alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Biocontrol 4 Kidsheadline bar Services
               Plants are Important
               Sick Plants
               Healthy Plants
               Finding BCA's
               How Biocontrol Works
               More Science


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Don Clayton Cooksey, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00096

- CR v. The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 12

- F

377

- 005 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Hill, participating.
As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modif y the trial court’s judgment as set forth in
Tables A

– C attached to the opi n ion
, to properly reflect Cooksey ’ s pleas , and we further modify
the trial court ’ s judgment by changing the description of the offense from theft of property
>10 0,000k <200,000k to theft of property with an aggregated value greater than $ 200,000.00

. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We note that the appellant, Don Clayton Cooksey, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDE RED JULY 9, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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 Annual Report of Brownie’s Marine Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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




2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




Date:
      March 31, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Robert M. CarmichaelName:
              Robert
      M. CarmichaelTitle:
              Principal
      Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Brownie’s Marine Group, Inc and will be
retained by Brownie’s Marine Group, Inc and furnished to the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Franklin Byrd, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A to the annual report on Form10-K, as amended, of Panda Ethanol, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.        October 9, 2007 /s/ Franklin Byrd   Franklin Byrd   Chief Financial Officer
2014 10-K - EX 10.51




Exhibit 10.51


Amendment Six to
Manufacturing and Purchase Agreement Between
Dot Hill Systems Corp. and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd.


This Amendment Five Six ("Amendment") is dated November 14, 2014 (the ''Effective Date") and is an amendment to the Manufacturing and Purchase Agreement dated September 2008 (the "Agreement") between Dot Hill Systems Corp. and its subsidiaries ("Dot Hill") and Hon Hai Precision Industry Ltd, and its parents, subsidiaries and affiliate companies ("Foxconn").


Except as expressly set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement (including all amendments to the Agreement) shall continue in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given thereto in the Agreement. This Amendment shall become part of the Agreement and all applicable terms and conditions of the Agreement.


Whereas, Dot Hill and Foxconn wish to extend the Term of the Agreement on an interim basis to allow for necessary updates to the Agreement;


Wherefore, the Agreement shall be revised as follows:


		
	1.
	Article 14.1 shall be deleted in its entirety, and in its place the following shall be inserted: 




"14.1 Term.  The Term of this Agreement shall be from the original Effective Date of the 
Agreement  (in September 2008) until and through March 11,2015, unless terminated 
pursuant to the termination provisions of this Agreement." 




In witness hereof, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as set forth below .
	
			
	Dot Hill Systems Corp.
	 
	Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd.

	/s/ Hanif Jamal
	 
	/s/ Peter Wu

	Name:  Hanif Jamal
	 
	Name:  Peter Wu

	Title:  CFO 
	 
	Title:  Director

	Date: 2-3-15
	 
	Date: 01/14/2015







1
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory Docs







Directions and Sign-in Proceduresheadline bar Directions to the Hydrology and Remote Sensing LabClick here for BARC USDA short-term visitors policy and requirements


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT
      23





CONSENT
      OF SELIGSON & GIANNATTASIO, LLP





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated September 30,
      2006
      with respect to the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of
      TechnoConcepts, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the fiscal
      year ended September 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      into the Company's Registration Statement on Form SB-2(SEC File No.
      333-124609).




/s/
      Seligson & Giannattasio LLP


Seligson
      & Giannattasio, LLP


White
      Plains, NY


February
      14, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1489

In re: HOWARD SCOTT, 

Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(2:09-cr-00991-PMD-1)

Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Howard Scott, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Howard Scott petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an 

order directing the district court to hold an evidentiary 

hearing to address whether Amendment 709 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines applies to him. We conclude that Scott is not 

entitled to mandamus relief. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 

509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is 

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the 

relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Scott is not 

available by way of mandamus because Scott fails to show any 

clear right to relief in the form of an evidentiary hearing 

regarding the applicability of Amendment 709. Accordingly, 

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny 

the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 26, 2009 

0624 

Order 

 

June 26, 2009 

137652 (65) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137652 

 COA: 275215 

Washtenaw CC: 05-001189-FH 

DAVID KIRCHER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's May 1, 2009 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 KELLY, C.J., and CAVANAGH and MARKMAN, JJ., would grant the motion for 

reconsideration and would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in Justice 

Markman’s dissenting statement in People v Kircher, ___ Mich ___ (Docket No. 137652, 

decided May 1, 2009).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0154

DENIS AGUADO,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

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 August 16, 2021 within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant's opening brief

on appeal.

DATED this t CI1'day of July, 2021.

For the Court,

Chief Justice

FILED

JUL 1 5 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Suprerne Court

State of Montana

07/15/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0154
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 06 79 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. REX WILLIAM ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  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 December 26 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 13 2023

11/13/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0679
Exhibit 10.1


FIFTH AMENDMENT TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This Fifth Amendment, made as of February 24, 2015, by and between Minerals Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Employer") and Joseph C. Muscari (the "Executive").







WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive previously entered into an employment agreement, dated November 27, 2006, which was subsequently amended by the First Amendment thereto, dated as of December 18, 2008, and the Second Amendment thereto, dated as of July 21, 2010 and the Third Amendment thereto, dated as of February 1, 2013, and the Fourth Amendment thereto, dated as of March 1, 2014 (as amended thereby, the "Employment Agreement"); and







WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive now wish to amend the Employment Agreement to extend its expiration date and make certain other revisions in connection therewith.







NOW, THEREFORE, the Employer and the Executive hereby amend the Employment Agreement, effective February 24, 2015, as follows:







1.            The second sentence of Section 1(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:







For purposes of this Agreement, "Term" shall mean a period of nine (9) years beginning on the Commencement Date and ending on the day before the ninth anniversary thereof, but not earlier than March 1, 2016.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer and the Executive have executed and delivered this amendment effective as of the date shown above.












MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC.












By:            /s/ Thomas J. Meek            2/27/15


      Thomas J. Meek                                                                                                                Date


      Senior Vice-President, General Counsel,


      Human Resources, Secretary and Chief


      Compliance Officer












Agreed to by:









  


/s Joseph C. Muscari                                                                                                2/27/15


Joseph C. Muscari                                                                                                  Date
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4174



# 
S HAWN D ARNELL M ASON ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-98-19) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Margaret McLeod Cain, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. RuthE. Plagenhoef, United States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Shawn Darnell Mason appeals his conviction entered on his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (1994), and a related firearms offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). In this appeal, Mason contends that his conviction deprived him of his right to testify at trial on his own behalf and that the evidence against him was insufficient to convict him of the firearms offense. See Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137, 148 (1995). Mason also argues that the district court erred in failing to grant sua sponte a downward departure under USSG § 5K1.1. Finding no merit to Mason’s contentions regarding his conviction and lacking the jurisdiction to review his claim that the district court should have departed downward, we affirm Mason’s conviction and sentence and dismiss this appeal in part. Mason’s first contention, that he was somehow denied his right to testify, is completely foreclosed by his explicit waiver of that right during the thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy conducted by the district court. Similarly, by pleading guilty, Mason relinquished hisright to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented as a factual basis for his plea to the firearms charge. United States v. Willis , 992 F.2d 489, 490-91 (4th Cir. 1993). Finally, review of the districtcourt’s decision not to depart is unavailable in the circumstances presented by this appeal. See Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 185- 86 (1992); United States v. Edwards , 188 F.3d 230, 238-39 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1130 (2000). That portion of the appeal will be dismissed.Finding no reversible error, we affirm Mason’s conviction and sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 2 U NITED S TATES v. M ASON
#### FRIEDMAN, Respondent, v. BITTHER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Samuel Friedman against Isaac Bitther and another. A. Nelson, for appellants. B. W. S. Johnston, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See 45 Misc. Rep. 178, 91 N. Y. Supp. 896.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of National Mercantile Bancorp (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, David R. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 

 
|                             | /s/  DAVID R. BROWN |   |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                             | David R. Brown           |
|                             | Chief Financial Officer  |
|                             |                     |
|                             |                     |
| Date:  August 16, 2004 |                     |

 

1

----