alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 19-24331-PDR    Doc 164    Filed 07/06/21    Page 1 of 9

Case 19-24331-PDR    Doc 164    Filed 07/06/21    Page 2 of 9

Case 19-24331-PDR    Doc 164    Filed 07/06/21    Page 3 of 9

Case 19-24331-PDR    Doc 164    Filed 07/06/21    Page 4 of 9

Case 19-24331-PDR    Doc 164    Filed 07/06/21    Page 5 of 9

Case 19-24331-PDR    Doc 164    Filed 07/06/21    Page 6 of 9

Case 19-24331-PDR    Doc 164    Filed 07/06/21    Page 7 of 9

Case 19-24331-PDR    Doc 164    Filed 07/06/21    Page 8 of 9

Case 19-24331-PDR    Doc 164    Filed 07/06/21    Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A
      of
      United American Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, I certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of United American Corporation
              for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 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 Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A
              for
              the quarter ended June 30, 2005, fairly presents in all material respects,
              the financial condition and results of operations of United American
              Corporation.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







By:
            /s/
                Simon LamarcheName:
            Simon
                LamarcheTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer,
              Principal
                Financial Officer and DirectorDate:
            May
                17, 2006
Incentive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Incentive Bonus Plan 
 Purpose 

The purpose of the Company’s incentive bonus plan is to provide an incentive in the form of an annual cash bonus to all executive
officers and certain staff employees of the Company for achieving the Company’s sales and target profit goals. 
 Approval

 The incentive bonus plan is approved by the Compensation Committee as to executive officers and by the Executive
Committee as to staff employees. Although the Company has a defined method for calculating the incentive bonus, these Committees retain the right to alter or discontinue the incentive bonus plan at their discretion at any time for the employees
within their approval authority. 
 Eligibility and Payment 

The incentive bonus plan compensates the executive officers and staff employees for their services during the calendar year and they must
be employed with the Company at the end of the calendar year to participate in the incentive bonus. The annual bonuses are paid in the year following the year earned. 
 Incentive Bonus Calculation 
 The Company’s incentive bonus
plan is based on a target bonus equal to two months pay for all full incentive bonus participants (participants generally transition into the incentive bonus plan over a two-year period). Effective January 1, 2012, participants will transition
into the incentive bonus plan over a 12 month period. The formula for the incentive bonus plan is determined so that if the sales and target profit goals for the fiscal year are achieved, the incentive bonus participants will receive the target
bonus. The incentive bonus can be more or less than the target bonus based on the Company’s actual results compared to its sales and target profit goals. No incentive bonus is paid unless greater than 80% of the target profit is achieved.

 In general, the incentive bonus pool is allocated to the executive officers and staff employees according to the relative
base compensation paid to them during the calendar year for which the incentive bonus is being paid.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               VOIP TELECOM, INC.


     The  undersigned  President and  Secretary of VOIP  TELECOM,  INC. a Nevada
corporation,  pursuant to the  provisions of Section  78.385 and 78.390,  of the
Nevada  Revised   Statutes,   for  the  purpose  of  amending  the  Articles  of
Incorporation of the said Corporation, do certify as follows:

     That the Board of  Directors  of the said  corporation,  at a meeting  duly
convened and held on the 31st day of May, 2002, adopted resolutions to amend the
Articles of Incorporation, as follows:

         ARTICLE I shall be amended as follows:

                                ARTICLE I - NAME

    The name of the Corporation shall be DIVERSIFIED THERMAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

     The forgoing amendment to the Articles of Incorporation,  were duly adopted
by the  written  consent of the  shareholders  of the  Corporation,  pursuant to
Section 78.320 of the Nevada Revised Statute, on May 31st, 2002.

     The number of shares of Common  Stock of the  Corporation  outstanding  and
entitled to vote on 4,756,149  shares and the said  amendments were approved and
consented  to by  2,811,626  shares,  being  voted in person or by proxy,  which
represented more that a 59% majority of the issued and outstanding shares of the
Common Stock of the Corporation.

     The undersigned  President and Secretary of the Corporation  hereby declare
that the forgoing  Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation is true
and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.

     In witness  whereof,  this certificate has been executed by the undersigned
on May 31, 2002.



Mary Eubanks, Secretary          B. Grant Hunter, President
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50892 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS FUENTES-PICON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-01-CR-215-ALL

-------------------- February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Fuentes-Picon appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Fuentes-Picon argues that his sentence should not have been enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. He asserts that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses and that an aggravated felony conviction is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Fuentes-No. 01-50892 -2- Picon states that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Fuentes-Picon acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the validity of that decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Fuentes-Picon seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Locating CVBEM collocation points for steady state heat transfer problems      

      January 1, 1985    

The Complex Variable Boundary Element Method or CVBEM provides a highly accurate means of developing numerical solutions to steady state two-dimensional heat transfer problems. The numerical approach exactly solves the Laplace equation and satisfies the boundary conditions at specified points on the boundary by means of collocation. The accuracy of the approximation depends upon the nodal point distribution specified by the numerical analyst. In order to develop subsequent, refined approximation functions, four techniques for selecting additional collocation points are presented. The techniques are compared as to the governing theory, representation of the error of approximation on the problem boundary, the computational costs, and the ease of use by the numerical analyst.

## Citation Information
January 2&h, 1939

Hon. Tom F. Coleman CountyAttorney Lufkin, Texas Dear Mr. Coleman: OpinionRo. O-195 Re: Payment of Bond Tax. Your request for an opinion on the followingquestion; "Whetherthe tax assessor collector can accept orders for poll taxes on the last of January for 'deliverylater, sometimesthe last of February and the taxes are paid when delivered" has been received by this office.

Article 2959,Revised Civil Statutes of Te::<es ;c:-,: vides; "Apoll tax shallbe collected from every person between the ages of twenty-oneand sixt:: yearswho resided in this State on the first day of January preceding its levy, Indiansnot taxed, persons insane,blind, deaf or dumb, and those who have lost a hand nr foot, or permanentlydisabled, excepted. It shallbe paid at any tiz:: between the first day of October a:idthe first day of February following;and the persor: when he pays It, shallbe entitled to his poll tax receipt, even if his other taxes are unpaid." Article 198 of the Penal Code of Texas,provides; "Any collector of taxes, or any one ii1 his employ,who wllfully fails or refuses to ,transcribe correctly from the originalpoll tax receipt or certificate of exemptionand insert in the duplicate retained in the collector's -office the name and other description ofthe citize% required by law to be given by him, or who fails to transcribe correctly from the duplicate kept in the collector's office and insert in the lis,t of qualified voters of a precinct the name and description of the citizen as contained in saidHon. Tom **F.** Coleman,January 24th, 1939 - **NO.** 2

duplicate, orwho issues a poll tax receipt after the

. _ O-195

first day of February in any year,~bearinga date prior to the first day of February, or who wllfullg falls to keep said originalduplicate securely locked up when the same are not being used, or permits them to be mutilated, defacted, lost or destroyed, or who conceals,alters or destroys them, shallbe fined not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars." The statuteprovides that poll taxes shallbe paid at any time between the first day of Octoberand the first day of February following,and the personwhen he pays shall be entitledto his poll tax receipt. The statutedoes not provide for the issuance of receipts upon deferred payments, and you are respectfully advised that the tax assessor-collector has no authority to issuepoll tax receipts bearing date prior to the time that such poll taxes are actuallypaid, and by issuingpoll tax receipts bearing prior dates of an actual payment, is subject to prosecutionunder Article 198 of the Penal Code.

Trusting that the foregoinganswersyour inquiry, I remain Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

By s/ArdellWilliams ArdellWilliams Assistant AW:OMB:wc

APPROVED s/GeraldC. Mann ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS
EXHIBIT 99.2

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

# 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 Uranium Power Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Thornton Donaldson, acting Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, 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; 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/   Thornton Donaldson
        Thornton Donaldson
        Acting Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
        September 16, 2002
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Large-scale atmospheric forcing of recent trends toward early snowmelt runoff in California      

      March 1, 1995    

Since the late 1940s, snowmelt and runoff have come increasingly early in the water year in many basins in northern and central California. This subtle trend is most pronounced in moderate-altitude basins, which are sensitive to changes in mean winter temperatures. Such basins have broad areas in which winter temperatures are near enough to freezing that small increases result initially in the formation of less snow and eventually in early snowmelt. In moderate-altitude basins of California, a declining fraction of the annual runoff has come in April–June. This decline has been compensated by increased fractions of runoff at other, mostly earlier, times in the water year.

