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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Anthony R. Harvey, the Chief Executive Officer of Canyon
Copper Corp. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2008, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                           

| | By:    | /s/
      Anthony R. Harvey
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  | ANTHONY R. HARVEY          
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | February 16, 2009          

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  W ASSAMA N GONGO , Petitioner,

v. No. 03-1169



# 

J OHN A SHCROFT , Attorney General, Respondent. 

# 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-596-106)
Submitted: July 24, 2003
Decided: August 26, 2003
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Susan K. Houser, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION

PER CURIAM:
Wassama Ngongo, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board"). The order affirmed, withoutopinion, the immigration judge’s decision and order denying Ngongo’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. Ngongo first claims the immigration judge erred in finding shefailed to present credible evidence in support of her asylum application. We have reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge’s decision, which was designated by the Board as the final agency determination, and find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Ngongo was not credible. As such, Ngongo failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to qualify for relief from removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (2003). Next, Ngongo claims the Board’s summary affirmance procedureshould not have been used in her appeal. The Board affirmed the decision of the immigration judge without opinion, after review by a single Board member, in accordance with the procedure set out in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (2003). We have reviewed Ngongo’s challenges to the Board’s use of this streamlined procedure and find them to be without merit. See Georgis v. Ashcroft , 328 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2003); Mendoza v. United States Attorney Gen. , 327 F.3d 1283, 1288- 89 (11th Cir. 2003); Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003); Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States Attorney Gen. , 321 F.3d 1331, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2003); Albathani v. INS , 318 F.3d 365, 375-79 (1st Cir. 2003). We further find that summary affirmance was appropriate in this case under the factors set forth in § 1003.1(a)(7). Accordingly, we deny Ngongo’s petition for review. We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED 2 N GONGO v. A SHCROFT
Exhibit 10.33

                                  [Letterhead]


February 25, 2002


Stephanie L. Brady
c/o Intercallnet, Inc.
6340 NW 5th Way
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309

Re:  Repayment of Payroll

Dear Ms. Brady;

Please accept this letter as the official extension of the terms and conditions
surrounding the payroll deferral between you and Intercallnet, Inc. (the
Company). You have agreed to defer drawing payroll from the Company commencing
with the payroll period dated November 23, 2001 which represents the two week
pay period ended November 16,2001, as evidenced in the previous letter of
understanding dated November 15, 2001.

Such payroll deferral was to continue until the Company's cash flow was
sufficient to support the payment of payroll to you, as an executive of the
Company, but was to continue longer than through December 31, 2001. Based on the
financial condition of the Company, such deferral is scheduled to continue until
the Company's cash flow is sufficient, in management's view, to support the
payment of compensation. At this time you recognize that subsequent to December
31, 2001 you have received two bi-weekly paychecks that have been cashed and one
bi-weekly check that is currently being held until the cash flow, in
management's view, is sufficient for such checks to be released to you.

When the Company's cash flow, in management's view, is sufficient to support the
payment of payroll to you as an executive, then bi-weekly payroll shall resume.
At such time, the total amount of the deferred payroll (including accrued
interest) will be reviewed and the repayment terms will be determined as either
a lump sum repayment or scheduled payments over a specific time period depending
on the financial condition of the Company.


Sincerely,                                       Accepted By:

/s/ George A. Pacinelli                          /s/ Stephanie L. Brady
---------------------------                      -------------------------------
George A. Pacinelli                              Stephanie L. Brady
President                                        Chief Financial Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(11)
              - connect_staff_profiles(94)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(10)
              - colorado(4)
              - delaware(2)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(4)
              - michigan(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - south dakota(15)
              - texas(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(4)

## By Year

              - (-)2024(118)
              - 2023(50)
              - 2022(65)
              - 2021(33)
              - 2020(4)
              - 2019(13)

staff profileCallum A Walter, PhD

staff profileGabriel B Senay, Ph.D.

staff profileMichael E Wieczorek

Science Theme        January 31, 2024      Water Cycle Components

staff profileJeff Kennedy, PhD

staff profileBrady Couvillion

staff profileNiki Wintzer, PhD

staff profileRoger Patrick Denlinger, Ph.D.

staff profileRenee Takesue

staff profileChristopher S Swezey, Ph.D.

staff profileJamey Jones

staff profileVictoria G. Stengel

Science Theme        January 31, 2024      Surface Water

Science Theme        April 5, 2024      Events

Science Theme        January 31, 2024      Water Properties

staff profileWilliam C Burton

Science Theme        January 31, 2024      Groundwater

newsletterLatest in Landsat Newsletter

ProgramClimate Research and Development Program

Science SupportLandsat Missions

Science CenterJohn Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis

ProgramScience Synthesis, Analysis and Research Program

ProgramScience Analytics and Synthesis (SAS) Program

Science CenterNational Innovation Center

ProgramNational Land Imaging Program

ProgramGeomagnetism Program

Science Support3D Elevation Program

Science CenterAlaska Science Center

#### Pagination

-  First page« First 
-  Previous page‹‹ 
-                Page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-                Current page            4
Exhibit 32.0

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Jefferson Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by Section 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Anderson L. SmithAnderson L. SmithPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jane P. HuttonJane P. HuttonChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary


Date: September 14, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7704

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM F. KINCAID, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-89-

98-HM, CA-94-2559-AMD)

Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Kincaid, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens

Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is stamped September 30,

1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the

docket sheet on October 1, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order

was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date

of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d

1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

William Kincaid, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Kincaid, Nos. CR-89-98-

HM; CA-94-2559-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 1, 1998).* We deny Kincaid’s

motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134779 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134779 

 COA: 276160 

St. Clair CC: 02-001479-FC 

HARRY JACOB WALTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 10.30


                                  [Letterhead]

February 4, 2002


Stephanie L. Brady
c/o Intercallnet, Inc.
6340 NW 5th Way
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309


Re:  Short Term Loan


Dear Ms. Brady;


Please accept this letter as the official terms and conditions surrounding the
temporary loan between you and Intercallnet, Inc. (the "Company"). You have
agreed to loan to the Company an amount equal to $40,000 for general operating
purposes. Interest shall accrue at a rate of prime plus 2%, per annum, to be
calculated over the time period that such temporary loan is outstanding.

