alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Non Negotiable Certificate - DJC's Non-Sustain Operations



 Exhibit 10.5(b) 
  
 Non-Negotiable Certificate 
 Representing an Employee Participant Interest in the 
 Daily Journal Corporation (“DJC”) Plan for
Supplemental Compensation 
 to an Employee, as long as that Employee Remains Employed by DJC or one of its Subsidiaries, 
 based on Pre-tax Earnings of DJC’s Non-Sustain Operations (“DJC Non-Consolidated”) 
  
                          , 2003 
  
 This non-negotiable certificate represents the right of
                                        
(the “Employee”) to receive, in addition to all other compensation due or awarded: 
  

	 	(1)	 	in December 2003,             /1,805,053 of the pre-tax earnings of DJC Non-Consolidated for the year ended
September 30, 2003; plus 

  

	 	(2)	 	in December of each of the following nine years, the same fraction of the pre-tax earnings of DJC Non-Consolidated for the year ended the preceding September 30.


  
 If more shares of DJC are issued for consideration (e.g., in a
merger or public offering), the denominator of the Employee’s fractional interest will be increased by the number of shares issued, effective with the first payment due thereafter, to reflect the share increase. Both the numerator and the
denominator of the fraction will be appropriately adjusted to reflect any changes in shares outstanding which occur without additional consideration to DJC, as in stock splits and stock dividends. 
  
 No additional payments will be made to the Employee under this or any other certificate after
the employee either (1) shall have left the employ of DJC, prior to the Employee’s reaching age 65, for any reason whatsoever (including but not limited to being unreasonably fired by DJC prior to reaching age 65) or (2) directly or indirectly
enters the employ (either as a direct or indirect employee or direct or indirect independent contractor) of any competitor of DJC or any of its subsidiaries whether such employment occurs before or after the Employee reaches age 65. 
  
 Compensation to the Employee under this certificate, and other such certificates issued to
the employee and other employees, shall not be deducted in making pre-tax earnings computations for the purpose of the Plan. Pre-tax earnings computations, for purposes of the Plan, shall be reasonable approximations made by DJC to facilitate
convenient and economical accounting practices and will be final and binding on the Employee. 
  
 Payments to be made under this non-negotiable certificate are in addition to payments to be made under unexpired certificates, if any, issued to the Employee in prior years. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this certificate is executed as of
                         , 2003. 
  
 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 
  

		
	 By
	 	  


	 	 	Charles T. Munger, Chairman
583 A.2d 318

#### JONATHAN NICHADOWICZ v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

February 6, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Cronos Group (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Dennis
J. Tietz, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter J. Younger, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, based on their knowledge,
that:  (i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company. November 15, 2004 /s/ DENNIS J. TIETZ
Dennis J. Tietz, Chief Executive Officer /s/ PETER J. YOUNGER
Peter J. Younger, Chief Financial Officer 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.   *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, is not deemed to be #filed# with
the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the
Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or to the
liabilities of Section 18 of said Act. E10
#### Shawn Sha JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7406.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 4, 2001.

*113Shawn Sha Johnson, pro se.

Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Johnson v. Gerraghty,*No. 3:00CV302 (E.D.Va. Sept. 8, 2000). Furthermore, we deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
##### 



Exhibit 13.1

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 annual report of Envoy Communications Inc. (the
Company) filed under cover of a Form 20-F for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Geoffrey B. Genovese
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
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.

By:/s/ Geoffrey B. Genovese
Geoffrey B. Genovese
Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerDated: February 17, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58448-58449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23935]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS 
Joint Subcommittee; Revision to October 4, 2010, ACRS Meeting Federal 
Register Notice

    The Federal Register Notice for the ACRS Joint Subcommittee Meeting 
scheduled to be held on October 4, 2010, is being revised to notify the 
following:
    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2010, from 8:30 
a.m. until 5 p.m.

[[Page 58449]]

    The notice of this meeting was previously published in the Federal 
Register on Friday, September 10, 2010 [75 FR 55365]. All other items 
remain the same as previously published.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting Maitri Banerjee, Designated Federal Official (Telephone: 
301-415-6973, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c984a8a0bdbba0e78ba8a7acbba3acac89a7bbaae7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c113d35282e35721e3d32392e3639391c322e3f723b332a">[email protected]</span></a> between 7:30 a.m. and 
5:15 p.m. (ET)).

    Dated: September 17, 2010.
Antonio Dias,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2010-23935 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 12, 2015

No. 04-14-00288-CR

Ricardo Roger MORALES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-1384-CR-A

The Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro se Brief is hereby GRANTED. 

The brief is due June 22, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
News United States Air Force
 Roll Call: Giants among usPublished Nov. 13, 2014
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Carlin Leslie
                        
                        
                        Air Force Public Affairs Agency - Operating Location-P
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force’s senior enlisted Airman released the latest installment of Roll Call, urging Airmen to continue to honor veterans, past and present, beyond the holiday.
“We are all part of that lasting legacy paved by Airmen who conducted bombing, aeromedical, maintenance and other missions in the cities of Europe, the jungles of Vietnam and the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force James A. Cody. “The tradition of honor we celebrate was built by those who have served before us, and continues in our service today.”

More than 45 million men and women have served in uniform. They continue to build platforms from which the future generation of Airmen can move forward, writes Cody.

The Roll Call honors those service men and women and encourages today’s Airmen to consider their own contribution to the airpower legacy.

The message also includes a video that Cody says “clearly shows you are carrying on the legacy in a unique and special way.”

Readthe latest Roll Call message and view the video below.James A. Cody 



all call 



Senior Leaders 



heritage 



veterans 



CMSAF 



Roll Call Related Links
        Roll Call November 2014
            
            CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE JAMES A. CODY
                                Jan. 25, 2013
                                Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force James A. Cody represents the highest enlisted level of leadership, and as such, provides direction for the enlisted force and represents their interests, as appropriate, to the American public, and to those in all levels of government. He serves as the personal
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1124 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1124

     To extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2007

 Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia (for himself, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Davis of 
  Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 5-YEAR REAUTHORIZATION OF TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Public School Program.--Section 3(i) of the District of 
Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 38-2702(i), DC Official Code) 
is amended by striking ``each of the 7 succeeding fiscal years'' and 
inserting ``each of the 12 succeeding fiscal years''.
    (b) Private School Program.--Section 5(f) of such Act (sec. 38-
2704(f), DC Official Code) is amended by striking ``each of the 7 
succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``each of the 12 succeeding 
fiscal years''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Texas Benevolent Association v. Thomas H. Bell.

(No. 5230.)

Appeal from Collin County.

Perkins, Gilbert & Perkins, counsel for appellant.

E.- F. Brown, counsel for appellee.'

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 277. *Contract; discharge of employee by mistake; damages for breach of such contract; rules as to; case stated.*Appellee sued appellant for $515.25 for wrongfully and without cause discharging him from its service before the termination of the contract of his employment as its agent, alleging that his employment was for six months beginning January 1,1886, and at a salary of $125, payable monthly, and that he was discharged by appellant from said employment February 27, 1886. He recovered judgment for $290 and costs. It is conclusively shown by the evidence that appellee vvas discharged from the employment of appellant by mistake, and that as soon as said mistake was discovered, and before appellee had sustained any damage whatever thereby, appellant offered to, and insisted upon revoking said discharge, and proposed and urged that he should continue in its employment under the original contract. This he declined-*336to do. *Held:*Appellee is not entitled to recover damages even if he was in fact wrongfully discharged. The rule is, that where an employee is discharged without just cause, he is entitled to the benefit of his contract and to recover the amount stipulated in the contract, provided he was unable otherwise, by his services, to make that amount. Any amount which he made, or could have made by reasonáble diligence after his discharge, and before the expiration of the period for'which he had been engaged, would be deducted from' the amount stipulated to be paid him. [2 W. Con. Rep. § 805; 2 Wait’s Ac. & Def. 456; 2 Suth. on Dam. 473.] Where a discharged employee is offered the same or-like employment to that from which he has been discharged, for the same period and upon the same terms, and before he has sustained any injury by reason of the' discharge, no damages are recoverable by him by reason of his discharge’. [Wood’s Master & Servant, p. 244 and note 1; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 261a; Hecksher v. McCrea, 24 Wend. 304.] •

April 16, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Luke F-16 crashes in ArizonaPublished Jan. 21, 2016
                        
                        By 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) --**
                An F-16 Fighting Falcon assigned to the 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base crashed at approximately 8:45 a.m. today north of Luke AFB in the vicinity of Bagdad, Arizona.
Luke AFB officials are working closely with local authorities in a search and rescue operation.  Due to the remote location and rugged terrain, the status of the pilot is unknown.
The cause of the crash is unknown at this time. 
Brigadier General Scott Pleus, the 56th Fighter Wing commander, has established an interim safety board to begin the preliminary investigation.
Information will be released as it becomes available. For questions, please contact the 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs Office at 623-856-6011.Luke Air Force Base 



crash 



f-16 Related Links
        F-16 Fighting Falcon
                                Sept. 23, 2015
                                The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost, high-performance weapon system for the United States and allied nations.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JEFFREY JONES.

Dec. 10, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.1In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fentura Financial, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald L. Grill, Chief Executive Officer of Fentura Financial Inc.certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) the Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.       Dated: August 10, 2007   /s/Donald L. Grill           Donald L. Grill      Chief Executive Officer
422 A.2d 1165

#### Commonwealth v. Stewart, Appellant.

Submitted September 15, 1978.

Julius E. Fioravanti, for appellant; Edward G. Rendell, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, SPAETH and LIPEZ, JJ.

Order affirmed.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 50387 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Silvestre Garcia -**  **Gonzalez,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:16 - CR - 483 - 3

**____________ __________________**  Before **Wiener, Stewart,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Silvestre Garcia - Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 50704 - 051, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that his young age at the time of the offense, the sentencing errors in the computation of his sentence, and his counsel’s ineffectiveness constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstan ces

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 6, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50387 Document: 00517056995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024No. 23 - 50387

2 warranting relief. Garcia - Gonzalez also moves for the appointment of counsel and for discovery of sealed documents. The district court denied Garcia - Gonzalez’s motion on the basis that a balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did no t warrant compassionate relief. Garcia - Gonzalez’s failure to challenge these findings constitutes an abandonment of the issue on appeal. See United States v. Scroggins , 599 F.3d 433, 446 - 47 (5th Cir. 2010) ; Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224 - 25 (5th Cir . 1993) . To the extent Garcia - Gonzalez’s arguments are construed as a challenge to his conviction or original sentence, such a challenge is not appropriately raised on appeal from the denial of his § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. See United States v. Escajeda , 5 8 F.4th 184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023) . Lastly, to the extent that Garcia - Gonzalez seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he cites no new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court or newly discovered evidence that would establish by clear and convincing evidence his innocence. See § 2255(h). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED** . See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Jackson , 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022) . Garcia - Gonzalez’s motions are **DENIED** . Case: 23-50387 Document: 00517056995 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2024
EXHIBIT 12.1

<TABLE>

<CAPTION>
                        U.S. RESTAURANT PROPERTIES, INC.
   RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

                                                 Years ended December 31,
                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1993        1994         1995          1996        1997
                                 ------------  ----------  ------------   -----------  ------------

<S>                              <C>           <C>         <C>            <C>          <C>
Net income                        $ 4,528       $4,933      $  5,223       $   7,473    $ (9,393)

Fixed Charges:
    Interest Expense                  109           90           262           2,558      10,011
    Amortization of Debt Issue
      Costs                                                        1             162         385
    Rent Exp. Portion
      Representing Interest                                        1               5           5
                                 ------------  ----------  ------------   -----------  ------------
         Total Fixed Charges          109           90           264           2,725      10,401

Earnings                          $ 4,637       $5,023      $  5,487       $  10,198    $  1,008
                                 ============  ==========  ============   ===========  ============
Fixed Charges and preferred
 stock dividends:
    Fixed charges                 $   109       $   90      $    264       $   2,725    $ 10,401
    Preferred stock dividends          --           --            --              --         868
                                 ------------  ----------  ------------   -----------  ------------
Combined fixed charges and
 preferred stock dividends        $   109       $   90      $    264       $   2,725    $ 11,269
                                 ============  ==========  ============   ===========  ============

    Ratio of Earnings to 
     Fixed Charges                  42.54x       55.81x        20.78x          3.74x       .10x (1)
    Ratio of Earnings to
     Combined Fixed Charges and
     preferred stock dividends      42.54x       55.81x        20.78x          3.74x       .09x (1)

</TABLE>

(1) During 1997, the Company recorded a non-cash, unusual charge of $19,220
    related to the  termination of the management  contract.  Excluding the
    effects of this unusual charge,  the ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    and the ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock
    would have been 1.94x and 1.80, respectively for 1997.