alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form CGFCRD3T (2/16/2021)

United States Bankruptcy Court

 Southern District of Florida

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

Case Number: 19−24331−PDR

Chapter: 13

In re:

Ralph Levi Sanders Jr.

561 SW 60 Ave.

Plantation, FL 33317

SSN: xxx−xx−6171

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing will be held before the Honorable Peter D. Russin to consider the

following:

Emergency Motion For Sanctions Pursuant to 11 USC 362k Automatic Stay Violation and Creditor

Misconduct Against Bank of New York Mellon, Specialized Loan Servicing, Wells Fargo Filed by

Debtor Ralph Levi Sanders Jr. (Manboard, Sandra) (116)

1. This matter has been set on the Court's motion calendar for a non−evidentiary hearing. The allotted

time for this matter is ten minutes. The hearing will be held:

Date: June 1, 2021

Time: 01:00 PM

Location: Telephone by CourtSolutions LLC

2. The hearing scheduled by this notice will take place only by telephone. DO NOT GO TO THE

COURTHOUSE. Attorneys must advise their clients not to appear at the courthouse. Individuals not

represented by counsel will be able to use the telephonic services free of charge. Although conducted

by telephone, the hearing is a court proceeding. The formalities of the courtroom must be observed.

All participants must exercise civility, and otherwise conduct themselves in a manner consistent with

the dignity of the Court.

3. To participate through CourtSolutions, you must make a reservation in advance no later than 3:00

p.m., one business day before the date of the hearing. Reservations should be arranged online at

https://www.court−solutions.com. If a party is unable to register online, a reservation may also be

made by telephone at (917) 746−7476.

4. The movant, or movant's counsel if represented by an attorney, must:

(a) serve a copy of this notice of hearing and, unless previously served, the above−described

document(s) on all required parties within the time frame required by the Federal Rules of

Bankruptcy Procedure, the local rules of this Court, and orders of the Court, and

(b) file a certificate of service as required under Local Rules 2002−1(F) and 9073−1(B).

Any party who fails to properly serve any pleading or other paper may be denied the opportunity to be

heard thereon.

5. PLEASE NOTE: No person may record the proceedings from any location by any means. The audio

recording maintained by the Court will be the sole basis for creation of a transcript that constitutes the

official record of the hearing.

Dated: 5/4/21 CLERK OF COURT

By: Christina Romero

Courtroom Deputy

Case 19-24331-PDR Doc 119 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 1
Schedule of Salary Actions for Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Schedule of Salary Actions for Named Executive Officers 
  

																	
	 Name
	  	Current Salary	 	  	Increase ($)	 	  	Increase (%)	 	 	New Salary*	 
	 John D. Finnegan
	  	$	1,325,000	  	  	 	—  	  	  	 	—  	  	 	$	1,325,000	  
	 Richard G. Spiro
	  	 	811,125	  	  	$	40,556	  	  	 	5	% 	 	 	851,681	  
	 Paul J. Krump
	  	 	700,000	  	  	 	35,000	  	  	 	5	  	 	 	735,000	  
	 Dino E. Robusto
	  	 	700,000	  	  	 	35,000	  	  	 	5	  	 	 	735,000	  
	 Harold L. Morrison, Jr.
	  	 	600,000	  	  	 	30,000	  	  	 	5	  	 	 	630,000	  

  

	 	*	Effective as of April 1, 2012
# L_2004353EN.01002301.xml

| 27.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 353/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 353/23

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2004 of 12 July 2004 amending for the 37th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 241 of 13 July 2004
  )

On page 13, in point (2), under (a):

for:

‘Abulaziz’,

read:

‘Abdulaziz’.

---
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 
 Incentive Stock Option Agreement Amendment No. 1 
 This Incentive
Stock Option Agreement Amendment No.1 (this “Amendment”) is made February 29, 2012 between Harris Interactive Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Al Angrisani (the “Participant”). 

This Amendment amends the Incentive Stock Option Agreement (the “Incentive Stock Option Agreement”) made between the Company
and the Participant effective as of June 7, 2011. All terms of the Incentive Stock Option Agreement, except as amended hereby, remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them
in the Incentive Stock Option Agreement. 
 1. Section 1(b) of the Incentive Stock Option Agreement is hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows: 
  

	 	(a)	The “Initial Exercise Date” is February 29, 2012. 

