alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit_4-10.htm


 


 


EXHIBIT 4.10


 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION


 


GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION


 ATTENTION: CHRISTOPHER A. WILSON


 39 EAST UNION STREET


 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103


 


Dear Subscriber:


 


Please sign below to acknowledge receipt of the prospectus and to convert your preliminary subscription to a final and binding subscription. Please enclose a check payable to “Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Co. as agent for General Finance Corporation” in the amount of $___ multiplied by the number of Units you intend to subscribe for.


 


A stock certificate and warrant purchased in each Unit, which consists of one share of common stock and a three-year warrant to purchase 0.5 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $4.00, will be issued to you as soon as possible upon the Company’s acceptance of your subscription, as described in the prospectus dated ___, 2010. In the event that the offering is cancelled, your subscription funds will be returned to you as described in the prospectus.


 


Very Truly Yours,



	  	  	  	  	  
	
GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION


  

	  	  
	
By:  

	  	  	  
	  	
Christopher A. Wilson 

	  	  
	  	
General Counsel 

	  	  
	  





 


                                                            


 Date


 


By signing below, I acknowledge the receipt of the prospectus dated ___, 2010 of General Finance Corporation and convert the preliminary subscription agreement to a final subscription agreement, which will be binding and irrevocable until the expiration date as defined in the prospectus.


 


The undersigned encloses $                     for the purchase of                      Units, at the purchase price of $           per Unit.


 


                                                            


 Signature


 


                                                            


 Print Name


 


                                                            


 Date
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-30438

_____________________________________

PATTY N. MERRICK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

AND ROBERT WILLIAMS,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(94-CV-2732)

______________________________________________________ March 10, 1997

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The district court correctly determined that plaintiff's suit

in this case was not timely filed and therefore her claim is time

barred. We agree with the district court that Ms. Merrick failed

to produce summary judgment evidence that supports her continuing

violation argument so as to avoid the 180-day limitation period to

file her charge with the EEOC.

For reasons stated by the district court, we agree that the

summary judgment evidence does not demonstrate independent

actionable conduct on the part of Williams that occurred during the2

statutory period (the 180-day period between September 25, 1994 and

March 25, 1995). Moreover, the summary judgment evidence does not

demonstrate that Ms. Merrick did not know and could not reasonably

have been expected to realize that the 1992 sexual harassment was

actionable until September 1994. Plaintiff alleged that Williams

engaged in unwelcome touching of her breasts and thigh and engaged

in other obvious illegal conduct that should have put a reasonable

person in Merrick's position on immediate notice that she was a

victim of sexual harassment. Merrick does not suggest how later

events occurring within the limitations period were needed to alert

her to her ri ghts to assert a claim with respect to the 1992

conduct.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30231

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ABDEL RAHIM MUHAMMAD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:09-CR-371-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abdel Rahim Muhammad was convicted following a jury trial of armed 

bank robbery, using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime 

of violence, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He was sentenced to 

a total of 162 months in prison, five years of supervised release, and restitution 

in the amount of $6,342. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-30231 Document: 00512647561 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2014
No. 12-30231

Muhammad argues that the trial evidence was insufficient to sustain his 

conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering. He contends that the 

evidence did not establish that he committed the substantive offense of money 

laundering by any of the methods noted in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a), including, inter 

alia, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the armed bank robbery. He 

did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the district court and, therefore, we 

review for plain error. See United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 331-32 & n.9 

(5th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

Muhammad’s assertion that the evidence is insufficient to show that he 

committed an offense under § 1956(a) is inapposite. He was not convicted of 

violating § 1956(a); instead, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit money 

laundering under § 1956(h). “It is settled law that conspiring to commit an 

offense is wholly separate from the crime that is the object of the conspiracy”; 

thus, “a conspiracy charge need not include the elements of the substantive 

offense the defendant may have conspired to commit.” United States v. 

Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the Government did 

not have to prove the substantive offense of money laundering under § 1956(a) 

to sustain Muhammad’s conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering 

in violation of § 1956(h). Muhammad has not otherwise identified deficiencies 

in the Government’s case regarding his conviction under § 1956(h).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-30231 Document: 00512647561 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2014
# Green Card Through a Physician National Interest Waiver (NIW)

The second-preference employment category (EB-2) allows individuals of exceptional ability and individuals who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees to get a Green Card (permanent residence).

For EB-2s, a job offer and a labor certification is generally required. This requirement can be waived if the petitioner demonstrates that granting the EB-2 petition would be in the national interest of the United States.

One reason USCIS may grant the national interest waiver is because a physician has worked or agrees to work for a period of time in a designated underserved area.

                    - You must work full-time in a clinical practice. For most physician NIW cases, the required period of service is 5 years;
                    - You must work in a primary care (such as a general practitioner, family practice petitioner, general internist, pediatrician, obstetrician/gynecologist, or psychiatrist) or be a specialty physician;
                    - You must serve either in a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA), Mental Health Professional Area (MHPSA – for psychiatrists only), a Medically Underserved Area (MUA), or a Veterans Affairs facility, or for specialists in a Physician Scarcity Area (PSA); and,
                    - You must obtain a statement from a federal agency or a state department of health that has knowledge of your qualifications as a physician and that states your work is in the public interest. (This statement is known as an attestation).

To apply for a Green Card you will need to file Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.

The following evidence should be submitted with Form I-485:
                    - Two passport-style photos
                    - Copy of approval notice for Form I-612, Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement (under Section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended)
                    - Copy of Form I-797, Approval notice for I-140
                    - Copy of birth certificate or other records of your birth
                    - Copies of all passport pages with nonimmigrant visas
                    - Evidence of final compliance with the 3 or 5 years service requirement to be submitted no later than 120 days after the completion of the service requirement (Evidence of compliance must be submitted at intervals while the I-485 is pending)
                    - Form I-693, Medical Examination and Vaccination Record
                    - Photocopy of the Form I-797 Approval Notices for all extensions and changes of status
                    - Photocopy of the Form I-20 or IAP 66 school records (front and back, including all school annotations)
                    - Applicable fees
                    - Form G-28, if you have an attorney representing your case

08/16/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mary Hicks, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered July 15, 1985, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions on appeal, the record discloses that the People met her claimed defense of justification with ample evidence tending to establish that the stabbing involved was not justifiable. At trial, the People produced a police witness through whom the prosecutor elicited the defendant’s incriminatory postarrest account of the stabbing which differed materially from her exculpatory trial testimony regarding the incident. The defendant’s admissions, accordingly, formed the evidentiary basis from which the trier of fact could rationally conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was not, in fact, faced with deadly force immediately prior to her fatal stabbing of the victim and that her own use of deadly force was, therefore, unjustified (see, Penal Law § 35.15 [2]; *cf. People v Hanley,*112 AD2d 1048, 1049; *People v Boute,*111 AD2d 398, 399).

The defendant further contends that the People did not prove her sanity beyond a reasonable doubt *(see,*Penal Law *333former § 30.05 [now § 40.15]; Penal Law §25.00; *People v*Silver, 33 NY2d 475). We do not agree. It is the general rule that where conflicting testimony is presented the question of sanity is for the trier of fact, which has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert *(see, People v Wood,*12 NY2d 69, 77; *People v Buthy,*38 AD2d 10, 12-13). Here, the trier of fact could have properly inferred from the conflicting evidence that the defendant was criminally responsible for her conduct when the crime in question was committed *(see, People v Wood, supra,*at p 77; *People v Breeden,*115 AD2d 484). Where, as at bar, there is an absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People’s expert, the determination of the trier of facts on the issue of sanity will not be disturbed *(see, People v Robertson,*123 AD2d 795; *People v Amaya,*122 AD2d 888; *People v Jandelli,*118 AD2d 656; *People v Bell,*64 AD2d 785). Moflen, P. J., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.
# USCIS Class Action, Settlement Notices and Agreements

The following information is presented for those individuals who are part of various class action lawsuits against USCIS or its predecessor agency.

