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

                            1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN OF

                                 SPACEDEV, INC.

<PAGE>

                       AMENDMENT TO 1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN
                                       OF
                                 SPACEDEV, INC.

                             A Colorado Corporation

     Pursuant  to  a  vote  of  the  shareholders  of SpaceDev, Inc., a Colorado
corporation (the "Company"), taken at the Annual Shareholder Meeting on July 17,
2000,  the  1999  Stock  Option  Plan  of  the  Company  is  amended as follows:

     Section  3.a. of the Company's 1999 Stock Option Plan is hereby stricken in
its  entirety  and  amended  to  read  as  follows:

     "3.     Stock  Subject  to  the  Plan.
             -----------------------------

     Subject  to adjustment as provided in Section 11 hereof, the maximum number
of shares of Common Stock reserved for Awards under the Plan is 4,184,698 shares
which number may not be in excess of 30% of the outstanding shares of the Common
Stock  determined  as  of  July  17, 2000, the date of the Company's 2000 Annual
Shareholders'  Meeting. The number of shares authorized for issuance pursuant to
the  Plan  shall  be  adjusted annually by the Board of Directors at each annual
meeting  of  the  Board  to  30%  of  the  shares  of  Common  Stock outstanding
immediately  preceding  each  such  meeting  until expiration of the Plan as set
forth in Section 16 hereof.  In no event may the number of shares subject to the
Plan  be  set  a  less  than  1,000,000  shares."

                                   CERTIFICATE

     I,  Susan  Benson,  hereby  certify  that:

     I  am  the  Secretary  of  SpaceDev,  Inc.,  a  Colorado  corporation;  and

     The  foregoing  Amendment to the Company's 1999 Stock Option Plan is a true
and  correct  copy  of  the  Amendment  to  the Company's 1999 Stock Option Plan
approved and adopted by the shareholders of SpaceDev, Inc. holding a majority of
all outstanding common stock of the corporation at an annual shareholder meeting
held  July  17,  2000  at  9:00  p.m.,  Local Time, at 13855 Stowe Drive, Poway,
California.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
corporation  this  17th  day  of  July  2000.


      /s/ Susan Benson
      -------------------------
      Susan  Benson,  Secretary
# C_2018032EN.01000702.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/7

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Hélder José Cunha Martins v Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

(Case C-131/17) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Question which does not concern a rule of EU law other than the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2018/C 032/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hélder José Cunha Martins

Applicant:

Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Court of Appeal, Oporto, Portugal).

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

1

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Neal Everett Bland v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 11 7

- CR

Trial court case number: 137 2425

Trial court: 18 5 th District Court of Harris County

On March 14, 2017, we granted appointed counsel Thomas Lewis’s motion to

substitute and directed the Clerk of this Court to note Carvana Hicks Cloud’s withdrawal as appellant’s retained counsel and substitute Thomas Lewis as appointed counsel for appellant on the docket of this Court. We further ordered Lewis, no later than April 13,
2017, to notify the Court of his intent to adopt the Appellant’s Brief, filed on November 30, 2016, or to file an amended brief on appellant’s behalf

. Appellant has filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended brief or notify the Court of his intent to adopt the previously filed b rief . Appellant also requests that the Court “issue an order to Carvana Cloud to promptly return the trial record to the District Clerk’s Office.”

We grant appellant’s motion for an extension of time. A ppointed counsel

, Thomas Lewis, is directed to notify the Court that he adopts the Appellant’ s Brief, filed on November 30, 2016, or to file an amended brief on appellant’s behalf no later than June 12, 2017.

We deny appellant’s request for an order of this Court directing Cloud to return
the trial record to the district clerk’s office. C ounsel ma y contact the Clerk of this Court regarding obtain ing the appellate record or access the record, other than sealed records or electronic exhibits, through the Texas Appellate Management and eFiling System (TAMES) Attorney Portal.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 20, 2017
Case 3:05-cv-00518-M Document 10 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 58
Asa M. STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4079

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 16, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2018142EN.01001901.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/19

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2018 — HB and Others v European Commission

(Case C-336/17 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’ - Protection of stray animals - Psychological effects on adults and children - Refusal to register the initiative for manifest lack of powers on the part of the European Commission - Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Article 4(2)(b) - Article 4(3)))

(2018/C 142/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellants: HB, Robert Coates Smith, Hans Joachim Richter, Carmen Arsene, Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska, Christos Yiapanis, Nathalie Louise Klinge (represented by: P. Brockmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | HB, Robert Coates Smith, Hans Joachim Richter, Carmen Arsene, Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska, Christos Yiapanis and Nathalie Louise Klinge, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other hand, shall bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

HB, Robert Coates Smith, Hans Joachim Richter, Carmen Arsene, Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska, Christos Yiapanis and Nathalie Louise Klinge, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other hand, shall bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

1

---
Darean L. ROBERTS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1064

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 9, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60615

Summary Calendar

____________

Ken Ejimofor Ezeah, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A204 048 674

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ken Ejimofar Ezeah, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his 

motion to reopen. Motions to reopen are “particularly disfavored.” 

Nguhlefeh Njilefac v. Garland, 992 F.3d 362, 365 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021). 

Consequently, we review the BIA’s denial of such motions “under a highly 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 5, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60615 Document: 92-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2024
No. 23-60615

2

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Ovalles v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1120, 

1123 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Under 

this standard, we will affirm unless the agency’s decision is “capricious, 

racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so 

irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational 

approach.” Nguhlefeh Njilefac, 992 F.3d at 365 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Ezeah has not made this showing. 

His equitable tolling argument fails because he has not made the 

necessary diligence showing. See Mejia v. Barr, 952 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 

2020); Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 2018). He shows no error 

in the BIA’s conclusion that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 

failed for want of compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 

1988). See Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 2014); Lara 

v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). He likewise shows no error 

in the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to show prima facie eligibility for relief. 

See Parada-Orellana v. Garland, 21 F.4th 887, 893 (5th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(b)(2)(A)(iv). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider his challenges to the BIA’s decision 

not to sua sponte reopen his proceedings and its order dismissing his appeal. 

See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394-406 (1995); Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 

911-12 (5th Cir. 2019). Finally, he has not shown exceptional circumstances 

meriting appointed counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th 

Cir. 1982). The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED

in part for want of jurisdiction. The motion for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED.

Case: 23-60615 Document: 92-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2024
Exhibit 32.2

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 U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dennis J.
Fiore, Vice President - Chief Financial Officer of US Shipping General Partner
LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.

| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ Dennis J. Fiore                      
| |                                          
| | Dennis J. Fiore                          
| | Vice President - Chief
 Financial Officer
| | August 12, 2009                          

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

---
# C_2018408EN.01001401.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy România SRL, formerly Gamesa Wind România SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-69/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Right of deduction - Acquisitions made by a taxpayer declared ‘inactive’ by the tax authorities - Refusal of the right of deduction - Principles of proportionality and neutrality of VAT))

(2018/C 408/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy România SRL, formerly Gamesa Wind România SRL

Respondents: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, in particular Articles 213, 214 and 273 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which it is permissible for the tax authorities to refuse, on account of a failure to submit tax returns, a taxable person which has made acquisitions in the period during which its value added tax identification number was revoked the right to deduct value added tax on those acquisitions using value added tax returns filed — or invoices issued — after the reactivation of its identification number, on the sole ground that those acquisitions took place in the period during which its value added tax identification number was de-activated and where the substantive requirements have been satisfied and the right of deduction is not being invoked fraudulently or abusively.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---
Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Sherry Couturier, CFO of
Hammonds Industries, Inc., Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following
certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with
respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007.

The undersigned certifies that the above annual
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of Hammonds Industries, Inc. and results of its
operations.

Date: August 13, 2007
Sherry Couturier
CFO/s/ Sherry Couturier
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY ROY CROSBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-96-361, CA-99-1835-4) Submitted: March 13, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Jeffrey Roy Crosby, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We have confined our review to those issues raised in Appellant’s informal brief, 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and to the extent Appellant seeks to raise claims not first presented to the district court, we decline to review such claims. 2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Roy Crosby seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). 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. United States v. Crosby , Nos. CR-96-361; CA99-1835-4 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2000). 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
# C_2022165EN.01001101.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 February 2022 — Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA v Single Resolution Board, European Central Bank

(Case C-364/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 18 - Resolution procedure - Declaration by the European Central Bank (ECB) that an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) not to adopt a resolution scheme - Lack of public interest - Winding up in accordance with national law - Shareholders - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 165/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ernests Bernis, Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA, Cassandra Holding Company SIA (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (represented: initially by H. Ehlers, A. Valavanidou and E. Muratori, and subsequently by H. Ehlers and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, and by B. Heenan, Solicitor, J. Rivas Andrés and A. Manzaneque Valverde, abogados), European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ernests Bernis and Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ernests Bernis and Mr Oļegs Fiļs, OF Holding SIA and Cassandra Holding Company SIA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board;

| 3. | Orders the European Central Bank to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Central Bank to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.1

Statement Pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, President and CFO
of International American Technologies, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the
following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
with respect to the following of this quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that the above annual
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in
all respects, the financial condition of International American Technologies, Inc. and
results of its operations.

Date: November 9, 2005
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer and President/s/ Gary D. Woerz
The Ho norable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for th e 1 Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation o f the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1874

___________ Repoleon Gilbert, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Marshall Dale Reed, Warden, Cummins * Eastern District of Arkansas. Unit; Robert Long, Food Manager, * Cummins Unit; Bruce Collins, * [UNPUBLISHED] Assistant Warden, Cummins Unit, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 5, 1997 Filed: September 19, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. RepoleonGilbert, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court’s order 1 granting summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials in his 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 action. After review of the record and the parties & briefs on appeal, we-2-

conclude that the judgment of the district court was correct, and that an extende d opinion would have no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00796]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1237 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1054, K2025-1053.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00796 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

HCC AVIATION INSURANCE GROUP,
INC, and UNIVERSAL LOSS
MANAGEMENT, INC.,

. CLERK,US.DISTRY im
by MSTRICVCOURT
ieee

epory

Petitioners,
vs.

§
§
§
§
§
; Case No. 3:05-CV-744(BH)
§
EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE 3
CORPORATION, H
§
Respondent. §

AGREED ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez has made Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendations in this case. No objections were filed by Respondent, and the objections
which were filed by Petitioners have been withdrawn. The Court accepts the Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendations entered by the United States Magistrate Judge on February
25, 2008.

Accordingly, Petitioners’ Fee Application is granted in part, and the Respondent is
ordered to pay $236,700.47 to Petitioner.

Depp: MARCH 21, 200%

B, M. G. LYNN
ITED STATES DISTRICT
AGREED:

Richard P. Colqui
Counsel for Petitioners

“?P

Darren K, Sharp
Counsel for Respondent