alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1



                            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 Quarterly Report of Magnolia Ventures, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, and each of us, Peggy Melilli, Chief Executive
Officer and Dennis Melilli, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; and

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

/s/ Peggy Melilli

Peggy Melilli
_______________________
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Dennis Melilli

_______________________
Chief Financial Officer

Dennis Melilli
August 12, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                     0001096649
<NAME>            Mirador Diversified Services, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1
<CURRENCY>                                       USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                       143,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             14,000,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                        76,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            14,906,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      9,990,984
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              14,906,927
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          15,076,608
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          11,810,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            3,266,367
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               3,266,367
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.15


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re: Maria E Mejia Case No: 19-22952-RAM

Chapter 13

Debtor(s) /

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE BY ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR WITH LOCAL RULE

2083-1(B) CLAIMS REVIEW REQUIREMENT

The undersigned attorney for debtor certifies that a review of the claims register 

and all claims filed in the above referenced case has been completed in accordance 

with Local Rule 2083-1(B) and that:

1) No further action is necessary.

2) The following actions have been taken:

The debtor has filed an objection to the proof of claim filed by

Objection to Claim of LVNV Funding, LLC / Resurgent Capital Services [# 

15-1] .

The debtor has filed a amended plan or modified plan to provide 

for the proof of claim filed by .

Other:

.

A copy of this certificate of compliance was served on the chapter 13 trustee via 

the NEF and the debtor via U.S. Mail on May 22, 2020 .

Submitted by:

ROBERT SANCHEZ, P.A.

Attorney for Debtor 

355 W 49th Street

Hialeah, FL 33013

Tel. (305) 687-8008

By:/s/Robert Sanchez_________________

 Robert Sanchez, Esq., FBN#0442161

LF-76 (rev. 12/01/09)

Case 19-22952-RAM Doc 42 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 1
AAM-12-217-E March 15, 2012 Exemption No. 10480 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0153

Ms. Gayle Wade

Air Associates of Ks 12901 West 151 Street, Suite B Olathe, KS 66062

Dear Ms. Wade:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By submission received February 21, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Air Associates of Ks and T & C Aviation Enterprises, Inc. (Air Associates/T&C) for an exemption from part 120 to allow Air Associates/T&C, which are operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover their safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Air Associates/T&C.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate drug and alcohol testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—2

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Air Associates of Ks and T & C Aviation Enterprises, Inc. an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Air Associates/T&C, which are operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover their safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations

described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Air Associates/T&C are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Air Associates/T&C part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Location of photographs showing landslide features in the Little North Santiam River Basin, Oregon      

      January 1, 2010    

Data points represent locations of photographs taken of landslides in the Little North Santiam River Basin, Oregon. Photos were taken in spring of 2010 during field verification of landslide locations (deposits previously mapped using LiDAR-derived imagery). The photographs depict various landslide features, such as scarps, pistol-butt trees, or colluvium deposits. This work was completed as part of the Master's thesis "Turbidity Monitoring and LiDAR Imagery Indicate Landslides are Primary Source of Suspended-Sediment Load in the Little North Santiam River Basin, Oregon, Winter 2009-2010" by Steven Sobieszczyk, Portland State University and U.S. Geological Survey. Data layers in this geodatabase include: landslide deposit boundaries (Deposits); field-verfied location imagery (Photos); head scarp or scarp flanks (Scarp_Flanks); and secondary scarp features (Scarps).The geodatabase template was developed by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (Burns and Madin, 2009).