Ahmed V DHS Asylum Report 3-11-2024  (PDF, 120.59 KB)

March 14, 2024

Ahmed v. DHS Public Status Report - 2024-02-11 - UPDATE Exhibit B  (PDF, 158.26 KB)

February 29, 2024

Ahmed v. DHS Asylum Report - 2024-02-11 - UPDATE Exhibit A  (PDF, 121.84 KB)

February 29, 2024

Ahmed Vs DHS Public Status Report  (PDF, 139.71 KB)

February 13, 2024

Ahmed v DHS February 12 2024 Parole Report  (PDF, 148.33 KB)

February 13, 2024

Ahmed v. DHS, Deadline Report  (PDF, 1.95 MB)

January 19, 2024

DKT 112 Notice of Lodging  (PDF, 297.69 KB)

January 11, 2024

Ahmed v. DHS Public Status Report  (PDF, 120.87 KB)

January 11, 2024

Ahmed v. DHS Status Report - Exhibit B  (PDF, 556.89 KB)

December 14, 2023

Ahmed v. DHS Public Status Report - Exhibit A  (PDF, 96.93 KB)

December 14, 2023

1 - 10 total rows

-  Back
- Next**

    RSS Feed  

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### Natalie O. Davis, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Mohmmed Alnhmi et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[946 NYS2d 163]

*508Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered June 3, 2011, which granted defendants Mohmmed Alnhmi and Talia S. Diaz-Alnehmi’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Natalie Davis’s complaint on the ground that she did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, without costs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff Natalie Davis did not suffer a “permanent consequential limitation of use” or “significant limitation of use” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) of her cervical and lumbar spines as a result of the accident. In opposition, Davis raised an issue of fact by submitting affirmed MRI reports showing disc herniation at L5-S1 and multiple cervical disc bulges, an affirmed EMG report revealing radiculopathy, and an affirmation by her treating orthopedist, who repeatedly and recently measured her diminished ranges of motion *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 350-351 [2002]).

Davis also raised an issue of fact as to causation, with her treating orthopedist’s opinion attributing her injuries to the accident *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]; *Williams v Perez,*92 AD3d 528, 529 [2012]). Moreover, Davis was relatively young at the time of the accident, and there is no evidence in the record that before then she had had any injuries or treatment *(see Vera v Islam,*70 AD3d 525 [2010]; *June v Akhtar,*62 AD3d 427 [2009]).

Plaintiff alleges that she was confined to home and could not work for over three months. She further alleges that her doctors told her she could not lift heavy items, which was a required part of her job. Thus there are issues of fact as to her 90/180 day claim. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
# AGENCY:

 Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

 Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

 The California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet on February 2 and 3, 2000, at the Six Rivers National Forest Supervisor's Office in Eureka, California. The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. both days. The Forest Supervisor's Office is located at 1330 Bayshore Way in Eureka. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Survey and Manage Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Presentation and Work on the Ground Subcommittee Recommendations; (2) Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) update; (3) Aquatic Conservation Subcommittee recommendations; (4) Megan Fire update; (5) Presentation on EPA's Draft Clean Water Action Plan; (6) Presentation on Natural Resources Conservation Service Erosion Control Plans; (7) Northern spotted owl baseline study final results and recommendations; and (8) Open public comment. All California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Direct questions regarding this meeting to Daniel Chisholm, Forest Supervisor, or Phebe Brown, Province Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, 825 N. Humboldt Avenue, Willows, CA 95988, (530) 934-3316.

Dated: January 10, 2000.

