $35,000 per year and, if he has served as a director continuously since the date of his original appointment to the Board of Directors, he is granted 3,250 restricted
stock units under the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan on the first business day after the date of each annual meeting of stockholders. Under the second option, the outside director is granted 6,500 restricted stock units under the 2007 Equity Incentive
Plan on the first business day after the date of each annual meeting of stockholders for so long as he has served as a director continuously since the date of his original appointment to the Board of Directors. 
 All directors are reimbursed for their reasonable travel expenses in attending Board and committee meetings.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1352 

TP 11-00304 

PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL ARGENTIERI, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

SUSAN CONNELL, SUPERINTENDENT, ONEIDA 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT. 

MICHAEL ARGENTIERI, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Anthony F.

Shaheen, J.], entered May 20, 2010) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a Tier II hearing that

petitioner had violated an inmate rule. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously

dismissed without costs as moot (see Matter of Free v Coombe, 234 AD2d

996).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
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
 
 
 I,
James A. Krantz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings,
Ltd.
 
 
 Date:
      April 29, 2008
              /s/
      JAMES A. KRANTZBy:
      James A. KrantzExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,534]


ICTEL, Charleston, IL; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 10, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers of ICTEL, Charleston, Illinois.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6543 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




Summary of Repricing




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	Number of	 	 	 	 	 	Remaining
	 
	 	Securities	 	Weighted Average	 	Contractual Life of
	 
	 	Underlying Stock	 	Exercise Price Per	 	Stock Options
	 
	 	Options Repriced	 	Share	 	Repriced (in Years)
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive Officers
	 	 	3,500,000	 	 	$	0.0793	 	 	 	8.7	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Outside Directors
	 	 	4,500,000	 	 	$	0.075	 	 	 	8.9	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Employees
	 	 	1,211,500	 	 	$	0.075	 	 	 	8.8	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Consultants
	 	 	312,000	 	 	$	0.075	 	 	 	8.9	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Total
	 	 	9,523,500	 	 	$	0.0766	 	 	 	8.8
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of United eSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Walter Reid Green, Jr., as Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

| (1)    | 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. |

| /s/ Walter Reid Green, Jr.                     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Walter Reid Green, Jr.                                                                                                                             |
| Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                                                                               |
| Date:  November 18, 2005                                                                                                                 |

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5395 

To authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue Energy Freedom Bonds 

to finance programs to facilitate the research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy technologies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2006 

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue Energy 

Freedom Bonds to finance programs to facilitate the 

research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy technologies. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Energy Freedom 

5 Bonds Act of 2006’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5395 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENERGY FREEDOM BONDS. 

2 Section 3105 of title 31, United States Code, is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following new sub4 section: 

5 ‘‘(f)(1) The Secretary may designate one or more se6 ries of bonds or certificates (or any portion thereof) issued 

7 under this section as ‘Energy Freedom Bonds’. 

8 ‘‘(2) The proceeds from any portion of a series of 

9 bonds or certificates which is designated under this sub10 section shall be used only for expenditures under programs 

11 to facilitate the research, development, or deployment of 

12 technologies utilizing solar heat, solar light, wind, geo13 thermal energy, and biomass, except for— 

14 ‘‘(A) heat from the burning of municipal solid 

15 waste; or 

16 ‘‘(B) heat from a dry steam geothermal res17 ervoir that— 

18 ‘‘(i) has no mobile liquid in its natural 

19 state; 

20 ‘‘(ii) is a fluid composed of at least 95 per21 cent water vapor; and 

22 ‘‘(iii) has an enthalpy for the total pro23 duced fluid greater than or equal to 2.791 

24 megajoules per kilogram (1200 British thermal 

25 units per pound). 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5395 IH

1 ‘‘(3) The Secretary shall annually report to Congress 

2 on the amount of bonds and certificates designated under 

3 this subsection and on the use of the proceeds of such 

4 bonds and certificates.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

The undersigned, Honghai Zhang, the Chief Executive Officer of CHINA POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 24th day of March, 2011.

/s/ Honghai ZhangHonghai Zhang 
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Power Technology, Inc. and will be retained by China Power Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6316]



[[Page 12390]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences 
(<greek-i>66).
    Date/Time:April 2, 2009 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m. April 3, 2009 8:30 
a.m.-3 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230, Room 1235.
    Type of Meeting: OPEN.
    Contact Person: Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, Senior Science 
Associate, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Room 
1005, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, 
VA 22230. (703) 292-8807.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning NSF science and education activities within the 
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
    Agenda: Update on current status of Directorate. Report of 
Division of Physics Committee of Visitors. Meeting of MPSAC with 
Divisions within MPS Directorate. Discussion of MPS Future 
Activities.
    Summary Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed 
above.

    Dated: March 18, 2009.
Susanne E. Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-6316 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANJIT SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER

, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 73273

Agency No. A208

- 562

- 314

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration A

pp eals’ order dismissing his app eal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying h is application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have juris diction under

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

DEC 5 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 73273

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings

,

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinatio ns created by the

REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on omissions in Singh’s credible fear interview and on inconsistencies

between Singh’s declaration, testimony

, and documentary evidence as to the date

and number of times Singh was arrest ed and harmed in India

. See Zamanov v.

Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 973

- 74 (9th Cir. 2011) ( omission constituting a material

alteration of petitioner’s story may support an adverse credibility determination );

Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the

totality of the circumstances)

. Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary

conclusion. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). I n the absence

of credible testimony, in this case, Singh ’s asylum and withhold ing of removal

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the

agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the

conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India.

See id. at 1156

- 57

.

Finally, we reject Singh’s contentions that the agency did not consider all of3 17

- 73273

his evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, James G. Petcoff, certify that:     1. I have reviewed the quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2007 on Form 10-Qof North Pointe Holdings Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and procedures tobe 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) Intentionally omitted;     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Dated:November 13, 2007     /s/ James G. Petcoff     James G. Petcoff  Chief Executive Officer
41
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gerald Richard PEDERSEN, Appellant.

WD 81026

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: April 2, 2019

Steven B. Willibey, Kansas City for appellant.

Richard A. Starnes, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before Division Three: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam

Gerald Pedersen appeals from his convictions on two counts of first-degree child molestation, for which he was sentenced to a total of twenty years in prison. He contends the circuit court erred in precluding evidence of the alleged prior sexual conduct of one of the victims and in admitting hearsay testimony concerning a statement made by the other victim. For reasons explained in Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the convictions.

AFFIRMED. Rule 30.25(b)