alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10wxdy



 





Exhibit 10(d)




Amendment to Directors Stock Compensation and Deferral Plan (the “Plan”)



Effective August 4, 2006, to reflect the two-for-one stock split in the form of a 100 percent stock
dividend on the Company’s common stock distributed August 11, 2006, to holders of record on August
4, 2006, the first sentence of Article III of the Plan was amended to read:





“Subject to Article VII, no more than 1,600,000 shares of Common Stock (as adjusted to
reflect the August 11, 2006 two-for-one stock split) shall be awarded or made subject to
stock options awarded under the Plan; provided, however, that shares subject to options
granted hereunder (or assumed hereby) that are cancelled or expire without being fully
exercised and shares used to pay the exercise price for options granted hereunder (or
assumed hereby) may again be made subject to options granted under this Plan with no effect
on the foregoing limit.”
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5499 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5499

 To amend the Antiquities Act to increase congressional oversight with 
    respect to the designation of national monuments, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2023

     Mrs. Miller-Meeks (for herself, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. 
Reschenthaler, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Bentz, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. 
Owens, Mr. Rose, Mrs. Hinson, and Mr. Hudson) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Antiquities Act to increase congressional oversight with 
    respect to the designation of national monuments, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Oversight of the 
Antiquities Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO ANTIQUITIES ACT.

    Section 320301 of title 54, United States Code (commonly referred 
to as the ``Antiquities Act''), is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
        (d) and (e), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Limitations.--
            ``(1) In general.--Unless extended or modified by statute, 
        the establishment of a national monument under subsection (a) 
        or reservation of a parcel of land under subsection (b) shall 
        be effective only until the earlier of the following:
                    ``(A) The date that is 6 months after the date of 
                the establishment or reservation.
                    ``(B) The last day of the Congress sitting at the 
                time of the establishment or reservation.
            ``(2) Limitation on future monuments.--If a national 
        monument established under subsection (a) or reservation of a 
        parcel of land made under subsection (b) is not extended or 
        modified during the effective period described in paragraph 
        (1), or is otherwise rejected by statute, the land or property 
        included within the boundaries of such national monument or 
        parcel of land may not be included in the extension or 
        establishment of a national monument under this section for a 
        period of 25 years.''.
                                 <all>
```
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

RECO Rishad Engineering Construction ORG 

Under Contract No. W91B4M-07-C-7228 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

) 

) 

) ASBCA No. 60444 

) 

) 

Mr. Burhan Jan 

CEO and President 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

LTC Joseph J. Jankunis, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PEACOCK ON APPELLANT'S 

SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Appellant has submitted an email, dated 14 April 2017, that we interpret as a 

second motion for reconsideration of our earlier decision dismissing the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. We have not requested a response from the government. 

We dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on 10 November 2016 and 

denied RECO's first motion for reconsideration on 12 April 2017. "'The Board's 

Rules do not provide for a second motion for reconsideration." Quality Trust Inc., 

ASBCA No. 59983, 16-1BCA~36,529 at 177,946. Accordingly, appellant's second 

motion for reconsideration is denied, and the Recorder is instructed not to accept any 

further filings by appellant relative to this appeal. See Al Barihfor General 

Contracting Ltd., ASBCA No. 57148, et al., 15-1 BCA ~ 35,936 at 175,629. 

Dated: 24 May 2017 

(Signatures continued) 

ROBERT T. PEACOCK 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I concur 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60444, Appeal ofRECO 

Rishad Engineering Construction ORG, rendered in conformance with the Board's 

Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 4, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51371

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ENRIQUEZ OZUNA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:06-CR-879-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit

Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Enriquez

Ozuna-Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
**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 Annual Report of American Racing Capital, Inc. (the
“ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      his
      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 operation of the Company.




Date:May
                2, 2008
            By:
            */s/A.
              Robert
              Koveleski*Name:A.
                Robert KoveleskiTitle:President,
                Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Accounting
                Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

**Section 1350 Certification**

**In connection with this quarterly report of ML AppletonFuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2007 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the manager of ML Appleton FuturesAccess LLC,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  November 14, 2007
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|--------|
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |                 |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |                 |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |                 |
|                                              |                      |        |        |  |

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2997-031]

On May 17, 2021, South Sutter Water District submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act Section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the California State Water Resources Control Board (California Water Board), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6, we hereby notify the California Water Board of the following:

*Date of Receipt of the Certification Request:*                     May 17, 2021.                

*Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request:*                     One year.                

*Date Waiver Occurs for Failure to Act:*                     May 17, 2022.                

If the California Water Board fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request by the above waiver date, then the agency's certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

Dated: May 19, 2021.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-11666 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OFMONTANA No. DA 23-0500 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIE VELTKAMP,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension oftime until December 22, 2023, to prepare, file, and serve theAppellant's openingbrief. 11/16/2023 Case Number: DA 23-0500
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 12

- 1697

_________________

IN RE: GRAND JURY

JOHN DOE1; JOHN DOE 2; ABC CORPORATION,

App ellants

_________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Grand Jury Action No. 2

- 09

- gj

- 00006)

District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III

_________________

Present: AMBRO, HARDI MAN

, and VANASKIE

, Circuit Judges

Respectfully,

Clerk/tmk

____________________ __ _________ O R D E R

______________________________

The Precedential O pinion filed May 24, 2012

, is hereby VACATED. Having granted

panel rehearing o n July 19, 2012, this matter was reconsidered and consolidated for n ew

disposition. That Precedential O pinion will be filed forthwith.

By the Court,

Circuit Judge /s/ Thomas L. Ambro

Dated: December 11, 2012

tmk/cc:

Frank P. Cihlar, Esq.

Gregory V. Davis, Esq.Samuel R. Lyons, Esq.

Alexander P. Robbins, Esq.

Stephen R. LaCheen, Esq.

Ian M. Comisky, Esq.

Matthew D. Lee, Esq.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

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

I,
Raymond Cook, Chief Financial Officer of STEC, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(1) | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, 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
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ RAYMOND COOKRaymond CookChief Financial Officer


February 23, 2010

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, 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. 05-7295

In Re: KELVIN J. MILES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-04-2676-8-AW)

Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin J. Miles, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin J. Miles petitions this court for writ of

mandamus. He seeks review of a recent district court order denying

his motion for appointment of counsel and to amend. Mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary situations.

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re

Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is only

available when there are no other means by which the relief sought

could be granted, id., and may not be used as a substitute for

appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir.

1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden

of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief

he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and

indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35

(1980). Miles has failed to make the requisite showing, and we

dismiss the mandamus petition. We deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and 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
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                   ------------

                            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 Quarterly Report of Silver River Ventures,  Inc.(the
"Company")  on Form 10- QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Geoff Williams,  Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/ Geoff Williams
--------------------------------
Geoff Williams
Principal Accounting Officer
May 11, 2005

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
exv10w8



 





EXHIBIT
10.8




ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT




     THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT (the “Assignment”) is made as of the 30th day of October 2006, by
Triple Net Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (“Assignor”) to Apartment REIT
Walker Ranch, LP., a Texas limited partnership (“Assignee”).



RECITALS




     TR Walker Ranch Partners, LTD., a Texas limited partnership (“Seller”) and Assignor entered into
that certain Contract of Sale, dated as of May 4, 2006 (the “Contract”) with respect to certain
property known as Walker Ranch Apartments located at 14500 Blanco Road, San Antonio, Bexar County,
Texas, as more particularly described in the Contract. Assignor desires to assign all of its
rights, title and interest in and to the Contract to Assignee.



AGREEMENT




     FOR and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby assigns, transfers, conveys and sets
over all of Assignor’s rights, title and interest in and to the Contract to Assignee.



     Assignee, by its execution of this Assignment, hereby assumes all of Assignor’s obligations under
the Contract. Notwithstanding such assignment and assumption, Assignor shall continue to be liable
under the Contract.



     WITNESS the following signatures:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ASSIGNOR:	 	Triple Net Properties, LLC,  
	 	 	 	 	a Virginia limited liability company
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Richard Hutton	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Name: Richard Hutton
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Title: Executive Vice President






 









 





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ASSIGNEE:	 	APARTMENT REIT WALKER RANCH, LP,  
	 	 	 	 	a Texas limited partnership
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	By:	 	APARTMENT REIT WALKER RANCH GP, LLC,
	 	 	 	 	 	 	a Delaware limited liability company
	 	 	 	 	Its:	 	General Partner
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	NNN Apartment REIT Holdings, L.P.,
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	a Virginia limited partnership
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Its:	 	Manager
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	NNN Apartment REIT, Inc.
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	a Maryland corporation,
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Its:	 	General Partner
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Shannon K S Johnson	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Name: Shannon K S Johnson
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Title:   Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew Priester, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.), rendered November 6, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to identify any indicia of suggestiveness in the photographic and lineup identification procedures employed, the hearing court properly declined to compel the production of the complainant *(see, People v Peterkin,*151 AD2d 407, *affd*75 NY2d 985; *People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327; *People v Tweedy,*134 AD2d 467). We note that, in any event, the defendant waived this claim by failing to move, as the court had given him permission to do, to reopen the *Wade*hearing when further details regarding the circumstances underlying the lineup procedure were adduced at trial.

The defendant’s further assertion that the Trial Judge’s instructions to the jury regarding his failure to testify deprived him of a fair trial is similarly unavailing. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant neither requested that the Trial Judge limit his instruction to the statutory language *(see,*CPL 300.10 [2]) nor registered an exception to the charge as given *(see, People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836). In any event, while the Trial Judge’s “no adverse inference” charge in this case was lengthier than prescribed by law, it was neutral in tone and did not diminish the importance of the constitutional right by implying either that the *634defendant should have testified or that his decision not to testify was a strategic one *(see, People v Ogle,*142 AD2d 608). Nor may it be said to have unduly emphasized the defendant’s silence, particularly in view of defense counsel’s summation comments concerning his client’s decision not to take the stand *(see, People v Brown,*150 AD2d 472).

The defendant argues that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence because substantial doubt existed as to the accuracy of the complainant’s identification testimony. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Hooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.