alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ASI Aviation, Inc.


8521 Leesburg Pike, Suite 175


Vienna, VA 22182 


 


 


March 9, 2016


 


 


Danette L Penenburgh


4307 Pickett Road


Fairfax, VA 22032


 


 


Re: Offer of Engagement, Director of Human
Resources and Contracts Administration/Corporate Secretary


 


Dear Ms. Penenburgh:


 


ASI Aviation, Inc. (ASI) is pleased to offer you the position of
Director of Human Resources and Contracts Administration, as well as the role of Corporate Secretary effective March 1, 2016. In
this position, your duties and responsibilities will encompass all aspects of human resources and to assist the CEO with contract
administration, as well as to perform the functions of Corporate Secretary by attending and recording the minutes of Board meetings.
This current status of this position is Part-Time/As Needed.


 


You will be compensated as follows:


 


	You will be compensated at the rate of $50.00(Fifty Dollars) per hour as an independent
contractor through ASI’s semi-monthly payroll cycle starting with the commencement of Pre-IPO funding date expected in March
2016. Initially you will provide assistance with HR functions, Contract Administration and as the Corporate Secretary as needed.
Your compensation will be reviewed after six (6) months and will be subject to obtaining investment capital by the Company and
the financial condition of the Company. You will need to complete and return the attached W-9 prior to presenting an invoice for
your work.



 


You will be required to sign a non-compete, non-solicitation of
client employee and confidentiality agreement with ASI. As an independent contractor you will be allowed to engage in other consultancies
so long as the Company is informed and there is no conflict of interest regarding client identified solicitations.


 


ASI envisions this as an opportunity for you to participate in the
development of dynamic business growth of the Company where your capabilities and experience will be applied to our mutual benefit.


 


Please acknowledge your acceptance of this offer with ASI in accordance
with the terms set forth in this letter, by signing and dating below and returning to us the original copy of this letter. You
are advised to keep a copy for your file.


 


Sincerely yours,


 


 


/s/Brajnandan Sahay


Brajnandan B Sahay


CEO


 


 


Acceptance: /s/Danette L. Penenburgh Date: 03/01/2016


 


cc:HR File
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51153

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE ALBERTO MEZA-CARRASCO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-1039-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Alberto Meza-Carrasco has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Meza-Carrasco has been deported and has not

filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, see 5TH CIR.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 16, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-51153

2

R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d

381, 383 (5th Cir. 2007).
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 19 (Monday, January 31, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1704]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900-AK97


Time Limit for Requests for De Novo Review

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In a document published in the Federal Register at 67 FR 10866 
on March 11, 2002, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed to 
amend its adjudication regulations concerning the time a claimant has 
in which to request a de novo review of a decision at the Veterans 
Service Center level after filing a Notice of Disagreement. This 
document withdraws that proposed rule.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn as of January 31, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maya Ferrandino, Consultant, Policy 
and Regulations Staff, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans 
Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20420, 
telephone (202) 273-7232.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Currently, a claimant who disagrees with a 
decision by a Veterans Service Center may appeal that decision by 
filing a notice of disagreement (NOD). Under 38 CFR 3.2600, a claimant 
who has filed a timely NOD may also obtain de novo review of the 
decision of the Veterans Service Center by requesting such review with 
the NOD or within 60 days after the date that VA mails notice of the 
availability of de novo review. We proposed reducing that 60-day period 
to 15 days. However, we have determined that revision of the de novo 
review process is unnecessary at this time. Therefore, we are 
withdrawing the proposal.

    Approved: December 17, 2004.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 05-1704 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

Of Chief Financial Officer

I, Alvin A. Hirsch, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Mile Marker
International, Inc. (the Registrant).

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.     The Registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and have:

(a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

(c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.     The Registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the Registrants auditors and the audit
committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the Registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
Registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal controls;
and





---



##### 



6.     The Registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|             |  |                                                           
|------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: 8/8/03 |  |                                                           
|            
|             |  | /s/ Alvin A. HirschAlvin A. Hirsch
Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2007.

C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of July 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Deliver Transcripts:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 7th day of September 2007 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of July 2007."
#### Joseph Tortura, Appellant, v Sullivan Papain Block McGrath *&*Cannavo, P.C., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 571]

*1083In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated September 14, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant represented the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action which ended in a settlement during the trial. Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, alleging legal malpractice and breach of contract.

“To establish a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal community, (2) proximate cause, (3) damages, and (4) that the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action had the attorney exercised due care” *(Iannarone v Gramer,*256 AD2d 443, 444 [1998]; *see Blank v Harry Katz, P.C.,*3 AD3d 512, 513 [2004]). “A claim for legal malpractice is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” *(Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co.,*160 AD2d 428, 430 [1990]; *see Rau v Borenkoff,*262 AD2d 388, 389 [1999]; *cf. Lattimore v Bergman,*224 AD2d 497 [1996]; *Cohen v Lipsig,*92 AD2d 536 [1983]). Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we find that it fails to plead specific factual allegations demonstrating that, but for the defendant’s alleged negligence, there would have been a more favorable outcome in the underlying action *(see Ferdinand v Crecca & Blair,*5 AD3d 538, 539-540 [2004]; *Palazzolo v Herrick, Feinstein, LLP,*298 AD2d 372 [2002]; *Dweck Law Firm v Mann,*283 AD2d 292, 293 [2001]; *Rau v Borenkoff, supra).*

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs cause of action alleging breach of contract because it was duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action and arose from the same facts as that claim *(see Shivers v Siegel,*11 AD3d 447 [2004]; *Daniels v Lebit,*299 AD2d 310 [2002]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Crane and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN T-NETIX, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE
THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             899
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,315)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,931
<PP&E>                                          69,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                (37,475)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,531
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,762
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,682)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

The Board of Directors
Logility, Inc.:

   We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-62531 and 333-66773) on Form S-8 of Logility, Inc. of our reports
dated June 18, 1999, relating to the combined balance sheets of Logility, Inc.
as of April 30, 1999, and 1998, and the related combined statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended April 30, 1999, and related schedule, which reports
appear in the April 30, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Logility, Inc.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
July 20, 1999
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Steven L. Vick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. /s/ Steven L. Vick Steven L. Vick
Chief Executive Officer
August 3, 2004
STATE v. Byron Lamar WARING.

No. 525A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 26, 2007.

Mary S. Pollard, for Waring.

Doug Faucette, Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of October 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Deliver Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 10th day of December 2007 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of October 2007."
MORGAN v. MILLENNIUM STAFFING.

No. 533P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Shannon P. Metcalf, Charlotte, for Millennium Staffing, et al.

*487The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of December 2007 by Plaintiff Objecting to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs "Notice of Appeal":

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2008."
Exhibit 31.2

CFO CERTIFICATION

RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Gene S. Godick, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 10-K of Verticalnet, Inc.

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
registrants other certifying officer 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. The registrants other certifying officer and 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 the registrants board of directors:

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.



By:

/s/    GENE S.
GODICK Gene S. Godick Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: March 31, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-23-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                          99
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0







</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6729

BILLY GENE LEDWELL, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. SANDRA F. THOMAS, Supt. of Lumberton Correctional Inst., Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-00165-WO-RAE) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Gene Ledwell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Alvin William Keller, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy Gene Ledwell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ledwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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