alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ueon BAK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area) Agency; United States Postal Service, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-56924.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 10, 2012.

Ueon Bak, Midway, CA pro se.

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 **

Ueon Bak appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the determination that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. *Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust,*821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that “the face of the proposed complaint” showed that Bak’s claims had “no arguable *706substance in law or fact.” *Id.*at 1370; *see also*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (establishing Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement, as well as the time for a claimant to file an administrative charge and a civil action); Cal.Civ.Proc.Code §§ 335.1, 338(d) (establishing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, and a three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims); *Legg v. Ford,*185 Cal.App.2d 534, 8 Cal.Rptr. 392, 397 (Ct.App.1960) (“Subornation of perjury, being a crime and not a tort, is subject to criminal prosecution brought in the interest of the state and not to redress a private wrong.”). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bak’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Bak’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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





Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Paul V. Maier, Chief Financial Officer of Sequenom, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A, (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act, and





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





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 (“SEC”) or its staff upon request.


This certification accompanies the Annual Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Annual Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 28th day of February, 2014.








/s/ PAULV. MAIERPaul V. MaierChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                     EXHIBIT 11

AMERICAN GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, LTD.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE


                                      Three Months Ended
                                           March 31,
                                   1999                1998
                                   ____                ____

Weighted average number
 of shares for computation      12,532,102          12,532,102
                                ==========          ==========

Net loss                       $(1,863,000)        $(1,911,000)

Dividends and accretion
on preferred stock                 467,000             467,000
                                   _______             _______

Net loss for common
stockholders                   $(2,330,000)        $(2,378,000)

Loss for common
stockholders per common
share                               $(0.19)             $(0.19)
EX-4.6



 Exhibit 4.6 

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 TO THE 

BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL, INC. 

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
 The BRIGHTHOUSE
FINANCIAL, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (“Plan”) is hereby amended as follows, effective as of February 23, 2018: 
  

	 	1.	Section 4.1 of the Plan shall be restated in its entirety to read as follows: 


“General Rule. Except as otherwise provided herein, any individual who is an Employee as of the first day of the month prior to the
month in which a particular Offering Period begins shall be eligible to participate in the Plan with respect to such particular Offering Period.” 
  

	 	2.	To provide clarity and avoid confusion, the first sentence of Section 5.1 of the Plan shall be restated in its entirety to read as follows: 


“Subject to the provisions of Sections 5.7 and 9.4, the number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan shall not
exceed 600,000 shares.” 
  

	 	3.	The first sentence of Section 5.4 of the Plan shall be restated in its entirety to read as follows: 


“Unless the Plan Administrator shall establish a higher or lower maximum rate of contribution, Payroll Contributions may not exceed the
lesser of $21,250.00 or 50% of a Participant’s Compensation. Payroll Contributions are held as general assets of the Company or any Participating Subsidiary until the Date of Exercise and will not earn any interest.” 

 

	 	4.	The final sentence of Section 9.2 of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


“Shares of Common Stock received upon the exercise of Options under the Plan shall not be transferable by a Participant for a period of
six months immediately following the Date of Exercise, or such longer or shorter period as the Plan Administrator shall determine with respect to any Offering Period.” 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has caused this amendment to be executed in its name and behalf
this 23rd day of February 2018, by the Plan Administrator of the Plan thereunto duly authorized. 
  

			
	BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Mark J. Davis
		 	   Mark J. Davis
		 	   Plan Administrator

  

	
	Witness:
	
	 /s/ Elyse Moore
# C_2009282EN.01006503.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/65

---

Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Nijs v European Court of Auditors

(Case F-77/09)

2009/C 282/125

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: Fränk Rollinger, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the Committee ad hoc of the European Court of Auditors of 15 January 2009 removing the applicant from his post with effect from 1 February 2009 without reduction in pension

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

Principally, annul the decision of the Committee ad hoc of the European Court of Auditors of 15 January 2009 removing the applicant from his post with effect from 1 February 2009 without reduction in pension;

Annul the European Court of Auditors’ decision 81-2007 of 20 September 2007 conferring certain powers of the Appointing Authority on a Committee ad hoc;

Annul all the preparatory decisions adopted by that Committee ad hoc, particularly those of 22/29 October and 23 November 2007 and of 12 June 2008 to open an administrative enquiry;

