alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|     |                                                                                                                         |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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. |

|                        |
|------------------------|
|                        |  |
| /s/   Abu M. Arif      |
| Name:                  | Abu M. Arif |
| Title:                 | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
| Date:                  | November 2, 2015 |
|                   |
|                   |
| /s/   Ross P. Palacios |
| Name:                  | Ross P. Palacios |
| Title:                 | Chief Financial Officer |
|                   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
| Date:                  | November 2, 2015 |
#### Delmy Marisol Lima SILVESTRE, Petitioner, v. *894Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71552.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Delmy Marisol Lima Silvestre, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Delmy Marisol Lima Silvestre, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA affirms without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review constitutional issues de novo. *See Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioner contends that she was denied equal protection because she was not allowed to apply for suspension of deportation. Petitioner’s argument is without merit because Congress comported with equal protection when it repealed suspension of deportation for aliens, such as petitioner, who were placed in removal proceedings on or after April 1, 1997, while permitting aliens placed in deportation before that date to maintain their applications for suspension of deportation. *See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003); *Hemandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 1161, 1163— 65 (9th Cir.2002).

The voluntary departure period is stayed pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Document

Exhibit 10.45


Board of Directors' Compensation


Board of Directors for the 2021-2022 term:
						
	Board/Committee Fees	
	Independent Board Chair	$470,000
	Non-Employee Director	285,000 	
	Committee Chair Premium	
	Audit Committee Chair	35,000 	
	Compensation Committee Chair	25,000 	
	Investment & Capital Committee Chair	25,000 	
	Nominating & Governance Committee Chair	20,000 	
	Technology Committee Chair	25,000 	
	First Committee Assignment Premium	
	Audit Committee Member	10,000 	
	Second Committee Assignment Premium1
	
	Committee Member	15,000 	


1The premium is not provided to members of the Executive Committee.
#### DENNIS M. SAWYER v. EDMOND WRIGHT.

(Filed 21 September, 1966.)

Quasi-Contracts § 1—

A party is not entitled to recover for material and work upon a chattel as against a party later acquiring title to the chattel when at the time the work was done neither he nor the later purchaser owned the chattel.

Appeal by defendant from *Hubbard, J.;*at January 1966 Session of PasquotaNK Superior Court.

During the year 1958 the defendant claimed to be the owner of a boat known as “Barbara Ann.” He offered to sell it to the plaintiff at a total cost of $3500, which would include the expense of rebuilding the boat and it was to be delivered by 1 August, 1958. The plaintiff paid the defendant $975 on the purchase price, but the reconditioning of the boat had not been completed by 16 September, 1958, at which time the plaintiff learned that the defendant did not own the Barbara Ann but that she was the property of Elmer V. Midgett, Sr., and was subject to several liens. The plaintiff made arrangements to clear the title to the boat through Mr. Midgett and has brought suit to recover the $975 paid as part of the purchase price, and additional moneys expended.

The defendant admitted the payment of the $975 by the plaintiff and further admitted that he was not the owner of the boat at the time of the transaction. He attempted to set up a counterclaim against the plaintiff for $3,710.52 which he claims the plaintiff owes him for the boat, engine, and time and material for rebuilding it.

The case was referred to a referee who filed a report in the matter; but when the cause came on to be heard before Judge Hubbard the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, abandoning his claim for everything but the $975. The motion was allowed and plaintiff was awarded judgment against defendant in the sum of $975 with interest.

The court held that as a matter of law that the defendant had failed to state a valid counterclaim and denied it.

The defendant appealed from the judgment.

*Worth ■& Horner by W. A. Worth for plaintiff appellee.*

*Frank B. Aycock, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff paid the defendant $975 as part of the purchase price for a boat the defendant did not own. Upon this admission by the defendant, plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover that amount.

*164Defendant’s contention that he was prevented from obtaining good title to the boat by plaintiff’s wrongful interference in having the liens cancelled is without merit. The facts show that defendant admittedly was not the owner of the boat; that he did not do the work he contracted to do and he failed to deliver the boat on the agreed date. The plaintiff, in having the liens cancelled, was merely seeking to protect himself from further loss in view of his previous transactions with the defendant.

The defendant asserts a counterclaim and seeks to recover of plaintiff money which he expended in rebuilding a boat that neither he nor plaintiff owned at the time the work was done. There is no merit in his counterclaim under these conditions.

The judgment is

Affirmed.
- page 1.pdf
- page 2.pdf
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6454

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEWIS BANKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-567) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lewis Banks appeals from a district court order denying his motion to file a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), out of time. Banks’ conviction became final in 1994, and he did not file the motion denied by the district court until February17, 1998. Under the grace period afforded to prisoners whose convictions became final prior to the effective date of the one-year limitations period imposed by the 1996 amendments to § 2255, Banks had until April 23, 1997, to file a § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone , 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998). Hence, the district court properly found that Banks cannot now file a timely § 2255 motion. Banks argues on appeal that the one-year limitation should not apply to him because, as a Spanish speaking inmate, he had no way of learning of the amendments to § 2255 because his institutiononly provides law books written in English. There is no requirement, however, that prisoners be personally notified, in English or any other language, of changes in the law which might effect them. 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
# jf**otirtlj Court** **of &art** **Sliitomo, March** **27, 2014** **No. 04-13-00468-CR** **Thomas Joseph** **Keating. Appellant** **v. The** **Slate of** **I'cxas, Appellee** **Trial Court** **Case No.** **201 1-1925-C2** 

## ORDER**The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this** **appeal and** **has determined** **that oral argument** **will not** **significantly aid** **il in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Therefore, all** **requests for** **oral argument** **are denied,** **and [he** **cause is** **advanced for** **ON BRIEFS** **submission on** **May 7.** **2014, to** **the following** **panel: Justice** **Angelini, Justice** **Marion, and** **Justice Alvarez.** **All parlies** **will be** **notified of** **the Court's** **decision in this** **appeal in** **accordance with** **Tr.x. R.** **API1. P.** **48. Either** **party may** **(11c motion** **requesting the** **Court to** **reconsider its** **determination that** **oral argument** **will not** **significantly aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presenled in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. Al'P.** **I1. 39.8.** **Such motion** **should be** **fded within** **ten (10)** **days from** **the date** **of this** **order. It** **is so** **ORDERED on** **March 27.** **2014. Karen** **Angelini, Justice** 

## IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **a/fixed the** **seal court** **on this** **March 27,** **2014. the** **said**

### e.**Clerk; vfoF^y**
#### Odis S. MURPHY, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Claude E. FINN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-16016.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.*

Decided Feb. 10, 2005.

Odis S. Murphy, III, High Desert State Prison, Susanville, CA, pro se.

Allison Claire, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Lee Edward Seale, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*775MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Odis S. Murphy, III, appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the denial of a § 2254 petition. *See Robinson v. Ignacio,*360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir.2004).

Murphy contends that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when the trial court denied his request for counsel, raised just prior to jury selection. The California Court of Appeal rejected this claim on the basis that Murphy had twice previously waived his right to counsel under *Faretta v. California,*422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and his request for an attorney just prior to jury selection was within the trial court’s discretion to deny because it was untimely and suspect. This decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. *See Robinson,*360 F.3d at 1058 (citing *Menefield v. Borg,*881 F.2d 696, 700-01 (9th Cir.1989)).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of L.O., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

FAYETTEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, 

Fayetteville, AR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0280

Issued: October 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $2,749.50.1 The Board notes 

that all petitions for approval of fees for representatives’services are considered under the Board’s 

statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. 4 Attached to the fee 

petition is a signed acknowledgement by appellant consenting to the fee in the amount of 

$2,749.50.

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and its implementing regulations (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) require the Board to review each 

fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal. 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

4

Id. 
2

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds that it is in compliance with the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure.

5

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT that the fee petition is granted in the amount of 

$2,749.50.

Issued: October 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5

Id.
**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | • | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter                ended                September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission                (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5591 

AN ACT 

To designate the airport traffic control tower located at 

Spokane International Airport in Spokane, Washington, 

as the ‘‘Ray Daves Airport Traffic Control Tower’’. 

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

•HR 5591 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The airport traffic control tower located at Spokane 

3 International Airport in Spokane, Washington, and any 

4 successor airport traffic control tower at that location, 

5 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ray Daves Airport 

6 Traffic Control Tower’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the airport 

10 traffic control tower referred to in section 1 shall be 

11 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Ray Daves Airport Traf12 fic Control Tower’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5591 

AN ACT 

To designate the airport traffic control tower loTraffic Control Tower’’. kane, Washington, as the ‘‘Ray Daves Airport cated at Spokane International Airport in Spo-
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68046-68047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22370]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of agreements are 
available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 
or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c080e1d18191d121d10050f150f3c1a111f521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c383e2d28292d222d20353f253f0c2a212f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>).

    Agreement No.: 010776-128.
    Title: Asia North America Eastbound Rate Agreement.
    Parties: American President Lines, Ltd.; APL Co. Pte Ltd.; Hapag-
Lloyd Container Line GmbH; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Mitsui O.S.K. 
Lines, Ltd.; A. P. Moller-Maersk A/S; Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line; Orient 
Overseas Container Line Limited; P&O Nedlloyd B.V.; and P&O Nedlloyd 
Limited.
    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M 
Street, NW., Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The modification extends the suspension of the conference 
through December 31, 2005.

    Agreement No.: 011923.
    Title: CSAV/NYK Brazil Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Nippon Yusen Kaisha and Compania Sud-Americana de Vapores, 
S.A.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M 
Street NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes NYK to charter space from CSAV 
for motor vehicles in the trade between Miami, Florida, and ports in 
Brazil.
    Agreement No.: 201162-001.
    Title: NYSA-ILA Assessment Agreement.
    Parties: New York Shipping Association, Inc. and the International 
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO for the Port of New York and New 
Jersey.
    Filing Parties: Nicholas G. Maglaras, Esq.; Lambos & Junge; 29 
Broadway--9th Floor; New York, NY 10006; and Andre Mazzola, Esq.; 
Gleason & Mathews, P.C.; 26 Broadway--17th Floor; New York, NY 10004.
    Synopsis: The modification reduces the assessment for certain 
containers.


[[Page 68047]]


    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: November 4, 2005.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22370 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.(ii)

      The last sentence of subsection 2.4 of the Savings and Profit Sharing
Fund of Sears Employees was deleted and replaced in its entirety with the
following:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of determining their eligibility
to participate in the Fund, employees of each of Sears Termite & Pest Control
Inc. ("STPCI") and Florida Builder Appliances, Inc. ("FBA") shall have all of
their service with STPCI and FBA, respectively, counted as continuous
service, including any period of service prior to the date STPCI and FBA each
became a member of the Sears controlled group.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic Internet
Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report"). I, Abbas Salih, Chief Executive Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

|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.





|Date: | November 10, 2008 |  | /s/
      Abbas Salih     
|----- | ----------------- |  | --------------------------
|      |                   |  | Abbas Salih, CEO, Director

---