alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francisco RIVERA-MATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75686.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 22, 2009.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Rivera-Mata, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Ibar*ra-Flores v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006), we grant the petition for review and remand.

After the BIA order in this case, we held in *Ibarra-Flores*that administrative voluntary departure under threat of deportation breaks the accrual of continuous physical presence only where the alien is informed of the terms of the departure and knowingly and voluntarily accepts them. *See id.*at 619-20; *see also Tapia v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 997, 1002-04 (9th Cir.2005). The record does not contain substantial evidence that Rivera-Mata was informed of the terms of his departure or that he accepted them knowingly and voluntarily.

The agency “should be given the first opportunity to assess the consequences of [Rivera-Mata’s] departure under the ‘knowing and voluntary’ standard.” *Ibarra-Flores,*439 F.3d at 620. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

BENJAMIN MADDEROM, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2566

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed May 29, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge. 

Benjamin Madderom, pro se.

 PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>
================================================================================


                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer


                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


                                 March 14, 2005


                        Commission File Number:  0-22346


                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)


                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)


     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                         Form 20-F [X]   Form 40-F [ ]

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ______________

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ______________

     Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in
this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                               Yes [ ]   No [X]

     If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-_____________


================================================================================

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit    Description
-------    -----------

99.1       Hollinger Inc. Press Release, dated March 11, 2005, regarding Ontario
           Securities Commission Considering Administrative Proceedings.



<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Date:  March 14, 2005


                                   HOLLINGER INC.



                                    By      /s/ Peter G. White
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Name:    Peter G. White
                                       Title:   Vice President, Operations and
                                                Secretary
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C. SETION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Drury
J. Gallagher, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer 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, following due inquiry, that I
believe 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.


Dated: August 14, 2003                 GLOBAL GOLD CORPORATION


                                       By: /s/  Drury J. Gallagher
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Drury J. Gallagher, Chairman,
                                           Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit 32

Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Principal Executive Officer and

Principal Financial Officer

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
that, based on our knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |  |  |                            |  |                                                
|----------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2011 |  |  |  | MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|                  |  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  | By:                        |  | /s/ David J. Schramm                           
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  | David J. Schramm                               
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  | President and Chief Executive Officer          
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 5, 2011 |  |  |  | By:                        |  | /s/ Kevin S. Royal                             
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  | Kevin S. Royal                                 
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  | Treasurer and Secretary                        
|                  |  |  |  |                            |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### State v. Peak

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 693

No. 011P07

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-360) .

Denied 01/25/07
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2




September 17, 2004




Mr. Daniel H. Mudd

Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer

Fannie Mae

3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20016



Dear Dan:


The Fannie Mae Board of Directors proposes that the following amendments be
made to your Employment Agreement, executed by Fannie Mae in April 2004 and
previously amended on June 30, 2004:




•  Amend Section 4.1(b) to read as follows:


(b) For Cause: Notwithstanding any other provision
hereunder, the Corporation may terminate Employee’s
employment for “Cause,” which shall mean that
Employee has (A) materially harmed the Corporation
by, in connection with his service under this
Agreement, engaging in dishonest or fraudulent
actions or willful misconduct, or performing his
duties in a grossly negligent manner, or (B) been
convicted of, or pleaded nolo contendere with respect
to, a felony. The Corporation by written notice may
terminate Employee’s employment for Cause at any time
following the occurrence of an event described in
(B). Employee shall not be deemed to have been
terminated for Cause following the occurrence of an
event described in (A) unless the Corporation shall
have provided (i) reasonable notice to Employee
setting forth the Corporation’s intention to
terminate for Cause, (ii) where remedial action is
feasible, a reasonable opportunity for such action,
(iii) an opportunity for Employee, together with his
counsel, to be heard before the Board and (iv)
Employee with a notice of termination stating that
Employee was guilty of the conduct set forth in this
Section 4.1(b)(A) and specifying the particulars
thereof in detail. No act or failure to act will be
considered “willful” unless it is done, or omitted to
be done, by Employee in bad faith or without
reasonable belief that his



 









 





Daniel H. Mudd

September 17, 2004

Page 2 of 2




action or omission was in the best interests of the
Corporation.



•  Amend Section 5.2 to read as follows:


Section 5.2. Termination for Cause. In the event of
a Termination of Employment for Cause, Employee shall
not be entitled to any payments or benefits except as
follows: Employee shall be entitled to all of
Employee’s Base Salary which has accrued to the date
of termination and any benefits or awards (whether of
options, stock or other property) which have vested
prior to such date. The Corporation shall have no
further obligations to Employee.


If you agree to the foregoing, please so indicate by signing the enclosed copy
of this letter in the space indicated below and returning a fully executed copy
of the letter to my attention, whereupon your Employment Agreement will be
amended.




	 
	Sincerely,

	 

	/s/ Anne Mulcahy

	 

	Anne Mulcahy

	Chairman, Compensation Committee








AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:




	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Daniel H. Mudd

	 	September 18, 2004	 
	
 

	 	
 	 
	Daniel H. Mudd

	 	Date
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenny Taylor, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 791]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J.), rendered February 13, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of the criminal background of the People’s main witness and the inconsistency between his trial and grand jury testimony, which we find to be satisfactorily explained.

