alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, James C. Flores, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Plains Exploration & Production Company; 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.



/s/ James C. FloresName: James C. Flores Title: Chief Executive
Officer


Date: September 22, 2011
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

BINGLONG YU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72801

Agency No. A098-460-170

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 12, 2013** 

Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Binglong Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

FILED

MAR 19 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72801

the agency’s factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.

2003), and we deny the petition for review. 

Yu fears returning to China because he mailed a book about Falun Gong

from the United States to his wife in China in 2004, and Chinese officials

confiscated the book and issued a summons for him. Even if credible, substantial

evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Yu failed to demonstrate an objectively

reasonable fear of future persecution. See id. at 1018 (possibility of future

persecution is too speculative). Consequently, his asylum claim fails.

 Because Yu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to

meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
64948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

154th Meeting of the Advisory Council 

on Employee Welfare and Pension 

Benefit Plans; Notice of Meeting 

Pursuant to the authority contained in 

Section 512 of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 

U.S.C. 1142, the 154th open meeting of 

the Advisory Council on Employee 

Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans will 

be held on November 3–4, 2010. 

The meeting will take place in C5515 

Room 1A, U.S. Department of Labor, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210 on November 3, 

from 1 p.m. to approximately 5 p.m. On 

November 4, the meeting will start at 

9 a.m. and conclude at approximately 

3:30 p.m., with a break for lunch. The 

purpose of the open meeting is for the 

Advisory Council members to finalize 

their recommendations to be presented 

by the Advisory Council to the 

Secretary. At the November 4 afternoon 

session, the Council members will 

receive an update from the Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for the Employee 

Benefits Security Administration 

(EBSA) and present their 

recommendations. 

The Council recommendations will be 

on the following issues: (1) Healthcare 

Literacy, (2) Disparities for Women and 

Minorities in Retirement, and (3) 

Employee Benefit Plan Auditing and 

Financial Reporting Models. 

Descriptions of these topics are 

available on the Advisory Council page 

of the EBSA Web site at http:// 

www.dol.gov/ebsa/aboutebsa/erisa_

advisory_council.html. 

Organizations or members of the 

public wishing to submit a written 

statement may do so by submitting 30 

copies on or before October 26, 2010 to 

Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA 

Advisory Council, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Suite N–5623, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

Statements also may be submitted as 

e-mail attachments in text or pdf format 

transmitted to good.larry@dol.gov. It is 

requested that statements not be 

included in the body of the e-mail. 

Relevant statements received on or 

before October 26, 2010 will be 

included in the record of the meeting. 

Individuals or representatives of 

organizations wishing to address the 

Advisory Council should forward their 

requests to the Executive Secretary or 

telephone (202) 693–8668. Oral 

presentations will be limited to ten 

minutes, time permitting, but an 

extended statement may be submitted 

for the record. Individuals with 

disabilities who need special 

accommodations should contact Larry 

Good by October 26 at the address 

indicated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

October, 2010. 

Michael L. Davis, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26441 Filed 10–18–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2
#### Serge Mamert JOLICOEUR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT; Doris Meissner; Warren A Lewis; Christine A Davis; Immigration and Naturalization Service; United States Department of Justice, Respondent-Appellees.

No. 02-31178.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 16, 2003.

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Serge Mamert Jolicoeur, federal prisoner # [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], a native and citizen of Haiti, has attempted to appeal (1) the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and (2) the denial of his motion for a stay of deportation. Because Jolicoeur has been deported, we can no longer grant him the relief he requests. Therefore, we must dismiss his claims as moot. *See Quezada v. I.N.S.,*898 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir.1990).

Jolicoeur’s appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT, and his motion for stay of deportation pending appeal is DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 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.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0452n.06
No. 18

- 5543

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CHARLESTON LABORATORIES, INC. , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOHN F. A MELING , Defendant , SIDIS CORP.; PRIME DP, LLC , Defendants

- Appellants

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

BEFORE: COLE , Chief Judge ; B ATCHELDER and D ONALD, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER , Circuit Judge

. Defendant SIDIS Corp. appeal s the orders of the district court granting Plaintiff Charleston Labs’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying SIDIS Corp.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

. Defendant Ameling does not appeal
the dismissal of his crossclaim. Charleston Labs’s claim arises from a contractual dispute regarding a Stockholder’s Agreement among the founders of the company , including Ameling

. Charleston Labs allege s that a separate contract, the Settlement Agreement , between Ameling a nd SIDIS Corp. , violated the Stockholder’s Agreement between Ameling and Charleston Labs

. Under the Settlement Agreement , Ameling pledged a portion of the proceeds of any future
sale of his s hares of Charleston Labs’s stock to SIDIS Corp. as consideratio n for settle ment of a n unrelated dispute . The Settlement Agreement did not transfer ownership or control of any of Ameling’s shares ; it merely pledged a portion of proceeds of any future sale of the shares

. TheNo. 18

- 5543 , Charleston Labs, Inc., v. Ameling

- 2

- pre - existing Stockholder’s Agreement between Charleston Labs and Ameling, however, prohibited the sale, pledge, encumbrance, or transfer of any interest in shares of the company’s
stock without Charleston Labs’s consent

. Applying Delaware law , through the choice

- of

- la w provision under the Stockholder’s Agreement, the district court held that (1) the right to receive proceeds from the sale of stock is an interest in the underlying stock , and (2) such a transfer restriction is valid

. Accordingly, the district
court hel d that the Settlement Agreement violated the Stockholders Agreement and granted Charleston Labs’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to its request for declaratory judgment that the Settlement Agreement between the Defendants is void. The d istrict court also
denied the SIDIS Corp.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to its four

- count counterclaim for tortious interference with a contract, fraudulent transfer, civil conspiracy, and punitive damages. Having carefully considere d the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court’s opinion and order s , granting Charleston Labs’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying SIDIS Corp.’s motion for judgment on the pleadi ngs, thoroughly and accurately set out the undisputed facts, properly interpreted the contracts among the parties, and properly applied the governing law. Because the issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicati ve, we AFFIRM on the basis of the district court’s well

- reasoned opinion and order s
.
Document

LIMITED WAIVER OF BASE SALARY AGREEMENT
This Limited Waiver of Base Salary Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of this 25th day of March 2020 by and between Liquidity Services, Inc. (the “Corporation”), and the undersigned executive officer of the Corporation (the “Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Corporation is taking numerous proactive steps to mitigate the negative financial and operational impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic;
WHEREAS, these business contingency plans include, among other steps, implementing remote and virtual work plans, cancelling non-essential travel and spending, reducing the pay of employees, shortening work weeks, and furloughs; 
WHEREAS, the undersigned Executive and the Corporation have entered into an Executive Employment Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the undersigned Executive has voluntarily agreed to allow the Corporation to reduce his prorated monthly base salary by Fifty Percent (50%) for the period of time from April 1, 2020 to April 30, 2020 (the “Covered Period”).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Corporation and the Executive agree to the following:
1.  Term. This Agreement shall be in force and effective throughout the Covered Period.
2.  Reduced Base Salary During the Covered Period. The Executive hereby voluntarily agrees to the Corporation reducing his prorated monthly base salary by Fifty Percent (50%) for the Covered Period.  Such a reduction shall not be deemed a breach of Executive’s Executive Employment Agreement.  Executive and the Corporation further agree that the foregoing does not lower base salary for any other purpose under Executive’s Executive Employment Agreement with the Corporation, including, without limitation, the calculation of any severance payment in the event of a termination.
3.  Miscellaneous. To the extent not subject to federal law, this Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and each of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns. This Agreement is not intended to amend or otherwise change or modify the terms of Executive’s Executive Employment Agreement with the Corporation except as expressly set forth herein.  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation and the Executive have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.








																					
							
	EXECUTIVE				LIQUIDITY SERVICES, INC.		
							
	/s/Steven J. Weiskircher
						
	

Name: Steven J. Weiskircher_____________
				By:		/s/ William P. Angrick, III

				



		 William P. Angrick, III
 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.2


 


DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES


 


As of May 8, 2020, our authorized capital stock consists of
1,000,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share, of which 11,255,129 shares are issued and outstanding.


 


The authorized and unissued shares of our common stock are available
for issuance without further action by our stockholders, unless such action is required by applicable law or the rules of the NYSE
American, or any stock exchange on which our securities may be listed at such time. Unless approval of our stockholders is so required,
our board of directors will not seek stockholder approval for the issuance and sale of our common stock.


 


Common Stock


 


Each outstanding share of common stock is entitled to one vote,
either in person or by proxy, on all matters that may be voted upon by their holders at meetings of the stockholders.


 


Holders of our common stock:


 


(i)       have
equal ratable rights to dividends from funds legally available therefore, if declared by the Board of Directors;


 


(ii)       are
entitled to share ratably in all our assets available for distribution to holders of common stock upon our liquidation, dissolution
or winding up;


 


(iii)       do
not have preemptive, subscription or conversion rights; and


 


(iv)       are
entitled to one non-cumulative vote per share on all matters on which stockholders may vote at all meetings of our stockholders.


