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



Exhibit 10.27

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ALION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION PHANTOM STOCK PLAN

WHEREAS, Alion Science and Technology Corporation (Alion) adopted the Alion
Science and Technology Corporation Phantom Stock Plan (the Plan), effective
February 11, 2003; and

WHEREAS, Alion wishes to make additional shares of Common Stock available to be
used for reference purposes under the Plan; and

WHEREAS, Alion desires to further amend the Plan to clarify certain provisions
to conform the vesting of benefits under the Plan with vesting provisions under
the Alion Science and Technology Corporation 2002 Stock Appreciation Rights
Plan, as amended (the SAR Plan);

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers reserved in Article 8 of the Plan, Alion
does hereby amend the Plan, effective November 11,, 2003, as follows:

Section 1

Article 5, Section 5.1 of the Plan be, and hereby is amended by striking
173,000 shares in paragraph (a) of such Section 5.1, and inserting in lieu
thereof 232,600 shares.

Section 2

(a)Article 6, Section 6.1 of the Plan be, and hereby is amended by inserting
at the beginning of the first sentence thereof For Grants awarded on or
before November 10, 2003,, and such Section 6.1, as hereby amended, shall be
renamed Paragraph 6.1(a) in Section 6.1; and

(b)A new Paragraph 6.1(b) shall be inserted, immediately following such
Paragraph 6.1(a) in Section 6.1, which shall read as follows:

6.1(b) For Grants awarded November 11, 2003, and thereafter, a Participant
shall have no right to receive payment for any share of Phantom Stock until it
is vested. Unless otherwise determined by the Administrator in a Participants
Phantom Stock Agreement, Awards shall vest in accordance with the following
schedule:

Anniversary from Grant Date
    
    Vested Amount1st
    
    20%2nd
    
    20%3rd
    
    20%4th
    
    20%5th
    

20%






---



##### 



Except as amended by this instrument, the Plan, as previously stated, and any
and all Grant Agreements previously entered into, shall remain in full force
and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Alion has caused this instrument to be executed as of this
11th day of November, 2003, effective as of November 11, 2003, and certifies
that the forgoing Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of the Company at the
Annual Stockholders Meeting on November 11, 2003.

ALION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

By: /s/ Bahman Atefi

Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST: /s/ Manik K. Rath

Corporate Secretary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHADAB DAIM GHAZALI, a.k.a. Anwer

Mohammad Malik,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-71761

Agency No. A097-102-188

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 22, 2014** 

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Shadab Daim Ghazali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal

FILED

AUG 4 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Han’s request

for oral argument.
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse

of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,

992 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo due process claims, Hamazaspyan v.

Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

In this case, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ghazali’s motion

to reopen in order to pursue an application for asylum based on its finding that

Ghazali failed to comport with a procedural requirement for motions to reopen. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063-64

(9th Cir. 2008) (holding the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner

did not to satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion, in part because

petitioner failed to submit a “completed application for relief[.]”). Further, the

BIA did not err by not remanding the case to the IJ. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). 

Finally, we do not reach Ghazali’s contentions regarding the IJ’s denial of his

motion. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Where, as

here, the BIA reviews the IJ’s decision de novo, our review is limited to the BIA’s

decision.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 11-71761
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 Amincor,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended  December 31, 2011 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on April 30, 2012 (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacity and on the date 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:

     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: April 30, 2012                         /s/ John R. Rice, III
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             John R. Rice, III, President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-6467

LESTER DAVID GOODE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge.

(CR-88-12, CA-97-53-1)

Submitted: September 10, 1998

Decided: September 28, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lester David Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order dismissing his motion

filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), as barred

by the one-year limitations period. Because Appellant's conviction

became final on June 18, 1988, Appellant had until April 23, 1997,

to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998

WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208). Appellant filed this habeas motion on March 12, 1997. Therefore, his

motion was not time barred. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of

appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and

remand for further proceedings. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
ROLLAND ALLOTEY,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2312

Opinion filed July 9, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Rolland Allotey, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

ROBERTS, C.J., THOMAS and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 13.1

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 on Form 20-F of Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nikolas P.
Tsakos, President and Chief Executive 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, based on my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nikolas P. TsakosNikolas P. TsakosPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 16,
2012
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, Barry J. Susson, Chief Financial Officer of Deb Shops, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

         (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Date: June 9, 2004






                                                     Barry J. Susson, CPA
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Barry J. Susson
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
Order entered November 15, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01139-CV

PS ROYAL SERVICES GROUP LP, GP ROYAL, LLC, STEPHEN F. PERKINS, AND S. 

PERKINS INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC., Appellants

V.

SCOTT FISHER AND KRISTI FISHER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-01665-2014

ORDER

On the Court’s own motion, we REMOVE this appeal from submission on December 

11, 2018. The appeal will be resubmitted in the first quarter of 2019.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### Curlina SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST SUN MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-1349.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

Curlina Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William H. Floyd, III, Nexsen Pruet, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curlina Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her employment discrimination action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T] he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 13, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on April 8, 2011. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma*152terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14208]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Proposed Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed deletions from the procurement list.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) and service(s) 
from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies 
employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before: July 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
4149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information or to submit 
comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#23606e77666546477146446362414a4f4a575a6c4d460d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aeede3faebe8cbcafccbc9eeefccc7c2c7dad7e1c0cb80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Deletions

    The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for deletion 
from the Procurement List:

Product(s)

NSN(s)--Product Name(s):
    8520-01-522-0833--Refill, Body and Hair Shampoo, Scented, 1000 
mL
    8520-01-522-0836--Refill, Body and Hair Shampoo, Scented, 800 mL
    8520-01-522-0832--Refill, Body and Hair Shampoo, Scented, 2000 
mL
    8520-01-522-3885--Refill, Sanitizer, Hand, w/Aloe, 800 mL
    8520-01-640-9622--Refill, Instant Hand Sanitizer, Foam, Skin 
Nourishing, Advanced Green Certified, 1200 ml
Designated Source of Supply: Travis Association for the Blind, 
Austin, TX
Contracting Activity: GSA/FSS GREATER SOUTHWEST ACQUISITI, FORT 
WORTH, TX

Service(s)

Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial.
Mandatory for: US Army Reserve, MG Guy B. Denit USARC, Marion, VA, 
4444 Lee Highway, Marion, VA.
Designated Source of Supply: Mount Rogers Community Services Board, 
Wytheville, VA.
Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, W6QK ACC-PICA.
Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial
Mandatory for: US Army Reserve, Abingdon USARC, 1309 Continental 
Drive, Abingdon, MD
Designated Source of Supply: The Arc Northern Chesapeake Region, 
Incorporated, Aberdeen, MD
Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, W6QK ACC-PICA

Michael R. Jurkowski,
Deputy Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2021-14208 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**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**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Dakota Growers Pasta Company, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifythat the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period endedJuly 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and thatinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

Date: October 29, 2007

 
|   | /s/ Timothy J. Dodd                       |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                      |
|   | Timothy J. Dodd                           |
|   | *President and Chief   Executive Officer* |

 

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
 Soil and Water Management Research: St. Paul, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area St. Paul, Minnesota Soil and Water Management Research People Kurt Spokas







Water Quality and Water Managementheadline bar Development of farming practices to improve water quality. This involves a variety of field projects at a number of locations, as well as laboratory research. A particular area of emphasis is the transport and fate of the new strourlibun fungicides in the soil system.


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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Troy MOODY, Kisasi Green, Defendants, *47Tylon Mims, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-2993-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 29, 2011.

Lawrence D. Gerzog, Law Offices of Lawrence D. Gerzog, New York, NY, for Appellant.

David E. Novick, Robert M. Spector, for David B. Fein, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Appellee.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Tylon Mims appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on July 15, 2010 by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, *J.)*for bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented for review.

Mims alleges violations of his Fifth Amendment right and his right under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 to be present at his sentencing when his lawyer requested and was heard at a sidebar while Mims sat at counsel table. By sitting silently in court while his attorney sought and obtained a brief sidebar, Mims effectively waived his right to be present. *See United States v. Doe,*964 F.2d 157, 159 (2d Cir.1992); *see also Polizzi v. United States,*926 F.2d 1311, 1322-23 (2d Cir.1991).

Mims argues that the district court failed to adequately resolve Mims’s request for a downward departure. A district court commits procedural error where it fails to calculate the Guidelines range, makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation, treats the Guidelines as mandatory, does not consider the factors enumerated at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), rests its sentence on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, or fails to adequately explain its chosen sentence, including explaining any deviations from the Guidelines. *See United States v. Gavera,*550 F.3d 180, 189-90 (2d Cir.2008) *(en banc).*The transcript reflects that the court fully articulated the bases for its sentence, including its consideration of Mims’s argument for a downward departure. In any event, Mims made no objection to the court’s resolution of his motion for a downward departure, so we review only for plain error. *See United States v. Villafuerte,*502 F.3d 204, 211 (2d Cir.2007). Finding none, we affirm.

Finding no merit in Mims’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13755]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Notice of the Removal of the Designation as Communist Chinese 
Military Companies Under the Strom Thurmond NDAA for FY99

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and 
Sustainment), Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Chinese military companies.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Defense has removed the designation of 
``Communist Chinese military companies'' from entities previously 
listed as such in accordance with the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. There are currently 
no entities designated as Communist Chinese military companies under 
this authority.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Salazar, (703) 697-0051.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1237(b) of the Strom Thurmond NDAA 
for FY 1999 (Pub. L. 105-261), as amended, directs the Secretary of 
Defense to determine those persons operating directly or indirectly in 
the United States or any of its territories and possessions that are 
``Communist Chinese military companies'' (CCMCs).
    The Secretary of Defense has removed the designation of ``Communist 
Chinese military companies'' from entities previously listed as such in 
accordance with Section 1237 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Pub. L. 105-261).
    There are currently no entities designated as Communist Chinese 
military companies under this authority.

    Dated: June 23, 2021.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2021-13755 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P