alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adalid ARTEAGA AGURCIA, also known as Santos Adalid Arteaga Agurcia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40463

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 13, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Adalid Arteaga Agurcia, Eden, TX, pro se.

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adalid Arteaga Agurcia (Ar-teaga) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Arteaga has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YUNQIN ZHENG, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-72936 Age n c y No. A088-484-829 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 13, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s. Yunqin Zhe ng pe titions for re vie w from the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ de c ision de ny ing he r c la i m s for a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l . W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with thehistory

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it here . 

# FIL ED AUG 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the im m igration judge ’ s (IJ’ s) a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion, whic h the B oa rd a dopte d a

nd a ffirm e d . The IJ found Zhe ng’ s te stim ony

tha t she worke d forty -hour we e ks inc onsiste nt with he r late r te stim ony tha t she worke d se ve n da

y s a we e k for e ight or nine hours a da y . Zhe n g ha d two opportunitie s to e xpla in this inc onsiste nc y but did not do so. Though

“ trivia l inc o nsiste nc ie s” c annot support a n a dve rse c re dibility finding, S hre stha v
. Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th C ir. 2010), this inc o nsiste nc y a bout Zhe ng’ s hours wa s signific ant

be c a use m uc h of Zhe ng’ s te stim ony c onc e rne d he r c la im

tha t he r work sc he dule pre ve nte d he r from atte nding c hurc h m ore fre q ue ntly . The re fore , we de ny the pe tition for re vie won the ba sis of this inc onsiste nc y without opining on the

suffic ie n c y

of the re st of theIJ’ s re a sons for finding Zhe ng not c re dible . Se eRizk

v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ we m ust uphold theIJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm ination so long a s e ve n one ba s is is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e ” ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B oa rd’ s de t e rm i nat ion tha

t Zhe ng fa ile d to e sta blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution ba se d on e vide nc e or te s tim ony inde pe nde nt of he r own non-c re dible te stim ony . Se eGu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1021-22 (9th C ir. 2006). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D. 2
#### George W. Turnbull *vs.*Northwestern Terra Cotta Company.

July 7, 1891.

Agency, whether General or Special — Evidence — Acts of Agent Known to Principal. — Upon the question of the character of an agency, —that is, whether the agency is general, the agent having the exclusive right to make sales of the principal’s ware within certain territory, so as to entitle the agent to compensation for sales within the territory made by himself or the principal, or a limited agency, the agent to make such sales as he could, and receive pay for such as he made, — the direct evidence being conflicting, the acts of the agent known to and acted on by the principal may be shown.

Verdict — Evidence.—Evidence *held*sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Smith, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict of $1,420.35 for plaintiff, in an action for commissions, as agent,, on sales of goods for defendant.

*Fred. C. Cook,*for appellant.

*W. C. Leavitt,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

Whether plaintiff should recover the amount claimed in his complaint, or defendant recover the counterclaim alleged in its answer, was, by agreement on the trial, made to depend on the character of the plaintiff’s agency. He claimed that it gave him the exclusive right to make sales, at a specified commission to him, of defendant’s wares within the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, so that he would be entitled to the commission on sales made *514by the defendant itself. The defendant claims that he was merely authorized to make such sales as he could, and was to receive pay only for such as he made. The direct evidence as to the character of the agency was that of the plaintiff and of the president of the defendant, and was flatly contradictory. What the agent did, and the manner of doing it, known to and acted on by his principal, the letters and telegrams between them relating to the business, what was said by the president in introducing plaintiff to anticipated customers, and whatever would tend to show the situation as it was known to both parties, was competent upon the question. The objection urged against the evidence of that character goes rather to its weight than its admissibility. It was not very important; it certainly left the question in doubt; but the jury might consider that, so far as it went, it supported plaintiff’s version of the agreement creating the agency. The instructions of the court excepted to did not go beyond so charging the jury, and were correct. The evidence justified the verdict.

Order affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001031003
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-29-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   309,278
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               315,464
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 315,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,186
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                         9,278
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   315,464
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,557
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,557
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,557
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert J. Pallé,
Chief Executive Officer of Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc., certify that:



1.       I
have reviewed this amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc.; and



2.       Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material 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 misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report.







|                     |                                                                                                                                       
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2018 | /s/ Robert J. Pallé                                                                                                                   
|                     | Robert J. PalléChief Executie Officer
                                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
                         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                    OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Director and Principal Financial Officer of
New Jersey Mining Company ("the Registrant") do 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 my knowledge:

     1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the period
ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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
Registrant.

Date:  August 1, 2003
----------------------

/s/ Fred W. Brackebusch
------------------------
Fred W. Brackebusch
President, Director and Principal Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Nancy Abbondola et al., Respondents-Appellants, v County of Nassau, Appellant-Respondent. (And Fourteen Other Titles.)

In proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act § 236, the County of Nassau appeals from orders of the Family Court, Nassau County (Dempsey, J.), all entered October 30, 1984, which granted summary judgment to the petitioners awarding them partial reimbursement for costs incurred in connection with special education services for their children in July and August 1984. Certain of the petitioners cross-appeal from so much of the above orders in which they are named as denied full reimbursement.

*230Orders reversed and motions for summary judgment denied.

Cross appeals dismissed.

The county is awarded one bill of costs.

Although the County of Nassau conceded that the children involved in the proceedings were handicapped, triable issues of fact remain concerning the children’s needs and the appropriateness in each case of the program chosen *(see, Matter of Schwartz v County of Nassau,*111 AD2d 242). Consequently, summary judgment should not have been granted to the petitioners. In light of our disposition we need not pass upon the issue presented by some of the petitioners on their cross appeals. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:02-cv-04394 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/09/03 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:76
Case: 1:02-cv-04394 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/09/03 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:77
Case: 1:02-cv-04394 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/09/03 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:78
Case: 1:02-cv-04394 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/09/03 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:79
**Exhibit 10.26**

 

SECOND AMENDMENT 

TO THE 

CAREMARK RX, INC. 1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

(FORMERLY THE MEDPARTNERS, INC. 

1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN) 

 

This Second Amendment to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan(formerly the Medpartners, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan) (the “Plan”) to be effective as of January 12, 2001. 

 

WITNESSETH: 

 

WHEREAS, Caremark Rx, Inc. (the “Company”) currently sponsors and maintains the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan (formerly theMedpartners, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan) (the “Plan”); and 

 

WHEREAS, Section 14 of the Plan grants the Compensation Committee of the Board the power at any time to amend the Plan, and the Compensation Committee now wishes to amend the Plan to modify the vesting provisionsfor options granted under the Plan on and after January 12, 2001; 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as indicated below: 

 

1. 

 

Section 7(i) of the Plan isamended effective as of January 12, 2001, to read as follows: 

 

(i) Vesting of Options. Except as set forth by the Committee in the applicable Stock Option Agreement, Options granted under the Plan shall vest and become exercisable as follows: 

 

(i) 34% of the Options shall vest on the Date of Grant;

 

(ii) 33% of the Options granted shall veston each of the first anniversary and second anniversary of the 

 

Second Amendment to the 

Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan 

Page 1 

Date of Grant; provided, however, that for Options granted prior to January 12, 2001, if during thefirst year after the Date of Grant, the stock price of the Common Stock closes at or above $12.00 (or such other price as determined by the Committee and set forth in the applicable Stock Option Agreement) for any twenty (20) out of thirty(30) consecutive trading days, the 33% of the Options due to vest on the first anniversary of the Date of Grant shall vest immediately at the end of such 20th day, and provided, however, that for Options granted prior to January 12, 2001,if during the second year after the Date of Grant, the stock price of the Common Stock closes at or above $18.00 (or such other price as determined by the Committee and set forth in the applicable Stock Option Agreement) for any twenty (20) outof thirty (30) consecutive trading days, the 33% of the Options due to vest on the second anniversary of the Date of Grant shall vest immediately at the end of such 20th day. 

 

2. 

 

The name of the Plan is changed effective as of January 12, 2001 from the Medpartners, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994Stock Incentive Plan. All references in any Company documents to the Medpartners, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan shall, after January 12, 2001, be a reference to the Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan. 

 

3. 

 

All other provisions of the Plan not inconsistent herewith are hereby confirmed and ratified. 

 

Approved by the Board of Directors by resolutions on January 12, 2001.

 

Second Amendment to the 

Caremark Rx, Inc. 1994 Stock Incentive Plan 

Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Globecomm Systems Inc. Financial Statements, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          16,363                  16,363     
<SECURITIES>                    0                       0          
<RECEIVABLES>                   18,180                  18,180     
<ALLOWANCES>                    0                       0          
<INVENTORY>                     2,898                   2,898      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                43,081                  43,081     
<PP&E>                          12,017                  12,017     
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,885                   1,885      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  57,159                  57,159     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           16,493                  16,493     
<BONDS>                         0                       0          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0                       0          
<PREFERRED>                     0                       0          
<COMMON>                        9                       9          
<OTHER-SE>                      40,657                  40,657     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    57,159                  57,159     
<SALES>                         11,882                  25,175     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                11,882                  25,175     
<CGS>                           10,352                  22,123     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   10,352                  22,123     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,918                   6,502      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0                       0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0                       0          
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,116)                 (2,840)    
<INCOME-TAX>                    0                       0          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (1,116)                 (2,840)    
<DISCONTINUED>                  0                       0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0                       0          
<CHANGES>                       0                       0          
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,116)                 (2,840)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (0.12)                  (0.31)     
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.12)                  (0.31)     
                       


</TABLE>
#### JAMES MARTY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

October 17, 1960.

*Messrs. Golden & Golden*and *Messrs. Levy, Lemken & Margulies*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Lamb, Lang an & Blake*for the respondent.

Denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Amounts  inapplicable  or not  disclosed as a separate  line on the Balance
Sheet or Statement of Income are reported as 0 herein.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         986
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                   307
<INVENTORY>                                    12,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               23,683
<PP&E>                                         15,149
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,771
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       15,594
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,214
<SALES>                                        52,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               52,204
<CGS>                                          30,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  40,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (45)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (11)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                11,957
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7,807
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.202
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.202
        

</TABLE>
#### Richard S. Buterbaugh et al., Respondents, v Dale Resue et al., Appellants.

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs *(see, Scher v Kronman,*70 AD2d 354; *Rossi v Oristian,*50 AD2d 44). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, *979Steuben County, Bryant, J. — summary judgment.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 13.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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. Section 1350, as adopted by section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Lihir Gold Limited (the
"company") hereby certifies that:

      (i) The accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the company for the
      annual period ended December 31, 2005 (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 represents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the company.

A signed original of this statement 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.

By: Arthur Hood

/s/ Arthur Hood
------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Date: June 29, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the report or as a separate
disclosure document.