It is expressly understood that your short term loan will be repaid, in full, no
later than Friday February 8, 2002 from cash proceeds received from current
accounts receivable. Specifically the cash proceeds from FNC's campaigns of
Sprint and MCI WorldCom as well as Informed Communications Services. If such
cash proceeds from current accounts receivable are not sufficient to repay to
you the $40,000 short term loan, then the remaining outstanding balance due to
you will be satisfied, in full, with proceeds from the equity closing with
Stanford Financial Group, anticipated to close no later than February 15, 2002.





Sincerely,                                        Accepted By:

/s/ Scott R. Gershon                              /s/ Stephanie L. Brady
----------------------------                      ------------------------------
Scott R. Gershon                                  Stephanie L. Brady
Chief Executive Officer                           Chief Financial Officer
Gary WINTERS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4971

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 4, 2018 Rehearing Denied November 8, 2018

Gary Winters, pro se, Petitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

Rowe, Osterhaus, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40521 (Summary Calendar)

__________________

DONALD CLARK, a/k/a Donald Clark, Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee,

versus DONALD BROUSSARD, Police Officer, Yoakum Police Department; City of Yoakum, Defendants - Counter Claimants - Appellants,

and

YOAKUM POLICE DEPT; DAVID BYARS, Jailer, Lavaca County Jail; LAVACA COUNTY JAIL; D. DOWNING, M.D.,
Defendants.

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

(USDC No. V-92-CV-60)

- - - - - - - - - - December 6, 1995 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
This appeal is taken from the denial of motions for summary judgment based on Broussard's qualified immunity against Clark's 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action. In that action, Clark asserted that2

Broussard used excessive force against him during an escape
attempt. As there are disputed material fact issues present S Q
here, regarding whether any force used was excessive to the

need SQ we have no jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal of

the district court's denial of summary judgment on the basis of immunity. S ee , Johnson v. Jones , 115 S.Ct. 2151 (1995); Feagley v.
Waddill , 868 F.2d 1437, 1439 (5th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). The appeal of the district court's denial of the motions for

summary judgment is DISMISSED. Accordingly, Clark's motion for production of documents is

DENIED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Early Warnings and Alerts

Filters

              - science_science(12)
              - products_data(2)
              - products_publications(25)
              - multimedia_audio(4)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - (-)multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_video(28)
              - multimedia_video-149194(25)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(4)
              - (-)connect_social_media(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

## By Year

              - 2020(1)

social mediaUSGS ShakeAlert

Interviews        July 6, 2010        Science for a Dangerous Planet
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0664

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TANYA TWOTEETH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 15, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 13 2024

03/13/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0664
Exhibit 10.3



 





Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO

TO THE

GOODRICH CORPORATION OUTSIDE DIRECTOR DEFERRAL PLAN




(Approved By the Board of Directors on April 24, 2007)




          THIS AMENDMENT is made this 24th day of April, 2007, by Goodrich Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the “Company”);




WITNESSETH




          WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Goodrich Corporation Outside Director Deferral Plan, as
approved by the Board of Directors on December 7, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”); and




          WHEREAS, pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company has
maintained the right to amend the Plan from time to time; and




          WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has taken action authorizing this Amendment to
the Plan; and




          NOW, THEREFORE, effective April 24, 2007, the last sentence of Paragraph 6(e) of the Plan is
hereby deleted and the following inserted in lieu thereof:





In the event of any stock dividend, stock split, or similar change in the
capitalization of the Company, the Plan Administrator shall be required to make
equitable adjustments to the Phantom Share Account of each Participant to equalize
the value and prevent dilution or enlargement of the rights of Participants in any
form or manner of adjustment as it, in good faith, may determine, in its sole
discretion, to be equitable under the circumstances.



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has caused this Amendment to
be executed as of the day and year first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	GOODRICH CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	Title:
exv10w3






EXHIBIT 10.3




BIOGEN, INC.

1987 SCIENTIFIC BOARD STOCK OPTION PLAN




AMENDMENT




     The Biogen, Inc. 1987 Scientific Board Stock Option Plan (“the Plan”) is hereby amended as
follows:


Section VI of the Plan is hereby amended by adding a new subsection L to read as follows:





	L.	 	Deemed Exercise: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Plan, on the last
day on which an Option is exercisable in accordance with the Plan and the terms of the grant
of the Option, if the exercise price of the Option is less than the Fair Market Value of the
Common Stock on that day, the stock option will be deemed to have been exercised on a net
share settlement basis at the close of business on that day. As promptly as practicable
thereafter, the Company will deliver to the Option holder the number of shares underlying the
Option less the number of shares having a Fair Market Value on the date of the deemed exercise
equal to the aggregate exercise price for the Option.





Date: April 18, 2008




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BIOGEN IDEC INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Craig Eric Schneier
 	 
	 	 	Craig Eric Schneier 	 
	 	 	Executive Vice President, Human Resources, Public Affairs &
Communications
STATE EX REL. Russell C. GROSS v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1386

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LIVINGSTON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, *584his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.