Defendant’s argument that a relative of the victim gave prejudicial testimony is without merit. Defendant’s remaining pro se claims are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence, or directing that it be served concurrently with defendant’s previously imposed sentences for unrelated convictions. Defendant’s argument that the sentencing court misapprehended its discretion under Penal Law § 70.25 (5) (c) to impose concurrent sentences is unpreserved (see *People v Hamlet,*227 AD2d 203, 204 [1996], *534
      *lv denied*88 NY2d 1021 [1996]; *see also People v Samms,*95 NY2d 52, 56-58 [2000]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
#### Dale R. San Marco et al., Appellants, v Village/Town of Mount Kisco, Respondent.

Submitted June 8, 2009;

decided June 25, 2009

Motion to vacate this Court’s May 20, 2009 dismissal order granted *[see 12*NY3d 850 (2009)].
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties II 1999 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000319723
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES II
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             810
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          25,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          8,284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,434
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,487
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.20<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2





STATEMENT
OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Robert
Wilson, chief accounting officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”),
hereby certifies that:





The
Company’s Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Robert
Wilson


Robert
Wilson, Chief Accounting Officer


Dated:
April 15, 2008
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Acquired Sales Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerard M. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 Company.





/s/ Gerard M. JacobsGerard M. Jacobs Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

June 8, 2010
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3851 

To provide for the extension of preliminary permit periods by the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission for certain hydroelectric projects in the 

State of Alaska. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the extension of preliminary permit periods 

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for certain hydroelectric projects in the State of Alaska. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PERMIT PERI4 ODS. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

7 means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

8 (2) THOMAS BAY PROJECT.—The term ‘‘Thom9 as Bay project’’ means— 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3851 IS

1 (A) the hydroelectric project of the Com2 mission at Cascade Creek, Alaska, preliminary 

3 permit number 12495, dated October 8, 2004; 

4 (B) the hydroelectric project of the Com5 mission at Ruth Lake, Alaska, preliminary per6 mit number 12619, dated February 23, 2006; 

7 and 

8 (C) the hydroelectric project of the Com9 mission at Scenery Lake, Alaska, preliminary 

10 permit number 12621, dated February 23, 

11 2006. 

12 (b) EXTENSION.—Notwithstanding section 5 of the 

13 Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 798) or any other provision 

14 of law (including regulations), on receipt of a request from 

15 the preliminary permit holder of a Thomas Bay project 

16 and after providing reasonable notice, the Commission 

17 may extend the period of the preliminary permit for the 

18 Thomas Bay project for not more than 2 consecutive 3- 

19 year periods following the expiration of the initial prelimi20 nary permit for the Thomas Bay project, in accordance 

21 with applicable procedures of the Commission. 

Æ 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.W.2

                             AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE
                             SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                               EL PASO CORPORATION
                           EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PAY PLAN

         Exhibit A of Supplement No. 1 to the El Paso Corporation Employee
Severance Pay Plan effective as of January 1, 2003, as amended (the "Supplement
No. 1"), is hereby amended, as attached, to remove certain individuals who are
no longer eligible to be covered by Supplement No. 1 and add an Eligible
Employee who shall be deemed to be a participant covered by Supplement No. 1
effective as of February 2, 2004.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be duly
executed on the 2nd day of February, 2004.



                                                  EL PASO CORPORATION


                                                  By: /s/ SUSAN B. ORTENSTONE
                                                      -------------------------
                                                      Susan B. Ortenstone
                                                      Senior Vice President,
                                                      Human Resources

Attest:

/s/ DAVID L. SIDDALL
----------------------------
    Corporate Secretary



<PAGE>


                                    Exhibit A
              Eligible Employees Covered by Supplement No. 1 to the
                     El Paso Corporation Severance Pay Plan
                            (as of February 2, 2004)





Robert W. Baker
Jeffery I. Beason
Douglas L. Foshee
Robert G. Phillips
D. Dwight Scott
John W. Somerhalder II
Lisa A. Stewart


Acknowledged and Accepted effective the 2nd day of February, 2004.


By:      /s/ SUSAN B. ORTENSTONE
         -----------------------
         Susan B. Ortenstone
         Senior Vice President,
         Human Resources
664 A.2d 493

#### IN THE MATTER OF LAWRENCE S. GROSSMAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 27, 1995.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that LAWRENCE S. GROSSMAN of MORGAN-VILLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1987, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months effective June 1,1995, by Order of this Court dated May 5, 1995, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

                I, H. John Berens, anauthorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the“Servicer”), do hereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2007 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and betweenthe Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, and Christiana Bank & Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee the following with respect to WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-HY4 for the 2007 fiscal year  (the“Relevant Year”):

  

1.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under mysupervision.

2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

Dated as of March 1, 2008.

 

| /s/ H. John BerensName:  H. John Berens Title:    Senior Vice President |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Order entered January 23, 2020

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01548

- CV

PURE GEN HOLDINGS, I NC., Appellant

V.

NEORA, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Ju dicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 10205



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant ’s January 21 , 20 20 unopposed motion for extension of time

to file its brief on the merits. Appellant seeks an extension because the parties a re currently

engaged in settlement negotiations. We GRANT the motion

. We ORDER appellant to file its

brief or a status report on the negotiations by February 26 , 20 20

.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE