alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 95-60578 Summary Calendar

GLYNN WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CV-339

- - - - - - - - - - July 7, 1999 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Glynn Wallace appeals from the dismissal of his complaint seeking social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. Wallace, who is represented by counsel, contends that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by failing to call a vocational expert to testify before finding that he was able to perform sedentary work. Wallace asserts that a vocational expert is a necessity once an ALJ finds that a claimant may not return to his past relevant work. Wallace contends that the ALJ erred by finding his testimony about pain not credible. He alleges that he suffered from a combination ofNo. 98-60578 -2- impairments that he does not specify. He argues that there was no evidence of a lack of veracity on his part, as he believes is required before an ALJ may reject a claimant’s credibility. He argues, without elaboration, that the ALJ erred by making his decision solely on the medical-vocational guidelines contained in the social security regulations and he suggests that the ALJ failed to carry his burden of showing that there was work existing in Mississippi that Wallace could perform. Wallace did not exhaust his administrative remedies regarding whether the testimony of a vocational expert was necessary and whether the ALJ’s credibility findings were erroneous, as he did not raise those contentions before the Appeals Council. Equitable concerns do not persuade us to examine those issues. Paul v. Shalala , 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994). Wallace provides no legal arguments to support his assertions that the ALJ erred by making his decision solely on the medical-vocational guidelines contained in the social security regulations and that the ALJ failed to carry his burden of showing that there was work existing in Mississippi that Wallace could perform. He has failed to brief those issues for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Wallace’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it is frivolous, the appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Summary of salaries for named executive officers



 Exhibit 10(u) 
  
 Alberto-Culver Company 
 Summary of Salaries of Named Executive Officers 
  

														
	 Name

	  	 Title

	  	 Annual Salary
 as of 9/30/2005

	  	Change

	  	New Annual
Salary

	  	 Effective Date
 of Change


	Carol L. Bernick	  	Chairman of the Board	  	$	650,000	  	$	0	  	$	650,000	  	N/A
	Howard B. Bernick	  	 President and Chief
 Executive Officer
	  	$	1,550,000	  	$	0	  	$	1,550,000	  	N/A
	William J. Cernugel	  	 Senior Vice President and
 Chief Financial
Officer
	  	$	390,000	  	$	12,000	  	$	402,000	  	1/1/2006
	Michael H. Renzulli	  	 Chairman, Sally Beauty
 Company, Inc.
	  	$	650,000	  	$	0	  	$	650,000	  	N/A
	V. James Marino	  	 President, Alberto-Culver
 Consumer Products

Worldwide
	  	$	475,000	  	$	75,000	  	$	550,000	  	1/1/2006
11676.

#### Jackson *v.*The State.

Decided November 9, 1920.

Indictment lor murder — conviction of shooting’ at another: from Oconee superiof court — Judge Cobb. June 3, 1920.

*Wolver M. Smith, John B. Gamble,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. C. Dean, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under an indictment for murder, the accused may be convicted of the offense of shooting, at another, if the latter offense is substantially charged by the averments of the indictment. *Watson*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*607 (43 S. E. 32).

2. In the instant case two persons were jointly indicted in one count for the offense of murder. The indictment charged that the accused “ Zack Hillman and Taylor Jackson did then and there, unlawfully and with force and arms, make an assault in and upon one Clifford Mack, and then and there, unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully, and with malice aforethought, did kill and murder by shooting the said Clifford Mack with a certain pistol which the said Zack Hillman and Taylor Jackson then and there held, and giving to the said Clifford Mack then and there a mortal wound, of which mortal wound the said Clifford Mack died.” This indictment sufficiently charged the offense of shooting at another, and under it the defendants could be legally convicted of that offense. See, in this connection, *Watson*v. *State,*supra (5).

3. Upon the hearing of a motion to arrest the judgment in a criminal ease, the court should consider only the indictment and the verdict, the presumption being that the .evidence authorized such a verdict. *Watson*v. *State,*supra (6).

*(a)*It follows from this ruling that where two persons are jointly indicted for murder, and are tried *separately*and *separate*verdicts are returned, one of the defendants being found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and the other of shooting at another, and the latter defendant makes a motion to arrest the judgment, upon the hearing thereof the court should look only to the indictment and the verdict finding the defendant guilty of shooting at another. The verdict finding the other defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter cannot be considered, and it will be conclusively presumed that the evidence in the ease legally authorized the verdict of shooting at another.

4. Under the preceding rulings the court did not err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7825

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL RENARD CHILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-7, CA-01-36-7) Submitted: February 11, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Renard Chiles, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Renard Chiles seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Chiles’ motion for a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Chiles , Nos. CR-94-7; CA-01-36-7 (W.D. Va. July 12 & Oct. 25, 2001). We also deny Chiles’ motion to expedite his appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 4.1


                                                               CUSIP 16936Y 10 0
                             CHINA BAK BATTERY, INC.


