alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,297,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  935,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (52,430)
<INVENTORY>                                    958,107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,524,507
<PP&E>                                       1,493,765
<DEPRECIATION>                               (188,372)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,057,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,063,472
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    258,011
<COMMON>                                        33,172
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,539,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,057,943
<SALES>                                      1,190,030
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,069,982
<CGS>                                          362,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,762,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided 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).

The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the ***

District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MING LI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72941

Agency No. A072-962-146

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 5, 2009** 

Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, District

Judge. *** 

Petitioner Ming Li (“Li”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of

China, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals

FILED

FEB 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

(“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen to file a successive asylum application. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and we deny the petition.

Li bears the burden of showing “changed country conditions arising in” his

native China in order to prevail on his motion to reopen, because he did not file his

motion within ninety days of the original removal order. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)–(ii) (requiring that a petitioner show a change in country

conditions to avoid the ninety-day time bar); see also Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d

1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (same). This burden has not been met. The BIA

explicitly addressed all documentary evidence submitted by Li, and was within its

discretion in concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish a material

change in enforcement of China’s one-child policy against similarly situated

individuals. See Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2009).

Moreover, the BIA ruled correctly when it held that Li could not evade the

ninety-day deadline of § 1229a(c)(7) by filing a free-standing asylum application

under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). See Chen, 524 F.3d at 1032 (holding the BIA’s

determination that an asylum application by an alien subject to a final order of

removal can be made only in connection with a motion to reopen under

§ 1229a(c)(7) is “reasonable, and we defer to it”). 
3

Finally, because Li did not meet his threshold burden to establish materially

changed conditions in China, his motion to reopen for withholding of removal

under the Convention Against Torture is likewise untimely. 

PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit 10.14a


HOT TOPIC, INC.


18305 East San Jose Ave.


City of Industry, California 91748




March 21, 2011




Jerry Cook


18305 East San Jose Ave.


City of Industry, CA 91748





Re:  Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Letter Agreement





Dear Jerry:





This amendment (this “Amendment”) to your Amended and Restated Employment Letter Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Hot Topic, Inc. (the “Company”), dated November 24, 2008, amends the terms and conditions of the Agreement to the extent provided herein.  From and after the execution of this Amendment by the parties hereto, this Amendment shall form a part of the Agreement for all purposes and any reference to the Agreement shall be deemed a reference to the Agreement as amended hereby.  Except as specifically amended as set forth herein, each term and condition of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.




1. SECTION 2. The first sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: “Effective as of March 16, 2011, your base salary is $600,000 per year, less payroll deductions and all required withholdings, which is subject to annual review.”




2. SECTION 3. The following sentences are hereby added at the end of Section 3 of the Agreement: “Notwithstanding the foregoing, subject to you being continuously employed by the Company through March 16, 2012 (the “Retention Bonus Date”), the Company shall pay you a retention bonus of $600,000 (the “Retention Bonus”) on the Retention Bonus Date.  Such Retention Bonus shall be in lieu of any other Bonus that you may be entitled to with respect to the Company’s 2011 fiscal year and shall be pro-rated and payable upon termination of your employment in the event your employment is involuntarily terminated by the Company without Cause (as defined below) prior to the Retention Bonus Date.”




3. SECTION 6. The references to “six (6) months” in Section 6 of the Agreement are hereby replaced with “twelve (12) months.”




4. GOVERNING LAW. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of California.




5. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed via facsimile and in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and both of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.






1






If the above terms are acceptable to you, please sign this Amendment and return it to the Company at your earliest convenience.




Sincerely,






Bruce Quinnell, Chairman of the Board





Accepted and Agreed:






Jerry Cook
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,257
<SECURITIES>                                     7,307
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,769)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,053
<PP&E>                                          42,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                (28,632)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,425
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,148
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        94,783
<OTHER-SE>                                    (43,305)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,528
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,691
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   350<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   477
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,442
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,162
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,099
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,099
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12<F3>
<FN>
<F1>ACCUMULATED DEFICIT.
<F2>OTHER INCOME, NET OF EXPENSES.
<F3>INCLUDES DIVIDENDS AND ACCRETION ON MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of United Energy Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

|                       |                                  
|---------------------- | ---------------------------------
|Dated: June
  29, 2006 | By: /s/
  Brian King             
|                       |                                  
|                       | Brian King                       
|                       | Chief
  Executive Officer        
|                       |                                  
|Dated: June
  29, 2006 | By: /s/
  James McKeever         
|                       |                                  
|                       | James
  McKeever                 
|                       | Interim
  Chief Financial Officer
|                       |                                  

---
#### Norah Maroulis et al., Respondents, v 64th Street-Third Avenue Associates et al., Appellants. 64th Street-Third Avenue Associates, Appellant, v Norah Maroulis et al., Respondents.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on June 5, 1986, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Motion by plaintiffs to strike brief of appellant David Berg denied. No opinion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2593 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2593

 To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require identification and 
description on the website of the Federal Communications Commission of 
     items to be decided on authority delegated by the Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 1, 2015

  Mr. Latta introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require identification and 
description on the website of the Federal Communications Commission of 
     items to be decided on authority delegated by the Commission.