Daniel K. Chisholm,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 00-996 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2014

s1020

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2014

148839

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148839

COA: 319125

Kent CC: 11-006928-FH

JAMES MICHAEL DEWEESE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2014 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

People v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073) is pending on appeal before this Court and that 

the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to 

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in 

that case.
EXHIBIT 13.1

                     SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection with the annual report of Dialog Semiconductor Plc (the "Company")
on Form  20-F  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Roland
Pudelko,  Executive  Director,  Chief  Executive  Officer and  President  of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Report  containing  the  financial  statements of the Company fully
         complies  with  the   requirements   of  section  13(a)  or  15(d),  as
         applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




/s/ Roland Pudelko
---------------------------------------------------------
Roland Pudelko
Executive Director, Chief Executive Officer and President
April 15, 2005





* A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 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.
#### Huxford, Respondent, *v.*Stoddart, Appellant.

*(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.*

June 27, 1890.)

Appeal from jury term.

Action by Samuel H. Huxford against Matilda S. Stoddart.

Argued before Freedman and O’Gorman, JJ.

*Alex. Thain*and *George William Hart, Jr.,*for appellant. *Truax*& *Crandall,*for respondent.

Freedman, J.

This is an action to recover for services as a real-estate broker in procuring for the defendant a purchaser of her farm and of certain personal property. Plaintiff’s claim that he was procuring cause of the sale, under an employment as broker for that purpose, appears to have been sharply contested at the trial, and it was submitted to the jury under a charge which carefully guarded all the rights of the defendant. The record discloses no error constituting, under the circumstances of the case, ground for reversal, The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
# C_2022323EN.01013301.xml

| 26.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/133 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/133

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 as regards the extension of the empowerment of the Commission to adopt delegated acts

(COM(2022) 113 final — 2022/0080 (COD))

(2022/C 323/23)

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 24.3.2022
  European Parliament, 23.3.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Single Market, Production and Consumption |
| Adopted at plenary | 18.5.2022 |
| Plenary session No | 569 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 199/2/1 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 24.3.2022

European Parliament, 23.3.2022

Legal basis

Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Single Market, Production and Consumption

Adopted at plenary

18.5.2022

Plenary session No

569

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

199/2/1

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion INT/763 (1), adopted on 18 February 2015, it decided, at its 569th plenary session of 18 and 19 May 2022 (meeting of 18 May), by 199 votes to two, with one abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

Brussels, 18 May 2022.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 31.7.2015, p. 31.

1

---
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

.



# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

______________________ DNA GENOTEK INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

SPECTRUM SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 2017

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in No. 3:21

- cv

- 00516

- RSH

DDL, Judge Robert S. Huie.

-------------------------------------------------
DNA GENOTEK INC., Appellant

v.

SPECTRUM SOLUTIONS LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2024

- 1840

______________________ Case: 23-2017 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 06/27/2024DNA GENOTEK INC

. v. SPECTRUM SOLUTIONS LLC 2

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022

- 01347.

______________________
ON MOTION

______________________
O R D E R
Spectrum Solutions LLC moves to have Appeal Nos. 2023

- 2017 and 2024

- 1840 be treated as companion cases and assigned to the same merits panel, but the parties have since filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal , with each side to bear its own costs, for Appeal No. 2024

- 1840.

DNA Genotek Inc. notes that in view of joint stipulation of voluntary d ismissal, “all the claims in [U.S. Patent No. 11,0 02,646] that Genotek had been asserting in [Appeal No. 2023

- 2017] are unpatentable” such that “the issues in [Appeal No. 2023

- 2017 are] narrowed to those relating to [U.S. Patent No. 10,619,187].” Appeal No. 2023

- 2017, ECF No. 41 at 2. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) Appeal No. 2024

- 1840 is dismissed , with each side to bear its own costs as to that appeal

. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)(1). (2) The motion s to companion the appeals are denied
as moot. Case: 23-2017 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 06/27/2024DNA GENOTEK INC

. v. SPECTRUM SOLUTIONS LLC 3

(3) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to Appeal No. 2023

- 2017

.

June 2 7 , 2024 Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (for Appeal No. 2024

- 1840): July 27 , 2024 Case: 23-2017 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 06/27/2024