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Steven Sobieszćzyk

##### Media Lead - Natural Hazards

Communications and Publishing

##### Hydrologist/PIO2

Wildland Fire Science

ssobie@usgs.gov

503-853-3425

## Related Content

#### Steven Sobieszćzyk

##### Media Lead - Natural Hazards

Communications and Publishing

##### Hydrologist/PIO2

Wildland Fire Science

ssobie@usgs.gov

503-853-3425

### Study Area

### Contacts

#### Steven Sobieszćzyk

##### Media Lead - Natural Hazards

Communications and Publishing

##### Hydrologist/PIO2

Wildland Fire Science

ssobie@usgs.gov

503-853-3425

### Explore Search

                  - Natural Hazards
                  - United States
                  - Oregon

View All **
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 7264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LEONUS STEVENSON PETERSON, a/k/a Doe, a/k/a Doughboy , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:18

- cr - 00090

- JAG

- 1; 3:22

- cv 00502

- JAG )

Submitted : April 18 , 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and THACKER , Circuit Judges

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Leonus Stevenson Peterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7264 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Leonus Stevenson Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stan dard by demonstrating that reasona ble jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitution al right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peterson has not made the requisite showing. In particular, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s rejection of Peterson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

as meritless . Similarly, reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s conclusion that Peterson’s challenge to his sentence was not cognizable in a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Foote , 784 F.3d 931, 936

- 4 3 (4th Cir. 2015) (discussing cognizability of sentencing challenges brought under § 2255). F inally , because “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that [Peterson was] entitled to no relief,” the district court did not err by denying Peterson’s motion without holding an evidentiary USCA4 Appeal: 23-7264 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 hearing . 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional proces s. DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7264 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 10.22
                                                                   -------------






                     UNSECURED SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTE

$1,000,000.00                                                       May 31, 2002

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Palweb Corporation ("Debtor"),
promises to pay to the order of Paul A. Kruger, individually ("Lender"), the
principal sum of up to One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) together with
interest thereon at the fixed rate of six percent (6 %) per annum. The loan will
be funded by Lender in traunches of not less than $250,000 each. The first
traunche of $500,000 will be funded on May 31, 2002, or within two business days
thereof. This Debtor then will have up to two remaining traunches, totaling
$500,000 available to it. This Note shall be unsecured and subordinated to any
and all bank debt or other third party institutional debt of PalWeb Corporation
past, present or future.

         Any sums advanced to Debtor against the Note shall be due and payable
with interest as a balloon payment on June 1, 2003.

         If this Note is not paid when due and Debtor fails to cure such default
within ten (10) days of receiving written notice thereof from Lender, then
Lender may, at its option, declare this Note immediately due and payable in
full.

         If the Debtor is dissolved, makes an assignment for the benefit of
creditors, or institutes or has instituted against it any insolvency or
bankruptcy proceeding, this Note shall become immediately due and payable at the
option of the holder, and notice of the election of this option is expressly
waived.

         If this Note or any portion of the principal due hereunder is not paid
when due, and is given to an attorney for collection, or suit is filed hereon,
and as often as any of such events occur, the prevailing party in such
litigation shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and court
costs.
<PAGE>

         The Debtor hereof may prepay all or any portion of the principal hereof
at any time without prepayment penalty or premium. Any and all principal
prepayments made hereby must be accompanied by full payment of all interest
accrued on the amount of principal so prepaid.

         The Debtor undertakes to prepay Lender in the event Debtor obtains
additional financing, which gives the Debtor the financial capacity to prepay
the Lender.
"Debtor"



PALWEB CORPORATION


By: /s/ Greg Trickel
    --------------------
    Greg Trickel



AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


/s/ Paul A. Kruger
------------------------
Lender, Paul A. Kruger
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 28, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01158-CV CHARLES WHITTINGTON AND DIAN E WHITTINGTON, Appellants V. HSBC BANK USA, N.A . AS SUCCESSOR TRUS TEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-01751-2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia This appeal is reinstated. In 2018, we abated this a ppeal due to Diane Whittington’s bankruptcy. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.2. Since the ab atement, there has been no activity in this appeal. The Cour t conducted an independe nt review of the federal Public Access to Court Electr onic Records (PACER) system which shows the debtor was discharged on August 30, 2018. We notified the parties by le tter, requesting they inform the Court of the status of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond might result in the appeal being dismi ssed for want of prosecution. See id . 42.3(b),(c).–2– In response, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal stating that appellants have settled all claims agai nst appellee and requ esting the Court to dismiss this appeal. We grant appella nts’ motion and dismiss this appeal. See id

. 42.1(a).

