alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-447-000]

Take notice that on June 8, 2001, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 415 and Sheet Nos. 416 through 499, to be effective July 9, 2001.

Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to establish a new section 51 of the General Terms and Conditions of Natural's Tariff, addressing the use of offsystem capacity acquired by Natural.

Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its customers and interested state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15383  Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 32**

 

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned, M. Dendy Young, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of GTSI Corp. (“the Company”) and Thomas A. Mutryn, SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 filed byGTSI Corp. with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and the information contained in the Report fairly presents in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of GTSI Corp.

 

Date:                    November 5,2004

 

 
| /s/ M. Dendy  Young |                                 |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                | M. Dendy Young                       |
|                | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |                                      |  |

 

 
| /s/ Thomas A.  Mutryn |                                              |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                  | Thomas A. Mutryn                                  |
|                  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                       |                                                   |  |

 

----
No. 782.

#### Lockard et al. *v.*Los Angeles et al.

Supreme Court of California.

*Albert H. Allen*and *Hyman Goldman*for petitioners.

*Ray L. Chesebro*and *Bourke Jones*for respondents.

Certiorari denied..
Loan Agreement




Borrower :Shanghai Vomart Auto Parts Co.,  Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Party A)




Lender :YBM Group China Co.,  Ltd.  ( hereinafter referred to as Party B)




In order to clarify responsibility and to maintain good credit, Party A and Party B, through mutual consultations, hereby have entered the following contract (“Contract”):




Article I  Loan amount and usage




Party A, currently in its marketing development and expansion period, lacks sufficient funds. Party B agrees to provide Party A with loans up to a maximum principal amount outstanding at any one time of RMB 50 million to be used as Party A’s working capital.




Article II. Term of loan




The term of loan in this contract is three years.




Article III  Loan method




This is a committed loan facility from Party B to Party A. Party A my at any time and from time to time upon written notice to Party B borrow up to a maximum principal amount outstanding at any one time of RMB 50 million. Amounts borrowed and repaid shall increase the availability under this Contract up to the maximum of RMB 50 million. Party B shall fund any and all drawdowns under this Contract within 3 business days of receiving the written notice from Party A. The terms of this Contract connot be amended or terminated without the signed written agreement of Party A and Party B.





Article IV  Loan  interest




All loans under the Contract  are interest-free.




This contract shall take effect after being signed or sealed by both parties. It shall expire automatically upon being paid off by Party A.




This contract is in duplicate. One for Party A and one for Party B.




Borrower (seal): Shanghai Vomart Auto Parts Co., Ltd.




Date: May 16, 2011




Lender (seal): YBM Group China Co., Ltd.




Date: May 16, 2011
#### Gustave William LINK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PILE DRIVERS UNION LOCAL 34; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-16899.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 11, 2012.

Gustave William Link, San Leandro, CA, pro se.

Sandra Rae Benson, Roberta D. Perkins, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gustave William Link appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging, among other claims, violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (the “Act”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp,*297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and may affirm on grounds supported by the record, *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys.,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Link’s claims under the Act was proper based on collateral estoppel because Link litigated the issue of whether he had failed to exhaust his intra-union remedies as to this claim in a prior litigation. *See Link v. Rhodes,*315 Fed.Appx. 624, 625-26 (9th Cir.2009); *see also Offshore Sportswear, Inc. v. Vuarnet Int’l, B.V.,*114 F.3d 848, 850-51 (9th Cir.1997) (setting forth elements of collateral estop-pel and noting that it applies even where dismissal is not on the merits of the underlying claims if “the issue that led to dismissal was adjudicated on *its*merits and was conclusively determined”).

Link’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Arguments raised for the first time on reply, along with other issues not expressly addressed in Link’s opening brief, and are deemed waived. *See Graves v. Arpaio,*623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Hickman, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 530]—

*866Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered June 2, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by certain comments the prosecutor made on summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the challenged comments or request any curative relief after the Supreme Court interjected and permitted the comments to be made *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Boyce,*54 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2008]; *People v Aponte,*28 AD3d 672 [2006]; *People v Hernandez,*297 AD2d 389 [2002]). In any event, the challenged comments were a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation *(see People v Lenoir,*57 AD3d 802 [2008]; *People v Crawford,*54 AD3d 961, 962 [2008]). Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial, which was based on certain testimony volunteered by a prosecution witness *(see People v Ortiz,*54 NY2d 288, 292 [1981]).

The defendant contends that he was denied his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution because a prosecution witness invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the Supreme Court failed to strike any portion of that witness’s testimony. However, since the defendant failed to object to or move to strike the witness’s testimony, he failed to preserve this contention for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Wright,*38 AD3d 1232, 1233 [2007]). In any event, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in instructing the jury that it could consider the witness’s invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination in evaluating his credibility *(see People v Siegel,*87 NY2d 536, 544-545 [1995]; *People v Visich,*57 AD3d 804 [2008]).

Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

*867The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Santucci and Covello, JJ., concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3038

_____________________________ C ANTRELL L. D ENKINS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Angela M. Cox , Judge

. February 15, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and B ILBREY and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9 .330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Cantrell L. Denkins, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 10.1

 

Diplomat Pharmacy Inc.

Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation Program

(Effective December 2015)

 

The following table sets forth the compensation program for non-employee directors:

 

	
Annual cash retainer:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Board
    	
 
    	
$
    	
50,000
    	
 
    
	
Additional   cash retainer:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Audit   Committee-Chair
    	
 
    	
$
    	
10,000
    	
 
    
	
Annual   grant of restricted stock (grant date fair value)
    	
 
    	
$
    	
75,000
    	
 
    


 

In addition, the Company reimburses expenses associated with attendance at Board meetings for all directors.

 

Restricted Stock.  Each non-employee director will be paid the annual grant of restricted stock as of the earlier of (a) June 1 and (b) the date of the annual meeting of shareholders.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the initial restricted stock grant for a new non-employee director appointed other than at the annual meeting of shareholders shall be made as of the date of initial appointment, having a pro rata grant date fair value as determined by the Board or the Compensation Committee.

 

The restricted stock vests in full on the first anniversary of the grant date or earlier upon a change of control of the Company, subject to the director’s continued service to the Company through such vesting date. Except as set forth in the prior sentence, the restricted stock will be forfeited in the event of termination of service prior to the vesting date.  During the restricted period, the restricted stock entitles the participant to all of the rights of a shareholder, including the right to vote the shares and the right to receive any dividends thereon. Prior to the end of the restricted period, restricted stock generally may not be sold, assigned, pledged, or otherwise disposed of or hypothecated by participants.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         303,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,984,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,748,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,312,000
<PP&E>                                       4,992,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,494,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,460,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,452,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,494,000
<SALES>                                     14,170,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,170,000
<CGS>                                       12,007,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,007,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,258,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                905,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   362,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            543,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   543,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133267 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133267 

 COA: 263214 

Saginaw CC: 04-024890-FC 

MICHAEL ANTHONY BOOKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 16, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure.

# ACTION:

Notice of open hearing.

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure has proposed amendments to Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. A public hearing on the amendments is scheduled to be held in Washington, DC on March 12, 2001.

The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules Practice and Procedure submits this rule for public comment. All comments and suggestions with respect to the amendments must be placed in the hands of the Secretary as soon as convenient and, in event, not later than April 2, 2001. Those wishing to testify should contact the Secretary at the address below in writing at least 21 days before the hearing. All written comments on the proposed rule amendments should be mailed to: Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Washington, DC 20544.

                        Comments on the proposed rule amendments may also be sent electronically via the Internet at                         *http://www.uscourts.gov/​rules.*                         In accordance with established procedures all comments submitted on the proposed amendments are available to public inspection.                    

                        The text of the proposed rule amendments and the accompanying Committee Notes can be found at the United States Federal Courts' Home Page at                         *http://www.uscourts.gov/​rules*                         on the Internet.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: January 12, 2001.

John K. Rabiej,

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. 01-1476 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mauricio ROSALES-GONZALEZ, also known as Chaparro; et al., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30062.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008 *.

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Todd L. Green-berg, Esq., USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*612Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esq., Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott, Mark A. Larrana-ga, Esq., Walsh & Larranaga, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mauricio Rosales-Gonzalez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 846.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rosales-Gonzalez’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no arguable grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



FORM 10-Q Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Encore Wire Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Vincent A. Rego, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: November 8, 2004 /s/ VINCENT A. REGOVincent A. RegoChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer