alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 9.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM AND**

**REPORT ON SCHEDULES**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Stolt Offshore S.A. (a Luxembourg company) and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-8, File Nos. 33-85168, 333-09292, 333-74321, 333-124983 and 333-124997 on Form F-3 andForm F-3/A, File No. 333-86288 of our report on the financial statements dated April 6, 2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the change in method of accounting for consolidation toconform to Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), ‘Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities’) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended November 30, 2004(this “Annual Report”). 

 

Our audits of the financialstatements referred to in our aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedules of the Company, listed in Item 18 in this Report. These financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects, the informationset forth therein. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

Glasgow, United Kingdom ******

May 31, 2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUSSELL T. M c ADAMS,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 20

- 72611

Tax Ct. No. 19702

- 19

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted September 14, 2021 * *

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Russell T. McAdams appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order d enying his

post

- judgment motion for reconsideration

. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C.

§ 7482(a). We review for an abuse of discretion. Parkinson v. Comm ’ r , 647 F.2d

875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981) . We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

SEP 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 72611

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McAdams’s post

judg ment motion for reconsideration because McAdams failed to demonstrate any

basis for such relief. See id . ( “The Tax Court ’ s denial of a motion for

reconsideration will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of

discretion.” ); see also Abatti v. Co mm ’ r , 859 F.2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1988) ( a Tax

Court cannot reopen a case after a final decision except in the event of fraud on the

court or mutual mistake ).

We do not consider McAdams’s contentions regarding the Tax Court’s

original decision because McAdams failed to file a timely notice of ap peal as to

th at decision

. See 26 U.S.C. § 7483 (notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days

of judgment) ; Fed. R. App. P. 13(a)(1)(B); Tax Ct. R. 16 1, 16 2 ( post

- judgment

motions for reconsideration or to vacate or revise a decision must be filed within

30 days of the decision); Nordvik v. Comm ’ r , 67 F.3d 1489, 1493 n. 5 (9th Cir.

1995) (“[S] uccessive motions asserting the same grounds cannot be tacked

together to extend the time for filing an appeal. ”)

.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
10.41  FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED DEFERRED COMPENSATION
PLAN  THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN(this First
Amendment) is made and entered into as of the 13th day of August,
2007, by STATION CASINOS, INC.,
a Nevada corporation, with its principal offices located at 10973 W. Summerlin
Centre Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada  89135 (the Company ).  WHEREAS, the Company adopted a
Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan, effective as of January 1, 2001 (the Plan); and  WHEREAS, the Company now desires to
amend the Plan as provided herein.  NOW, THEREFORE,effective as of August 13,
2007, the Plan is amended as follows:  1.             Section 2(d)of
the Plan is hereby amended in full to read as follows:  (d)         Change
in Control means and shall be deemed to have occurred if (i) prior to
the consummation of the transactions contemplated by that certain Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of February 23, 2007 and amended as of May 4,
2007, among the Company, Fertitta Colony Partners LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, and FCP Acquisition Sub, a Nevada corporation (the Merger
Agreement), a Change of Control, as the same is defined in the Indenture
dated August 1, 2006, governing the Companys $400,000,000 principal
amount of 73⁄4% Senior Notes due 2016 and as in effect on the date of the initial
issuance of such securities, occurs; and (ii) following the consummation
of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, a Change of Control,
as the same is defined in the Executive Employment Agreement between the
Company and Frank J. Fertitta III to be effective as of the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, in such final form as shall
be approved by the Board, occurs.  For
avoidance of doubt, none of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement shall constitute a Change in Control for purposes of the foregoing
definition or for any other purposes under the Plan.  2.             Capitalized terms not otherwise
defined in this First Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.  3.             Except as expressly amended by this
First Amendment, all other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain
unaltered, are hereby reaffirmed, and shall continue in full force and effect.  4.             This First Amendment may be
executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of
which shall constitute one and the same document, with the same effect as if
all parties had signed on the same page.  [Signature Page Follows]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed
this First Amendment effective as of the date first written above.   STATION CASINOS, INC.By:
  /s/
  Thomas M. FrielName:
  Thomas
  M. FrielTitle:
  Executive
  Vice President, ChiefAccounting
  Officer and Treasurer
<PAGE>

                                                                      Ex. 2.6


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of 
Stolt Comex Seaway S.A. on Form S-8 (file No. 33-85168) of our reports dated 
10 November 1997 on our audits of the financial statements of Transfield - 
Stolt Comex Seaway Joint Venture as of 30 June 1997, 1996 and 1995, and for 
the years ended 30 June 1997 and 1996 and period ended 30 June 1995 which 
reports are included in the 1997 Stolt Comex Seaway S.A. Form 20-F.






