alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 1.7
 (IMAGE)
    
    British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission
Registry of Corporate AffairsP.O. Box 418, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands  Tel: 284 494 5355/6  Fax: 284 494
6331  Email: corporateregistry@bvifsc.vg
 TERRITORY OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS
BUSINESS COMPANIES ACT, 2004
 CERTIFICATE
 REF:
    
    AURORA METALS (BVI) LTD (the company)CO. # 236090
 HEREBY CERTIFIES
 1.
    
    The above company was duly incorporated under the provisions
of the International Business Companies Act, (Cap 291) (The
Act) on the 17th day of June, 1997 as company No. 236090 and
was automatically re-registered under the BVI Business
Companies Act on 1st January, 2007.2.
    
    In so far as evidenced by the documents filed with the Registry
of Corporate Affairs, the company is in good legal standing3.
    
    Pursuant to Section 184 of the BVI Business Companies Act, the
company AURORA METALS (BVI) LTDis permitted to continue
as a company outside of the jurisdiction of the British Virgin
Islands to Canada, provided the laws of Canada permit the
continuation and the Company has complied with those laws.
  /s/ Myrna P. HerbertMyrna P. HerbertRegistrar of Corporate AffairsBVI Financial Services Commission
ex10-4.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.4

    


    Terms of
Employment Arrangement

    between
Bay National Bank

    and Jill
Moraniec

    


    Ms.
Moraniec was retained effective June 25, 2007 and was promoted to Chief Credit
Officer, pending regulatory approval, in February 2009 (which approval was
received June 30, 2009).  Ms. Moraniec is employed on an at-will basis
at a rate of pay of $105,000 as of October 17, 2009.  Ms. Moraniec is
also eligible for incentive bonuses at the discretion of the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors, and was entitled to all benefits available
to full time employees of Bay National Bank.

    


    No
discretionary bonuses were paid to Ms. Moraniec for the period ended December
31, 2009.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     120
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,033,974
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,487,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                    51,417
<INVENTORY>                                    686,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,071,730
<PP&E>                                       1,278,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                 208,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,046,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          955,579
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,761
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,015,956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,046,383
<SALES>                                      5,124,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,124,852
<CGS>                                        2,148,355
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,148,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,228,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                22,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (193,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (72,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (121,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (121,638)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Leroy J. Taylor, Respondent, v Tammy J. Staples, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Tammy Staples, Appellant, v Leroy Taylor, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Submitted November 20, 2006;

decided January 9, 2007

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the denial of appellant’s motion to vacate an order of Family Court, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-97617 on Form S-8 of Mpower Holding Corporation of our report dated March
27, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph regarding the preparation of the consolidated financial
statements in conformity with AICPA Statement of Position 90-7, "Financial
Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code," and an
explanatory paragraph regarding a going concern uncertainty), appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mpower Holding Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 2002.


Deloitte & Touche
Rochester, New York
March 27, 2003
# C_2021459EN.01003901.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/39

---

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE COOPERATION

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/39)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Documents/pdf/eurojust_accounts_2020.pdf

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTORIANO IXCOY

- ITZEP,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71146

Agency No. A070

- 567

- 757

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Immigration Judge

Submitted December 11, 2019 **

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Victoriano Ixcoy

- Itzep , a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)

that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Guatemala and

thus is not entitled to relief from his r einstated removal order. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 16 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71146

factual findings. Andrade

- Garcia v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016)

. We

deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Ixcoy

- Itzep does not challenge the IJ’s determination

that he failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a

protected ground. See Corro

- Barragan v. Holde r , 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th

Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in ope ning brief resulted in waiver)

.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ ’ s determination that Ixcoy

- Itzep f ailed

to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or

acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala

. See Andrade

- Garcia

,

828 F.3d at 836

- 37.

Ixcoy

- Itzep ’s opposed motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 5) is

denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal will terminate upon issuance of

the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C_2021459EN.01003301.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/33

---

EUROPEAN UNION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/33)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/contentPdfs/about_euipo/the_office/annual_accounts/annual_accounts_2020_en.pdf

---
| Ø | Contract      number: NO.81101200800001445; |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Loan      principal: RMB 44 million; |
|--------|--------------------------------------|

| Ø | Loan      term: from the date loan is provided to December 31,  2008; |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Floating      interest rate: annually 6.21%, adjusted every 3  months; |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | n | Penalty      interest rate for delayed repayment: 6.21% plus 50%  *6.21%; |
|--------|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | n | Penalty      interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 6.21%  *1; |
|--------|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Purpose      of the loan is to provide working capital for purchasing raw      materials; |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Advanced      repayment of loan needs to be approved by the  Creditor; |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Breach      of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract; suspension of loan      un-provided, demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before      maturity; imposition of punitive interest incurred due to delay in      repayment; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement of loan;      imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any      accounts of the Company the loan principal and interest; compensation for      the Creditor’s expenses incurred due to the Company’s breach of contract      such as lawyer’s fee, etc. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Guaranty      contract of the loan agreement: Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount (No.      81905200800000212); |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Supplemental:      The Company undertakes to pledge the Land Use Right      Certificate(“Certificate”) of BAK Industrial Park to the Creditor as soon      as obtaining the Certificate; |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-85,695-01

EX P ARTE JOSE GUADALUP E REYES , Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR-4153- 14-D(1) IN THE 206 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HIDALG O COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of indece ncy with a child and se ntence d to ten year s’ imprisonment. Applicant contends that hi s co unsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use he failed to timely file a noticeof appe al, re sulting in the dismissal of Appli cant’ s appea l. Rey es v. State , No. 13-15-00378- CR (Tex. App.—C orpus Christi-EdinburgSept. 17, 2015). The trial court has deter

mined that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appea l. We find2

that Appl i ca n t i s entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appea l of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. CR-4153-14-D(1) fr om the 206 District Court of Hidalg o County
. th Applicant is ordered returne d to that time at which he may g ive a written notice of appea l so that he may then, with the aid of c ounsel, obtain a meaningf ul appea l. Within ten day s of the issuanc e of this opinion, the trial court shall deter mine whether Applicant is indigent. I f Applicant is indig ent and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall immediately ap p o int an attorney to repr esent Applicant on direc t appea l. All time limit s shall be calc ulated as if the sentenc e had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. W e hold that, should Applicant desire to prosec ute an appea l, he must take aff irmative steps to file a written notice of appea l in the trial court within 30 day s af t er the mandate of this Court issues. Applicant’s other ground is dismiss ed. Ex Parte Torres , 943 S.W .2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Copies of this op inio n shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Octobe r 5, 2016 Do not publish
#### George L. Harrison v. James Moseley.

A charge which in substance assumes that he who received a blow for words spoken may not return the blow in self-defense is erroneous.

The appellant, against whom a judgment had been rendered for assault and battery, appealed, and died pending the appeal. The whole proceeding abates. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 18, Note 229; Gibbs v. Belcher, 30 Tex., 79.)

Appeal from Madison. The case was tried before Hon. ¡Nathaniel H. Davis, one of the district judges.

It is enough to say that the appellee recovered a judgment of $400 against appellant for an assault and battery. The facts were few. The appellee had choked an old man, and, while trying to renew the assault, the appellant interfered, and said, “Fight a man,” or, “Fight me,” or words to that effect. The appellee struck the appellant, who returned the blows and “gouged” the appellee, whereof he suffered a good deal. Pending the appeal the appellant died, and the judgment died with him.

*609
      *Baker*Maxey, for appellant, argued the ease upon the merits.

Ho brief for the appellee has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Morrill, C. J.

—The judge charged the jury: “A man who goes where others are quarreling or fighting and says, in substance, to either, that, if he wants to fight, to fight him, or words to that effect, and is struck with the fist by the one thus addressed, he cannot be said to fight in necessary self-defense.”

The testimony in the district court was to the effect that the plaintiff had been choking an old man of seventy years of age, and was endeavoring to renew his attacks on the old man, but was restrained by the bystanders, when the defendant addressed the plaintiff in words as stated in the charge. Under such circumstances we believe the charge was erroneous. The defendant had a right to make use of such language as was well calculated to cause the plaintiff to reflect upon the impropriety of an assault upon an old man, and at the same time assure the plaintiff that he would defend himself if wantonly attacked. "We do not deem it necessary to extend our remarks, since the plaintiff has departed this life, and upon a reversal of the judgment the suit will abate in the district court. Agreeably to the uniform practice of this court, which is a *quasi*law, we could not have jurisdiction, in consequence of the death of the party defendant. And as by the common law actions of a purely personal nature die with the person, and a legal representative cannot appear and defend, the suit necessarily abates.

Ordered accordingly.
# Exhibit 32

# Written Statement of
Paul E. Menzel (Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer) andTimothy D.
Dondlinger (Senior Vice President and Treasurer) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and Senior
Vice President and Treasurer, respectively, of Ridgestone Financial Services, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (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/ Paul E. MenzelPaul E. MenzelChairman of
the Board andChief Executive Officer

/s/ Timothy D. DondlingerTimothy D.
DondlingerSenior Vice President andTreasurer

Date:  May 13, 2004
#### Jose A. VILLANUEVA-ZALDANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72840.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 25, 2011.

Antonio M. Zaldana, Law Office of Antonio M. Zaldana, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Petitioner.

District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Michael Christopher Heyse, OIL, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose A. Villanueva-Zaldana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from *670an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) deportation order and denying his motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA did not err in finding that Villanueva-Zaldana’s former counsel had not acted ineffectively by failing to submit the plea hearing transcript to the IJ. *See id.*at 793 (a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

Because the BIA failed to address Villanueva-Zaldana’s contentions, raised in his brief on appeal to the BIA, that the IJ’s bias violated due process and that the IJ erred in failing to adjudicate his adjustment of status application, we grant the petition for review and remand to the agency to consider these contentions in the first instance. *See Brezilien v. Holder,*569 F.3d 403, 412 (9th Cir.2009) (BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner).

Each party shall bear its own costs in this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Summary of Non-Employee Director compensation



 Exhibit 10.15 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation 
 Eligibility 
 Directors who are not employees of the Company or any of its subsidiaries and who do not have a compensatory agreement providing for service as a director of
the Company or any of its subsidiaries. 
 Annual Retainer Schedule (paid quarterly in advance on
January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1) 
  

				
	 Retainer for each Director
	  	$	23,000
	 Additional retainer for Chair of Compensation Committee and Nominating and Governance Committee
	  	$	2,500
	 Additional retainer for Chair of the Audit Committee
	  	$	3,500

 Expenses 
 Company pays directors’ reasonable travel, lodging, meals and other expenses connected with their Board service. 
 Director Deferred Compensation 
 Independent
outside directors are eligible to voluntarily defer 50% or 100% of their retainer fees and to participate in the Director Stock Plan: 
  

	 	•	 	 First election to participate must be made within 30 days of initial eligibility for the plan. Subsequent elections must be made before the end of the
year in which services are to be performed. Once made, elections are irrevocable for such year. Election in each year to be Alternative 1, 2 or 3: 


 Alternative 1: 
  

	 	•	 	 Retainer fees are used to purchase company stock at market price at time that retainer fee is payable. Stock is subject to restriction on transfer
until separation from service as a director. 


 Alternative 2: 
  

	 	•	 	 Retainer fees are credited towards stock units equivalent to value of company common stock at market price at time that retainer fee is payable. Stock
units are exchanged for equivalent shares of stock six months after separation from service as a director. 


 Alternative 3:

  

	 	•	 	 Retainer fees are payable in cash but deferred until separation from service as a director.
* Honorable Levin H. Campbell, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Nos. 94-3328 and 94-3468 to 94-3470. Peter J. GRILLI, Special Master, Julio Gonzalez-Roel, et al.; Ronald Coulter; Anissa Coulter, Appellants, Sherry Horton, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Rick Urso, Defendants, W. R. Cunningham, et al., Claimants. July 31, 1996. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 93-1849-Civ-T-23A), Steven D. Merryday, Judge. Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and RONEY and CAMPBELL, * Senior Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT: Appellees' motion to clarify opinion is GRANTED. This court's opinion is hereby clarified by inserting the following sentence between the second and third sentences of the last paragraph of the opinion: "These attorney's fees and double costs shall be paid by the appellants. Their liability for such fees and double costs shall be joint and several." The opinion shall remain otherwise unchanged.