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

SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS TO BE DECIDED ON 
              AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE COMMISSION.

    (a) In General.--Section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 155(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(10) Not later than 48 hours before the time when an order, 
decision, report, or action is made or taken pursuant to delegation 
under paragraph (1), such order, decision, report, or action shall be 
identified and briefly described on the Internet website of the 
Commission, unless the authority to which the delegation is made for 
good cause finds that such identification and description are likely to 
lead to a result described in a paragraph of section 552b(c) of title 
5, United States Code. This paragraph shall not apply with respect to 
an order, decision, report, or action that--
            ``(A) does not receive a delegated authority number 
        pursuant to the procedures of the Commission;
            ``(B) is made or taken on authority delegated to an 
        administrative law judge; or
            ``(C) is made or taken to address an immediate threat to 
        health or safety that constitutes an emergency requiring an 
        expedited response from the Commission.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to an order, decision, report, or action made or taken 
after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7365

AARON B. ROBERTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN J. PHILLIP MORGAN; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General 

of the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-04011-GLR)

Submitted: March 8, 2017 Decided: March 15, 2017

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron B. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Aaron B. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Roberts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
(8 Misc. Rep. 27.)

#### HERZOG et al. v. HEYMAN.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

April 2, 1894.)

Patents fob Invention—Jurisdiction of State Courts.

In an action in a state court for the purchase money of a patent right, invalidity of the patent is available as a defense o-n the ground of failure • of consideration, though it is not available in an action by a licensee to recover royalties; and an agreement to pay royalties as part of the purchase price does not make the purchaser a licensee.

Appeal from jury term.

Action by Hartwig Herzog and Aaron Herzog against Hath an H. Heyman to recover royalties due on a contract of sale of a patent. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Modified.

Argued before SEDGWICK, C. J., and DUGRO and GILDERSLEEVE, JJ.

Henry D. Williams, for appellant.

Abraham L. Jacobs, for respondents.

DUGRO, J.

The learned trial judge was right in holding that the plaintiffs were not concluded by the result in the Pennsylvania ■suit. They were not parties, and do not appear to have had notice ■of it. The complaint states a cause of action for royalties due upon a contract of sale. The answer sets forth, among other defenses, that of the invalidity of the patent sold, and a consequent failure of consideration. In such a case, an inquiry as to the validity of the patent can be made in a state court, as it is merely incidental to the main question, which is, valid contract or void contract? It seems to be the settled law of this state that the invalidity of a patent is available as a defense in an action for the purchase price on the ground of a failure of consideration, but not in an action by a licensee to recover royalties. See Marston v. Swett, 66 N. Y. 212; Rob. Pat §§ 1230, 1239. This action is brought by a purchaser for the purchase price. The agreement to pay royalties did not make the assignee a licensee, as the royalties to be paid were part of the purchase price. Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205. The validity of the contract could there*75fore be brought in question. As the defendant set forth that the patent was wholly incapable of use, and worthless, it was unnecessary to allege á return of, or an offer to return, the patent. The contract contains no express warranty, and none can be implied (Rob. Pat. 1232; Walk. Pat. 283); hence, if there is a failure of consideration, so far as the patent is concerned, there can be no counterclaim. It follows that the matter set forth in the seventh paragraph of the answer is sufficient in law as a defense, but not as a counterclaim. The judgment, modified accordingly, will be affirmed, with costs to neither party in either court. There can be no breach of a void contract, and so no damage from a breach. All concur.
#### SHAY, Respondent, v. CITY OF ELMIRA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 15, 1897.)

Action by Margaret Shay against the city of Elmira.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Hall, Appellant.

*820The complaining witness was able to observe the defendant on three separate occasions during the robbery: once during the initial encounter when they were 12 to 18 inches apart and the defendant asked the complainant for his money; again, during the chase, when the complainant looked back to see if the defendant was still in pursuit; and a third time when they stopped approximately 10 to 15 feet from one another and exchanged words. The accumulated opportunities to observe provided a sufficient independent source for an in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant *(see, People v Richards,*119 AD2d 597; *Matter of Michael J.,*117 AD2d 602; *People v Codrington,*109 AD2d 891; *People v Gordon, 87*AD2d 636), and the court therefore properly refused to suppress any in-court identification testimony which the People proposed to offer at trial *(see, People v Adams,*53 NY2d 241, 245). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
# C_2023161EN.01002101.xml

| 5.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/21

---

P9_TA(2022)0377

EU-Moldova Agreement on the carriage of freight by road

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 November 2022 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the carriage of freight by road (11052/2022 — C9-0304/2022 — 2022/0201(NLE))

(Consent)

(2023/C 161/04)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (11052/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (11052/2022),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova (10152/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova (10152/2022),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 91 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0304/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 91 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0304/2022),

| — | having regard to Rules 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0262/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0262/2022),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Moldova. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---