COOPERS & LYBRAND


28 May 1998
Perth, Western Australia
<Page>

Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Nascent Wine Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Sandro Piancone, Chief Executive Officer and William Lindberg, Chief
Financial 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:

(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/ Sandro Piancone
-------------------------------------
Sandro Piancone
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2007

/s/ William Lindberg
-------------------------------------
William Lindberg
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11503]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 02/02-0695]


QS Capital Strategies II, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under 
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that QS Capital Strategies II, L.P., 527 
Madison Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10022, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concerns, has 
sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). QS 
Capital Strategies II, L.P. is proposing to provide financing to 
BrandMuscle, Inc. to support the Company's growth.
    The proposed transaction is brought within the purview of Sec.  
107.730 of the Regulations because QS Capital Strategies, L.P., an 
Associate of QS Capital Strategies II, L.P., by virtue of Common 
Control as defined at Sec.  107.50, holds a debt investment in 
BrandMuscle, Inc. and the proposed transaction would discharge an 
obligation to an Associate.
    Therefore, the proposed transaction is considered self-deal 
pursuant to 13 CFR 107.730 and requires a regulatory exemption. Notice 
is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments 
on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication 
to Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

Thomas Morris,
Acting Associate Administrator, Director, Office of SBIC Liquidation, 
Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2021-11503 Filed 6-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50476

CYNTHIA ZAMORA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION,

Defendant–Appellant.

No. 08-50546

CARLOS CASTANEDA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION,

Defendant–Appellant.

No. 08-50631

ALBERT ZAMORA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 3, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Nos. 08-50476, 08-50546, 08-50631

 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.

See J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 230 & n.2 (Tex. 2003). 1

2

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC Nos. 3:07-CV-452, 3:07-CV-369, and 3:07-CV-400

Before GARWOOD, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Swift Transportation Corporation (Swift) appeals the denials of its motions

to compel arbitration in three separate cases brought against it by former

employees. The cases below came before three different district court judges,

each of whom correctly concluded that the respective arbitration agreements at

issue were illusory because Swift reserved the right to revoke or modify the

agreements at any time without notice. Accordingly, Swift’s motions to compel 1

arbitration were appropriately denied. AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARIKA HAYES, AKA Swiss Barbie Bone,

Pla intiff

- Appellant,

v.

KA NYE WEST,

Defendant,

and

VIACOM INC., Erroneously Sued as

Viacom; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 13

- 55836

D.C. No. 2:12

- cv

- 07974

- GW

MAN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017 **

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision

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

# FILED

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 55836

Arika Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her

copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe

v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hayes’ action because Hayes failed to

allege facts sufficient to show she was the owner of a valid copyright. See 17

U.S.C. § 411(a) (no action for infringement of the copyright shal l be instituted

until “preregistration or registration of the copyright claim shall have been made in

accordance with this title” ) ; L.A. Printex Indus. , Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc. , 676 F.3d

841, 852 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Copyright registration is a precondition to filing a

copyright infringement action.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Hayes’

motions for reconsideration because Hayes failed to file a new or amended notice

of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a )(4)(B)(ii); TAAG Linhas Aereas

de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc. , 915 F.2d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir. 1990)

(concluding that “an appeal specifically from the ruling on the [Rule 60(b)] motion

must be taken if the issues raised in that motion are to be co nsidered by the Court

of Appeals”)

.

We reject as without merit Hayes’ contention that the district judge was

biased.3 13

- 55836

Hayes’ request filed on May 9, 2014, and her motion filed on January 4,

2017, are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2003 of Stolt Offshore S.A. (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Stuart Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:



|                   |  |                                       
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2004 |  |                                       
|                   |  | /s/STUART JACKSON                     
|                   |  | Stuart Jackson
Chief Financial Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Stolt Offshore S.A. and will be retained by Stolt Offshore S.A. and furnished to the
Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 10.20

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT(this "First Amendment") is made and entered
into as of the 1st day of October, 2001, by and betweenSTATION CASINOS, INC., a Nevada corporation, with its principal offices located at 2411
West Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 (the "Company"), andFRANK J. FERTITTA III(the
"Executive").

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1999 (the
"Employment Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement provides, among other things, for the Executive to be eligible to participate in the Company's Deferred
Compensation Plan for Executives (originally effective November 30, 1994, and amended and restated effective as of September 30, 1999) (the
"Plan") and any other deferred compensation plans that the Company may adopt for executives, pursuant to the terms of such plans; and

WHEREAS, the Human Resources Committee of the Company amended the Plan effective as of September 12, 2001, and the Company and the
Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement in order to effectuate certain of those amendments to the Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration,
the Company and the Executive agree to the following:



1

---



2

---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment as of the date first written above.

| |  | STATION CASINOS, INC.
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | By                   
| |  |                      
| |  | FRANK J. FERTITTA III

3

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly
Report of U.S. Helicopter Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
G. Murphy, President and 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 to the best of my knowledge:

1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Dated: August 14, 2006

| |  | /s/ John G. Murphy                                  | 
| |  | --------------------------------------------------- | 
| |  | John G. MurphyPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
URIYAAL ABDULLAH

MUSTAFA

,

Appellant,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY,

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOS ITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 4

- 3 0 5 0

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 4, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Charles A. Francis , Judge

.

Uriyaal Abdullah Mustafa , pro se, Appellant.

Dorothy Ridgway, Actin g General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly Simcox , Assistant Attorney General,

Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### STATE ex rel. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Relator, v. Honorable Patricia F. SCOTT, Respondent.

No. WD 51476.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 16, 1996.

*171Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Marvin W. Opie, Tipton, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN PROHIBITION

HANNA, Presiding Judge.

Russell D. Hedrick filed a petition for a trial de novo pursuant to § 302.535, RSMo 1994, in the Circuit Court of Morgan County concerning the revocation of his driver’s license. The relator, Director of Revenue, seeks a writ of prohibition to disqualify the respondent, the Honorable Patricia F. Scott, from proceeding with the trial de novo. We issued a preliminary writ and now make the writ permanent.

At issue is Supreme Court Rule 51.05 concerning a change of judge. Specifically, the issue concerns the notice provision in subsection (e).

The Director filed an application for a change of judge on the same day that it filed its answer, which was within the time requirement mandated by the rule. Rule 51.05(b). The Director did not file or serve a notice of the hearing date. *See*Rule 51.05(c). However, Hedrick filed a notice of the hearing four days after the Director filed the change of judge request.

Respondent argues that notice of the hearing date is necessary in order to allow an opportunity for the opposing party to contest the form, timeliness, and sufficiency of the motion. *In re Buford,*577 S.W.2d 809, 827 (Mo. banc 1979).

The facts here are identical to those in *State ex rel. Director of Revenue v. Scott,*919 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. banc 1996). In *Scott,*the Director filed a change of judge without filing a notice of the hearing date. Subsequently, each driver filed a request for a hearing. The Supreme Court found that “the adverse parties not only had knowledge of the hearing date, they set it themselves.” *Id.,*919 S.W.2d at 248. The court held that the notice requirement of the rule was satisfied because both parties had an opportunity to present evidence or argument opposing the application. *Id.*

Because Hedrick had notice of the hearing, he also had a full opportunity to contest the application. No reason is advanced here that there was any contest with the form, timeliness, or sufficiency of the application. Given these facts, *Scott*controls. The preliminary writ of prohibition is made absolute. Respondent is prohibited from taking any action in this case other than to grant the Director’s application for a change of judge. The writ is made permanent.

LOWENSTEIN and SPINDEN, JJ., concur.
ex10-2.htm




EXHIBIT 10.2







SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is by and between Unico American Corporation (“Company”) and Lester A. Aaron (“Emp1oyee”):







A. Paragraph 3.1 of the Employment Agreement between the Company and Employee which was effective as of December 15, 2007 and amended effective April 1, 2009 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:







3.1. SALARY.  As compensation for the services provided by Employee under this Agreement, Company will pay Employee an annual salary of no less than $237,000 payable in accordance with Company’s usual payroll procedures.  The annual salary shall be subject to increase from time to time at the discretion of the Board of Directors of Company.


 

 


B. Paragraph 6 of the Employment Agreement between the Company and Employee which was effective as of December 15, 2007 and amended effective April 1, 2009 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:







6. TERM/TERMINATION.  Employee’s employment under this Agreement shall be for a term beginning on January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2012. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be terminated at any time by Company for Cause or by Employee for other than breach of this Agreement by the Company upon thirty days written notice.  This Agreement may also be terminated by Company without Cause upon thirty days written notice or by the Employee at any time on account of the breach of this Agreement by Company; however, in either of such events, subject to the limitation described in Section 3.6, the Company shall pay Employee, as and in the manner provided in Section 3.4, all salary, bonuses and benefits as provided herein for the remainder of the term of this Agreement.







C. This Amendment is effective January 1, 2010.







D. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged.







COMPANY:


Unico American Corporation


 


By    /s/ Cary L. Cheldin                                                       Date: March 26, 2010


Cary L. Cheldin, President & Chief Executive Officer


 


 


EMPLOYEE:


 


/s/  Lester A. Aaron                                                              Date: March 26, 2010


Lester A. Aaron