Weather stations in central California, including the central Sierra Nevada, have shown trends toward warmer winters since the 1940s. A series of regression analyses indicate that runoff timing responds equally to the observed decadal-scale trends in winter temperature and interannual temperature variations of the same magnitude, suggesting that the temperature trend is sufficient to explain the runoff-timing trends. The immediate cause of the trend toward warmer winters in California is a concurrent, long-term fluctuation in winter atmospheric circulations over the North Pacific Ocean and North America that is not immediately distinguishable from natural atmospheric variability. The fluctuation began to affect California in the 1940s, when the region of strongest low-frequency variation of winter circulations shifted to a part of the central North Pacific Ocean that is teleconnected to California temperatures. Since the late 1940s, winter wind fields have been displaced progressively southward over the central North Pacific and northward over the west coast of North America. These shifts in atmospheric circulations are associated with concurrent shifts in both West Coast air temperatures and North Pacific sea surface temperatures.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Contact

####               Ecosystems Mission Area Headquarters          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Sierra Nevada
                  - california

View All **
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-172925, 333-10232 and 333-11320 on Form F-3 of our report dated 14 March 2013, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Santander UK plc, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F ofSantander UK plc for the year ended 31 December 2012, and to the reference to us under the heading “Selected Financial Data” in such Annual Report on Form 20-F. 

*DELOITTE LLP*

London, UK 

20 March 2013
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42008

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RYAN WAYNE KANADY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 800

Filed: November 5, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Ryan Wayne Kanady pled guilty to domestic violence. Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18-

918(2). The district court sentenced Kanady to a unified sentence of ten years with two years 

determinate. Kanady filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. 

Kanady appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 

motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Gill, 150 Idaho 183, 186, 244 P.3d 1269, 1272 (Ct. App. 2010). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 
2

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent 

the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of 

Kanady’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the 

foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Kanady’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employee Benefits Security Administration

          - [Exemption Application No. D-11467]

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     dated September 3, 2008 (73 FR 51525), the Department of Labor (the Department) published a notice of proposed exemption (the Notice) from the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and from certain taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Notice, for which relief has been requested, concerned the sale of real property from the Plan (the Property) to its sponsoring employer Merritts Antiques, Inc. (the Applicant). By letter dated August 29, 2008, the Applicant informed the Department that it wished to withdraw the Notice because the Property had been sold to a third party buyer.                

Accordingly, the Notice is hereby withdrawn.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of January, 2009.

Ivan L. Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.

 [FR Doc. E9-961 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature Note 70: Records of the Stratigraphic Commission 2014-2017      

      April 7, 2020    

NACSN (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature) Note 70 is a summary of the activities of the Commission from October 2014-October 2017. This note is condensed from the minutes of the 69th through the 72nd meetings of the NACSN held in conjunction with the Annual Meetings of the Geological Society of America. The 69th meeting of the NACSN was held October 20, 2014, in Vancouver, British Columbia; the 70th meeting on November 2, 2015, in Baltimore, Maryland; the 71st meeting on September 26, 2016, in Denver, Colorado; and the 72nd meeting on October 23, 2017, in Seattle, Washington. Members of the NACSN who served as officers during the period 2014-2017 serve as co-authors of this note and are listed with their roles in Appendix A. The mission of the NACSN is to develop statements of stratigraphic principles, recommend procedures applicable to the classification of nomenclature of stratigraphic units, review problems in classifying and naming stratigraphic and related units, and formulate expressions of judgement on these matters. Commissioners of the NACSN represent various geoscience professional organizations from Canada, Mexico, and the United States who have an interest in maintaining a stable stratigraphic nomenclature. Commissioners and their constituencies for 2014-2017 are listed in Appendix B.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Lucy Edwards

##### Scientist Emeritus

Florence Bascom Geoscience Center

leedward@usgs.gov

703-648-5272

## Related Content

#### Lucy Edwards

##### Scientist Emeritus

Florence Bascom Geoscience Center

leedward@usgs.gov

703-648-5272

### Contact

####               Florence Bascom Geoscience Center          

12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States

703-648-5953
Waldo MATA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-0591

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Natasha Baker-Bradley, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.