alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.7**

 

***Director Compensation***

 

We pay each non-employee director as follows:

 

•                  Annual retainer: $20,000

 

•                  Supplemental annual retainers:

 

Audit Committee—Chair: $15,000

 

Other Committee—Chair: $5,000

 

•                  Meeting fees (Board or Committee):

 

•                  In person: $3,000/day

 

•                  Telephonic: $1,000/day for meetings over two hoursthat involve substantial time and preparation.

 

•                     Only one daily meeting fee is paid on days whenmultiple meetings of separate Committees, or Committee(s) and Board are held onsame day.

 

----
NUMBER 13-15-00474-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

FRANK FIGUEROA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 117th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Frank Figueroa, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal on August 

14, 2015. Appellant states he is appealing from an order dated July 29, 2015. We 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentence was 

imposed on February 1, 2008. On June 25, 2015, appellant filed a motion for 
2

appointment of counsel to file a motion for forensic DNA testing for an indigent person. 

The State filed a response to the motion on July 29, 2015. On July 31, 2015, the trial 

court signed an order granting appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. The trial 

court entered an amended order on September 18, 2015, withdrawing the order of July 

31, 2015, and denying appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. 

An appeal in a criminal case is permitted only when specifically authorized by 

statute. State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see 

Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding that the right of 

appeal “is a statutorily created right”); see also Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review 

interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.”). “The 

standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but 

whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008). 

The denial of a request for appointed counsel to assist in filing a motion for postconviction DNA testing is not immediately appealable. Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 

318, 322-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Any alleged error made by the trial court in refusing 

to appoint counsel must be raised in an appeal from the final order denying DNA testing.

See id. 

The clerk of the trial court has informed us that the trial court has not entered an 

order denying post-conviction forensic DNA testing. We are of the opinion that because 

there is not a final order denying a motion for DNA testing under Texas Code of Criminal 
3

Procedure article 64.01, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, 

this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are likewise 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

17th day of December, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed statement of income for the twelve months ended June 30, 1997 and the
condensed balance sheet as of June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference of such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,403,731
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,861,643
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,586,000
<INVENTORY>                                    552,721
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            56,612,668
<PP&E>                                      63,776,675
<DEPRECIATION>                              33,418,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,333,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       84,783,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,842
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,487,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,333,299
<SALES>                                    103,847,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           103,847,776
<CGS>                                       52,371,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              107,041,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,400,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,130,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,405,765)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,405,765)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,405,765)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.38)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID R. GELINAS; KAREN M. 

GELINAS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

U.S. BANK, as Trustee for LSF9 Master 

Participation Trust; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35292 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01468-JLR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018

**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

David R. Gelinas and Karen M. Gelinas appeal pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to file an amended complaint their action 

alleging federal and state law claims arising from a pending foreclosure. We have 

 

* 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

FEB 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35292 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. AlTorki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

In the opening brief, plaintiffs fail to address how the district court erred in 

dismissing their action for failure to prosecute. As a result, plaintiffs have waived 

their challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 

1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening 

brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s 

opening brief.”).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc.
(the “Company") for the three month ended January 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Roger
Crystal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of operations of the
Company.







Date:
      March 12, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Seijin
      KiSeijin
      KiChief
      Financial Officer





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
No. 07-20-00358-CR

Jamie Lee Burns a/k/a Jamie Lee 

Nelson

 Appellant

From the 316th District Court 

 of Hutchinson County 

v. September 30, 2021

The State of Texas

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§ Opinion by Chief Justice Quinn

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated September 30, 2021, it is ordered, 

adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that 

have already been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1184 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1184

 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2009

    Mr. Vitter (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Thune, Mr. DeMint, Mr. 
   Bunning, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Barrasso) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

    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 ``Rewarding Achievement and 
Incentivizing Successful Employees Act'' or the ``RAISE Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.

    Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive 
representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and conditions of 
any collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect, nothing 
in either--
            ``(A) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or
            ``(B) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed 
        or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the unit greater 
wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by reason of, his or her 
services as an employee of such employer, than provided for in such 
contract or agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
Subsidiary List:

Esmor, Inc.
Esmor New Jersey, Inc.
CSC Management de Puerto Rico, Inc.
CSC UK, Ltd.
YSI Holdings, Inc.
YSI Real Property Partnership, LLP
YSI Investment LLC
YSI International Management LLC
Community Corrections, Inc.
FF & E, Inc.
Youth Services International, Inc.
Youth Services International of Iowa, Inc.
Youth Services International of Tennessee, Inc.
Youth Services International of Northern Iowa, Inc.
Youth Services International of South Dakota, Inc.
Youth Services International of Missouri, Inc.
Youth Services International of Central Iowa, Inc.
Youth Services International of Texas, Inc.
Youth Services International of Virginia, Inc.
Youth Services International of Delaware, Inc.
Youth Services International of Minnesota, Inc.
Youth Services International of Illinois, Inc.
Youth Services International of Michigan, Inc.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the periodic report of Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dean Marks, Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
     The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





Date:
      November 16, 2009
              /s/
      Dean MarksDean
      MarksChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
QD
FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 09
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 2010
SOUTHERN DIVISION us. DIStiS OFFICE
CY COURT
CRAIG BROWN, N MICHIGAN
Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-10735
v. HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
KENNETH J. AUD, et. al,

Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Craig G. Brown, (“Petitioner”), filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenged his conviction for possession with
intent to deliver trenbolone, M.C.L.A. 333.7401(2)(b)(ii); and possession of trenbolone,
M.C.L.A. 333.7403(2)(a)(ii). On March 10, 2009, this Court granted petitioner's motion
to hold the petition in abeyance pending the completion of the exhaustion of his state
court remedies in the Michigan Supreme Court. The Court also administratively closed
the case. Brown v. Aud, No. 2009 WL 649830 (E.D. Mich. March 10, 2009).

On December 18, 2009, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, in which he
asked the Court to essentially excuse the exhaustion of his state court remedies due to
the Michigan Supreme Court's inordinate delay in adjudicating his appeal.

On February 1, 2010, petitioner e-mailed my chambers, to inform her that his
motion was now moot, due to the fact that the Michigan Supreme Court has now denied

him leave to appeal. This Court has confirmed that petitioner's application for leave to



appeal has been denied by the Michigan Supreme Court. People v. Brown, ---- N.W.
2d----; No. 2010 WL 334978 (Mich.Sup.Ct. January 29, 2010). ’ In a subsequent e-mail
to my chambers, petitioner confirmed that his state court remedies have been
exhausted but that he is not currently asking the Court to reinstate his habeas petition
to the active docket, although he will do so at a later date. These emails shall be
docketed.

In light of the fact that the Michigan Supreme Court has now denied petitioner
leave to appeal, the Court will deny the motion for reconsideration as moot. The denial
is without prejudice to petitioner's right to move to reinstate his habeas petition to the
Court's active docket within the time prescribed by the Court’s opinion and order of

March 10, 2009 holding the petition in abeyance, which is March 31, 2010.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
United States District Judge

Dated: February 9, 2010

| hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on February 9, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Secretary

‘ The Court obtained this information from Westlaw’s internet service.
www.westlaw.com.
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
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and
Chief Executive Officer July 30, 2009/s/ David MathiesonDavid MathiesonSenior Vice President, and
Chief Financial Officer July 30, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-20517-07

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

LUIS VIZCARRA,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On June 2, 2009, the case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me

on June 2, 2009. In open court, with the assistance of an interpreter, I examined the Defendant

under oath, confirmed the Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant

regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that

the Defendant is competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made, and 3) that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have

ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

Case 1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB ECF No. 130, PageID.443 Filed 06/04/09 Page 1 of 2
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: June 4, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date, electronically

served on Shane Waller and Robert Dunn, and served on District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: June 4, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

Case 1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB ECF No. 130, PageID.444 Filed 06/04/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ABCDE OPERATING, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-CV-14908

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE [# 23]

Plaintiff ABCDE Operating, LLC (“ABCDE”), filed a motion to strike defendant

City of Detroit’s brief in opposition to plaintiff’s supplemental memorandum on the basis

that it exceeds the permissible page limit. Plaintiff’s supplemental memorandum was

five pages, and defendant’s brief in opposition was 14 pages. There is no local rule

governing the length of a supplemental brief in support of a motion, nor was there a

court order limiting the pages in this instance, although plaintiff represents that it was

“advised” that their memorandum was limited to five pages. To cure any perceived

unfairness, the Court will permit plaintiff to file a reply supplemental brief, if they desire,

up to 14 pages in length. The reply will be limited to the subject matter addressed in the

supplemental briefs already filed in this matter, and should be filed on or before August

10, 2009. 

Dated: July 30, 2009

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:08-cv-14908-GCS-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 581
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

July 30, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-14908-GCS-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 582
EXHIBIT 10.66
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO  PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
 Amendment Seller Buyer
  Original Agreement First
Amendment Second Amendment Third Amendment Fourth Amendment Agreement Property
    Capitalized Terms
 Reduction in Purchase Price
 Scheduled Closing Date




---



##### 



Performics Vacancy Credit
 Full Force and Effect
 Counterparts
   2




---



##### 



BUYER:
    
    YPI 180 N. LaSalle Owner, LLC, a Delaware limited
 liability companyBy:
    
    [s] Zaya S. YounanName: Zaya S. YounanTitle:   PresidentSELLER:
    
    180 N. LASALLE II, L.L.C., 
a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    
    180 N. LaSalle Holdings, L.L.C., 
a Delaware limited liability company,
its sole memberBy:
    
    PGRT Equity II LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, its administrative memberBy:
    
    Prime Group Realty, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership,
its sole memberBy:
    
    Prime Group Realty Trust,
 a Maryland real estate
investment trust, its sole general partner
 By:
    
    [s] Jeffrey A. PattersonName:

    Jeffrey A. PattersonTitle:

    President and Chief Executive
Officer
  3




---



##### 



JOINDER
   YOUNAN PROPERTIES, INC.,
a California corporationBy:
    
    [s] Zaya S. YounanName: Zaya S. YounanTitle:   President
  4