 


The holders of shares of our common stock do not have cumulative
voting rights, which means that the holder or holders of more than fifty percent (50%) of outstanding shares voting for the election
of directors can elect all of our directors if they so choose and, in such event, the holders of the remaining shares will not
be able to elect any of the our directors.


 


Our common stock is listed on The NYSE American under the symbol
 “TKAT.” The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is VStock Transfer, LLC, 18 Lafayette Place, Woodmere,
New York 11598..
# KSC-2014-3593

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – A crane brings the umbilical swing arm for Exploration Flight Test 1, or EFT-1, closer for installation on the fixed umbilical tower at Space Launch Complex 37 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The swing arm is the uppermost of three swing arms that will be attached to the fixed umbilical tower.    The swing arm will carry umbilicals that will be mated to Orion's launch abort system and environmental control system. During launch, the umbilicals will pull away from Orion and the United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket at T-0. During the EFT-1 mission, Orion will travel farther into space than any human spacecraft has gone in more than 40 years.  The data gathered during the flight will influence design decisions, validate existing computer models and innovative new approaches to space systems development, as well as reduce overall mission risks and costs for later Orion flights. Liftoff of Orion on its first flight test is planned for fall 2014. Photo credit: NASA/Jim Grossmann

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-ksc-2014-3593/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenAugust 15, 2014ProducerKSCSize1285x1920pxPIA NumberKSC-2014-3593The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 03, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
* 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

November 5, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10610

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PHILIP TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-122-ALL-J

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Philip Torres appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction

for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine. The Government’s unopposed motion to file a

corrected brief is GRANTED. 

Torres argues that the district court erred by denying his

motion to suppress because Texas Department of Public Safety

Trooper Toby Schaef violated the Fourth Amendment by

interrogating him and his co-defendant David Alberto Avila-
No. 04-10610

-2-

Coronado (“Avila”) about matters exceeding the scope of the

justification for the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion

that a crime other than the traffic violation had been or was

being committed.

Torres does not challenge the district court’s factual

finding that Trooper Schaef asked for and received consent to

search the vehicle contemporaneously with his issuance of a

citation to Avila. As the issuance of a citation is a

permissible part of a valid traffic stop, the district court did

not err in determining that Trooper Schaef did not extend the

detention beyond the valid traffic stop. See United States v.

Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 437 (5th Cir. 1993). Although Trooper

Schaef’s interrogation of Torres and Avila exceeded the scope of

the justification for the traffic stop, this did not violate the

Fourth Amendment as we have rejected “any notion that a police

officer’s questioning, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose

of a routine traffic stop, is itself a Fourth Amendment

violation.” United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 508 (5th

Cir. 2004) (en banc) (quoting Shabazz, 993 F.2d at 436). 

Accordingly, Torres’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to The Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)

    Notice is hereby given that on January 5, 2010, a proposed Consent 
Decree in United States v. Louis Vinagro Jr., CIV No. 07-264S (D.R.I.) 
was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of 
Rhode Island.
    The proposed Consent Decree is between the United States on behalf 
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and 
Louis Vinagro, Jr. (``Defendant'') The proposed Consent Decree resolves 
claims against the Defendant under Section 107 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9607 related to the Green Hill Road Superfund 
Site in Johnston, Rhode Island. Under the proposed Consent Decree, the 
Defendant agrees to sell property he owns and pay to the United States 
from the proceeds $1,975,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to 
[email protected] or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to 
United States v. Louis Vinagro Jr., CIV No. 07-264S (D.R.I.), D.J. Ref. 
90-11-2-407/5.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, District of Rhode Island, 50 Kennedy Plaza, 8th 
Floor, Providence, RI 02903 and at the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 
MA 02109-3912. During the public comment period, the proposed Consent 
Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web 
site, http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 
proposed Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree 
Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 
20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood 
([email protected]), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation 
number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree 
Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $9.75 (25 cents per 
page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail 
or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at 
the stated address.

Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-270 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
```
**
EXHIBIT 99.2 

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 

In connection with the Amended Annual Report of BSD Software, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year Ended December 31, 2001as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, JeffSpanier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to thebest of my knowledge 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer. 

October 11, 2002. 

 
*/s/ JEFF SPANIER----------------------------    Jeff Spanier    Chief Financial Officer***
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Caspian Services, Inc., on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *“Report”*), the undersigned, Indira Kalieva, Acting Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

 

 

| Date: January 12, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Indira Kalieva                                 |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Indira Kalieva ,Acting Principal Financial Officer |