alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




Compensation Information for Executive Officers




     The table below provides information regarding the base salary of Mitchell S. Steiner and
Marc S. Hanover effective as of January 1, 2007:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Base
	Executive Officer	 	Title	 	Compensation
	Mitchell S. Steiner, M.D., F.A.C.S.

	 	Chief Executive Officer and
Vice-Chairman of the Board of
Directors
	 	$	446,250	 
	Marc S. Hanover

	 	President and Chief Operating Officer
	 	$	306,600
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1059

EUGENIA B. WHITE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-01110-LMB-TRJ)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugenia B. White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eugenia B. White appeals the district court’s order 

denying her second motion to reconsider its order dismissing her 

employment discrimination complaint without prejudice. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

White v. Fairfax County Gov’t, No. 1:08-cv-01110-LMB-TRJ (E.D. 

Va. filed Dec. 9 & entered Dec. 10, 2008). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order entered August 19, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00206

- CV

MCKINNEY AVENUE PROP ERTIES NO. 2, LTD., Appellant

V.

BRANCH BANK AND TRUS T COMPANY, ET AL., Appellee s
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 10

- 08500

- B



### O RDER
Before the Court are the following motions:
1. August 13, 2014 agreed motion of appellee Haynie Rake Repass Lowry, P.C. for an extension of time to file a brief;
2. August 14, 2014 un opposed motion of appellees Branch Banking & Trust Company and Eagle TX 1 SPE, LLC for an extension of time to file a brief; and
3. August 14, 2014 amended agreed motion of appellee Greenway

- Boll Street L.P.
for an extension of time to file a brief. Appell ees request in their respective motions a seven

- day extension to August 21, 2014. We
GRANT the appellees’ motions. Appellees shall file their respective briefs on or before August 21, 2014.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11108]



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


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 31, 1996.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NE., Washington, DC. 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-11108 Filed 4-30-96; 3:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Exhibit 99.5
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. §1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 In connection with the annual report of Kobex Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel Yik, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Samuel Yik
 __________________________________
 Samuel Yik
 Chief Financial Officer
 Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
 March 29, 2011
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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 certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the annual report or as a separate disclosure document.
  
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. §1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 In connection with the annual report of Kobex Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel Yik, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Samuel Yik
 __________________________________
 Samuel Yik
 Chief Financial Officer
 Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
 March 29, 2011
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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 certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the annual report or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20532-20533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11356]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Services


National Institutes of Health (NIH); Notice of the Meeting of the 
National Advisory Eye Council

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the National Advisory Eye Council (NAEC) on June 6, 1996, Executive 
Plaza North, Conference Room G, 6130 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, 
Maryland.
    The NAEC meeting will be open to the public on June 6 from 8:30 
a.m. until approximately 11:30 a.m. Following opening remarks by the 
Director, NEI, there will be presentations by the staff of the 
Institute and discussions concerning Institute programs and policies. 
Attendance by the public at the open session will be limited to space 
available.
    In accordance with provisions set forth in Secs. 552b(c)(4) and 
552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. and Sec. 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the 
meeting of the NAEC will be closed to the public on June 6 from 
approximately 11:30 a.m. until adjournment at approximately 5:00 p.m. 
for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant 
applications. These applications and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    Ms. Lois DeNinno, Council Assistant, National Eye Institute, EPS, 
Suit 350, 6120 Executive Boulevard, MSC-7164, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-
7164, (301) 496-9110, will provide a summary of

[[Page 20533]]

the meeting, roster of committee members, and substantive program 
information upon request. Individuals who plan to attend and need 
special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other 
reasonable accommodations, should contact Ms. DeNinno in advance of the 
meeting.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.867, Vision 
Research: National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: May 1, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-11356 Filed 5-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.2

                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Danny E. Hosler certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of OC Financial, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of circumstances under which such statements were
     made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material respect
     the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
     registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

     b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
         procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
         of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
         operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
         employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 14, 2006

/s/ DANNY E. HOSLER
------------------------------------
Danny E. Hosler
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7592

DERICK CHRISTOPHER KESSING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00504-DJN-EWH)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derick Christopher Kessing, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derick Christopher Kessing seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 

action without prejudice as he requested. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over 

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). The order Kessing seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Kessing’s motion to compel and

dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Denied and Opinion Filed October 3, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01119-CV 

IN RE RICHARD RALEY AND RALEY HOLDINGS, LLC, Relators 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-00390-B 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Relators’ appeal of an adverse judgment is currently pending in this Court under cause 

number 05-18-00914-CV. This original proceeding concerns post-judgment enforcement efforts. 

On August 31, 2018, the real parties in interest obtained writs of garnishment on three accounts 

owned by relators. Relators have now superseded the judgment by filing a cash deposit in lieu of 

bond. The trial court issued a “Writ of Supersedeas” confirming that relators’ cash deposit in lieu 

of bond is “adequate to supersede the judgment” and commanding that “all further proceedings 

under the aforesaid execution” be suspended. In this original proceeding, relators seek a writ of 

mandamus directing the trial court to court to issue a writ of supersedeas “as necessary to dissolve 

the current Garnishments,” to enjoin the real parties in interest from “prosecuting any third-party 

action or engaging in extra-judicial enforcement efforts,” and to stay proceedings on the real 

parties in interest’s motion for sanctions and application for turnover order, which are set for 

hearing on October 12, 2018. 
 –2– 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Here, relators did not ask the trial court 

to dissolve the garnishments or stay the hearing on the motion for sanctions and application for 

turnover order. The trial court’s “Writ of Supersedeas” provided relators with all of the relief they 

requested below. Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown a clear 

abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to 

the relief sought). 

 

181119F.P05 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE
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

YUPING SUN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71391

Agency No. A099-042-187

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Yuping Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

FILED

MAR 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71391

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,

applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created

by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We

deny the petition for review.

The agency found Sun not credible because, during her hearing, she held and

referred to a typewritten copy of her declaration in support of her asylum

application, and provided inconsistent explanations for her possession of it. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See

id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real ID

Act’s “totality of the circumstances”); Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917-19

(9th Cir. 2009). In the absence of credible testimony, Sun’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,

1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).

Sun has not raised any direct challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

supported by argument are deemed abandoned).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11312]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Disposal and 
Reuse of the Evans Subpost Fort Monmouth, NJ

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed action evaluated by this EIS is the disposal of 
the Evans Subpost Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, in accordance with the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510. 
The Draft EIS addresses the environmental consequences of the disposal 
and subsequent reuse of the 215 acres. Three alternative methods of 
disposal are analyzed: Encumbered Disposal, Unencumbered Disposal and 
retention of the property in a caretaker status (i.e., the No Action 
Alternative). The Encumbered Disposal Alternative addresses natural or 
man-made encumbrances to the future reuse. The Unencumbered Disposal 
Alternative evaluates the potential to remove encumbrances, thereby 
allowing the property to be disposed of with fewer or no Army imposed 
restrictions on future use. The impacts of reuse are evaluated in terms 
of land use intensities.
    A scoping meeting was held at the theater located on the Main Post 
of Fort Monmouth on December 8, 1994. Public notices requesting input 
and comments from the public were issued in the regional area 
surrounding the Evans Subpost.

DATES: The Army will hold a public review meeting for this Draft EIS. 
The location and date of the meeting, to be scheduled during May 1996, 
will be announced in local news media. Copies of the DEIS are available 
for review at the Wall Township Public Library, 2700 Allaire Road, 
Wall, New Jersey 07719. Oral and written comments may be presented at 
the public meeting. Comments and suggestions received within 45 days of 
the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of 
Availability for this action will be addressed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be 
obtained by writing to Dr. Susan Rees, U.S. Army Engineer District, 
ATTN: CESAM-PD-E, P.O. Box 2288, Mobile, Alabama 36628-0001 or by 
telephone at (334) 694-4141 or telefax (334) 690-2424.

    Dated: April 30, 1996.
Raymond J. Fatz,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, (Environmental, Safety, 
and Occupational Health) OASA (IL&E).
[FR Doc. 96-11312 Filed 5-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
```
Amendment to Life Insurance Premium and Tax Bonus Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM AND TAX BONUS AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT is made as of the 15th day of September, 2006, between COMCAST CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation (together with its subsidiaries, the
“Company”), and BRIAN L. ROBERTS (“Roberts”). 
 BACKGROUND 
 The parties entered into a Life Insurance Premium and Tax Bonus Agreement dated as of May 22, 2006 (the “Agreement”), and desire to modify Schedule A thereto. 
 AGREEMENT 
 Intending to be legally bound hereby,
the Company and Roberts agree as follows: 
  

	1.	 Schedule A of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the list of insurers and amounts of insurance reflected from time to time in the
Company’s records, provided that the aggregate death benefit amount thereof shall not exceed $50,000,000. 


  

	2.	 Except as amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date first-above written. 
  

			
	 COMCAST CORPORATION

		
	By:	 	 /s/ ARTHUR R. BLOCK

		
		 	 /s/ BRIAN L. ROBERTS

		 	 Brian L. Roberts
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40308 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALFONSO ZAMORA-ANAYA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-920-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfonso Zamora-Anaya appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. Zamora was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 46 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Zamora argues that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), it appears that Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), was incorrectly decided and that, therefore, the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) areNo. 04-40308 -2- unconstitutional. He contends that the unconstitutional portions of the statute should be severed and that he should be resentenced to no more than two years of imprisonment for the lesser included offense provided under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Zamora recognizes that his argument is foreclosed by the existing precedent of the Supreme Court and this court; however, he wishes to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review. Almendarez-Torres held that the enhanced penalties contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) were sentencing factors and not elements of the offense. 523 U.S. at 235. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres unless the Supreme Court overrules it. Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984. Zamora’s challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is without merit.
AFFIRMED.