171158F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

CHARLES WHITTINGTON AND DIANE WHITTINGTON, Appellants
No. 05-17-01158-CV V. HSBC BANK USA, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-01751- 2016. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Myers and Partida-Kipness participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered May 28, 2021
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40515 Conference Calendar

CHI THIEN DUONG, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.

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

USDC No. 2:05-CV-229

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Chi Thien Duong, federal prisoner # 04236-078, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and two counts of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Duong argues that he was actually innocent of the second firearm conviction because he was not convicted of a second drug trafficking offense. He asserts that his second firearm conviction was improper because the jury instructions on thatNo. 06-40515 -2- charge were incorrect. He further maintains that the second firearm conviction violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. In support of his claims, Duong relies upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Deal v. United States , 508 U.S. 129 (1993) , In re Winship , 397 U.S. 358 (1970), and Schlup v. Delo , 513 U.S. 298 (1995), as well as several lower court decisions. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See Christopher v. Miles , 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2003). All of the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by Duong were already decided by the time Duong filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in 1996. As Duong has not shown that his claims are based upon a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that decriminalized the conduct for which he was convicted and were foreclosed at the time he filed his § 2255 motion, Duong has not made the required showing to challenge his convictions in a § 2241 petition. See id. at 382. Although Duong relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Shepard v United States , 544 U.S. 13 (2005), in the district court, he does not raise that argument in this court and the argument is, therefore, waived. See Hughes v. Johnson , 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6111** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ELEAZAR CORTES GUERRERO, a/k/a Cat , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00208

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ , KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Eleazar Cortes Guerrero , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

Parker, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , William Glenn Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Eleazar Cortes Guerrero appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We review the district court’s
decision for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Munn , 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). We do not find any abuse of discretion as the record justifies the district court’s decision
not to reduce Guerrero’s sentence, as it properly considered
Guerrero’s post

- sentencing conduct pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 1B.10, cmt. n. 1(B)(iii) (2014). Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Form of Second Letter Amendment (2012) to Performance Restricted Stock Unit....



 Exhibit 10.2(M) 

[Yahoo! Inc. Letterhead] 

            , 2012 

 

			
	  
	  	
	  
	  	
	  
	  	

  

	 	Re:	Letter Amendment to Performance Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (AFP Version - 2010) 


Dear             : 
 Reference is made to the Performance Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (AFP Version) between you and Yahoo! Inc. (the “Company”) dated February 25, 2010 (the “Award
Agreement”), and the letter agreement amending the Award Agreement between you and the Company dated February 25, 2011 (the “Amendment”). Capitalized terms used in this letter agreement and not otherwise defined herein will have
the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Award Agreement. 
 The purpose of this letter agreement is to amend the Award
Agreement and the Amendment to provide that the Restricted Stock Units subject to the award for the 2012 Performance Year will not be subject to the performance-based vesting requirements referred to in Section 2(c) of the Award Agreement.
Instead, you will be credited with the Annual Target Number of Restricted Stock Units set forth in the Award Agreement for the 2012 Performance Year, and such Annual Target Number of Restricted Stock Units will vest on February 25, 2013,
subject to the change in control and termination of employment rules set forth in the Award Agreement. 
 This letter agreement
does not modify any other terms of the Award Agreement or the Amendment except as expressly set forth above (including, without limitation, the crediting of any Restricted Stock Units to you with respect to the 2010 and 2011 Performance Years and
the vesting and payment provisions applicable to any such units). 
 If this letter accurately sets forth our agreement with
respect to the foregoing matters, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to me. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	Yahoo! Inc.
	[NAME, TITLE]


  

			
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
		
	By:	 	  

		 	[NAME]
Case 19-24331-PGH Doc 18 Filed 11/22/19 Page 1 of 4
Case 19-24331-PGH Doc 18 Filed 11/22/19 Page 2 of 4
Case 19-24331-PGH Doc 18 Filed 11/22/19 Page 3 of 4
Case 19-24331-PGH Doc 18 Filed 11/22/19 Page 4 of 4