alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 8 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-4139

v. (D.C. No. 97-CR-95)

ROBERTO RODRIQUEZ-VASQUEZ,

a/k/a Roberto Rodriguez-Martinez,

a/k/a Blas R. Valdez, a/k/a Blas

Rincon-Valdez, a/k/a Rogelio Medina,

a/k/a Francisco Valdez, a/k/a Miguel

Rincon-Valdez, 

(D. Utah)

Defendant - Appellant.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case

is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Defendant Roberto Rodriguez-Vasquez pled guilty to one count of violating

8 U.S.C. § 1326, reentry of a deported alien. Defendant appeals a sentence

enhancement imposed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) for illegal reentry after a

prior deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony. 

In February of 1996, Defendant was charged and convicted of a seconddegree felony, namely, violating Utah Code Annotated § 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii) by

knowingly and intentionally distributing cocaine. Defendant does not challenge,

nor can there be any serious question, that distribution of a controlled substance is

a felony under both federal and Utah state law and therefore qualifies as an

“aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B) and 1326. See 21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1); Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii). Instead, Defendant argues that he

was convicted of distributing what he claims was a counterfeit substance and his

penalty under state law is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

This is not the proper forum for Defendant to challenge the validity of his

underlying state conviction. See Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 496-97

(1994); United States v. Simpson, 94 F.3d 1373, 1380 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

U.S. , 117 S. Ct. 411 (1996). Because Defendant does not complain of a

violation of the right to counsel or in any other way challenge the constitutionality

of his state conviction, we affirm Defendant’s 8 U.S.C. § 1326 
-3-

sentence and conviction.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 10.3
  April
15, 2008
 
 
 Paul
Smyth (“Executive”)
 5221
N. O'Connor Blvd, Suite 600
 Irving
, Texas 75039
 
 RE:  Amendment
to Executive Employment Agreement
 
 Dear
Paul:
 
 On
January 1, 2007, you and Centerline Capital Group,
Inc.(the “Company”) entered into an
Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”).  Pursuant to Section
10(b) of the Agreement, the Agreement may be amended by a written instrument
signed by the Executive and the Company.  The parties hereto wish to
amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein.
 
 THEREFORE,
the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:
 
 1.           Amendment
of Agreement.  Section 3,
entitled Compensation
and Benefits, shall be amended to include a salary reduction of 10% in
base salary.  The following sentences shall be incorporated at the end
of section 3 (a), and read as follows:
 
 The
Executive agrees to a voluntary reduction in his base salary of 10% for the
period April 21, 2008 (the “Effective Date”) through
December 31, 2008 (the “End
Date”).  The Company will pay the Executive an amended base
salary (subsequent to the Effective Date and through the End Date, (“Salary”) of $270,000.00 per
annum payable in equal bi-weekly installments.  This reduction in
Salary is voluntary and does not constitute Good Reason, as defined in
Exhibit A of the Agreement.  The Parties agree that the reduction in
Salary is being done to reduce the Company’s overhead and compensation expense
and is contingent upon every person listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto, executing a
similar amendment to his Employment Agreement.  Unless otherwise
agreed to by Executive, on January 1, 2009, the Executive’s Salary will return
to $300,000.00.  Anything in this Agreement, as amended by this
Amendment, to the contrary notwithstanding, if the Executive’s employment with
the Company is terminated after the Effective Date and prior to January 1, 2009,
his Salary used in determining Severance Pay, if applicable,
will be the base Salary of $300,000.00, as originally stated in the
Agreement.
 
 2.           Effect of
Amendment.The parties herby
agree and acknowledge that except as provided in this Amendment, the Agreement
remains in full force and effect and has not been modified in any other
respect.
 
  
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Agreement, Centerline Capital Group, Inc. and
Centerline Holding Company acting by their respective duly authorized officers,
effective as of the Effective Date.
 
 
 CENTERLINE
      CAPITAL GROUP, INC.:
            
            EXECUTIVE:ByName:  Marc D.
      Schnitzer
              Title:     President
            
            Name:   Paul
    SmythCENTERLINE
      HOLDING COMPANYByName:  Marc D.
      Schnitzer
              Title:     Chief Executive Officer and
      President
 
 
  
  EXHIBIT A
 
 
 Marc
D. Schnitzer
 Leonard
W. Cotton
 James
L. Duggins
 Robert
L. Levy
 Paul
Smyth
 Chris
Crouch
 Andrew
J. Weil
 Justin
E. Ginsberg
 John
E. D’Amico
 Nicholas
A. C. Mumford
##### 