               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

                                                               SEE REVERSE FOR
                                  COMMON STOCK               CERTAIN DEFINITIONS



                                    SPECIMEN


This
certifies
that







is the owner of


 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE, OF
                             CHINA BAK BATTERY, INC.


(hereinafter  called  the  "Corporation"),  transferable  on  the  books  of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney,  upon
surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed.  This certificate and the shares
represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of
the  Articles of  Incorporation  and the Bylaws of the  Corporation,  as amended
(copies of which are on file at the  office of the  Transfer  Agent),  to all of
which  the  holder  of this  Certificate  by  acceptance  hereof  assents.  This
Certificate  is not valid unless  countersigned  and  registered by the Transfer
Agent and  Registrar.  Witness  the  facsmile  seal of the  Corporation  and the
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


DATE:


                            [CORPORATE SEAL OMITTED]



                               Countersigned:
PRESIDENT                                    SECURITIES TRANSFER CORPORATION
                                             P.O. Box 701629
                                             Dallas, TX 75370
                                          By:


SECRETARY                                    ___________________________________
                                             TRANSFER AGENT-AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
#### Ronald W. BENNINGHOFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 78-3783.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 21, 1980.

Rehearing Denied April 14,1980.

Jack B. Hood, Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner-appellant.

M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Chief, App. Section, Grant W. Wiprud, David B. Allen, Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Lester Stein, Acting Chief Counsel, Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Before TUTTLE, AINSWORTH and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Ronald W. Benninghoff appeals from the November 1978 written opinion and order of the United States Tax Court that affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to assess a deficiency of $245 against appellant in his federal income tax for the taxable year 1973. 71 T.C. 216 (1978). Since the parties stipulated to the facts, the only issue on appeal is whether the Tax Court correctly held that appellant, a policeman employed by the Canal Zone Government, could not exclude from his gross income for the year 1973 the value of lodging and utilities fur*399nished to him by his employer under Section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

We affirm on the basis of the majority and concurring opinions that realistically construed the statutory language of Section 119(2) that the lodging be furnished “on the business premises” to mean that the provision of lodging by an employer must constitute an integral part of the business activities of the employer. Appellant Benninghoff failed to show a direct, substantial relationship between the provision of lodging and the law enforcement interests of his employer. The mere ownership by the Canal Zone Government of the home itself and the land on which the home was situated is not sufficient, nor even essential, to prove that the lodging is “on the business premises” of the employer for purposes of Section 119(2). The facts in this case show that the lodging was furnished by his employer, the Canal Zone Government, to appellant Benninghoff primarily for his. personal use and not to further significantly its own law enforcement interests. Thus, the Tax Court correctly held that appellant Benninghoff could not exclude the value of the lodging and utilities furnished to him by his employer for the taxable year 1973.

AFFIRMED.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           12-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                06-30-1997
<CASH>                                   1,488,884<F1>
<SECURITIES>                               622,810<F2>
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                  22,054,065<F3>
<DEPRECIATION>                             156,879<F4>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,048,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,292
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   24,040,224<F5>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,048,513
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               429,194
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               206,511
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               222,683(F6)<F6>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes Cash and Cash Equivalents of and investments in commercial paper.
<F2>Includes all receivables of the partnership included in "other assets" on the
balance sheet.
<F3>Includes investment in the joint venture.
<F4>Amortization of costs related to aquisition.
<F5>Equity of general partners (54,235), limited partners 24,094,456.
<F6>Net income allocated $2,227 to general partner and $220,445 to the limited
partners.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from WSMP, Inc.'s
1997 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                       2,424,982
<SECURITIES>                                   171,910
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,993,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,210,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,068,048
<PP&E>                                      43,596,750
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,643,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,126,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,167,348
<BONDS>                                     13,719,942
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,919,088
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,370,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,316,600
<SALES>                                     85,070,341
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            87,753,073
<CGS>                                       63,680,524
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               63,680,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,924,356
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               223,358
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,822,339
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,171,490
<INCOME-TAX>                                   465,578
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            705,912
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                414,784
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,120,696
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        


</TABLE>
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

*

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-00840-CG-M

*

$5,680.00, more or less, in U.S. Currency *

 *

Defendant. *

FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

In accordance with the separate Order entered on this date, it is ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the defendant, $5,680.00, more or less, in U.S. Currency, is

forfeited to the plaintiff, the United States of America, for disposition according to law.

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of April, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00840-CG-M Document 8 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 1
exv10w37



 







EXHIBIT
10.37


CONTRACT NO. 6400711368/00


AMENDMENT NO. 05      
nbsp



It is hereby agreed that Contract No.6400711368/00 dated April 10, 2001, as amended, between ARAMCO
SERVICES COMPANY (“ASC”) and NOVINT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“NOVINT” OR “CONTRACTOR”), be further
amended as follows:





	1.	 	The period of performance is hereby extended for one
additional year, to cover the period from January 2, 2005 to January 1, 2006.
	 