 2. A new Section 13 shall be added to the Incentive Stock Option Agreement to read as follows: 
 13. Lock-Up Period. The Participant hereby agrees that the Participant shall not, directly or indirectly, pledge, hypothecate, sell, contract to sell, or otherwise transfer or dispose of any
Covered Shares or enter into any swap, hedging or other arrangement that transfers to another, in whole or in part, any of the economic consequences of ownership of any Covered Shares until the earlier of (a) June 30, 2014 or (b) the
date of a Change in Control. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed and delivered as of the date first above
written. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 

  
 1 








  

			
	HARRIS INTERACTIVE INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Howard Shecter
		 	Howard Shecter
		 	Chairman of the Board
		
		 	/s/ Al Angrisani
		 	AL ANGRISANI


  
 2
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 Quarterly Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Bo, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  
1350 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 results of operations of the
Company.




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





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and 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.




Date:
      March 6, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Liu BoLiu
      Bo
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                (principal
      executive officer)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41530 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
LUIS IGNACIO PEREZ

- MEZA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 483

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Ignacio Perez

Meza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Un ited States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez

- Meza h a s 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

* 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41530 Document: 00513643631 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2016No. 15

- 41530

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41530 Document: 00513643631 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2016
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 472-14 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7038

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD E. CANNON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-792, CA-98-1340-6-20) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Richard E. Cannon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Cannon , Nos. CR-96-792; CA98-1340-6-20 (D.S.C. May 28, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                 CERTIFICATION

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Case Financial Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Harvey Bibicoff,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

3.    The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

4.    The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the dates and for the periods presented in this Report.

Date: May14, 2004



                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Harvey Bibicoff
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 has been provided to Case Financial Inc. and will be
retained by Case  Financial  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       31
Appendix F

Draft Company Annual Report: Summary of

Reductions in Emissions and Product Content

October 2011

NON CBI
2010/15 PFOA Global Stewardship Program

Draft Company Report: Summary of Reductions in Emissions and Pro

SECTION 1: REPORT DATE October 2011SECTION 2: COMPANY IDENTIFICATION

Company NameSOLVAY SOLEXIS, INC.

2a Street Address 10 LEONARD LANE

THOROFARE, NJ 08086

SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF EMISSIONSReporting Period (use calendar year - e.g. Jan 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005) Jan 1, 2010 – Dec 31, 2010

Releases to all environmental media from

fluoropolymer and telomer manufacture Operations Chemical category

Kgs 1 kgs of fluoropolymers

kgs of category

kgs of telome

kgs of categor

PFOA, PFOA salts andhigher homologues

100–1000kg

0.000035 NA 

3a

U.S. facilities

Precursors NAPFOA, PFOA salts andhigher homologues

NA

3b Non-U.S. facilities

Precursors NA

Please provide information on the methods, assumptions, uncertainties and detection limits for the data pro

3c
SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CONTENT

Reporting Period (use calendar year - e.g. Jan 1, 2005 to Dec 31, 2005) Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2010

Product type Fluoropolymer dispersions Other fluoropolymers1 T

4a

Production volume (kgs/year)2 >1,000,000 >1,000,000 NA

Concentration3 % R

from ba

Operations Chemical category Fluoropolymer

dispersions4

(ppm wetweight)

Other

fluoropolymers1,5

(ppb dry weight)

Telomer based

products6

(ppb dry weight )

Fluoropolymer

dispersions

fluoro

PFOA, PFOA saltsand higherhomologues

< 10 ppm <5 ppm 99% 97% 

4b

U.S.facilities

PrecursorsPFOA, PFOA saltsand higherhomologues 4c Non-U.S. facilitiesPrecursors

Please provide information on the methods, assumptions, uncertainties and detection limits for the data pro

4d

1 Fluoropolymers manufactured with PFOA or related chemicals.2 Use the following ranges: (1) Zero (2) > 0 – 10 kgs; (3) > 10 kgs – 100 kgs; (4) > 100 kgs – 1,000 kgs; (5) > 1,000 kgs – 10,000 kg

100,000 kgs; (7) > 100,000 kgs – 1,000,000 kgs; (8) Over 1,000,000 kgs.

3 Concentration should reflect the concentration of chemical in the product as sold by the reporting company. If the reporting company 

concerning the concentration of chemical in the product as used by others – for example, as incorporated by dilution into a formulation 

information would also be helpful.

4 This value should be expressed as a weighted average concentration and range.5 This value should be expressed as a maximum concentration.6 This value should be expressed as a simple (not weighted) average and range.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-20301]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10014

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER RASHAD TEAL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-173-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Rashad Teal pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute heroin. He now appeals, challenging the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of the above-guidelines 298-month sentence of 

imprisonment imposed by the district court. We affirm.

First, Teal’s alternative interpretations of the record evidence are 

insufficient to demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in determining 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 31, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10014 Document: 00515181534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2019
No. 19-10014

2

the quantity of cocaine and heroin for the purpose of calculating his guidelines 

range. See United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956, 966-67 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Second, his unpreserved challenge to the sufficiency of the district court’s 

consideration of the sentencing factors and explanation of the above-guidelines 

sentence fails on review for plain error. See United States v. Churchwell, 807 

F.3d 107, 122-23 (5th Cir. 2015). Third, we are unpersuaded that the district 

court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. 

See United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328, 343 (5th Cir. 2011). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10014 Document: 00515181534 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2019
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 20084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-40424]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
```
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM










We have
issued our reports dated September 29, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements, schedule and  internal control over financial
reporting included in the Annual Report of Collectors Universe, Inc. and
subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008.  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in Registration
Statements No. 333-34554, No. 333-34558, No. 333-85962,
No. 333-121035, No. 333-137375 and No. 333-139513 of Collectors
Universe, Inc. and subsidiaries, each filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form S-8.










/s/  GRANT
THORNTON LLP





Irvine,
California


September
29, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-20217]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EL95-27-000]


CGE Fulton, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

February 14, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 13, 1995, CGE Fulton, L.L.C. (``CGE 
Fulton''), filed a petition for a declaratory order and requested 
expedited treatment of the petition. CGE Fulton states that it is 
developing a waste-fired qualifying small power production facility in 
the City of Fulton, Illinois (``Project''). CGE Fulton will sell 
electricity from the Project at tariff rates prescribed by Section 8-
403.1 of the Illinois Public Utilities Act and regulations of the 
Illinois Commerce Commission. CGE Fulton seeks a declaratory order that 
the Illinois statute is not preempted by PURPA, and thus, that the 
Project is not affected by the Commission's decision in Connecticut 
Light & Power Co., 70 FERC para.61,012 (January 11, 1995).
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 384.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before February 28, 1995. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
actions to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95- 4103 Filed 2-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
(LOGO)ARTHUR ANDERSEN



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors of
Bank One, Indiana, National Association:


We have  examined  management's  assertion  about  Bank One,  Indiana,  National
Association's  compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP) as it relates to the Banc One Financial  Services Home
Equity  Loan Trust  1999-1  (the  "Certificates"),  as of and for the ten months
ended  December 31, 1999,  included in the  accompanying  management  assertion.
Management  is  responsible  for  Bank  One,  Indiana,   National  Association's
compliance with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based
on our examination.


Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  Bank  One,  Indiana,  National
Association's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances as related
to the Certificates. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on Bank
One,  Indiana,  National  Association's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In  our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  Bank  One,  Indiana,  National
Association complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as they
relate to the  Certificates,  as of and for the ten months  ended  December  31,
1999, is fairly stated, in all material respects.



Arthur Andersen LLP


Chicago, Illinois
May 22, 2000
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3427 

To permanently extend the employer-provided child care credit under section 

45F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2012 

Mr. KOHL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To permanently extend the employer-provided child care credit under section 45F of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF EMPLOYER-PRO4 VIDED CHILD CARE CREDIT. 

5 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

6 Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the amend7 ments made by section 205 of such Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS