alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 


THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS


 


OF


 


COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT INC. 


 


 


The following is a true copy
of the resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of this Corporation at a special meeting, notice to this meeting having been
waived, held on this 15th day of June 2021;


 


The Board of Directors which was present for this
meeting & took active part therein was:


 


CHARLES ARNOLD


RONALD SILVER


KEVIN HUMES


 


WHEREAS there has been presented
to and considered by this meeting a Motion to name qualified members to our Board and Audit Committee;


 


NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the corporation, having considered this matter, has opened the floor to all those who voice a preference in the issue, has decided
unanimously and RESOLVED that:


 


Joe Gibbons is hereby appointed
as Independent Board Member and as Member of our newly formed Audit Committee


 


Said Motion is hereby passed
and the corporate books, records and the Secretary shall file this Resolution in the corporate records


 


 


DATED: 15th June, 2021 


 


/s/ David E. Price



David E. Price, Esq., Corp Secretary
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2429 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

any discharge of income contingent and income-based student loan indebtedness. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mr. MCDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. LANGEVIN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. NORTON, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. HONDA, Mr. DESAULNIER, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. BROWNLEY of 

California, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. MOORE, Mr. RUSH, Mr. MEEKS, Mr. 

HINOJOSA, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, Mr. DANNY

K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. WELCH, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. BRENDAN F. 

BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. KIND, and 

Mr. SMITH of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income any discharge of income contingent 

and income-based student loan indebtedness. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Loan Tax 

5 Debt Relief Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2429 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR DISCHARGE 

2 OF INCOME CONTINGENT AND INCOME3 BASED STUDENT LOAN INDEBTEDNESS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 108(f) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an indi8 vidual, gross income does not include any amount 

9 which (but for this subsection) would be includible in 

10 gross income by reason of the discharge (in whole or 

11 in part) of any student loan if such discharge was 

12 pursuant to— 

13 ‘‘(A) a provision of such loan under which 

14 all or part of the indebtedness of the individual 

15 would be discharged if the individual worked for 

16 a certain period of time in certain professions 

17 for any of a broad class of employers, or 

18 ‘‘(B) subsections (d)(1)(D) and (e)(7) of 

19 section 455 or section 493C(b)(7) of the Higher 

20 Education Act of 1965 (relating to income con21 tingent and income-based repayment, respec22 tively).’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

24 this section shall apply to discharges of indebtedness after 

25 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  annual  report of Environmental Safeguards, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-KSB  for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael  D.  Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  18 U.S.C. Sec.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;  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:  March  29,  2004                    By:     /s/  Michael  D. Thompson
                                                   Michael  D.  Thompson
                                                   Chief  Financial  Officer


                                       20
<PAGE>
#### WILLIAMS et al., Respondents, v. ROBINSON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Louis L. Williams and others against William H. Robinson.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
COAST GUARD

ANTI-RETALIATION

LEARN MORE

STOP RETALIATION BEFORE IT STARTS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF R.A.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: R.A.P. :

:

:

:

: No. 226 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of December, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
##### 



Exhibit 32 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 ACE*COMM Corporation (the Company) on
form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of ACE*COMM, certify, pursuant to and
solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our
knowledge:  (3)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(4)
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ACE*COMM. By:/s/ Steven R. DelmarSteven R. DelmarSenior Vice PresidentChief Financial OfficerBy:/s/ George T. JimenezGeorge T. JimenezChief Executive Officer
 Date: September 14, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6352
SCOTLAND E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAREN GIBSON, Mail Room Supervisor; KIM WILSON, Captain/Intelligence, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08-cv00155-AMD) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scotland E. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Scotland E. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Gibson , No. 1:08-cv-00155-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2008). 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MUNKHBAYAR PUUREE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73974

Agency No. A088-120-338

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2014** 

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Munkhbayar Puuree, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

APR 11 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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the omission from Puuree’s declaration of death threats by his former

employer and a police inspector, and the inconsistencies and omissions regarding

the police threats to Puuree’s father after Puuree departed Mongolia. See id. at

1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of

circumstances). Puuree’s explanations, including translation errors, do not compel

a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further,

we reject Puuree’s contention that the agency failed to consider his explanations

for the inconsistencies and omissions. In the absence of credible testimony,

Puuree’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Finally, Puuree’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same

statements found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the

record to compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

2 12-73974
or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Mongolia. See id. at

1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-73974
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derek Smith, Appellant.