In the alternative, should the Tribunal not uphold the applications for annulment formulated in the principal heads of relief, hold that the penalty inflicted by the Committee ad hoc of the European Court of Auditors on 15 January 2009 is, on the basis of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, for the reasons set out above, far too severe;

Refer the matter to a differently constituted Appointing Authority of the European Court of Auditors, to inflict a different penalty, if one is really considered necessary, much more suited to the facts;

In the further alternative, find expressly that the principle that procedures should be conducted with reasonable expedition was infringed in this case, as set out above, and taking account of the level of the penalty to be inflicted, if one is appropriate;

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
H. Res. 1742 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 1, 2010. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 3307) 

to reauthorize child nutrition programs, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. The 

bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered 

as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to 

recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Christopher J. CHRISTIE, Governor of New Jersey, et al., petitioners, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al.

No. 16-476.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States.
Heather McKEEVER, et vir, petitioners, v. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, et al.

No. 16-591.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
II-00440

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Paul Kalcsics <kalcsics@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:01 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Paul Kalcsics

1609 Eddy Lane

Lake Zurich, IL 60047
II-00532

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Michael John Mayo <mjmayo72@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:33 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Michael John Mayo

143 Shotwell Park

Syracuse, NY 13206
Carlos GONZALEZ, petitioner, v. Abel HUERTA.

No. 16-719.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 3.24.1.1**

 

Filed in theOffice of the Secretary of State of Texas, Corporation Section on January 13,2000

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE**

**CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

 

Pursuant to theprovisions of Section 2.02 of the Texas Revised Limited Partnership Act, theundersigned limited partnership desires to amend its certificate of limitedpartnership and for that purpose submits the following certificate ofamendment.

 

1.     The name of thelimited partnership is DAH-IP ACQUISITION CO., L.P.

 

2.     The certificate oflimited partnership is amended as follows:

 

The name of the limited partnership is THE INFINITY PARTNERS, LTD.

 

Dated: December 17, 1999

 
|   | DAH-IP  ACQUISITION CO., L.P. |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | By:                           | DAH-IP Holdings,  Inc. |
|   |                          | As Its General  Partner |
|   |                          |   |
|   | By:                           | /s/ | Jeffrey A. Nerland |
|   | Name:                         | Jeffery A.  Nerland |
|   | Title:                        | Vice President |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15702]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES 910 01-1430-LRTN]


Notice of Intent To Prepare Meadowood Planning Analysis/
Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Intent; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management published a document in the 
Federal Register of Tuesday, May 1, 2001 concerning the intent to 
prepare a planning analysis/environmental assessment on Meadowood Farm 
in Fairfax County, Virginia. This correction amends the Notice of 
Intent (NOI) to specify June 27, 2001 as the final date for comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Horace Traylor at (703) 440-1509.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of May 1, 2001, in FR Doc. 01-10750, 
appearing on page 21779, in the second column, correct the last 
paragraph to read:

    You may also participate by sending issues and/or criteria in 
writing by June 27, 2001 to the Bureau of Land Management, Eastern 
States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Comments 
may also be sent electronically to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#563325093b333732392139393216332578343a3b78313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6104123e0c0400050e160e0e052104124f030d0c4f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>

    Dated: May 21, 2001.
Walter Rewinski,
Acting State Director, BLM, Eastern States.
[FR Doc. 01-15702 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II-00676

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jason Marsh <contactjmarsh@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:39 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Jason Marsh

428 228th St SW

Bothell, WA 98021
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Registrant for the dates and periods
covered by the Report.
   March 15, 2006/s/ Paul H. Fischer, Ph.D.Paul H. Fischer, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
Brandi K. STOKES, petitioner, v. Christopher Lance CORSBIE.

No. 16-671.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, David W. Cathell, certify,that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fulton Bancshares Corporation.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thequarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report.

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements and other financial information included in this quarterlyreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report.

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this quarterlyreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 9,  2005 | By:                                           | /s/David W.  Cathell |   |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|               | David W.  Cathell ,                           |
|               | Acting President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Freddie CAMACHO, petitioner, v. Nicole ENGLISH, Warden.

No. 17-7381.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.