alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 4/10/1 7 (reposted to correct file date)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER JAMES SLOAT,

Defendant and Appellant. B270080

( Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. KA057527)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los

Angeles County, Salvatore T. Sirna, Judge. Reversed and

remanded.

Tyrone A. Sandoval, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appel lant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler,

Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior

Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Analee J. Brodie,

Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

### 2 Defendant, Chri stopher James Sloat, filed a Penal Code 1

section 1170.18 , subdivision (f) petition. Defendant sought to

have his 2002 felony petty theft with a prior conviction (former §

666 , Stats. 2000, ch. 135, § 134, p. 1991) ) designated a

misdemeanor. At a hearing defendant did not attend and where

he was not represented by counsel, the trial court denied the

petition . The trial court impliedly agreed with the prosecutor

that defendant was ineligible because the theft was not from an

“open commercial business.” Th is was an apparent reference to

section 459.5, subdivision (a), which governs the crime of

shoplifting. Defendant argues, and t he Attorney General

concedes

, defendant is eligible to have his conviction under

former section 666 reduced to a misdemeanor. T he Attorney

General states : “[D]efendant was not seeking to have his . . .

conviction reduced to misdemeanor shoplifting. Rather, he

sought reduction of his felony petty theft with priors convict ion to

misdemeanor petty theft.

. . . Unlike shoplifting ( § 459.5 [, subd.

(a)] ), petty theft (§ 490.2 [, subd. (a)] ) does not require that a

defendant enter a commercial establishment during regular

business hours.” We agree with the Attorney General’s analysis.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

### 3 The order denying defendant’s petition to designate as a

misdemeanor his conviction for petty theft with a prior is

reversed. Upon remittitur issuance, the trial court is to

reconsider the petition in light of our analysis.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

TURNER, P.J.

We concur:

KRIEGLER , J.

BAKER, J.
#### BETTY KIRK, CHARLES KIRK, Jr., KATHLEEN STAPP, and CHARLES WHEELER, Appellants, v. MICHAEL WARREN, Respondent.

No. 7896

June 12, 1975

535 P.2d 1291

*G. C. Backus,*of Reno, for Appellants.

*Goldwater Hill Mortimer Sourwine & Pinkerton,*of Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The appellants have cited a paucity of relevant legal authority concerning the assigned errors. Our independent review of the record leads us to find that the appeal is without merit.

Affirmed.
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5532 

AN ACT 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect 

to adopted alien children. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5532 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘International Adoption 

3 Harmonization Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF ADOPTION AGE REQUIREMENTS. 

5 Section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)) is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (E)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘(E)(i)’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘(E)’’; 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘sixteen’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘eighteen’’; 

12 (C) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting a 

13 semicolon; and 

14 (D) by striking clause (ii); 

15 (2) in subparagraph (F)— 

16 (A) by striking ‘‘(F)(i)’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘(F)’’; 

18 (B) by striking ‘‘sixteen’’ and inserting 

19 ‘‘eighteen’’; 

20 (C) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ and in21 serting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security’’; and 

22 (D) by striking clause (ii); and 

23 (3) in subparagraph (G)— 

24 (A) by striking ‘‘sixteen’’ and inserting 

25 ‘‘eighteen’’; and 
3 

•HR 5532 EH

1 (B) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ each 

2 place such term appears and inserting ‘‘Sec3 retary of Homeland Security’’. 

4 SEC. 3. HARMONIZING ADOPTIONS BETWEEN HAGUE CON5 VENTION AND NON-HAGUE-CONVENTION 

6 COUNTRIES. 

7 Section 212(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Na8 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by 

9 striking ‘‘section 101(b)(1)(F),’’ and inserting ‘‘subpara10 graph (F) or (G) of section 101(b)(1),’’. 

11 SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH PAYGO. 

12 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

13 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

14 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

15 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

16 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

17 by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 

18 House of Representatives, provided that such statement 

19 has been submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5532 

AN ACT 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act 

with respect to adopted alien children.
February 19, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 19th day of February, 2015.

10-14-00270-CR	VINCENT REYNA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF BOSQUE COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. CR14862 - DISMISSED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

“This cause came on to be heard on the motion of the appellant to dismiss the appeal, and the same being considered, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RKMO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,

SOUFFRANT INVESTMENTS & FEDERAL TRUST, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, JAHMAL SOUFFRANT,

YVONNE SOUFFRANT, and GARRY SOUFFRANT,

Appellants,

v.

SOPHIA BURROWS,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1878

[March 21, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Jeffrey Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE22-010244. 

Gregory D. Curtis of Law Office of Gregory Curtis, Miami Gardens, for 

appellants.

Robert L. Shearin of Law Office of Robert L. Shearin, Boca Raton, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EX-10.27


  Exhibit 10.27

   

   

   

  AMENDMENT #1 TO BIOATLA, INC.

  EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

   

  Pursuant to the authority reserved to it in Section 20 of the BioAtla, Inc. 2020 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, adopted December 7, 2020 and as amended from time to time (the “Plan”), the Board of Directors of BioAtla, Inc. (the “Board”) hereby amends the Plan as follows, effective September 14, 2021:

   

  1.	Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

   

  “Offering Periods. The offering periods of this Plan (each, an “Offering Period”) may be of up to twenty-four (24) months duration and shall commence and end at the times designated by the Committee.”

   

   

  ***** [signature page follows]

   

   

  	 

   

   

  

   

  To record the adoption of this Amendment #1 to the Plan, the Board has caused its authorized officer to execute this Amendment.

   

   

  BIOATLA, INC.

   

  By: 

       

  	
	/s/ Jay M. Short, Ph.D.

	Jay M. Short, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2007172EN.01000401.xml

| 25.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4576 — AVR/Van Gansewinkel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 172/04)

On 3 April 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4576. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4576. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with Annual Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, César M. García, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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 at the end of the period covered
by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 22, 2007



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|/s/ CÉSAR M. GARCIA     |  | 
|César M. García         |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer |  | 

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Ace. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7541

MARION BEASLEY, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

D.G. WOOD,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:05-cv-00850-NCT)

Submitted: April 3, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Beasley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marion Beasley, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.

Beasley v. Wood, No. 1:05-cv-00850-NCT (M.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2007).

Moreover, although not specifically addressed by the district

court, Beasley’s claim under the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act, Pub. L. No. 106-274, 114 Stat. 804,

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) (2000) (“RLUIPA”), may be dismissed for the

same reasons as his § 1983 claim. See Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d

174, 185-86 (4th Cir. 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### SYLVESTER G. SCOTT, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7440

July 26, 1974

525 P.2d 600

*299
      *H. Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, for Appellant.

*Roy A. Woof ter,*District Attorney, and *Daniel M. Seaton,*Chief Appellate Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The record on this appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief refutes the appellant’s contention that his plea of guilty to the charge of armed robbery was induced by promises that were not kept. The prosecution honored its promises to dismiss other pending charges and not to oppose probation, or any attempt by the appellant to be admitted to a drug treatment program. Cf. Riley v. Warden, 89 Nev. 510, 515 P.2d 1269 (1973).

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 66438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of 
Health and Human Services announces the following advisory committee 
meeting:
    Name: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), 
Subcommittee on Populations--Working Group on Quality.
    Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., November 18, 2005.
    Place: Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., 
Room 705A, Washington, DC 20201.
    Status: Open.
    Purpose: At this meeting the Working Group on Quality will study 
the expected impact of the electronic health record on health 
measurement and quality, hearing views from patients, the public health 
community, and other stakeholders.
    Contact Person for More Information: Substantive program 
information as well as summaries of meetings and a roster of Committee 
members may be obtained from Anna Poker, Lead Staff Person for the 
NCVHS Subcommittee on Special Populations, Working Group on Quality, 
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Quality 
Improvement and Patient Safety, 540 Gaither Road, Room <greek-i>3331, 
Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 301-427-1802; or Marjorie S. Greenberg, 
Executive Secretary, NCVHS, NCHS, CDC, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, 
Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4245. Information also is available 
on the NCVHS home page of the HHS Web site: http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/ncvhs, where an agenda for the meeting will be posted when available.
    Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC 
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458-4EEO (4336) as soon 
as possible.

    Dated: October 20, 2005.
James Scanlon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Data Policy, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 05-21806 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4151-05-M
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Alan J. Lacy, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures,or caused such disclosurecontrols and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensurethat material informationrelating to theregistrant, including itsconsolidatedsubsidiaries, is madeknown to us by otherswithin those entities,particularly during theperiod in which thisannual report is beingprepared;  (b)  Evaluated theeffectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosurecontrols and proceduresand presented in thisannual report ourconclusions about theeffectiveness of thedisclosure controls andprocedures, as of the endof the period covered bythis annual report basedon such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this annualreport any change in theregistrant’s internalcontrol over financialreporting that occurredduring the registrant’smost recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annualreport) that hasmaterially affected, oris reasonably likely tomaterially affect, theregistrant’s internalcontrol over financialreporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significantdeficiencies and materialweaknesses in the designor operation of internalcontrol over financialreporting which arereasonably likely toadversely affect theregistrant’s ability torecord, process,summarize and reportfinancial information;and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involvesmanagement or otheremployees who have asignificant role in theregistrant’s internalcontrol over financialreporting.
Date: February 23, 2005
/s/Alan J. Lacy
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BRADLEY AIRPORT

POST OFFICE, Windsor Locks, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1568

Issued: May 17, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING REMAND

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 24, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 9, 2020 merit decision and 

a July 28, 2020 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 20-1568.

On January 12, 2020 the Director of OWCP filed a motion requesting the Board to set aside 

the June 9, 2020 decision and remand the case to OWCP for further development. The Director 

indicated that it was unclear whether appellant was on an authorized break in order to place 

something in her vehicle when she slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot “managed” by the 

employing establishment. The Director acknowledged that the injury occurred on the employing 

establishment’s premises, in the parking lot, and during her fixed working hours. However, the 

Director noted that it was unclear “whether appellant’s conduct was incidental to her employment, 

and thus whether [she] was in the performance of duty when she was injured in the [employing 

establishment’s] parking lot.” The Director stated that, on remand, OWCP would request 

clarification and additional evidence on whether appellant was in the performance duty when she 

fell, such as was she on an authorized break and what item(s) she was returning to her vehicle. 
2

The Director concluded that, after further development of the claim, OWCP shall issue a de novo

decision under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards served appellant with a copy of the Director’s motion 

to remand. No response was received.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that, for all of the reasons 

espoused by the Director in the motion to remand, said motion should be granted. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion to remand filed by the Director of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is granted. OWCP’s decision dated June 9, 2020 is 

set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for proceedings consistent with this order of the 

Board. The July 28, 2020 decision of Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside as 

moot.

Issued: May 17, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Carol Stream, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0781

Issued: July 21, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Rahil D., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On April 19, 2022 appellant, through her representative, sought an appeal from a 

purported February 4, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0781.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 

days of the date appellant filed her appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board neither 

contains a February 4, 2022 OWCP decision, nor a final adverse decision of OWCP issued 

within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.

3

 As there is no f inal adverse 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days f rom the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board 

concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0781 must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0781 is dismissed.

Issued: July 21, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. ” 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).