alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.419

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 178743 dated November 18, 2019

 

For Rendering

 

mobile radio telephone communication services in the allocated telecommunications network

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until November 18, 2024.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated November 18, 2019 No. 673-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 


	
Deputy Head
    	
 
    	
/signature/ A.А.   Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here

Official   seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE

OF   COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

AND MASS MEDIA

PSRN 1087746736296
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEO A. STEFFIER, JR.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
# Brig. Gen. Funkhouser appointed to Mississippi River Commission

**VICKSBURG, MISS.**, June 26, 2013 – Brigadier General Anthony C. Funkhouser was officially appointed as a member of the Mississippi River Commission by President Barack Obama June 25, 2013. 

Brig. Gen. Funkhouser is commander of the Northwestern Division (NWD), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, headquartered in Portland, Ore. In this position, he oversees an annual program of more than $3 billion in civil works, environmental restoration and military construction in more than a dozen states, primarily within the Columbia and Missouri river basins. 

As Division Commander, he is responsible for providing guidance and direction to five operating district commands located in Portland, Ore., Seattle and Walla Walla, Wash., Kansas City, Mo., and Omaha, Neb., with a combined professional workforce of nearly 4,800. Key missions include support to military installations economic growth and environmental sustainability, timely response to natural disasters, and strengthening national security. 

The Corps of Engineers members of the Mississippi River Commission provide representation and leadership from the nation’s three largest watersheds:
          -  Mississippi River
          -  Missouri River
          -  Ohio River

All MRC members are nominated and appointed by the President of the United States.  

The commission was created by an Act of Congress on June 28, 1879 to plan and provide for the general improvement of the entire length of the Mississippi River.  This includes improving navigation, preventing destructive floods and facilitating commerce.  The presidential appointees consist of three officers from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a representative from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and three civilians, two of whom must be civil engineers. 

The commission itself is an advisory body.  Its general duties include recommending policy and work programs, studying and reporting on modifications or changes to the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, commenting on matters authorized by law, making inspection trips, and holding public hearings that facilitate exchanges of viewpoints and ideas between the public and the MRC.  Since 1879 the commission has been “listening, inspecting, partnering and engineering” with water resource interests in a watershed that is influenced by the drainage of over 41 percent of the United States and two provinces of Canada.

**Contact**

Release no. 13-013

Mississippi River Commission
******EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005,which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the UnitedStates Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c). 

 

Dated: November 14, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6735

CARLOS MAURICE FRINK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SUPERINTENDENT WEISNER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-hc-00305-BO) Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Maurice Frink, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Carlos Maurice Frink seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and his motion for reconsideration of that denial filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Frink 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID GARY GORDANO.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 01, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 01, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0230. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al. v. HALE HAVEN PROPERTIES, LLC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CV272061
# Sitemap

## January 11, 2023

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2023
- 01
- January 11, 2023

            - Astronomers Dig Out Buried Black Holes with NASA’s Chandra
            - NASA Awards Contracts for Human Capital Support Services
            - Japan’s Prime Minister, US Secretary of State to Visit NASA
            - The Prichal docking module is attached to the Nauka science module
            - Astronauts Koichi Wakata and Nicole Mann in the Destiny laboratory module
            - Argentino Lake in the Patagonia region of southern Argentina
            - Astronaut Koichi Wakata works on a small satellite orbital deployer
            - Why is Sea Level Rising? We Asked a NASA Scientist: Episode 33
            - NASA’s Webb Uncovers Star Formation in Cluster’s Dusty Ribbons
            - New Webb Image Reveals Dusty Disk Like Never Seen Before
<PAGE>

                                                                  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 Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin
Schott, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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:  May 10, 2007                              By:   /s/ KEVIN SCHOTT
       ------------                                 --------------------------
                                                           Kevin Schott
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 28, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30689

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GARION MCCOY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CR-207-6-N

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

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Garion McCoy appeals the district court’s denial of his motion

for new trial, filed approximately 19 months after entry of the

judgment of conviction and sentence. He based the motion on the

affidavit of Jammy Adams, which discredited the testimony of David

Mitchell Leboeuf, the Government’s witness against him at trial.

LeBoeuf’s statements contained in Adams’ affidavit constitute

impeachment evidence, thus making the statements an unsound basis
No. 02-30689

-2-

for a motion for new trial. See United States v. Freeman, 77 F.3d

812, 817 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Pena, 949 F.2d 751, 758

(5th Cir. 1991). Affidavits do not constitute “newly discovered

evidence” under FED. R. CRIM. P. 33. United States v. Lopez, 979

F.2d 1024, 1036 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, as noted by the

district court, LeBoeuf’s letters to the Government seeking

transfer to another prison to be separated from McCoy support the

inference that he did not lie at trial about McCoy’s involvement in

the offenses at issue. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying McCoy’s motion for a new trial. See Freeman,

77 F.3d at 817. 

AFFIRMED.
# Sitemap

## June 28, 2021

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2021
- 06
- June 28, 2021

            - Illustration of a Quasar
            - The second ISS Roll-Out Solar Array (iROSA)
            - Spacewalkers Shane Kimbrough and Thomas Pesquet during solar array installation
            - Spacewalker Thomas Pesquet during solar array installation work
            - NASA spacewalker Shane Kimbrough in the U.S. Quest airlock
            - NASA spacewalker Shane Kimbrough takes a “space-selfie”
            - “Space-selfie” from spacewalker Thomas Pesquet
            - NASA spacewalker Shane Kimbrough carries the second roll out solar array
            - NASA spacewalker Shane Kimbrough during solar array installation work
            - NASA spacewalker Shane Kimbrough during solar array installation work
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
JON ANTHONY SCHWEDER , Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 20

