alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Opencell Biomed Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mislav Pavelic, in my capacities set forth below 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, to my 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 operations of the Company.   October 15, 2008 /s/ Mislav Pavelic Mislav Pavelic, President (as Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11526

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADNAN SHAHZAD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-94-1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adnan Shahzad has appealed his jury conviction of enticement of a child

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Shahzad’s arrest resulted from an Internet 

sting operation in which an officer posed as a 13-year-old girl. The superseding 

indictment alleged that Shahzad’s criminal conduct, if successful, would have 

constituted a violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.011, which criminalizes sexual 

assault of a child younger than age 17. 

 

* 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

July 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11526 Document: 00514084318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2017
No. 16-11526

2

Shahzad contends that the superseding indictment narrowed the scope 

of Section 2422(b) by alleging that the would-be victim was age 13 and that it 

was constructively amended by the trial court’s instructions and by the 

Government’s arguments, which permitted conviction on the basis of a finding 

that the victim was younger than age 17. As Shahzad concedes, our review is 

for plain error because he failed to object that the indictment had been 

constructively amended. See United States v. Bohuchot, 625 F.3d 892, 897 (5th 

Cir. 2010). 

“[N]o constructive amendment arises where the evidence proves facts 

different from those alleged in the indictment, but does not modify an essential 

element of the charged offense.” United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 417 

(5th Cir. 1998). It made no difference whether the would-be victim was age 13 

or some other age, as long as the Government proved that Shahzad believed 

she was younger than age 17. See § 22.011(a) & (c)(1); § 2422(b). There was 

ample evidence of such belief. Because there was no error, plain or otherwise, 

it was not professionally unreasonable for counsel not to lodge an objection. 

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 

Shahzad contends that the state statute did not provide federal 

jurisdiction for the Section 2422(b) charge. The difference between the age 

thresholds in the two statutes merely narrows the applicability of the federal 

statute to the age range proscribed by state law and does not create an 

irreconcilable conflict between the two statutes. The district court’s 

jurisdiction was established by showing that Shahzad used facilities of 

interstate commerce, that is, a cellular telephone and a computer connected to 

the Internet. See § 2422(b); United States v. Barlow, 568 F.3d 215, 220–21 (5th 

Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 559 (1995). The 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-11526 Document: 00514084318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2017
#### James KENNEDY, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 56008.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 12, 1989.

Motion for rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 10, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 14, 1989.

*836Stormy B. White, Asst. Public Defender, Clayton, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### NATIONAL HOME INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Matthew T. McDONOUGH and Mary S. McDonough, Defendants-Appellants, and First Bank a Savings Bank d/b/a First Bank Mortgage, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 62976.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 16, 1993.

David Thornton, St. Louis, for defendants-appellants.

Ziereher *&*Hocker, Gayr L. Vincnet, Clayton, for defendant-respondent First Bank A Savings Bank d/b/a First Bank Mortg.

William Sitzer, J. Dennis O’Leary, Dubail Judge, a professional eorp., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent Nat. Home Ins. Co.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendants, Matthew T. McDonough and Mary S. McDonough (McDonoughs), appeal from the judgment of the trial court which confirmed the arbitration award and granted the motion for summary judgment of defendant, First Bank A Savings Bank d/b/a First Bank Mortgage (First Bank). The court ordered plaintiff, National Home Insurance Company (NHIC), to pay to First Bank, the holder of the deed of trust on the McDon-oughs’ property, the proceeds of a Home Buyers Warranty, which NHIC had originally attempted to interplead into the court. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find there was substantial evidence to support the judgment of the trial court. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).1

1

. First Bank’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the McDonoughs' failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is denied.
Exhibit 10.2


 


Congratulations and thank you for your leadership and dedication to
Bank of Hawaii.  In recognition of your
performance and your commitment to help lead Bank of Hawaii in the future, the
Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Bank of
Hawaii Corporation (the “Company”) has granted you an award of $200,000.00 (the
“Grant”).  The Grant will be paid in two
increments with the expectation that you use a substantial portion of the Grant
to increase your holdings of the Company’s common stock.  Half of the grant will be paid on March 5,
2009 and the remaining half before year-end, provided you remain employed and
in good standing with the Company on the payment dates. The Grant will be
subject to the following terms and conditions:


 


1.               Withholding.  The Grant shall be subject to the
satisfaction of applicable federal, state and local tax withholding
requirements.


 


2.               Retirement and
Other Benefits.  The Grant will not
be included as (a) “compensation” for purposes of computing your benefits
under the Company’s retirement plans (both qualified and nonqualified) or other
benefit plans, or (b) compensation for purposes of computing your
severance benefits under the Change-In-Control Plan.  For the sake of clarity, the Grant will not
be taken into account with respect to calculating benefits under the Bank of
Hawaii Retirement Savings Excess Benefit Plan.


 


3.               Clawback.  Should your employment be terminated due to
reasons other than death, disability or retirement in the year following the
second payment, we would expect payment, net of taxes withheld, to be returned.


 


Thank you for staying focused on what needs to be accomplished in
2009.  We have a great team and your
continued commitment and support is much appreciated.
#### Darren D. HORD, Defendant-Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent.

No. 63165.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 17, 1993.

Lew Kollias, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for defendant-movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Darren D. Hord, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant had previously pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree and been sentenced to imprisonment for ten years.

No error of law appears. An opinion would have . no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed.

Rule 84.16(b).
##### 



EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Charles Crocker and John LaBoskey, and each of
them, as his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place, and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments to this Report and to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
connection therewith, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could
do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact
and agents, or any of them, or their or his substitute or substitutes, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this
report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the
registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Signature
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ Charles CrockerCharles Crocker
    
    Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board Of Directors (Principal
Executive Officer)
    
    December 9, 2003/s/ Dr. Asad M. MadniDr. Asad M. Madni
    
    President, Chief Operating Officer and
Director
    
    December 9, 2003/s/ John LaBoskeyJohn LaBoskey
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
    
    December 9, 2003/s/ Robert R. CorrRobert R. Corr
    
    Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and
Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
    
    December 9, 2003/s/ Richard M. BrooksRichard M. Brooks
    
    Director
    
    December 9, 2003/s/ George S. BrownGeorge S. Brown
    
    Director
    
    December 9, 2003/s/ C. Joseph Giroir, Jr.C. Joseph Giroir, Jr.
    
    Director
    
    December 9, 2003/s/ Dr. William G. HowardDr. William G. Howard
    
    Director
    
    December 9, 2003/s/ J. Lavon MortonJ. Lavon Morton
    
    Director
    
    December 9, 2003/s/ Gary D. WrenchGary D. Wrench
    
    Director
    
    December 9, 2003
exv10w26






Exhibit 10.26




AMENDMENT TO THE OFFER LETTER BETWEEN

SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. AND PATRICK J. ZUBER




     This Amendment to the Offer Letter dated November 7, 2007 (“Offer Letter”) between Superior
Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Superior” or the “Company”), and Patrick J. Zuber
(the “Executive”), is dated December 22, 2008, but is effective in all respects as of January 1,
2008 (the “Effective Date”).



     WHEREAS, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code and applicable Treasury Regulations and
guidance thereunder (“Section 409A”) regulate the timing of inclusion into income of nonqualified
deferred compensation, imposing penalty taxation and interest on the service provider for
noncompliance; and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the terms of the Offer Letter to comply
with Section 409A (including any exemptions) such that the Executive as a service provider is not
subject to additional taxation and penalties.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Offer Letter is amended as follows, as of the Effective Date:



I.




     Paragraph 12 is amended by adding a last sentence to read as follows:




“Tax protection and tax equalization payments made pursuant to this section will be paid
to you no later than the end of the second taxable year beginning after the taxable year
in which your U.S. federal income tax return is required to be filed (including any
extensions) for the year to which the compensation subject to the tax equalization
payment relates.”



II.




     New Paragraph 13 is hereby added after Paragraph 12 to read as follows:




	 	“13.  	 	Section 409A; Timing of Payments. It is the intention of the parties that
this Offer Letter comply with Section 409A and this Offer Letter shall be construed
accordingly. Any amounts owed to you by the Company under the terms of this Offer
Letter and for which no time of payment has been specified will be paid to you no
later than March 15 following the fiscal year in which you were eligible to receive
such payment. All such payments are intended to be exempt from Section 409A as
short-term deferrals pursuant to Treasury Regulation §1.409A-1(b)(4). No
acceleration of payments and benefits provided for in this Offer Letter, which
constitute non-qualified deferred compensation under Section 409A, shall be
permitted except that Superior may accelerate payment, if permitted under the
regulations under Section 409A.”





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Terence E. Hall
 	 
	 	 	Terence E. Hall 	 
	 	 	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Patrick J. Zuber
 	 
	 	 	Patrick J. Zuber
exv10w29







	 	 	 	 	 



EXHIBIT 10.29




PEROT SYSTEMS CORPORATION

1996 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK

OPTION/RESTRICTED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN





     This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Perot Systems Corporation 1996 Non-Employee Director
Stock Option/Restricted Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of Perot Systems Corporation (the
“Company”) is made as of December 22, 2008. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise
defined shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Plan or the applicable Restricted Stock
Agreement.



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) desires to amend the Plan to
comply with the applicable requirements of section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder (the “ Code”); and



     WHEREAS, Section 10(c) of the Plan provides that the Board is authorized to amend the terms of
the Plan.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended in the following respects:



     Section 8 of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence to the end of Sections 8(f)
and 8(g):



          “Notwithstanding the foregoing, any restrictions or conditions on the Restricted Stock issued
to a participant which grants the Company the option to repurchase the Restricted Stock may not be
exercised unless the repurchase price is not greater than 100% of the current fair market value of
the Restricted Stock at the time of repurchase.”




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused the execution of this Amendment on this
22nd day of December, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PEROT SYSTEMS CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Peter Altabef 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	
 	 
	 	 	Thomas D. Williams 	 
	 	 	Vice President, General Counsel and

Secretary
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Before the Court is Defendant James Larkin’s Motion for Leave to Late File Reply 

on Cross-Motion for Discovery in Response to United States’ Motion to Resolve 

Privilege Issues. (Doc. 295) Having reviewed Defendant’s motion, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Late File Reply on 

Cross-Motion for Discovery in Response to United States’ Motion to Resolve Privilege 

Issues (Doc. 295) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file the lodged Reply (Doc. 295-

1). 

 Dated this 27th day of September, 2018. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 323 Filed 09/27/18 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,273,765
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,090
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,489,965
<PP&E>                                       1,726,783
<DEPRECIATION>                                 290,971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,931,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          624,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           760
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,306,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,931,605
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,761,308
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,666,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               124,918
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             231,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,168,821)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,168,821)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,168,821)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.55)



</TABLE>
#### Willie DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 63392.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Oct. 5, 1993.

David C. Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and REINHARD and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Willie Davis, appeals from a denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. As we find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charif Souki, Chief Executive Officer of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, the general partner of the
Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Charif
Souki                                                                                                        
|Charif Souki Chief Executive Officer of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, general partner of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.

Date: May 8, 2008
EX-10.29



 Exhibit 10.29 

This is a translation of the original text in Chinese 

SPOUSAL CONSENT 
 I, Jin
WANG (ID card No.: ***), the legitimate spouse of Weiqin QIU, hereby affirm and unconditionally and irrevocably agree that the shares of Beike Internet (Beijing) Security Technology Co., Ltd. held by and registered under the name of my spouse shall
be disposed of in accordance with the arrangements under the Loan Agreement, the Exclusive Equity Option Agreement, Shareholder Voting Proxy Agreement and the Equity Pledge Agreement signed on the date of January 1,
2012, the Loan Agreement II signed on September 21, 2012 and the supplementary agreement to the Equity Pledge Agreement dated as of October 11, 2012 as well as all powers of attorney, undertaking letter or other documents
signed in accordance with the aforesaid agreements by my spouse (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Control Agreements”). 

I hereby further undertake that I shall not engage in any act that may conflict with the aforesaid arrangements, including asserting any
personal or community property rights over the above-said shares and any related rights and interests. I hereby further agree and undertake that if, for any reason, I own any shares of Beike Internet (Beijing) Security Technology Co., Ltd., I shall
be bound by the Control Agreements, and I shall perform all the shareholder obligations pursuant to the Control Agreements. In addition, to achieve the same objective, upon a request made by Beike Internet (Beijing) Security Technology Co., Ltd., I
shall sign a series of agreements in the form of the Control Agreements. 
  

			
	Signature:	 	 /s/ Jin WANG

		
	Date:	 	 January 1, 2012