alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Clear All

        28 April 2022    

#                     Navy Exchange Service Command Provides Critical Assistance in Times of Crisis                 

                The Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM) serves as a strategic asset around the globe for the U.S. Navy’s crisis response.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer**


**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 SRKP 15, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, 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 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.





/s/
                Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
                Financial OfficerOctober
                14, 2008
Exhibit 10.14
 SYMETRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
 ANNUAL INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN
 ARTICLE I.
PURPOSE
  ARTICLE II.
DEFINITIONS.
        1




---



##### 



ARTICLE III.
EFFECTIVE DATE
  ARTICLE IV.
PLAN ADMINISTRATION
 Powers of Plan Administrator
 2




---



##### 



Finality of Decisions
 Liability of Plan Administrator
 ARTICLE V.
ELIGIBILITY
  ARTICLE VI.
INCENTIVE BONUS
 Establishment of Goals
 Target Bonus
 Eligible Payment Formula
 3




---



##### 



Right to Incentive Bonus.
 Time and Form of Eligible Payment of Incentive Bonus.
 Special Provision for Benefit Upon Death.
 ARTICLE VII.
UNFUNDED OBLIGATION
  ARTICLE VIII.
MISCELLANEOUS
 Withholding Taxes.
 No Employment Contract.
 4




---



##### 



Right to Amend or Terminate Plan.
 Applicable Law.
 
 SYMETRA FINANCIAL CORPORATIONByIts
 5
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, R. Ray Bell, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Tidelands Royalty Trust“B”; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s Trustee and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s Trustee and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date:  March 29, 2004 /s/ R. RAY BELL   R. Ray Bell   Principal Accounting Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Baldelli, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooper-man, J.), rendered March 22, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.

In the early morning hours of July 25, 1987, the complainant was awakened by the sound of someone in his bedroom. He was confronted by a knife-wielding assailant who, after threatening the complainant, left the premises. Several days later, the complainant was able to describe his assailant to the police, but indicated that the assailant was a stranger. On August 8, 1987, the complainant and his wife, who was away the day the incident occurred, saw the defendant, their former neighbor, on the street, and the complainant identified him as the perpetrator. The defendant was arrested the next day.

At trial, the complainant’s wife was permitted to testify, over objection, as to the circumstances surrounding the August 8th observation, though she was not permitted to testify as to anything her husband said. She was also permitted to *742testify that on August 9th, she saw the defendant in front of her house, and that her telephone call led to the defendant’s arrest. Her alleged knowledge of the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator could only have come from her husband since she was not present during the incident. This testimony inferentially bolstered the complainant’s identification, and thus should not have been permitted *(see, People v Holt,*67 NY2d 819; *People v Faison,*126 AD2d 739; *People v Vasquez,*120 AD2d 757). The prejudice occasioned by this testimony was exacerbated by the arresting officer’s testimony, albeit unobjected to, that the complainant’s wife gave him a description of the perpetrator and that, based upon this description, he arrested the defendant *(see, People v Holt, supra).*

Contrary to the People’s assertion on appeal, these errors cannot be considered harmless. The only evidence against the defendant was the eyewitness testimony of the complainant, who viewed the perpetrator very briefly and under less than ideal conditions. Remarkably, the complainant never indicated that he recognized his assailant, although the defendant was previously known to the complainant. Under the facts of this case, these bolstering errors cannot be considered harmless *(see, People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     OF AMBER RESOURCES COMPANY OF COLORADO
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Transition Report on Form
10-K of Amber Resources Company of Colorado for the transition period ended
December 31, 2005 (the "Report"):

(1) 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 Delta
Petroleum Corporation.





/s/ Roger A. Parker
Roger A. Parker
Chief Executive Officer

March 21, 2006


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and shall not, except to the extent required thereby, be deemed filed by
Amber Resources Company of Colorado (the "Company") for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").
Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRA MARIA CABALLERO

AGUILAR , et al.
,

Petitioners,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71904

Agency Nos. A209

- 859

- 524

A209

- 859

- 525

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 1, 2022 * *

Before : FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Alejandra Maria Caballero

- Aguilar and her minor daughter
, native s and

citizen s of El Salvador
, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

* 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). 

# FILED

JUN 8 2022

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

- 71904

denying their application s for asylum
, withholding of removal
, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. 1

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

S ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Caballero

Aguilar did not establish that she suffered past persecution or has a well

- founded

fear of future persecution. See Duran

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028

- 29

(9th Cir. 2019) (“We have been most likely to find persecution where threats are

repeated, specific, and combined with confrontation or other mistreatment.”)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

. Thus, Petitioners’ asylum claim s

fail.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Petitioners’ remaining

contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) ( “ As a

general rule c ourts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the

1 The BIA deemed waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection because those denials were not meaningfully challenged in Petitioners’ brief to the BIA

. Petitioners have not contested that waiver determination in this petition for review. Therefore, only the asylum claim is before us. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 6 77

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004)

. To the extent the BIA relied on t he IJ’s having afforded diminished weight to Caballero

Aguilar’s testimony based on significant concerns with her credibility, Petitioners do not argue that we shou ld grant the petition on that basis.3 19

- 71904

decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach .” (quoting INS v.

Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)) )

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 0
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          62,436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,411,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,080,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,878,639
<PP&E>                                       2,004,975
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,209,610)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,674,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,233,356
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,131
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,674,004
<SALES>                                      6,430,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,430,136
<CGS>                                        6,857,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,857,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (14,713)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (442,140)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (208,384)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (208,384)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (208,384)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        


</TABLE>
diy 205 SEN 16 AN IO: 22
OFC. OF THE SECRETARIAT

KANSAS CITY
BOARD OF TRADE

June 16, 2005

SENT VIA E-MAIL ARERCATAL (HEAT NENT
Ms. Jean A. Webb REQUESTED

Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Submission pursuant to Commission Regulation Section
40.6 (Subject to FOIA Confidential Treatment Protection)

Dear Ms. Webb:

The Kansas City Board of Trade ("KCBT”) hereby gives notification to the
Commission pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 40.6, that KCBT has approved
a market maker program for its Value Line® Stock Index futures contract. A copy of the
agreement entered into with the market maker is attached and is herein filed subject to a
petition for confidential treatment protection (from requests under the Freedom of
Information Act) filed concurrent with this submission.

KCBT certifies to the Commission that the terms and conditions of the market
maker agreement are in compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and the
regulations thereunder.

Any questions regarding this submission should be directed to the undersigned at 816-
753-7500.

Ce: _ Rick Shilts - CFTC Washington
Tom Bloom — CFTC Kansas City
Robin Hagedom — CFTC Kansas City


al

KANSAS CITY
BOARD OF TRADE

June 16, 2005
SENT VIA E-MAIL

Mr. Edward W. Colbert

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOI,
Privacy & Sunshine Acts Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request
Dear Mr. Colbert:

The Kansas City Board of Trade ("KCBT”) hereby petitions, pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (Commission Regulation Section 145.9), that
the attached market maker agreement approved by KCBT for its Value Line® Stock
Index futures contract be retained and treated as “confidential” information and protected
from requests to review such information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
(‘FOIA’). KCBT further requests that the information subject to this confidential
treatment request remain confidential until such time as KCBT notifies the Commission
in writing of its intent to no longer have the confidentiality of such information protected
pursuant to the above FOIA regulations.

The basis for this petition for confidential treatment is Commission Regulation
Section 145.9(d)(1)(iil). Disclosure of such information provided by KCBT would reveal
financial, operational and procedural information considered trade secrets and
confidential commercial and financial information.

in the event a FOIA request for such information is filed, please contact me at
816-753-7500.

Ce: Rick Shilts - CFTC Washington
Tom Bloom — CFTC Kansas City
Robin Hagedom — CFTC Kansas City
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 1 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 2 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 3 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 4 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 5 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 6 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 7 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 8 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 9 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 10 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL     Document 48      Filed 06/13/2008     Page 11 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 34 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 34 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21.1

                     EVANS & SUTHERLAND COMPUTER CORPORATION

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
              Subsidiary Name                      State or Other                    Names Under Which
                                                  Jurisdiction of              Each Subsidiary Does Business
                                                  Incorporation or
                                                    Organization
---------------------------------------------    -------------------    ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>                   <C>

Evans & Sutherland Graphics Corporation                 Utah            Evans & Sutherland Graphics Corporation

Xionix Simulation, Inc.                                Texas            Xionix Simulation, Inc.

Evans & Sutherland, Ltd.                           United Kingdom       Evans & Sutherland, Ltd.

Evans & Sutherland, GmbH                              Germany           Evans & Sutherland, GmbH

Evans & Sutherland SARL                                France           Evans & Sutherland SARL

E&S Foreign Sales Corporation                      Virgin Islands       E&S Foreign Sales Corporation

E&S Partners, Inc.                                      Utah            E&S Partners, Inc.

</TABLE>

                                       69
Case 1:07-cv-05377-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05377-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05377-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05377-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05377-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05311-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 53 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 53 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 53 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    | ENTERCONNECT      INC.       |
|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                    |                         |
|                                    |                         |   |
| Date:  February      14, 2008 | By:                          | /s/    Sam      Jankovich |
|                                    | Sam      Jankovich           |
|                                    | Chief      Executive Officer |

|                                    | ENTERCONNECT      INC.       |
|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                    |                         |
|                                    |                         |   |
| Date:  February      14, 2008 | By:                          | /s/    Dean      Galland |
|                                    | Dean      Galland            |
|                                    | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 8 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0211

CITY OF MISSOULA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SCOTT ANTHONY CHARLIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 5, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 3 2024

03/04/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0211
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ December 20, 2011 ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2010-1345 HITACHI HOME ELECTRONICS (AMERICA), INC. v. UNITED STATES Decided: October 31, 2011 Precedential Opinion

______________________ Please make the following change: Page 10, lines 27-28, change “Commerce” to --Customs--.