CONFIDENTIAL-SPECIAL HANDLING
  
    Salary
  Incentive Award
  Long Term Incentives
  Mike Zafirovski
President and Chief Executive Officer
Nortel
195 The West Mall, Toronto, ON M9C 5K1 T 905-863-1101 mikez@nortel.com




---



##### 



Recoupment of Incentive Based Compensation
  Benefits
     Change in Control
  Involuntary Separation
 Mike Zafirovski
President and Chief Executive Officer
Nortel
195 The West Mall, Toronto, ON M9C 5K1 T 905-863-1101 mikez@nortel.com




---



##### 



Reporting Insider
  Share Ownership Guidelines
   Senior Executive Duties
  Mike Zafirovski
President and Chief Executive Officer
Nortel
195 The West Mall, Toronto, ON M9C 5K1 T 905-863-1101 mikez@nortel.com




---



##### 



(a)
    
    faithfully and diligently perform such duties and exercise such powers consistent with your
position as may from time to time be assigned to or vested in you by Nortel or the Nortel
Boards;(b)
    
    comply with all reasonable and lawful requests made by Nortel or the Nortel Boards;(c)
    
    use your best endeavours to promote and protect and extend the business, reputation, welfare
and the interests of Nortel;(d)
    
    be familiar with and act in a manner consistent with Nortels Code of Business Conduct (more
fully described herein);(e)
    
    be familiar with and comply with Nortel policies and procedures relevant to your role or your
actions as an employee; and(f)
    
    report to the Nortel Boards any matters of concern that come to your attention, it being your
duty to report any acts of misconduct, dishonesty, breach of company rules or breach of any of
the rules of any relevant regulatory bodies committed, contemplated or discussed by any Nortel
employee or a third party. Nortel will keep confidential whatever is reported save as required
by law or a court or authority of competent jurisdiction.
 Code of Business Conduct
  Section 409A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code
  Mike Zafirovski
President and Chief Executive Officer
Nortel
195 The West Mall, Toronto, ON M9C 5K1 T 905-863-1101 mikez@nortel.com




---



##### 



Tax Conflict Review for Board Appointed Officers
  Executive Travel Services
  Employment Relationship
     /s/ Mike
Zafirovski
 
 13th December
  Signature: /s/
J. Joel Hackney, Jr. Mike Zafirovski
President and Chief Executive Officer
Nortel
195 The West Mall, Toronto, ON M9C 5K1 T 905-863-1101 mikez@nortel.com
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Iron Eagle Group, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Jason M. Shapiro
                                 ----------------------
                                 Jason M. Shapiro
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer

May 23, 2011
# FY 2018 Grant Recipients

#### Archived Content

The information on this page is out of date. However, some of the content may still be useful, so we have archived the page.

## FY 2018 Citizenship and Assimilation Grant Program Award Recipients

In FY 2018, USCIS awarded $9.425 million in grants to 40 organizations. The performance period is October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2020.

For more information, please see the FY 2018 grant program fact sheet (PDF, 179.62 KB) and news release.

03/06/2020

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Quarterly Report of AboveNet, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William G.
LaPerch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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:November 5, 2009
            By:
            /s/ William G.
      LaPerchWilliam G.
      LaPerch
              Chief Executive
      Officer
Exhibit 32.2
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  Global  Realty   Development
Corporation  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB as ammended for the period  ending
December 31, 2006 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Roger  Davis,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



     (3)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date:  December 17, 2007                  By: /s/ Roger Davis
                                          ----------------------
                                          Roger Davis
                                          Chief Financial Officer
Order entered February 26 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 00151

- CV

INLAND WESTERN DALLA S LINCOLN PARK LIMIT ED PARTNERSHIP AND R PAI

SOUTHWEST MANAGEMENT , L LC, Appellant s

V.

HAI NGUYEN AND MAI N GUYEN, INDIVIDUALS, D/B/A ROMIE ’ S NAIL BOUTIQUE, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 08114



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellees’ January 9, 201 9 motion for rehearing en banc. The Court

requests appellants to file a response, if any, by March 1 8 , 2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                            BARRY L. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


1582 TULITA DRIVE                                         OFFICE (702) 361-8414
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89123                                   FAX NO. (702) 896-0278

To Whom It May Concern:                                         November 1, 2000

        The firm of Barry L. Friedman, P.C., Certified Public Accountant
consents to the inclusion of their report of November 1, 2000, on the Financial
Statements of KEYSTONE VENTURES, INC., as of September 30, 2000, in any filings
that are necessary now or in the near future with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.