- 0228 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. S0900CR20090633 The Honorable Robert J. Higgins , Judge

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES
Navajo County Attorney’s Office , Holbrook By Michael R. Shumway Counsel for Respondent
Jon Anthony Schweder , Florence Petitioner FILED 6-4-2020STATE v

. SCHWEDER Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B R O W N , Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Jon Anthony Schweder seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed purs uant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s third successive petition.
¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court ’ s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutie rrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner ’ s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).
¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, the petition for review , and State’s response . We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we gra nt review and deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                       1,583,087
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,905,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     27,346
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,698,780
<PP&E>                                       4,910,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,953,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          923,071
<BONDS>                                      1,226,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,607
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,372,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,953,424
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,606,654
<CGS>                                          312,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,353,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                876,304
<INCOME-TAX>                                   270,568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            605,736
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   466,057
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.014
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.014
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Stewart F.B. Baker, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Inspired Entertainment, Inc.; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: January 28, 2019



| |  | /s/ Stewart F.B. Baker                                                               
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Stewart F.B. Baker                                                                   
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
        
        (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 10.3


 


 


Amendment No. 1
to


Amended and Restated

Employment Agreement


 


This Amendment No. 1 (the
 "Amendment"), to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated April 3, 2019, by and among Sterling Bancorp,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), Sterling National Bank, a national banking association organized and existing
under the laws of the United States of America (the "Bank" and, together with the Company, "Sterling"),
and Rodney Whitwell ("Executive") (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of December 15,
2021, to be effective on January 1, 2022 (the "Effective Date").


 


WHEREAS, the Company,
the Bank and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Executive's employment with the Company and the Bank on
the Effective Date for a period of one year.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and obligations hereinafter set forth, the Company, the Bank and Executive hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.       
Section 2(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


 


2.       Employment
Period.


 


(a)       Duration.
Executive's period of employment with Sterling under this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall continue until December
31, 2022 (or, if a Change in Control (as defined below) occurs prior to such anniversary, the second anniversary of the date of the Change
in Control, if later), unless terminated prior thereto by either Sterling or Executive in accordance with Section 6 hereof (such
period of employment being the "Employment Period").


 


2.       Except
as expressly stated herein, this Amendment does not amend or otherwise modify any of the terms or conditions of the Agreement, which shall
remain in full force and effect pursuant to its terms. Any terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.
To the extent applicable, each Party hereby represents and warrants that its respective signatory has been and is on the date of this
Amendment duly authorized by all necessary corporate action to execute this Amendment.


 


3.       This
Amendment may be executed in a number of identical counterparts, which, taken together, shall constitute collectively one and the same
agreement.


 





[Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company and the Bank have caused this Agreement to be executed and Executive has hereunto set his hand, all as of the Effective Date
specified above.


 

















	 	STERLING BANCORP
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Jack L. Kopnisky
	 		Name: Jack L. Kopnisky
	 		Title: President and Chief Executive Officer



 


	 	STERLING NATIONAL BANK
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Jack L. Kopnisky
	 		Name: Jack L. Kopnisky
	 		Title:  Chief Executive Officer



 


	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 
	 	/s/ Rodney Whitwell
	 	Rodney Whitwell
585 A.2d 355

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HECTOR VILLANUEVA.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
# Sitemap

## July 13, 2005

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2005
- 07
- July 13, 2005

            - Enceladus Flyby – July 14, 2005
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES WALL.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
* 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. 97-20960

Summary Calendar

 

LINDA DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GREGORY HUNTSMAN and THE CITY OF HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-2082

- - - - - - - - - -

November 4, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Linda Davis appeals the dismissal of her civil rights action

against the City of Houston Police Department under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b). Although judgment was entered on October 6, 1997,

Davis did not file her notice of appeal until November 6, 1997. 

Davis’s notice of appeal from the district court’s final judgment

dismissing her complaint is untimely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)

(notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date of

entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken). 

As a result, this appeal is DISMISSED.
#### FRANK D’AMICO, PROSECUTOR, v. MIDDLESEX DRESS CORPORATION AND NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

Submitted January 18, 1944

Decided September 5, 1944.

Before Justices Parker, Hehbr and Perskie.

For the prosecutor, *David Roslcein.*

For the respondents, *Kellogg & Chance.*

Per Curiam.

This is a workmen’s compensation case. The only question to he determined is one of fact, whether the death of the deceased was due in any way to an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. The Bureau so decided, but the Court of Common Pleas, on appeal, held to' the contrary. Our examination and consideration of the briefs submitted lead to the same result. The deceased was a married woman of middle age suffering from a disease called by the physicians sub-acute- bacterial endocarditis. She was employed by the respondents’ establishment and during the noon hour, when not at work and while descending a flight of stairs, suddenly fell. The evidence, however, failed to indicate that the accident had any causal relation to the death but, on the contrary, the indications pointed rather plainly to the heart affection and that alone as a cause of death. The Court of Common Pleas held, and properly, that the burden of proving the accident was at least a causative factor in relation to the death was upon the petitioner and that that burden had not been sustained. We concur in that conclusion ; and it necessarily follows that the Court of Common Pleas properly reversed the award.

The judgment brought up by the present writ is thereforé affirmed.