alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex1010






 


 

 

 

Curragh Queensland Mining Pty Ltd
ABN 55 095 450 418 
Private Mail Bag 
Blackwater QLD 4717 
T +61 7 4986 9211 | F +61 7 4986 9327 
www.coronadoglobal.com
 

16 February 2022 
PRIVATE 
AND CONFIDENTIAL 
Douglas Thompson, 

c/o: dthompson@coronadoglobal.com 
Dear Douglas, 
I wish 
to confirm 
the following 
remuneration 
elements 
not included 
within your 
Contract of 
Employment 
which 
has 
been 
in 
effect 
since 
September 
1, 
2021, 
when 
you 
commenced 
in 
the 
role 
of 
Chief 
Operating 
Officer, 
Australia with Curragh Queensland Mining Pty Ltd (CQMPL) 
(“the Company”)
. 

In 
addition 
to 
the 
remuneration 
specified 
within 
the 
Contract 
of 
Employment, 
you 
received 
a 
sign-on 
bonus 
totalling $300,000 gross which was paid 
to you in cash in 
September 2021. Since your commencement, we have 
agreed specific improvement 
targets relating to 
Curragh’s performance 
and, should those 
targets be met 
within 
the timeframe agreed, 
you will receive 
an additional bonus 
payment of $500,000 
gross. This bonus 
is over and 
above any other incentive program. 

Although not forming part 
of your Contract of 
Employment, I can confirm 
that you will be invited 
to participate in 
both the 
short-term and 
long-term incentive 
programs. The 
STI opportunity 
will be 
100% of 
your TEC, 
and the 
LTI will also equal 
100% of your TEC. 
Should you have any queries concerning this 
letter, please do 
not hesitate to contact Emma Pollard 
on 07 3031 
7626.
Yours sincerely 
/s/ Garold Spindler 
Garold Spindler 
Chief Executive Officer 
I have read, 
understand, agree to 
and accept the 
terms and conditions 
as outlined in 
this Letter. 
I confirm that 
the 
payment 
amounts 
which 
I 
receive 
under 
the 
Contract 
of 
Employment, 
satisfies 
any 
obligations 
on 
the 
Company to pay 
to me 
any entitlements 
to which 
I may 
otherwise be 
entitled under 
an industrial 
instrument or 
law. 

Signed: 
/s/ Douglas Thompson 
Date: 18/02/2022 
Douglas Thompson
Gene Edward HANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2571

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Nicole Joanne Martingano, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Gene Edward Hanks, Lake City, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Gene Hanks appeals the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court for violating his community control. We conclude that competent substantial evidence was presented at trial to support the trial *487judge's decision that Hanks willfully and materially violated his community control. However, despite our reminders to trial judges that their written orders or judgments must identify which condition or conditions of probation or community control have been violated, we are compelled to remand here because the written order did not specify the condition of community control that Hanks was found to have violated. *See**Lowe v. State* , 225 So.3d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; *Biser v. State* , 157 So.3d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ; *Roberts v. State* , 76 So.3d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ; *Bell v. State* , 60 So.3d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ; *Mormon v. State* , 976 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) ; *Brinson v. State* , 866 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment under review and remand for entry of a proper adjudicatory order listing the specific condition of community control that Hanks was found to have violated.

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED for entry of a proper adjudication order.

BERGER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Veramark Technologies, 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 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)) for the registrant and have:
 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 quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
quarterly report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably like to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 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; andb)
    
    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: May 14, 2008
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Ronald C. LundyRonald C. Lundy
Vice President of Finance and CFO
 26
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before GASTON , ATTANASIO , and HOUTZ Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Tajh L. BARBER Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 20 2000265

Decided: 28 April 2021
Appeal from the United States Na vy
- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge: Kyle G. Phillips
Sentence adjudged 31 July 2020 by a general court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina , co nsisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for ten months , and a b ad

- c onduct discharge.
For Appellant: Commander Michael E. Maffei , JAGC, USN
For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.United States v. Barber , NMCCA No. 20 20002 65 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have dete rmined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Uniform Code of Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
George Conner L. BROWN, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Tara Lin BROWN, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Case Nos. 2D16-1643 2D16-3670 CONSOLIDATED

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 16, 2018.

Paul S. Maney of Paul S. Maney, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Michael J. Park, and Joseph R. Park, of Park, Ossian, Barnaky & Park, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

BADALAMENTI, Judge

George Conner L. Brown (the Husband) appeals an award of durational alimony to Tara Lin Brown (the Wife). The Husband also appeals the trial court's order awarding the Wife a portion of the attorney's fees and costs she incurred during the parties' dissolution case. The Wife cross-appeals, challenging both the adequacy of the trial court's alimony award and the trial court's parental time-sharing schedule.

Because the record does not contain adequate factual findings as to the Wife's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs, we reverse the trial court's order on attorney's fees and remand for the trial court to make the necessary findings in order to *1272facilitate complete appellate review. *See**Perez v. Perez*, 100 So.3d 769, 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Likewise, because the record does not contain adequate factual findings for this court to conduct meaningful appellate review of the parental time-sharing schedule, we reverse the amended parenting plan and remand for the trial court to make the necessary factual findings. *See* § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; *Clark v. Clark*, 825 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). For each issue, we leave it to the discretion of the trial court as to whether it can resolve the issue on the current record or whether additional evidence is necessary. *See**Perez*, 100 So.3d at 773. We affirm all remaining portions of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CASANUEVA and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40321 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-GARCIA; AMELIO MENDEZ,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(USDC No. L-95-226)

_________________________________________________________________ December 19, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Amelio Mendez appeals the denial of his motion for judgment of

acquitta l on counts two (conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana) and four

(possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of

marijuana); Antonio Hernandez-Garcia, on those coun ts and countNo. 96-40321 - 2 -

three (importing more than 100 kilograms of marijuana). We

conclude, when all reasonable inferences are viewed in a light

supporting the jury’s verdict, sufficient evidence exists for all

convictions.

Concerning Hernandez-Garcia’s challenge to his sentence, we
lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s refusal to grant a

U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 downward departure, unless it was the result of a

violation of law or a misapplication of the Guidelines. E .g.,

United States v. DiMarco
, 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995).

Hernandez-Garcia has not demonstrated either factor was present.

Hernandez-Garcia also claims that the district court erred in

failing to grant him a U.S.S. G. § 3B1.2 reduction for minor or

minimal role in the offense. But, it was not clear error to find

that he was not "substanti ally less culpable than the average

participant". U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (backg'd).

AFFIRMED
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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Christopher Clemente, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Jeffrey
R. Dauer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to our best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Christopher ClementeChristopher ClementeChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jeffrey R. DauerJeffrey R. DauerChief Financial Officer


September 8, 2009
EX PARTE Hazel Deann Kendrick STONE and Raymond Davis Stone, Jr.

1151321 (CR-14-0497)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 18, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
# Na tional E duc at ion F orum: **Re siden**  **tial W**

**ood Heat er NSPS**  **Direction** Nov ember 8, 2012 The Depot Minneapolis, MN

## Pr **esen tat**  **ion Objectiv**  **es**

• Over view of the New PFI St andar ds • Differ ence fr om Eur opean St andar ds

## PFI’**s St andar**  **ds Pr** **ogr am**  **- Purpose**  Defining the means by which we can r esponsibly turn this: **into this:**

## PFI’**s St andar**  **ds Pr** **ogr am**  **- Purpose** 
• To pr ovide the gr aded fuel r efer enced in EP A’ s an ticipated NSPS fo r certifying pellet burning appliances • To pr ovide the gr aded fuel r equir ed to be used by consumer s in all certified pellet burning appliances • Incr ease the consis te ncy and quality of pelletiz ed fuel thr oughout the indus try

## PFI’**s Pr ogr** **am Structur e** 

## PFI’**s Pr ogr** **am Documen ts** 

http://pelletheat.org /pfi - sta ndar ds/wha t - ar e - the - pfi - sta ndar ds/ • PFI St andar d Specifications fo r Re siden tial/Commer cial Densified Fuel • PFI North American Gr ading Syste m for Re siden tial/Commer cial Densified Fuel • PFI R esiden tial/Commer cial Densified Fuel QA/QC Handbook • ALSC R esiden tial/Commer cial Densified Fuel Enfor cemen t R egulations

## Pr **emium, St andar**  **d & Utility**  **Gr ades** 

## PFI’**s Quality Mark**

• Displa yed on fr ont lower third of the bag • Additiv es ma y not e xc eed 2% by weight (type mus t be s tated) • Ma terial class mus t be s tated • Higher heating v alued s tated as - re ceiv ed and mus t r eflect a minimum BTU guar antee – ve rified by audit • Manufactur er s ma y pr ovide other guar antees as long as their claims ar e demons tr ated thr ough audit (e.g. Ash Content As - Re ceiv ed: <0.50%)

## Ke **y Pr ogr** **am Pr ovisions** 
• Uses an accr edited auditing st ructur e • Thir d party t es ting and inspection • Pr ohibits the use of chemically tr eated materials • Con tr ols the use of pos t consumer re cy cled material thr ough “A ppendix A”

– Curr en tly pos t consumer r ecy cled materials ar e **NO T**  **ALL OW**  **ED**

## Curr **en t**  **Pr ogr** **am St at**  **us**
• Accr edit ation Body = American Lumber St andar d Committe e (ALSC) • Appr ox imately 12 auditing ag encies and 5 labor atories ha ve been accr edited • Do ze ns of pellet pr oduction fa cilities ha ve initiated implemen tat ion of the PFI St andar ds Pr ogr am and/or signed a pledge lette r to implemen t the pr ogr am

## PFI St **andar ds/EN**  **plus Similarities**  • Both include an accr edited a uditing st ructur e and thir d party ov er sigh t • QA/QC pr actices at the facility • Thr ee gr ades with similar gr ade crit eria

## PFI St **andar ds/EN**  **plus Diff** **er ences**  • EN plus cover s the complete supply chain • Sus ta inability criteria • Carbon calculations • Inspection and t es ting fr equency

# Thank Y

ou! Chris Wiberg 218 - 428 - 3583 cwiberg@tpinspection.com Fo r mor e information about the PFI Standar ds Pr ogr am ,

please contact Jennifer Hedrick hedrick@pelletheat.org
Luis D. RIVERA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1880

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Risk Management Document

Importation of Fresh Fruit of Tejocote (Crataegus pubescens

(Kunth) Steud.) from Mexico into the Continental United 

States

March 31, 2011

Plant Health Programs (PHP)

Regulatory Coordination and Compliance (RCC)

Contact Person: Dave Lamb
Introduction

In response to a request for market access to import fresh fruit of Tejocote (Crataegus pubescens

(Kunth) Steud.) from Mexico into the continental United States, the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prepared a pest risk 

assessment (PRA) as per the Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment (USDA. 

2000). 

The pest risk assessment document, Importation of Fresh Fruit of Tejocote (Crataegus 

pubescens (Kunth) Steud.) from Mexico into the Continental United States found no quarantine 

pests of Tejocote in Mexico (USDA. 2011). No risk mitigations are required other than port-ofentry inspection, limitation of imports to commercial shipments only, and inspection by the 

NPPO that, when appropriate, will issue a phytosanitary certificate indicating the commodity has 

been inspected and no pests are present.

Risk Management Measures

 Tejocote must be imported as commercial shipments only.

 Each consignment of Tejocote must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued 

by NPPO of the exporting country stating that the Tejocote in the consignment has been 

inspected and is free of pests.

 Each shipment is subject to inspection upon arrival at port of entry to the United States.

Conclusion

No quarantine pests were identified by the pest risk assessment as following the pathway of fresh 

Tejocote from Mexico. APHIS concludes that the phytosanitary measures proposed in this 

document will result in the effective removal of any potential quarantine pests associated with 

the importation of fresh Tejocote fruit from Mexico. 

References:

PPQ. 2000. Guidelines for pathway-initiated pest risk assessments (Version 5.02). United 

States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine (PPQ), Riverdale, MD. 30 pp.

USDA. 2011. Importation of Fresh Fruit of Tejocote (Crataegus pubescens (Kunth) Steud.) 

from Mexico into the Continental United States. A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk 

Assessment. USDA, APHIS, CPHST, PERAL, Raleigh, NC. 13 pp.
Authors

Walter P. Gould

Senior Risk Manager
Edwin SANTOS-MALAVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-213

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 20, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Reginald D. WASHINGTON, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Mike CARROLL, Secretary, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2430

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Amended.
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report 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
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Christopher ClementeChristopher Clemente
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Bruce J. LabovitzBruce J. Labovitz
Chief Financial OfficerMarch 16,
2007
Joseph M. O'CALLAGHAN, Petitioner, v. LEO JR. LAWN AND IRRIGATION SERVICES, LLC, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-2327

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hansuyan Armstead, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 846]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J.), rendered September 30, 1999, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not meet the required condition of successful completion of a drug program, the court properly determined that defendant was not entitled to have her felony plea replaced by a more lenient disposition, and properly imposed sentence. The record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation in connection with her plea and sentence *(see, People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714; *People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404). At sentencing, counsel made suitable efforts to persuade the court to excuse defendant’s failure to complete the program, and there is no indication that further efforts would have been successful.

Defendant received the minimum sentence authorized by law. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
STATE of Louisiana v. Demetric Lawaderick WHITLOCK

No. 2016-K-1954

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

Reconsideration denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.
p. 1


# OAR Box 1672 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# ^8)II-C-1 9 Docket Number: 

# A-98-1 3

Printed 9/30/2008

11:01:00

AM Sheet 48of 132P. 2 A 9 8 1 3 From : To : Subject : Copie s to : Dat e sent : Bil l Allmon d NAC D Sel f<PES 1 RTP/GLAFLAM >

BILLNAC D <BILLNACD@aol.com > EP A Surve y an d Site Visit s STEV E SHED D <SHEDD.STEVE@epamail.epa.gov> Fri , 2 0 Ma r 1998 15:40:4 1 -0500 (EST )

Bill : Rathe rtha n cal l yo u o n a Fridayafternoon , I though t I' d sen d a brie f messag e an d le t yo u cal l m e bac k todayi f yo u wish
. Otherwise , I'l l tr yt o cal l yo u o n Monday
. W e ar e read yt o expan d ou rsurve ymailin g lis t b yextractin g companie s fro m you rmembershi p director ytha t have severa l chemica l code s o f interes t t o us . Woul d yo u like u s t o sen d yo u a lis t o f ou r picks , rathe rtha n you rsuggestin g som e t o u s a s bein g appropriate ? W e als o nee d t o fir m u p ou rsit e visit s i n Texas , an d woul d like t o ad d on e mor e i n th e genera l Housto n are a (i f possible)
. Ca n w e discus s possibl e NAC D membe rcandidate s (othe rtha n Ashland , whic h i s th e compan yw e have alread ytalke d to) ? I hop e yo u ca n participat e i n th e EPA' s P-MACTmeetin g o n Tuesday , a t leas t bycallin g in
. Thanks , Gre g LaFla m PES , Inc
.


# 0

^ Gre g LaFla m

_ . 1 „ Mon , 1 3 Ap r199 8 14:52:1 5
Dora FERRER and Manfredo Ferrer, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0967

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.