	2.	 	The following services shall be performed by NOVINT:
	 
	 	 	Enhance event monitoring capabilities:






	 	•	 	Display **** between current **** and any previous ****.
	 
	 	•	 	Enhance the “****” **** monitor rule to compute from arbitrary time.
	 
	 	•	 	Enhance monitored **** to give more information when writing to log file.
	 
	 	•	 	Add “****” to computer the  **** in the **** property values.

	 
	 	•	 	Add **** operations that only operate on the current ****
(min, max, average).
	 
	 	•	 	Modify “****” that no user acknowledgment is required.
	 
	 	  Enable Haptic Device button operations:
	 
	 	•	 	Enable haptic device button to display the values of all variables loaded and x,y,z location coordinates when a **** is clicked.
	 
	 	•	 	Enable haptic device button to connect adjacent **** with the closest **** values to the property of the clicked ****.
	 
	 	•	 	Enhance above item so that the engineer selects both a ****
point and a deeper ****
	 
	 	•	 	Enhance above item so that multiple **** can be generated
from the main ****,thus generating a complete **** track.
	 
	 	•	 	Enable haptic device button to trace a **** entirely at the will of the engineer, who uses haptic button clicks to mark every **** in his track.
	 
	 	•	 	Write out the **** track created by any of these procedures as a text file so that it can be exported easily to other software.
	 
	 	  General enhancements:
	 
	 	•	 	Display of time/date in the status window.
	 
	 	•	 	Continue making improvements in dataset sizes/performance.
	 
	 	•	 	Add another **** workstation to build a **** cluster.




 









 












	DELIVERABLES






	 	•	 	Updated version of the VNP2 software for 32-bit Windows.
	 
	 	•	 	Updated user manual detailing the new features.






	3.	 	NOVINT shall be paid $75,000 for the above services upon receipt of invoice from NOVINT and
confirmation of acceptance of the work by SAUDI ARAMCO.





This
amendment shall be retroactive to January 2, 2005.



Except as modified hereinabove, all other terms and conditions of Contract
No.6400711368/00, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	NOVINT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	 	 	 	ARAMCO SERVICES COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Tom Anderson
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Abdulaziz M. Al-Omran	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Abdulaziz M. Al-Omran	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	 	CEO	 	 	 	Title: Manager, Technical Services	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	 	9/15/05	 	 	 	Date: 9/2/05
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74772-74773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29326]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (14-127)]


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant exclusive license.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 
37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant 
an exclusive license in the United States to practice the inventions 
described and claimed in USPN 7,179,217, Apparatus For Enhancing Tissue 
Repair In Mammals, NASA Case No. MSC-23981-1 and USPN 7,601,114, 
Apparatus For Enhancing Tissue Repair In Mammals, NASA Case No. MSC-
23981-2 to GRoK Technologies, LLC, having its principal place of 
business in Houston, Texas. The patent rights in these inventions have 
been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the 
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The 
prospective exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions 
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

DATES: The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within 
fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives 
written objections including evidence and argument that establish that 
the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements 
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and 
received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published 
notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the 
contemplated exclusive license.
    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made 
available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by 
law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 
U.S.C. 552.

ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the prospective license may be 
submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Johnson 
Space Center, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, Texas 77058, Mail Code AL; 
Phone (281) 483-3021; Fax (281) 483-6936.

[[Page 74773]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michelle P. Lewis, Technology 
Transfer and Commercialization Office/AO52, Johnson Space Center, 
Houston, TX 77058, (281) 483-8051. Information about other NASA 
inventions available for licensing can be found online at http://technology.nasa.gov.

Sumara M. Thompson-King,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-29326 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
Exhibit 10.1


 


	
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  2005 Base Salary

  	
   

  	
  2005 Target Bonus

  (% of Base Salary)(1)

  	
   

  	
  Number of Option Shares Awarded

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Thomas R. Beck, M.D.

  President and Chief Operating Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  340,000

  	
   

  	
  42.5

  	
  %

  	
  25,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Clive R. Wood, Ph.D.

  Executive Vice President Research

  and Chief Scientific Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  300,000

  	
   

  	
  40

  	
  %

  	
  12,500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Ivana Magovcevic-Liebisch,
  Ph.D., J.D.

  General Counsel and Executive Vice

  President, Corporate Communications

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  291,870

  	
   

  	
  35

  	
  %

  	
  12,500

  	
   

  



 










	
  (1)

  	
   

  	
  The target bonus opportunity can be exceeded by up
  to 20% of the target for exceptional performance. For example, an executive
  with a target bonus of 30% who has outstanding performance can receive a
  bonus of as much as 36% of base salary.