alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41410

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALD TROY WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. V-00-CR-7-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Reginald

Troy Walker has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Walker

has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not

filed a response.

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6360] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Two Museums: One Culture,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Russian Icons, Clinton, MA, from on or about October 11, 2008, until on or about May 25, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: September 5, 2008. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-21315 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 28 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 28

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
      respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2001

  Mr. Jackson of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
      respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Every citizen has the right to work, to free choice of 
employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and to protection 
against unemployment.
    ``Section 2. Every citizen, without any discrimination, has the 
right to equal pay for equal work.
    ``Section 3. Every citizen who works has the right to just and 
favorable remuneration ensuring for themselves and their family an 
existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by 
other means of social protection.
    ``Section 4. Every citizen who works has the right to form and join 
trade unions for the protection of their interests.
    ``Section 5. The Congress shall have power to implement this 
article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




[Letterhead]




March 10, 2005



Mr. Joe K. Pickett, Chair


Compensation Committee of the




Board of Directors



Fannie Mae


3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.


Washington, D.C. 20016



Dear Joe:



I understand that the Compensation Committee of the Fannie Mae Board of Directors and the Board of
Directors is proposing to grant me a 2005 variable long-term award under the 2003 Stock
Compensation Plan consisting of Restricted Stock (as defined) vesting over a multi-year period.



Under my Employment Agreement with Fannie Mae, if my employment terminates by reason of a
“Qualifying Termination” (as defined) other than death, any Restricted Stock that I hold will
continue to vest on the same basis as if I remained employed through June 30, 2007. A “Qualifying
Termination” includes a termination by me for “Good Reason” (as defined in my Employment
Agreement).



By this letter, I voluntarily waive a portion of my rights to continued vesting of the 2005 award
of Restricted Stock in the event I were to terminate my employment for “Good Reason.” In those
circumstances, I do not waive my right to continued vesting of the portion of the 2005 award that
would vest were I to remain employed for twelve months following the date of termination or until
June 30, 2007, if earlier. Therefore, this waiver will have no potential effect on the portion of
the 2005 award that vests in 2006. However, I agree that the portion of the 2005 award that would
vest (were I to remain employed) more than twelve months after the date of termination and on or
before June 30, 2007 will be subject to a different rule. The Restricted Stock shares described in
the immediately preceding sentence will vest in accordance with my Employment Agreement unless the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (“OFHEO”) has notified the Company and me within
four (4) months of my termination that there has been a final determination that continued vesting
would be improper because I had been guilty of misconduct or dereliction in the performance of my
duties as Chief Operating Officer.



Please indicate the Company’s acknowledgment of, agreement to and acceptance of the foregoing by
signing the enclosed copy of this letter in the space indicated below and returning a fully
executed copy of the letter to my attention.



Joe, I appreciate the Board’s consideration, affirm my desire to do whatever it takes to do the
right thing for Fannie Mae, and hope this voluntary act demonstrates this commitment. As always,
thank you.



Sincerely yours,



/s/ Daniel H. Mudd



AKNOWLEDGED, AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:



FANNIE MAE



/s/ Joe K. Pickett     


Joe K. Pickett


Chair


Compensation Committee of the



Board of Directors
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Darren Starr, pro se,

Plaintiff

v. Case No. 05-cv-264-SM

Cpl. Denis Dube, and

Lt. John Loven,

Defendants

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: (Document No. 97) Plaintiff’s Second Motion for

Transcript at Government’s Expense

Ruling: Denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiff has

renewed his motion for a free transcript of his civil trial (See

Order, April 17, 2008, document no. 94), and now seeks to

demonstrate that his appeal is not frivolous and presents a

substantial question. 28 U.S.C. Section 753(f). Plaintiff says

he expects to raise the following issues on appeal: 1) Whether

summary judgment was improperly granted with respect to Count I

of the complaint; Whether he was improperly denied trial

subpoenas; and Whether the jury instructions were erroneous,

particularly with respect to causation. A transcript would not

seem necessary with regard to the summary judgment or jury

instruction issues. The summary judgment determination will be

decided on the papers and the jury instructions are part of the

record in written form (marked as an appellate exhibit). It is

possible that a transcript of the motions hearing at which the

requested subpoena was denied might prove helpful (although

plaintiff's proffer in his motion at the time and in the current

motion seems complete and adequate), therefore the court will

approve plaintiff's motion to the extent he seeks a free

transcript of the motions hearing on his request for subpoenas. 

Otherwise the motion is denied. So Ordered.

Entered by: Steven J. McAuliffe, Chief Judge

Dated: June 26, 2008

cc: Darren Starr, pro se, #16496

Glenn A.Perlow, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00264-SM Document 99 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Amendment to Approved Tribal-State Compact

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the Approval of the Sixth Amendment to 
and Extension of the Agreement between the Crow Tribe of Montana and 
the State of Montana concerning Class III Gaming.

DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of the approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in 
Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. This Amendment allows the 
Crow Tribe to offer simulcast horseracing and pari-mutuel betting, as 
well as sets forth minimum standards for the operation and licensing of 
the activity in accordance 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(3)(C)(vi).

    Dated: August 26, 2008.
George T. Skibine,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development.
[FR Doc. E8-20923 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEADROY WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1725

[September 27, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Thomas Michael 

Lynch, V, Judge; L.T. Case No. 00-003844-CF-10B.

Steadroy Williams, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 28, 2009 

d0721 

Order 

 

July 28, 2009 

137967 

KELLY SUE SYMONS, Personal Representative 

of the Estate of DANIEL A. SYMONS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137967 

 COA: 269663 

Calhoun CC: 04-000769-NH 

DR. ROBERT J. PRODINGER, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

DALE RUSSELL, P.A., and BATTLE CREEK 

EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIANS, P.C., 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

BATTLE CREEK HEALTH SYSTEMS, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 13, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT
10.3


 


Pixelworks, Inc.


 


2005
Board Compensation Arrangements


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Quarterly Fee

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Board
  Retainer Fee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
  Additional Fee
  paid to Lead Director or Non-Management Chairman

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,500

  	
   

  
	
  Additional Fee
  paid to Chair of Audit Committee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,500

  	
   

  
	
  Additional Fees
  paid to Chairs of Compensation; Governance and Nominating Committees

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Additional Fees
  paid to members of Audit Committee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Additional Fees
  paid to members of Compensation; Governance and Nominating Committees

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  500

  	
   

  



 


Directors will also receive annual compensation in the form of equity
issued under the Company’s shareholder-approved 1997 Stock Incentive Plan. A
Director will earn an option to purchase 40,000 shares of the Company’s Common
Stock upon initial election to the Board of Directors and an option to purchase
10,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock annually thereafter.  No additional options will be earned for
service on any committee of the Board of Directors.


 


1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-142-01-SM

Donald McMullin

O R D E R

Defendant McMullin’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 8). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2006 

trial period. Defendant McMullin shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than October 21, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: February 22, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: March 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 9 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 18, 2005

cc: Jonathan R. Saxe, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00142-SM Document 9 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING REFORM AND INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the periodic report of California Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas A. Sa, Chief Financial 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:

 

(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.

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

|                       |                                                             |              |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|
| Dated: April 29, 2020 | /s/                                                         | Thomas A. Sa |
|                  | Thomas A. Sa                                                |
|                  | Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

|                       |        |        |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|
| SMRH:4826-1289-3882.1 | -1-    |   |
|                  |   |   |
Exhibit 31.a  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Edward Munden, certify that: (1)I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of DataJungle Software 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 the 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 respects the financial condition, results of operation and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods represented in this report;  (4)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  (5)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.  /s/Edward Munden Edward Munden Chairman of the Board Date: August 13, 2007
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 07

- 00281

- CV

FLYING DIAMOND

- WEST MADISONVILLE

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SOL LEVINE, AND

MARDAN ENERGY CORPOR ATION

, Appellant s

v.

GW PETROLEUM, INC., GREAT WESTERN

ONSHORE, INC., FORCE NERGY ONSHORE, INC.,

CASCADE ENERGY CORPORATION, FAULCONER

1996 LLC, GULFWEST O IL COMPANY, AND

GULFWEST OIL & GAS C OMPANY

, Appellee s

From the 278th District Court

Madison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6354

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Flying Diamond

- West Madisonville Limi ted Partnership, Sol Levine,

and Mard a n Energy Corporation filed a notice of appeal on September 13, 2007. This

Court issued its opinion and judgment affirming in part and reversing in part onFlying Diamond

- West Madisonville Ltd. Partnership v. GW Petroleum, Inc. Page 2

August 26, 2009. A motion for rehearing was filed on Septembe r 11, 2009. This Court

referred this cause to mediation on October 7, 2009.

Appellants and Appellees now jointly seek a dismissal of this appeal because the

parties have settled their dispute in mediation and they no longer wish to pursue the

appeal. The parties have agreed that the costs of appeal should be borne by the party

incurring them.

Therefore, we withdraw the prior judgment entered in this cause dated August

26, 2009. The opinion of the Court issued on August 26, 2009 is not withdrawn. T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(c).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the court costs are assessed against the

party incurring them. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1. The motion for rehearing is denied as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice G ray, Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 14, 2010

[CV06]
No. 72-6246.

#### High *v.*Washington.

Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.