alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of SoftNet technology Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Booth, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| By:    | /s/ James Booth                        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | James Booth                                                                                                                                                    |
|        | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                        |
|   | August 17, 2007                                                                                                                                                |

----
Document

Exhibit 10.1B

SECOND AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Second Amendment”) is entered into as of December 28, 2021, by and between Pacific City Bank (“Bank”), PCB Bancorp (formerly known as Pacific City Financial Corporation), a California corporation and registered bank holding company (“Company”) and Henry Kim (“Executive”).


WHEREAS, the Bank and Company entered into an Employment Agreement with Executive (the “Agreement”) dated January 1, 2018, as amended by the First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated August 26, 2021; and


WHEREAS, Executive, the Bank and Company have agreed to amend the Agreement to provide Executive certain changed compensation;


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Bank and Company and the Executive hereto agree as follows:


1.    Section 6(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


The Bank shall pay to the Executive an annual base salary of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) which shall be adjusted pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (b), below, after the first year of the Term hereof. Executive’s salary shall be payable at regular intervals in accordance with the Bank’s normal payroll practices now or hereafter in effect.


2.    Section 6(i) is added to the Agreement as follows:


On January 1, 2022, Executive shall be granted 25,000 restricted stock awards with vesting to occur ratably over five years with the first 20% vesting on the first anniversary of the grant, etc., in accordance with and pursuant to the Company’s 2013 Equity Based Compensation Plan.


3.    Section 8(d) of the Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


Upon the occurrence of a Termination Without Cause, and subject to his execution of a release of claims in favor of the Bank, Company, and their affiliates and respective officers and directors in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the “Release”) and such Release becoming effective within thirty (30) days following the 
1










Termination Date (such thirty-day period, the “Release Execution Period”), the Bank shall continue to provide Executive his base salary then in effect only, upon such terms and at such times as described herein, as follows:


(i)     If at least six (6) months are remaining in the Term, his salary shall continue for a period not to exceed one year; and
(ii)    If less than six (6) months are remaining in the Term, his salary shall continue for six (6) months.


4.    All other terms and conditions of the Agreement to remain in full force and effect.














[This space intentionally blank.]
2







[Signature page to Second Amendment to Employment Agreement]



												
	THE EXECUTIVE		PACIFIC CITY BANK
				
	/s/ Henry Kim		By:	/s/ Sang Young Lee
	Henry Kim			Sang Young Lee
				Chairman of the Board
				
			PCB BANCORP
				
			By:	/s/ Sang Young Lee
				Sang Young Lee
				Chairman of the Board


3
Document

Exhibit 10.37

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

												
	All compensation values are in US $

	Board Service	
		Member	Vice-Chair	Chairman
	Annual Cash Retainer	$86,000	$94,000	$130,000
	Board Meeting Fees	$0	$0	$0
	Annual Equity Grant	$129,000	$141,000	$195,000
	Audit Committee Service	
		
	Chair Retainer	$25,000
	Member Retainer	$0
	Meeting Fee	$0
	Other Committee Service	
		
	Chair retainer	$15,000
	Member Retainer	$0
	Meeting Fee	$0
	Total Direct Compensation Simulations	
		
	Typical Director	$215,000
	Typical Committee Chair	$230,000
	Typical Audit Committee Chair	$240,000
	Vice-Chair	$235,000
	Chairman	$325,000
	Stock Ownership Guidelines
	Amount of Ownership	
	All directors except Chairman	$375,000
	Chairman	$475,000
	Counted Shares	Owned shares
Vested and unvested cash-settled and share-settled DSUs
Vested and unvested cash-settled and share-settled RSUs

	Timing of evaluation	Whenever a director is considering selling shares
	Requirement to hold on to shares until and unless ownership target is met. This requirement applies whenever target is not met.	Shares received further to the settlement of RSUs, except portion required to cover tax liability
Shares equivalent to 50% of gross gain realized on exercise of options

	With respect to cash-settled RSUs, requirement to purchase shares until and unless target is met. This requirement applies whenever target is not met.	Directors must purchase shares with net proceeds of cash-settled RSUs
	Considered Value	For each share, the greater of market price at time of measurement or settlement
For each DSU and RSU, the greater of market price at time of grant or time of measurement
#### FRANK LUCKETT, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 8453

October 30, 1975

541 P.2d 910

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *David Mathews,*Special Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Kathleen Wall,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On January 8, 1974, a jury found Frank Luckett guilty of grand larceny, a felony. Thereafter, on February 8, 1974, he was sentenced to a six-year term in the Nevada State Prison. His belated in *pro per*appeal from the judgment of conviction *682was dismissed — for want of jurisdiction — on April 19, 1974, by an unpublished order in case No. 7688.

Some six (6) months later, in October 1974, Luckett, seeking to obtain his release from confinement, petitioned for habeas corpus (post-conviction) relief in the First Judicial District, Carson City. An order denying the requested relief was entered in December 1974, and the timely appeal from that order was affirmed by this court. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 541, 539 P.2d 1219 (1975).

On February 10, 1975, while his appeal from the adverse order of the First Judicial District Court was in progress, Luckett filed another petition for post-conviction relief, this time in the Second Judicial District, Washoe County. Relief was denied and Luckett has now lodged this, his third, appeal.

From the record, and the above recitations, we, *sua sponte,*conclude that briefing and hearing is unwarranted. This court has consistently refused to consider issues raised in successive applications for post-conviction relief where, as here, a petitioner failed to explain why the issues were not previously raised. See Rogers v. Warden, 86 Nev. 359, 468 P.2d 993 (1970). Accord: Johnson v. Warden, 89 Nev. 476, 515 P.2d 63 (1973); Junior v. Warden, 91 Nev. 111, 532 P.2d 1037 (1975).

Affirmed.
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

OSCAR EDGARDO VIGIL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74830

Agency No. A094-171-306

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2010** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Edgardo Vigil, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law,

FILED

NOV 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74830

Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for

review. 

Vigil does not challenge the BIA’s determination that his conviction for

violating Cal. Penal Code § 422 is a crime of violence aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(43)(F), which renders him removable, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and

ineligible for cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3). 

Because the BIA’s determination that Vigil was convicted of an aggravated

felony conviction was dispositive of his cancellation of removal claim, we do not

reach Vigil’s contention that the IJ’s alternate determination, that Vigil failed to

meet the seven-year continuous physical presence requirement, was in error. See

INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

To the extent Vigil contends that the IJ violated his due process right to a

full and fair hearing by denying his request for a continuance, his contention fails

because Vigil did not establish good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a

due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 13


























Annual Report to Shareholders





Exhibit 13 was
sent under separate cover


or is enclosed herein.




---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---
Exhibit 32.2

 Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Interstate
Power and Light Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on our
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
------------------------
Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Thomas M. Walker
--------------------
Thomas M. Walker
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00885-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.A. and A.S.A., Minor Children

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-1794-CV-C

Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant is unable to afford to pay costs of court. No costs are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED April 24, 2019.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,

SAN FRANCISCO PORT OF ENTRY

San Francisco, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0681

Issued: May 26, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 11, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from an October 11, 2022 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0681.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

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

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the October 11, 2022 decision was April 9, 2023. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until April 11, 2023, more than 180 days after the

October 11, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0681 is 

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 from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0681, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0681 is dismissed.

Issued: May 26, 2023

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

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

at § 501.6(d).
#### HOMES, INC. v. GAITHER

No. 105 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 118.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 December 1976.
#### EARL ELDEN WISCHMEIER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 21415

June 6, 1991

811 P.2d 1307

*Momot & Tidwell,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Frankie Sue Del Papa,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Rex Bell,*District Attorney and *James Tufteland*and *Thomas Leen,*Deputy District Attorneys, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On February 16, 1990, Appellant Earl Elden Wischmeier (Wischmeier) was arrested for selling $300 worth of cocaine to an undercover police officer. The district court sentenced him to three years in the Nevada State Prison and fined him $50,000 in accordance with the minimum statutory requirements set forth in NRS 453.3385(1).1

*372Wischmeier contends that $50,000 constitutes an excessive fine in violation of both the Nevada and the United States Constitution. We conclude that the district court properly imposed the minimum fine and that such fine is not in violation of Wischmeier’s constitutional rights. *See*United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 247 (2d Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we

AFFIRM the district court.

1

NRS 453.3385(1) provides that any person who knowingly or intentionally sells or possesses any controlled substance listed in schedule I shall be *372punished, if the quantity involved is 4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than 3 years nor more than 20 years and by a fine of not less than $50,000.
#### Robert TUTE, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

No. 05-3054.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 16, 2005.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See 128 Fed.Appx. 148.

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
CERTIFICATE OF
           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

In connection with the accompanying Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Advantage Capital Development Corp. for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, I,
Jeffrey Sternberg, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Advantage Capital Development Corp. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1.    Such Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
      30, 2004, 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 such Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended September 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Advantage
      Capital Development Corp.

Dated:  November    , 2004

ADVANTAGE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.


By: /s/ Jeffrey Sternberg
    -----------------------------------
    Jeffrey Sternberg
    Chief Executive Officer and
    Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements Nos. 33-34590, 33-75338 and 33-19027 of Grey Wolf, Inc. on Form S-8
and Registration Statements Nos. 333-14783, 333-6077, 333-2043, 333-36593 and
333-39683 of Grey Wolf, Inc. on Form S-3, of our report dated March 28,
1996, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Grey Wolf, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 1997.



Deloitte & Touche LLP

Houston, Texas
March 24, 1998


                                      -59-
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 26, 2011

d0919 

# Order

September 26, 2011

142933 & (18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142933 COA: 299462 Wayne CC: 93-001098-01-FC RANDALL MARK BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 18, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 42 days after the date of this order. It appearing to the Court that the trial court record may aid the prosecutor in responding to the application, the file sha ll be transmitted to the Wayne Circuit Court for the prosecutor’s review.

The application for leave to appeal and motion to remand remain pending.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN 

SERVICE, Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0703

Issued: June 1, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 5, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a May 3, 2022 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0703.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

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

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the May 3, 2022 decision was October 30, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until April 5, 2023, more than 180 days after the May 3, 

2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0703 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not explained his failure to 

timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish compelling 

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 from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of 

the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 2 3-0703, 

must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0703 is dismissed.

Issued: June 1, 2023

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

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

at § 501.6(d).