alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.11

 

ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT

 

This Addendum (the “Addendum”) is entered into as of January 1, 2014, by and among NEW YORK RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC., a New York limited liability company (“MANAGEMENT SERVICES”) and YONKERS RADIATION MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C., a New York professional corporation (the “PC”).  This Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the Administrative Services Agreement dated January 1, 1999 between the parties (the “Agreement”) to adjust the monthly Service Fee payable at the rate of $560.00 per external beam treatment billed in 2013 to a monthly Service Fee payable at the rate of $550.00 per external beam treatment billed (currently CPT codes 77372, 77373, 77401 — 77416, 77418, and 77781 — 77784) and replaces the Addendum of that same Section dated January 1, 2013.  From and after the date hereof, Section 3.1 shall read as follows:

 

3.1. Service Fee.  For the services to be provided hereunder by MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the PC shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a monthly Service Fee at the rate of $550.00 per external beam treatment billed (currently CPT codes 77372, 77373, 77401 — 77416, 77418, and 77781 — 77784).  The parties agree that the Service Fee represents the fair market value of the services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES hereunder and that the parties shall meet annually to reevaluate the value of services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES and shall establish the fair market value thereof for purposes of this Section 3.1.

 

	
Accepted:
    	
NEW   YORK RADIATION THERAPY
    
	
 
    	
MANAGEMENT   SERVICES, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Bryan J. Carey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Bryan J. Carey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Vice President
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Accepted:
    	
YONKERS   RADIATION MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ James H. Rubenstein, M.D.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
James H. Rubenstein, M.D.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
President
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of FGX International Holdings Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies
that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended January 2, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

March 8, 2010

/s/ ALEC TAYLOR Alec Taylor Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 20 5- CR Richard BURNS , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 379th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-7717 Honora ble Be rt Richardson, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Justi ce Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Dec ember 10, 2008 AFF I RMED Ric h a r d B u r

n s p le a d e d n o lo c o n te n d e r e to th e f e lo n y o f f e n s e o f e n h a n c e d a s s a

u lt and wa s p la c e d o n c o mm

u n it y s u p e r v is io n f o r a te r m o f e ig h t y e a r s . T h e St a te f il e d a mo ti o n to revoke Bur ns’s community

supervision, alleg ing Burns had violated t he terms of hi s supervision by using a contr olled substance (coc aine) on Marc h 10, 2008. After a hea ring on the State’s motion, the trial court re voked B urns’s community supervision. The trial court subsequently sentenc ed B urns to a te rm of e ig ht y e a rs imp ri so nme nt. We a ff ir m.04
- 08
- 00 20 5- CR

- 2- Bur ns’s court- appointed appe llate attorne y filed a br ief c ontaining a

profe ssional evaluation of the re cord in a ccor dance with An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel conc ludes that the appe al i s frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided B urns with a copy of the brie f and inform ed h i m o f his rig ht to review the rec ord and f ile his own brief. Se e Nic ho ls v . S tat e , 95 4 S. W.2 d 8 3, 85 -8 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 19 97 , n o p e t.) ; Br un s v . S tat e , 924 S.W .2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). B urns did not file a pr o s e brief. After revie wing the re cord a

nd counsel’s br ief, we ag ree that the appe al is frivolous and wi tho ut me ri t. Th e jud g me nt o f t he tr ia l c ou rt

is t he re fo re a ff

ir me d. F ur the rm or e , w e g ra

nt a pp e lla te
co u n sel’s motion to withdraw. Nic ho ls v . S tat e , 9 54 S.W. 2d

a t 86 ; Br un s 924 S.W .2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Bur ns wish to seek further review of t his case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either reta in an attorne y

to fi l e a p et i tion for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petit ion for discr etionary revie w. Any

petition for discre tionary revie w must be filed within thirty day s from the da te of e ither t his opinion or t he last t imely motion fo r rehe aring that was ove rruled by this court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6 8
. 2
. A n y p e ti ti on for discretionar

y revie w must be filed with this c ourt, afte r which it will be forwa rded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68 .3 ; 68 .7
. An y pe tit ion fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w s ho uld comply with the require ments of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4.
Catherine Stone, Justi ce

DO NO T PU B L I SH
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 50082 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Devin Edward Hall,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:19

- CR

- 154

- 1

**____________________ __________**  Before **Barksdale, Graves,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
Devin Edward Hall pleaded guilty in 2020 to transporting an adult across state lines for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 1

. His sentence includes 91

- months ’ imprisonment and five

years supervised release. Hall , who has not been released on supervision,

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 27, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50082 Document: 00516979869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2023No. 23

- 50082

2 challenges a supervised

- release special condition requiring him to “take any and all medications that are prescribed by the treating physician”

. “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Such sua sponte jurisdictional inquiry includes whether an issue is ripe for review. McCall v. Dretke , 390 F.3d 358, 361 (5th Cir. 2004). W hether Hall’s claim is ripe is reviewed de novo

. E.g. , United States v. Magana , 837 F.3d 457 , 459 (5th Cir. 2016 )

. “[T]he ripeness inquiry focuses on whether an injury that has not yet occurred is sufficiently likely to happen to justify judicial intervention

. ” Pearson v. Holder , 624 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) . “A claim is not ripe for review if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” Magana , 837 F.3d at 459 (citation omitted). Hall’s challenge to the condition is not ripe for review b ecause it is “ a matter of conjecture ” whether he will ever be subjected to prescribed medication. Id. (citation omitted) ; see also United States v. Carmichael , 343 F.3d 756, 761

– 62 (5th Cir. 2003) ( concluding supervised

- release condition not ripe because condition was contingent on future events ). If he is ever required to submit to such medication, Hall may petition the district court for a modification of the conditions of his release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) (permitting modification of supervised

- release conditions)

. **DISMISSED**

. Case: 23-50082 Document: 00516979869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6243 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6243

To prohibit Federal public benefits for or naturalization of any alien 
who receives a payment pursuant to an agreement to settle certain civil 
                    actions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2021

 Mr. Weber of Texas (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Duncan, Mr. 
    LaMalfa, Mr. Babin, Mr. Sessions, Mr. McKinley, and Mr. Ellzey) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and 
 Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit Federal public benefits for or naturalization of any alien 
who receives a payment pursuant to an agreement to settle certain civil 
                    actions, 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 ``No More Free Ride Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR AND NATURALIZATION OF 
              CERTAIN ALIENS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any alien who entered 
the United States unlawfully and receives a payment pursuant to an 
agreement to settle a civil action brought by the alien for any harm 
sustained by the alien as a result of enforcement of the immigration 
laws, shall be ineligible for any Federal public benefit (as such term 
is defined in section 401(c) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611)) and 
naturalization as a citizen of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit (99)
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Owens Corning (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  quarterly  period  ended  September  30,  2002 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
H.  Thaman,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of 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)  Information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Michael H. Thaman
Chief Financial Officer

October 28, 2002




This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  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
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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, Hugh Aird, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Lithium Minerals, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of § 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  Date:    December 22, 2009   /s/ Hugh Aird Hugh Aird, Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7491

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SYLVESTER NORVILLE, a/k/a Dick,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (4:10-cr-00087-D-1; 4:12-cv-00076-D)

Submitted: March 28, 2014 Decided: April 3, 2014

Before KING, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sylvester Norville, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sylvester Norville seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is “debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000); accord Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Norville has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**P & FINDUSTRIES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Qof P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, Richard A. Horowitz, Principal ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Richard  A. Horowitz      |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Horowitz           |
| *Principal Executive Officer* |
| August 16, 2004          |

 

1

----
#### M. Heidi OTTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF WASHINGTON, Planning Board, Town Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, John Gifford, attorney for Van Dewater and Van Dewater, Andrew Lalli, John Evangelista, Supervisor, Theodore Briigs, Thomas Fiore, Building Inspector, Ruth Fiore, Zoning Administrator, the People of the State of New York, the State of New York, St. Paul Federal Savings Bank, Stein and Sheidlower LLP, Dutchess County Office of Probation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-9412.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Aug. 13, 2003.

M. Heidi Otto, Millbrook, NY, pro se.

Cynthia Dolan, Boeggeman, George, Hodges & Corde, P.C., White Plains, NY, for appellee Town of Washington.

David Posner, McCabe *&*Mack LLP, Poughkeepsie, NY, for appellee Dutchess County.

PRESENT: JACOBS, SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.*

*

 The Honorable Fred. I. Parker, who was a member of the panel, died following argument, and the appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel, who are in agreement. *See*2d Cir. R. § 0.14(b).

*SUMMARY ORDER*

M. Heidi Otto appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Charles L. Brieant, *Judge),**92dismissing her 88-page complaint seeking injuctive relief and $450 million in damages based on allegations that the Town of Washington, New York, the State of New York, and numerous other defendants wrongfully prevented her from building a bed and breakfast establishment on her Millbrook, New York property, wrongfully foreclosed on various properties, misused local ordinances to prosecute her, and otherwise violated her rights under the federal Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The district court dismissed Otto’s claims on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to exhaust, and failure to state a claim, then denied her motion for reconsideration as untimely. On appeal, Otto contends that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint and in denying her motion for reconsideration.

We affirm the dismissal of Otto’s complaint for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. *See M. Heidi Otto v. Town of Washington, et al.,*No. 02 CIVIL 6547 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2002). Otto’s motion for reconsideration, filed more than ten days after the judgment was docketed, was untimely. *See*S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 6.3.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. Any pending motions are hereby denied.
#### C. G. Crouch v. State.

No. 24422.

June 15, 1948.

Appellant’s Motion For Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) January 18, 1950.

*158
      *Nat Gentry,*Tyler, for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is for a violation of the Pure Food Laws; the punishment assessed, a fine of $150.

The case of Neill v. State, No. 24,423, this day decided, (Page______ of this volume) is, in all legal aspects, the same as that here presented.

The opinion in that case is here applicable, and reference is made thereto.

For the reasons there stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,044
<SECURITIES>                                    37,054
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,136
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,093
<PP&E>                                          95,669
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,655
<BONDS>                                         30,192
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,649
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,628
<SALES>                                         95,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,804
<CGS>                                           76,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,840
<INCOME-TAX>                                        43
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,797
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,797
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2   Certification of the Principal Accounting 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 China RuiTai International Holdings Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gang Ma, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Gang MaChief Financial Officer Date: November 18, 2008