alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ON AUGUST 23, 2007

Not published

UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS

No. 07-8005

IN RE RYAN D. LISTER.

Before KASOLD, HAGEL, and MOORMAN, Judges.

O R D E R

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended attorney Ryan D. Lister (respondent) from the

practice of law for five months, effective, June 15, 2007. Pursuant to Rule 4(c)(1)(A) of the Court's

Rules of Admission and Practice, the respondent informed the Court of his suspension on June 18,

2007. 

On June 20, 2007, the respondent was temporarily suspended from practice before the Court

pending the conclusion of the proceedings under the Rules. See U.S. VET. APP. R. ADM. & PRAC.

7(d)(1)(B). On the same date, the matter was referred to this panel. 

On June 28, 2007, the respondent was ordered within 30 days to show cause why he should

not be suspended from practice before this Court until such time as he may be readmitted to the

practice of law in Wisconsin and successfully petitions this Court for readmission. The respondent

has not filed a response to the show cause order contesting the proposed discipline, and the time for

any such response has expired.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority of Rule 7(d)(3)(B) of the Rules of Admission and

Practice,

It is ORDERED that the respondent, Ryan D. Lister, is hereby suspended from the practice

of law before this Court until such time as he may be readmitted to the practice of law in the State

of Wisconsin and successfully petitions this Court for readmission.

DATED: August 21, 2007 PER CURIAM

Copy to:

Ryan D. Lister

408 Third Street, Suite 308

Wausau, Wisconsin 54403

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, Michael A. Maltzman, ChiefFinancial Officer and Treasurer of Stratus Services Group, Inc., (the“Company”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge theforegoing Quarterly Report of the Company:

 

1.                                       fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), and;

 

2.                                       theinformation contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  October 14, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Michael  A. Maltzman                      |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Michael A.  Maltzman                          |
|                          |   | Chief  Financial Officer                      |
|                          |   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO\        13 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 Enviro Voraxial Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alberto DiBella, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the        Company, certify, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: August 11, 2008                  

/s/ Alberto DiBella                             Alberto DiBella        Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATIONS




In
connection with this report of Huifeng Bio-Pharmaceutical Technology, Inc. on
Form 10-KSB, as amended,  for the period ending December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Sanding Tao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:
January 20, 2009





By: /s/ Sanding
Tao


Sanding
Tao


Chief
Financial Officer
# Formularios Disponibles para Presentar En Línea

Esta página enumera los formularios de USCIS que están disponibles para presentar en línea. Para conocer los beneficios de presentar un formulario a través de nuestro sistema seguro en línea, visite la página Presentar En Línea. Allí podrá comenzar el proceso creando una cuenta de USCIS en línea. 

Además de presentar un formulario en línea, si usted va a inmigrar a Estados Unidos como residente permanente legal, debe pagar la tarifa de inmigrante de USCIS en línea, a menos que esté exento. Puede pagar dicha tarifa en línea. También puede pagar su documento de viaje en línea.

03/21/2024

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 05-21

IN RE: COURT CLOSURE ON WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 20, 2021,INAUGURATION DAY

O R D E R

Inauguration Day falls on Wednesday, January 20, 2021, and is considered a legal holiday 

for Federal employees who work in the "Inauguration Day area," which includes the District of 

Columbia. See 5 U.S.C. § 6103(C). By direction of the Chief Judge, the United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims will be closed on Wednesday, January 20, 2021.

For purposes of computation and extension of time under the Court's Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, Wednesday, January 20, 2021, will be considered a day when the Court is closed. See

U.S. VET. APP. R. 26(a)(1).

DATED: January 8, 2021 FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 04-13

IN RE: RECALL OF SENIOR JUDGE

O R D E R

WHEREAS, pursuant to Misc. No. 02-13, Senior Judge Kenneth B. Kramer was recalled,

effective August 1, 2013, to perform substantial service to the Court for a period not to exceed one

month, and 

WHEREAS the Chief Judge has determined that, if extended, Judge Kramer would provide

additional substantial service to the Court, and

WHEREAS Judge Kramer has agreed to an extension of his service to complete matters he

was working on during his initial period of recall service, and to perform other substantial service

to the Court as requested by the Chief Judge and agreed to by Judge Kramer,

THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED that, Judge Kramer's period of recall service is extended for such days in this

calendar year as he agrees to. Each day of service shall be recorded and maintained by the Clerk of

the Court.

DATED: September 5, 2013 BY THE COURT:

Bruce E. Kasold

Chief Judge
EX-10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1




Amendment No. 5

to

Employment Agreement of Dave Schaeffer




This amendment is made by and between Cogent Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) and David
Schaeffer (“Executive”). It amends the employment agreement between the parties dated February 7,
2000.



The purpose of this amendment is to remove from Executive’s employment agreement the provision
granting a gross-up payment to Executive in the event he becomes subject to the “golden parachute”
excise tax.




