alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

                      Greenwich Technology Partners, Inc.
                               43 Gatehouse Road
                          Stamford, Connecticut 09602

December 1, 1998

Mr. Dennis M. Goett
140 Old Farm Road South
Pleasantville, New York 10570

Dear Mr. Goett:

Pursuant to our letter of agreement dated December 1, 1998, the following
modifications are made by our mutual consent to that letter agreement between
us:

1.   Severance:  Upon termination for reasons other than Cause (as defined in
     such letter agreement), you will be receive three (3) months salary and
     benefits.

2.   Additional Options:  At each of the first three (3) anniversary dates of
     your employment, you are eligible to receive incentive stock options to
     purchase 33,333 shares (an aggregate of 100,000 shares over the three year
     period).  These additional options will vest immediately upon grant and
     will have an exercise price per share of $.30. These additional options
     will be granted based upon the achievement of certain objectives contained
     on the attached Schedule A, hereto.  It is understood that these options
     will be subject to the approval of the Board of Directors and an Option
     Agreement between the Company and you.

These provisions are in addition to the terms and conditions our letter
agreement dated December 1, 1998 and pursuant to the terms of that letter
agreement the foregoing provisions are hereby incorporated therein.

Sincerely,
Greenwich Technology Partners, Inc.

By: /s/ Joseph Beninati
    -----------------------
    Joseph P. Beninati
    Chief Executive Officer

I have carefully read the above provisions and acknowledge and accept them as
terms and conditions to our letter agreement dated December 1, 1998.

/s/ Dennis M. Goett
---------------------------
Dennis M. Goett
S.A.B., petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-616.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Cary Michael LAMBRIX, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-5539 (17A368).

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 5, 2017.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice THOMAS and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Adaucto CHAVEZ-MEZA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5639.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 12, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit are granted.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
Annette CUMMINGS, petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 16-9168.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1
**Certification pursuant to**
**Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)**
I, John A. Ciccarelli, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, and ChiefExecutive Officer of Dayton Superior Corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify in accordancewith 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tomy knowledge:
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending April 1, 2005 (the“Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: May 16, 2005      /s/John A. Ciccarelli    John A. Ciccarelli
William F. BOYLAND, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7192.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
David S. MIDDLETON, petitioner, v. E.K. McDANIEL, Warden, et al.

No. 17-6255.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
Exhibit
31.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002




I,
David Koos, Chief Executive Officer of Bio-Matrix Scientific Group, Inc.
(“Registrant”) certify that:




1. I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
of Registrant;




2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. 
The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and
have:




(a) designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;




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




(c) disclosed
in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.  I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.











Date:  12/18/08
            By:
            /s/ David
      R. KoosDavid
      R. Koos
              Chairman
      and Chief Executive
              Officer
Ashram SEEPERSAD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-1445.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing
 Financial Statements Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      I, R. Andrew White,  Chief Financial Officer of Home Solutions of America,
Inc.  (the  "Company"),  in  compliance  with 18 U.S.C  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, hereby certify that
(i) the Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2003,  fully  complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended,  and (ii) the  information  contained in that report fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



Date: November 14, 2003                 /s/ R. ANDREW WHITE
                                        -------------------
                                        R. Andrew White
                                        Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6644

DWAYNE SYLVESTER BARBER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, Buckingham Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.

(CA-99-988)

Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Sylvester Barber, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells,

Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Sylvester Barber seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We further

note that Barber’s response to the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss

was filed in the record and was addressed by the district court’s

opinion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

Barber v. Warden, No. CA-99-988 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 14, 2000;

entered Apr. 17, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 12, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20204

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE REGINALD PATTERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-783-2

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dwayne Reginald Patterson has appealed his jury convictions

for conspiracy to possess stolen microprocessors and five

individual counts of possession of stolen microprocessors in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2315. Patterson contends that

the Government failed to prove that he knew that the

microprocessors were stolen. Contrary to Patterson’s assertion,

the evidence does not give “equal or nearly equal circumstantial

support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence of the
No. 03-20204

-2-

crime charged.” United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923

(5th Cir. 1995). Viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the Government, we hold that the evidence was

sufficient to enable a reasonable juror to find that the

Government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Patterson

participated in the conspiracy to sell stolen microprocessors and

had possessed those microprocessors knowing that the

microprocessors were stolen. See United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d

547, 549 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), aff’d on other

grounds, 462 U.S. 356 (1983); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 

AFFIRMED.
CHINA AGRITECH, INC., petitioner, v. Michael H. RESH, et al.

No. 17-432.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 8, 2017.

Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United *544States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.
Claude Phillip VINCENT, petitioner, v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 17-6448.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1 – CEO Certification








ROYAL INVEST INTERNATIONAL CORP.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Royal Invest International Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry Gruenbaum, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








By: /s/ Jerry Gruenbaum


Jerry Gruenbaum, CEO





April 15, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Royal Invest International Corp., and will be retained by Royal Invest International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2018460EN.01003101.xml

| 21.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 460/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 460/31

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
  )

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 460/16)

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation numbers | Authorised uses | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2018) 8564 | 14 December 2018 | Chromium trioxide
  EC No 215-607-8;
  CAS No 1333-82-0 | Circuit Foil Luxembourg SARL, Zone industrielle C. SALZBAACH, 9559 WILTZ, Luxembourg | REACH/18/17/0 | Industrial use for the treatment of copper foil used in the production of printed circuit board. | 21 September 2024 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicant before the sunset date. |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation numbers

Authorised uses

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2018) 8564

14 December 2018

Chromium trioxide

EC No 215-607-8;

CAS No 1333-82-0

Circuit Foil Luxembourg SARL, Zone industrielle C. SALZBAACH, 9559 WILTZ, Luxembourg

REACH/18/17/0

Industrial use for the treatment of copper foil used in the production of printed circuit board.

21 September 2024

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility for the applicant before the sunset date.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

---
Harold HENTHORN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7008.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4526 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4526

 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide certain notice 
 to a person filing a claim against the Department of Veterans Affairs 
           for damage, injury, or death on Standard Form 95.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2019

 Mr. Levin of California (for himself and Mr. Meadows) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide certain notice 
 to a person filing a claim against the Department of Veterans Affairs 
           for damage, injury, or death on Standard Form 95.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Brian Tally VA Employment 
Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE CERTAIN 
              NOTICE TO PERSONS FILING CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE, INJURY, OR 
              DEATH ON STANDARD FORM 95.

    Not later than 30 days after the date on which a person submits to 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs a claim for damage, injury, or death 
on Standard Form 95, or any successor form, the Secretary shall provide 
to the claimant notice of each of the following:
            (1) The importance of securing legal counsel, including a 
        recommendation that the claimant should secure legal counsel.
            (2) The employment status of any individual listed on the 
        form.
            (3) If the claim involves a contractor that entered into an 
        agreement with the Secretary, the statute of limitations 
        regarding the claim in the State in which the claim arose.
                                 <all>
```
Antonio Q. THOMAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9017.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MALIK ALI MUHAMMAD,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. RUBIA, Captain; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-16140

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-03209-JSW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Malik Ali Muhammad appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various

federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

FILED

OCT 13 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-16140

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and may affirm on any

ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d

1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Muhammad’s due process claim

because he received all of the process that he was due related to an allegedly false

rules violation report, including written notice of the charges and a disciplinary

hearing at which he was found not guilty of the violation. See Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539, 563-64 (1974) (procedural due process claim requires showing a

denial or a lack of advance written notice and an opportunity to be heard).

Dismissal of Muhammad’s access-to-courts claim was proper because

prisoners are not entitled to access the courts to file civil lawsuits against private

parties. See Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995) (prisoner’s right

of access to courts is limited to filing a habeas petition or a civil rights complaint). 

Dismissal of Muhammad’s equal protection claim was proper because he

failed to allege that issuance of the rules violation report constituted intentional

discrimination against him due to his membership in a suspect class, violated a

fundamental right, or was otherwise irrational. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d

1176, 1179-81 (9th Cir. 1999) (for equal protection claim, challenged conduct or
3 10-16140

legislation must discriminate against a suspect class, infringe upon a fundamental

right, or fail to satisfy a rational basis test). 

Dismissal of Muhammad’s federal claims without leave to amend was

proper because the defects in each are incurable. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The district court properly dismissed Muhammad’s state law claims without

prejudice after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Muhammad’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 July 2004 in the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Keller Holding GmbH

(Case C-471/04)

(2005/C 19/26)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 14 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 5 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Keller Holding GmbH on the following question:

Is it contrary to Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58, of the Treaty establishing the European Community and to Article 73b of that Treaty if financing costs incurred by a corporation which have a direct economic link to profits, not subject to tax in Germany, derived from a holding in a capital company established in another Member State may be deducted as operating expenditure only in so far as no profits from that holding are distributed on a tax-free basis?

----