alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                            423,977
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     875,308
<ALLOWANCES>                       12,000
<INVENTORY>                     3,797,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,628,310
<PP&E>                            409,406
<DEPRECIATION>                    200,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  7,733,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              64,398
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                           834
<COMMON>                              135
<OTHER-SE>                      7,667,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    7,733,238
<SALES>                         7,655,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                7,655,802
<CGS>                           4,521,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   4,521,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                120,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (508,259)
<INCOME-TAX>                     (162,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (346,259)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (346,259)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.26)
        


</TABLE>
U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

Office of Appeals Counsel 

1615 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20419-0002 

Phone: (202) 254-(b)(6) Ext. 4463; Fax: (202) 653-(b)(6); E-Mail: (b)(6) @mspb.gov 

Director 

March 10, 2022 

TO: Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair and Acting Chairman 

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 

FROM: Susan Swafford, Director, Office of Appeals Counsel (OAC) 

� 3/10/22-

THROUGH: Wilham Spencer, Acting Executive Director 

SUBJECT: Recommended Approach for the Petition for Review Backlog 

As of February 28, 2022, there were 3,643 petitions for review pending at 

Headquarters, and for 3,352 of those, career staff -- primarily in OAC -- have already 

drafted recommended decisions. It is up to the new Board to decide how to address 

the backlog, and there are many possibilities in that regard. The following is a 

proposed initial approach, subject to review and adjustment by the Board over time. 

During Vice Chair and Acting Chairman Mark Robbins's tenure, when the 

backlog was beginning to grow, the legal offices determined it would be advisable to 

create a recommended plan to present to the new Board on how to best approach the 

backlog. Accordingly, over the last several years, MSPB's legal offices, including 

that of Acting Chairman Robbins when he was still here, collaborated to determine 

which cases were priorities from all of our perspectives, such as critical precedential 

decisions, a number of which involve allegations of whistleblower reprisal. 

Additionally, recognizing that new Board members would need to acclimate to the 

process of voting, we noted case categories that are typically easier to vote, like 

settlements and withdrawals. 

As ofMarch 10, 2022 
Page 2 of 3 

Statutes, regulations, and court precedent have changed since some of the 

recommended decisions were drafted early in the lack of quorum period. OAC has 

been working to review and update those decisions to ensure they include the most up 

to date legal authority and are ready for voting by the Board members. 

Further, OAC, the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of the Clerk of the 

Board have prepared the structure and processes needed to supply the Board members 

with a steady stream of cases to vote. Once you have approved the recommended 

approach to the backlog contained herein, the Board members will soon receive your 

initial case dockets. 

As ofMarch 10, 2022 
Page 3 of 3 

Decision 

~--_/~ 

~ 

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair and Acting Chairman 

Disapprove 

Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair and Acting Chairman 

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 

Disapprove 

Tristan L. Leavitt, Member 

As of March 10, 2022
plth_ex109






Exhibit 10.9


 










 



Form of Share Unit Award Agreement

 


Notice
is hereby given that, effective this ____ day of
_____________________, Planet 13 Holdings Inc. (the
“Company”) has
awarded to ______________________ (the “Participant”), a share unit (the
“Share Unit”) to
acquire ______________ common shares of the Company (the
“Common
Shares”). Each vested Share Unit will entitle the
Participant to receive one Common Share no later than ____ (the
“Settlement
Date”).

 


The
Share Units shall vest and become exercisable in accordance with,
and upon satisfaction of the conditions set out in, the following
schedule:

 


[____]

 


The
award of the Share Unit evidenced hereby is made subject to the
terms and conditions of the Company’s share unit plan (the
“Share Unit
Plan”), the terms and conditions of which are hereby
incorporated herein and acknowledged and agreed to by the
undersigned Participant.