Section 8 Parachute Payments is deleted from the Employment Agreement.



Except as herein amended the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



Accepted and Agreed to:



/s/ David Schaeffer     


David Schaeffer


In his individual capacity



Date: April 7, 2010



Cogent Communications, Inc.



by: /s/ Robert N. Beury, Jr.     


Robert N. Beury Jr.

Chief Legal Officer and VP


Cogent Communications, Inc. on


behalf of the board of directors



Date: April 7, 2010
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50126 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SOTERO ALVARADO-JIMENEZ, also known as Alvarado Sotero-Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1528-ALL

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sotero Alvarado-Jimenez (“Alvarado”) appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for illegally reentering the United States following a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Finding no error, we affirm. Alvarado first argues that, in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court erred in imposing a sentence utilizing the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory. We review for plain error. See United States v.No. 05-50126 -2-
Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (No. 04-9517) (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005). Application of the Guidelines as mandatory, even absent a Sixth Amendment violation as is the case here, is plain or obvious error after Booker
. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). However, Alvarado cannot show that the error affected his substantial rights because the record does not indicate that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence under an advisory, rather than a mandatory, Guidelines scheme. See id. ; Mares , 402 F.3d at 522. Alvarado’s second argument, that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional, is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235, 239-47 (1998). See United States v. Martinez-Mata , 393 F.3d 625, 629 n.3 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied , 125 S. Ct. 1877 (2005). Alvarado concedes this point, but raises it to preserve the matter for further review. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1








Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of NovaDel Pharma Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Steven B. Ratoff, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Craig A. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his knowledge:





(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 12, 2010
By:
/s/ Steven B. RatoffSteven B. RatoffPresident and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)Date:  November 12, 2010
By:
/s/ Craig A. JohnsonCraig A. JohnsonChief Financial Officer

(principal financial and accounting officer)








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.





This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
**Exhibit 10.58**

**Summary of Loan Agreement by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Eastern Branch, Agricultural Bank of China dated September 1, 2006.**

| **Summary of the main articles**    |
|-------------------------------------|
| •                              | Contract   number: No. 81101200600001497 |
| •                              | Loan Principal:   RMB 40 million; |
| •                              | Loan term: six   months starting from the date loan is actually provided to the Company. |
| •                              | Interest   rate: fixed rate of 5.58%; |
|                                | • | Penalty   interest rate for delayed repayment: 5.58% plus 50% *5.58%; |
|                                | • | Penalty   interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.58% * 2; |
| •                              | Purpose of   the loan is to provide working capital for the Company; |
| •                              | Advanced   repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Lender; |
| •                              | Breach of   contract penalties: suspension of loan not yet provided, demand prepayment of   loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest;   compensation for the Lender’s expenses incurred due to the Company’s breach   of contract such as lawyer’s fee, travel cost in case of litigation, etc. |
| **Summary of the articles omitted** |
| •                              | Types of the   loan |
| •                              | Clearing of   the loan interest |
| •                              | Conditions   precedent to the drawing of the loan |
| •                              | Rights and   obligations of the Borrower |
| •                              | Rights and   obligations of the Lender |
| •                              | Guarantee of   the loan |
| •                              | Dispute   settlement |
| •                              | Miscellaneous |
| •                              | Validity |
| •                              | Notes |
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 03-1432

JACQUELYN M. FRIEDSAM, APPELLANT,

V.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KASOLD, MOORMAN, and DAVIS, Judges.

O R D E R

On May 26, 2006, the appellant filed through counsel an unopposed motion for a 45-day

extension of time in which to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 8, 2006, opinion.

The only reason proffered by the appellant for needing more time is that, although she is inclined to

make a motion for reconsideration, such time is needed for her counsel to review the issues on

appeal, analyze the details of her case and different courses of action, and to consult with her. These

are standard actions required in every case and therefore cannot, standing alone, constitute good

cause for an extension of time, or else the rule would be eviscerated. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 26(b),

35(d)(2), 36.

The Court, "in order to get its work done, must insist on strict compliance with its rules.

Violations of [the Rules] . . . are all too frequent. In addition to imposing an unfair burden on

opposing parties, violations of our rules are also a burden on the [C]ourt. The [C]ourt must consider

a large number of appeals each year. It can only conduct its work fairly and efficiently if counsel

cooperate by abiding by the pertinent rules." In re Violation of Rule 28(c), 388 F.3d 1383, 1385

(Fed. Cir. 2004).

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the May 26, 2006, motion for a 45-day extension of time is denied. 

DATED: June 5, 2006 PER CURIAM.
**Exhibit 10.48**

**Summary of Loan Agreement by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Eastern Branch, Agricultural Bank of China dated July 11, 2006.**

| **Summary of the main articles**    |
|-------------------------------------|
| •                              | Contract   number: No. 81101200600001201 |
| •                              | Loan   Principal: RMB 20 million; |
| •                              | Loan term: six   months starting from the date loan is actually provided to the Company. |
| •                              | Interest   rate: fixed rate of 5.40%; |
|                                | • | Penalty   interest rate for delayed repayment: 5.40% plus 50% *5.40%; |
|                                | • | Penalty   interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.40% * 2; |
| •                              | Purpose of   the loan is to provide working capital for the Company; |
| •                              | Advanced   repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Lender; |
| •                              | Breach of   contract penalties: suspension of loan not yet provided,   demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition   of punitive interest; compensation for the Lender’s expenses incurred due to   the Company’s breach of contract such as lawyer’s fee, travel cost in case of   litigation, etc. |
| **Summary of the articles omitted** |
| •                              | Types of the   loan |
| •                              | Clearing of   the loan interest |
| •                              | Conditions   precedent to the drawing of the loan |
| •                              | Rights and   obligations of the Borrower |
| •                              | Rights and   obligations of the Lender |
| •                              | Guarantee of   the loan |
| •                              | Dispute   settlement |
| •                              | Miscellaneous |
| •                              | Validity |
| •                              | Notes |
#### UNC LEAR SERVICES, INC.; Lear Siegler Services, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA; Ministry of Defense and Aviation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10-50947.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 2011.

Jason D. Russell, Esq., Jeffrey H. Dasteel, Virginia F. Milstead, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, Charles W. Schwartz, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

David B. Bergman, Arnold & Porter, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Joe R. Hinojosa, Barkhurst & Hinojosa, P.C., San Antonio, TX, Randall K. Miller, Arnold & Porter LP, McLean, VA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

UNC LEAR Services, Inc. (“Lear”), entered into a cost-plus contract with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the “Kingdom”) to service its military aircraft. In breach of that contract, Lear secretly outsourced *317its services to other companies, which inflated the cost of repairs. After noticing the inflated costs, Lear adjusted some prices and conducted an investigation into others, finding them to be reasonably priced.

Lear sued the Kingdom for failure to pay under the contract; the Kingdom counterclaimed for breach of contract and for alleged RICO violations. The district court conducted a five-day bench trial, then issued a thorough order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court decided “that all of Lear’s claims against the Kingdom fail, and that all of the Kingdom’s claims against Lear fair.” The court stated, on the Kingdom’s breach-of-contract claim, that “[although Lear did breach the contract, the Court found Mr. Raymie’s testimony regarding the work done to ensure that only fair prices were charged to be highly persuasive.” The court concluded that “[bjecause [it] finds that the Kingdom suffered no damages as a result of Lear’s breach of the contract, the Kingdom may not recover under its breach of contract claim.”

The Kingdom appeals the denial of relief. We find no clear error in the district court’s comprehensive findings of fact and no error in its conclusions of law. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.

*

 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.
(85 South. 922)

#### GIBSON v. STATE.

(7 Div. 17.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 13, 1920.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
This version includes the errata dated 15Jun01-e

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 99-1691

LEO G. HALE, APPELLANT,

 V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and HOLDAWAY and STEINBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

In a single-judge order of February 26, 2001, the Court remanded a June 29, 1999, decision

of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that determined that new and material evidence had not

been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a neuropsychiatric disorder. The Court

found that a remand was required by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-

475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA). On March 19, 2001, the appellant filed, through

counsel, a timely motion for reconsideration or a panel decision. 

On consideration of the foregoing and the record on appeal, it is

ORDERED, by the single judge, that the motion for reconsideration is denied. It is further

ORDERED, by the panel, that the motion for a panel decision is denied.

DATED: May 23, 2001 PER CURIAM.

KRAMER, Chief Judge, concurring: The appellant has failed to demonstrate that he would

be prejudiced by a remand under the VCAA. See Best v. Principi, ___Vet.App. ___, ___, No. 99-

1144, order at 1-2 (May 15, 2001) (per curiam order) (because of as yet unknown factual and legal

context in which claim readjudication will occur, absent "appropriate circumstances," Court refrains

from exercising, either sua sponte or at appellant's request, its discretion to address all allegations

of error by Board of Veterans' Appeals once it is determined that VCAA necessitates remand).

Specifically, such prejudice may result where the appellant would have (1) argued and provided

support for a reversal with a grant of benefits by this Court or (2) demonstrated that he would be

prejudiced by a remand of his claim without consideration of additional allegations of error; that is,

that the errors would not be mooted by a remand pursuant to the VCAA or could not be properly

raised and eventually remedied on remand to the Board.
2

STEINBERG, Judge, concurring: After careful examination of the record on appeal and all

pleadings in this case, I do not believe that the appellant has presented a viable argument for a panel

decision. I do not agree with the analysis in Chief Judge Kramer's statement that the Court should

consider the appellant's specific assignments of Board error only when the appellant has

demonstrated that he "would be prejudiced by a remand without consideration of" such assignments

of Board error. The potential for prejudice is enough, in my judgment.