*840The defendant contends that the testimony of an eyewitness to the crime was not credible and that therefore his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We reject this contention. Credibility is a matter to be determined by the trier of the facts *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932; *People v Parks,*41 NY2d 36, 47). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient in quantity and quality to support the verdict *(see, People v Malizia, supra; cf. People v Restrepo,*93 AD2d 825; *People v Fillion,*66 AD2d 932).

We reject the defendant’s contention that two instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the summation denied him a fair trial *(see, People v Boute,*111 AD2d 398). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### LEWIS et al., Respondents, v. GOULD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

October 2, 1896.)

Action by Charles W. Lewis, Jr., and Edward D. Lewis against Frank Gould.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2342 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation 

of physical therapists in the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2015 

Mr. SHIMKUS (for himself and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 

the participation of physical therapists in the National 

Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Physical Therapist 

5 Workforce and Patient Access Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2342 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS; PARTICIPA2 TION OF PHYSICAL THERAPISTS IN LOAN RE3 PAYMENT PROGRAM. 

4 (a) MISSION OF CORPS; DEFINITION OF PRIMARY

5 HEALTH SERVICES.—Section 331(a)(3)(D) of the Public 

6 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(a)(3)(D)) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘or mental health,’’ and inserting ‘‘mental 

8 health, or physical therapy,’’. 

9 (b) LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM.—Section 338B of 

10 the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l–1) is 

11 amended— 

12 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘and physi13 cian assistants;’’ and inserting ‘‘physician assistants, 

14 and physical therapists;’’; and 

15 (2) in subsection (b)(1)— 

16 (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting be17 fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘, or have a 

18 doctoral or master’s degree in physical ther19 apy’’; 

20 (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting 

21 ‘‘physical therapy,’’ after ‘‘mental health,’’; and 

22 (C) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting 

23 ‘‘physical therapy,’’ after ‘‘dentistry,’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.2


          Written Statement of the Senior Vice President and Treasurer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Vice President and Treasurer of Ridgestone Financial Services, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



/s/ William R. Hayes
------------------------------------
William R. Hayes
Senior Vice President and
 Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)
August 13, 2002
# C_2021187EN.01000801.xml

| 17.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10182 — SADC/Cognite/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 187/03)

On 7 May 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10182. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10182. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (No.'s 333-86513, 333-86567 and 333-59803) pertaining to the 1993
Stock Option Plan and 1995 Stock Incentive Plan of Document Sciences Corporation
of our report dated January 18, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Document Sciences Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

February 27, 2002
#### BEUERLEIN, Respondent, v. O’LEARY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

March 27, 1894.)

Action by Frederick Beuerlein, Jr., against Cornelius O’Leary.

Argued before DWIGHT, P. J., and LEWIS, HAIGHT, and BRADLEY, JJ.

No opinion. Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs.
Listen

# Commission Business Meeting

In accordance with the Government in Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), the Commission on Civil Rights is holding a meeting to discuss the Commission’s business for the month of October.

Friday, October 20, 2023 - 10:00 AM

Notice and Agenda

Interim Memo

Transcript (Unedited)

Connecticut

October 20, 2023

-  Event Calendar 
-  Public Briefings 
-  Commission Business Meetings 
-  Advisory Committees Meetings 
-  Archives
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Vargas, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bourgeois, J.), rendered March 30, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court properly admitted into evidence a knife which was found at the scene the day following the crime and which was identified by a witness as the knife with which he and the deceased had been stabbed by the defendant. These circumstances provided a sufficient connection between the knife and the defendant to render the knife admissible *(see, People v Mir*
      *430
      *enda,*23 NY2d 439; *People v Cunningham,*116 AD2d 585). Any question as to the accuracy of the complainant’s identification of the knife went to its weight or probative force, and not to its admissibility *(see, People v McNair,*32 AD2d 662).

The other contentions raised by the defendant have been examined and found to be meritless. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.
#### Frederick BITTNER, Jr., Plaintiff v. Fred J. HUTTGER and Anna Huttger, Defendants.

No. 81 Civ. 914(MEL).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Oct. 6, 1981.

*10Frederick Bittner, Jr., pro se.

Gary R. Goldman, Rogers, Ferraro & Cody, Pomona, N.Y., for defendants.

ENDORSEMENT

LASKER, District Judge.

In this action, plaintiff, Frederick Bittner (“Bittner”) seeks to set aside and vacate a judgment of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, directing him to convey certain land to defendants, Fred and Anna Huttger (“Huttger”). Huttger, claiming that the matter is *res judicata,*moves for summary judgment.

Bittner argues that the doctrine of *res judicata*is inapplicable because New Jersey did not have jurisdiction over him and because the judgment was obtained fraudulently. However, Bittner concedes that he contested jurisdiction in the New Jersey proceeding, (Bittner Affidavit ¶ 14) and that on his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process, the New Jersey court held that, by litigating a counterclaim, he had waived all jurisdictional objections. *Huttger v. Bittner,*No. C 3769-77 (Ch. Div. Nov. 20, 1978) (Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss). *Res judicata*precludes relitigation of that determination. Bittner’s contentions that the New Jersey judgment was obtained by fraud, which are based on alleged defects in service of process, were also adjudicated in New Jersey. Service was held to have been proper. *Id.*

Bittner also argues that the New Jersey judgment is not binding here because it could be set aside in New Jersey. However, the possibility that a New Jersey court would have discretion to reopen the judgment does not mean it is not final for the purposes of *res judicata.*If New Jersey does allow judgments to be reopened in these circumstances, the proper forum for this action is New Jersey, not here. Moreover, Bittner has offered no reasons why the discretion of this court should be exercised in favor of permitting relitigation here. At no point in either his complaint or his memorandum of law does Bittner argue that the decision was incorrect on the merits. The judgment has been reviewed and affirmed in New Jersey, *Huttger v. Bittner,*No. A-4052-78 (Super.Ct.App.Div. Oct. 16, 1980).

Bittner’s other objections are without merit. He asserts that the copies of the New Jersey judgment submitted by Huttger are not properly authenticated, yet he does not dispute their authenticity. His contention that dismissal is inappropriate because Huttger has failed to cooperate as to discovery is inapt: no discovery is necessary for the proper disposition of this motion.1

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. The complaint is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

1

. In view of the obvious propriety of granting summary judgment, it is unnecessary to dispose of Huttger’s contention that jurisdiction is improper.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No. DA 22 - 0286

__________________________________________________________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DARRIN JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________ **ORDER**

__________________________________________________________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 9, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

August 11 2022

08/11/2022
Case Number: DA 22-0286
#### In the Matter of Simone D., Appellant. Kathleen Iverson, Respondent.

Submitted May 21, 2007;

decided June 5, 2007

Motion by New York State Psychiatric Association, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein denied as untimely *(see*Rules of Prac of Ct of Appeals [22 NYCRR] § 500.23).
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

September 28, 2005

Before

Hon. Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge

Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge

Hon. Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge

No. 05-2318

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FREDDIE J. BOOKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Western

District of Wisconsin.

No. 03 CR 26

John C. Shabaz, Judge.

O R D E R

On remand for resentencing in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision

in this case, the judge again imposed a 30–year sentence, which was within the

guidelines range. However, the judge properly did not treat the guidelines as

mandatory, but instead explained at length and convincingly why the guidelines

sentence was consistent with the statutory sentencing factors, in view of the gravity

of the defendant’s crime and his long criminal record, notwithstanding the

defendant’s age (40). A guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable, United

States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2005), and there is nothing here to rebut

the presumption. The judgment is therefore

AFFIRMED.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53