Very truly yours,


/s/ Barry L. Friedman
---------------------------
Barry L. Friedman
Certified Public Accountant
**CERTIFICATION**

**OF      **

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER **

**AND      **

**CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER **

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|         |                                                                                                                  |                               |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                                                  |
|    |                                                                                                             |                          |
|         | By:                                                                                                         | /s/ Michael              Chou |
|         |                                                                                                                       |
|         | Michael                ChouChief                Executive Officer, Secretary and Chairman of the                Board |

|                                       |                                                                                                           |                                    |
|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                       |                                                                                                           |
|                                  |                                                                                                      |                               |
|                                       | By:                                                                                                  | /s/ Chien-Te                  Chou |
|                                       |                                                                                                                |
|                                       | Chien-Te                  ChouAdministrative                    and Financial Manager, Chief Financial Officer |
| Dated:                    January 27, 2006 |                                                                                                           |
#### Healy *v.*Bulkley.

*(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.*

June 23, 1890.)

1. Building Contracts—Evidence.

In an action for breach of a contract for the building of a house, evidence as to the cost of removing defective material, and of replacing the same in accordance with the contract, was admissible.

8. Damages—Instruction.

In such action a request to charge as to the rule of damages for defective workmanship or poor material is properly refused as too general, where there is also a claim for material not furnished, and for delay in the performance of the contract.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Catherine Healy against Washington Bulkley. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Argued before Clement, C. J., and Osborne, J.

*Samuel P. Potter,*for appellant. *Thos. D. Sambaut,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for breach of contract for the building of a house, and on the trial it was claimed that the defendant delayed performance, and that there were defects in the work. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $450, and from the judgment entered thereon this appeal is taken. We are only called upon to review certain exceptions, and, after a careful examination of the same, we think that there was no erroneous ruling which resulted injuriously to the rights of the defendant. It was proper to allow the plaintiff to show the cost of removal of defective material, and of replacing the same in accordance with the contract. Such cost did not necessarily constitute the measure of damage, but the testimony was properly admitted', to be weighed by the jury in arriving at a conclusion. *Kidd*v. *McCormick,*83 N. Y. 391. The request to charge as to the rule of damages was properly refused as too general. It was the correct rule as to defective workmanship or poor ma*703terial, but in this case there was also a claim for material not furnished, and for delay in the performance of the work. Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.
exhibit10-36.htm


Exhibit 10.36

 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT





This Employment Agreement Amendment (this "Amendment"), dated March 30, 2010, is by and between Glowpoint, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter "Glowpoint"), and David W. Robinson (hereinafter "Employee").  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Employment
Agreement (as defined below).





WHEREAS, Employee and Glowpoint entered into an Employment Agreement on May 1, 2006, as amended on April 24, 2007, September 20, 2007, April 30, 2008  and March 12, 2009 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”);





WHEREAS, the Employee’s employment term is currently scheduled to expire on January 31, 2011; and





WHEREAS, the Company wishes to extend Employee’s employment term, and Employee wishes to continue to work for Company;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

1. Term; Position.  The Employment Agreement is hereby amended to delete “until January 31, 2011”
in the first sentence of Section 1.1 and replace it with “until January 31, 2012”.





2. Entire Agreement.  This Amendment is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between the Parties
relating to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous proposals, understandings, representations, warranties, promises and other communications, whether oral or written, relating to such subject matter.  Unless specifically amended by this Amendment, all terms of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged and are in full force and effect.  If any provision of the Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions hereof shall be unaffected and remain in full force and effect.





In Witness Whereof, the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.






	
Glowpoint, Inc.
	  
	
 

By:  /s/ Joseph Laezza                                                   

Joseph Laezza, President
	
 

/s/ David W. Robinson                                                   

David W. Robinson
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory M. ELLIOTT, Sr., a/k/a Gregory Mondell Elliott, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7729.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 19, 2011.

Decided: May 10, 2011.

*235Gregory M. Elliott, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory M. Elliott, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Elliott,*No. 2:07-cr-00097-RAJ-JEB-l (E.D. Va. July 15, 2009; filed Nov. 18, 2010 & entered Nov. 19, 2010). 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.*
#### Pablo Rivas et al., Appellants, v AmeriMed USA, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 2, 2007;

decided March 27, 2007

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against defendants Posner, Waksal and Engelman, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portion of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5959 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5959

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of 
                             income taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2010

 Mr. Latta (for himself, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Franks of 
   Arizona) 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 repeal the withholding of 
                             income taxes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Education & Accountability Act'' 
or the ``TEA Act''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 3407. TERMINATION OF INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING.

    ``No amount shall be deducted and withheld as tax under this 
chapter with respect to any amounts paid on or after the first January 
1 occurring after 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subchapter A of 
chapter 24 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
new item:

``Sec. 3407. Termination of income tax withholding.''.
                                 <all>
```