 


Any
Common Shares to be issued to the Participant on exercise of a
vested Share Unit shall be issued to the Participant or the
Participant’s estate on or immediately following receipt of a
notice of redemption (“Notice
of Redemption”) by the Company in the form attached as
Schedule “B” to the Share Unit Plan prior to the
Settlement Date provided, however, that in the event a Participant
does not provide the Company with a Notice of Redemption in respect
of a vested Share Unit, the Company shall issue all Common Shares
underlying a vested Share Unit to the Participant on the earlier
of: (a) the Settlement Date; (b) the date of termination of the
Participant; and (c) the death or total disability of the
Participant in accordance with the terms of the Share Unit
Plan.

 


To
exercise any vested Share Units, you must deliver to the Company a
Notice of Redemption specifying the number of Common Shares you
wish to acquire. At the discretion of the Company a declaration of
residence may also be requested prior to the issuance of any Common
Shares. Upon receipt by the Company of requisite documents, and
upon you remitting to the Company any applicable income tax or
making appropriate arrangements for payment of any applicable tax,
the Company’s transfer agent will then issue a certificate
for the Common Shares so acquired as soon as practicable
thereafter.

 


	
PLANET 13 HOLDINGS INC.	
 

	
PARTICIPANT
	
 

	
 

	
 


	Authorized Signatory	
 

	Name:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20327 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. FERNANDO LOPEZ-TRUJILLO

Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-785-1

-------------------- February 5, 2003 Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Fernando Lopez-Trujillo appeals his conviction for reentering the United States without permission after deportation following an aggravated felony. Lopez argues that the district court should have suppressed his prior administrative deportation because, at the time of his deportation, the Board of Immigration Affairs had held that a single conviction for possession of a controlled substance, which is a federal misdemeanor, was not anNo. 02-20327 -2- aggravated felony. He recognizes that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Hernandez-Avalos , 251 F.3d 505, 509-10 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 305 (2001), but states that he raises it to preserve it for further review.

In Hernandez-Avalos , this court reaffirmed its holding in United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997), that the term “drug trafficking crime” includes a crime that is a felony “under either state or federal law.” 251 F.3d at 508. Consequently, the district court did not err in admitting into evidence his prior administrative deportation. Lopez also argues that the Sentencing Commission has chosen a narrower definition of “drug trafficking” than this court’s former interpretation of “drug trafficking” in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), and, therefore, his prior conviction for simple possession of drugs is not a “drug trafficking offense” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) or an “aggravated felony” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). He recognizes that we have held in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero , No. 02-20751, 2002 WL 31521599 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2002), that a previous state conviction for simple possession of narcotics is an “aggravated felony” under the November 2001 Guidelines. However, he states that he wishes to preserve this issue for further review. Lopez is correct that his argument was recently rejected by this court in Caicedo-Cuero . 2002 WL 31521599, *8, *11.No. 02-20327 -3- Accordingly, the district court did not err in overruling Lopez’s objection to the eight-level enhancement imposed for his prior felony conviction for possession of cocaine. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### TRIANT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. GEORGE VILLARAUT.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.2




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 Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 result of operations of the Company.






/s/ Robert H. BarghausRobert H. BarghausVice President and Chief Financial OfficerSeptember 2, 2010






This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONARD HOFFMAN, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. FRANK LUNA, Warden, R.R.C.C., Respondent - Appellee. No. 09-35083 D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00272-JWS
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 12, 2010 ** Seattle, Washington Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Leonard J. Hoffman (“Hoffman”) appeal s the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Hoffm an was convicted in Alaska state court of various criminal offenses including a ssault, sexual assault, arson, witness 

# FILED
JAN 25 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 tampering, and interference with an offici al proceeding. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals of Alaska held that th e trial judge erred by not telling the lawyers about the jury note, but concluded that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. After the Court of Appeals of Alaska denied Hoffman’s state petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Hoffman filed a federal petition. The district court denied Hoffman’s petition because the Court of Appeals of Alaska’s decision on direct appeal was not contrary to, or an unreas onable application of, clearly established federal law. It was reasonable for the Alaska state court to conclude that the ex parte communications between the trial judge a nd the jury had no “adverse influence on the jury’s decision to listen to the tes timony of the requested witnesses” and that “there was no reasonable possibility that” telling the jury the length of the requested testimony “discouraged or dete rred the jury from pursuing its request.” Hoffman v. State , 950 P.2d 141, 146 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). Therefore, applying the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Pena lty Act, we must defer to the state court’s determination. See Mitchell v. Esparza , 540 U.S. 12, 17–18 (2003). The district court properly deni ed federal habeas relief. AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2029

WARREN B. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Washington, DC; THOMAS P. MARZILLE, Special Agent, Naval Criminal Investigation Service, Camp Lejeune, NC; JAMES DURVIN, Special Agent, Naval Criminal Investigation Service, Camp Lejeune, NC; B. T. BABIN, Colonel, United States Marine Corps, NC; N. T. HARTENSTEIN, Colonel, United States Marine Corps, NC; WILLIAM MICHAEL BROWN, Captain, United States Marine Corps, NC; JAMES WOODWORTH, Captain, United States Marine Corps, NC; JAMES T. MCCOLGAN, III, Captain, United States Marine Corps, NC; LAUGHINGHOUSE, Colonel, Staff Judge Advocate, United States Marine Corps, NC; J. A. BUKAUSKAS, Major, United States Marine Corps, NC; P. G. HOWARD, General, Covening Authority, Marine Corps Base, North Carolina; DALE E. ANDERSON, Major, Appellate Division, United States Marine Corps, Washington, DC; MARK STEVENS, Colonel, Retired United States Marine Corps, NC; CONNIE CROCKER, Department of Social Service, Jacksonville, NC; GEOLF ENGELSTETTER, Dr., Clinical Psychologist, Jacksonville, NC; JAMES L. JONES, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-224-7-F-1)23 Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 19, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warren B. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Warren B. Anderson appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss his civil action stemming from a previous military court conviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. United States Sec’y of the Navy , No. CA-01-224-7-F-1 (E.D.N.C. June 28, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      3,380,947
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 751,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                  510,257
<INVENTORY>                                 1,008,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            4,657,666
<PP&E>                                      3,270,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                729,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              7,325,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,554,544
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                    10,000
<COMMON>                                      284,762
<OTHER-SE>                                  4,673,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                7,325,072
<SALES>                                       764,212
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              764,212
<CGS>                                       1,466,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,466,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,392,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            118,950
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,213,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,213,610)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,213,610)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)



</TABLE>
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Jaisun Garcha, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Snipp Interactive 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 operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The Companys other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals;



c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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



d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   April 30, 2015





/s/  Jaisun Garcha

Jaisun Garcha,

Chief Financial Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 990 

To prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting Department of Defense civilian 

positions in facilities that perform depot maintenance or are designated 

as a center for industrial and technical excellence, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2017 

Mr. COLE (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. BUSTOS, Mr. LOEBSACK, 

Mr. KILMER, and Mr. JONES) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit any hiring freeze from affecting Department 

of Defense civilian positions in facilities that perform 

depot maintenance or are designated as a center for 

industrial and technical excellence, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON HIRING FREEZE FROM AF4 FECTING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVIL5 IAN POSITIONS AT CERTAIN FACILITIES. 

6 The memorandum titled ‘‘Presidential Memorandum 

7 Regarding the Hiring Freeze’’ published on January 23, 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 990 IH

1 2017, or any other substantially similar memorandum, 

2 Executive order, or other action by the President to pre3 vent a department or agency of the Federal Government 

4 from filling vacant Federal civilian employee positions or 

5 creating new such positions, shall have no force or effect 

6 with respect to any Department of Defense civilian posi7 tion at, or in support of— 

8 (1) any facility at which depot-level mainte9 nance and repair (as that term is defined in section 

10 2460 of title 10, United States Code) is carried out; 

11 or 

12 (2) any facility designated under section 2474 

13 of such title as a center for industrial and technical 

14 excellence. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS