alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (a)                                             |   | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended      September 30, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and      Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                            |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|   | (b)                                             |   | the      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company.                                                                                                                                                 |
|   |                                            |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |   |
|   |                                            |   |
|   | /s/ David W.      Thompson                      |   |
|   | David      W. Thompson                     |   |
|   | Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|   | October      29, 2009                      |   |
|   |
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 Annual Report of Berkeley Technology Limited on Form
10-K for the period ended  December  31, 2003 as filed with the U.S.  Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Ian K. Whitehead, as Chief Financial
Officer of the registrant,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by 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
registrant.



Date:  March 10, 2004                            By:    /s/  Ian K. Whitehead

                                                        Ian K. Whitehead
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### Paul McDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodrick R. SOWERS, Warden; M. Stauffer, CO #2, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-7091.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 31, 2006.

Paul McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. David Phelps Kennedy, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG,* and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*

 Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

PER CURIAM:

Paul McDonald appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See McDonald v. Sowers,*No. CA-04-4035-PJM (D. Md. June 20, 2005). We deny Mc*304Donald’s motions for appointment of counsel and for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         2,921,497
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,015,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                   209,829
<INVENTORY>                                    1,782,463
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,524,379
<PP&E>                                         2,510,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,255,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,431,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,776,640
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    92
<COMMON>                                       286,846
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,367,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,431,375
<SALES>                                        5,466,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,466,461
<CGS>                                          1,776,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,776,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,732,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             188,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                165,110
<INCOME-TAX>                                   25,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            140,110
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   140,110
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        


</TABLE>
ex10-9.htm


    
Exhibit
      10.9

    
 

    AMENDMENT
      NO. 3 TO

    ASHLAND
      INC. SUPPLEMENTAL

    EARLY
      RETIREMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

    July
      1, 2003 and as amended thereafter

    ______________________________________________________________

    


    WHEREAS,
      Ashland Inc.
      and its authorized delegates reserved the right to amend the Ashland Inc.
      Supplemental Early Retirement Plan for Certain Employees (Plan);

    WHEREAS,
      Ashland Inc.
      and its authorized delegates desire to make an amendment conforming certain
      actuarial assumptions contained herein with those in a related
      plan;

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, the
      Plan is hereby amended, effective as of October 1, 2007, as
      follows:

    1.           Effective
      as of October 1, 2007, the flush language following paragraph (4) of Section
      5.01(e) is amended to read as follows:

    


    An
      interest rate assumption of 8% and the Section 415/417 Mortality Table in the
      Ashland Inc. and Affiliates Pension Plan shall be used for purposes of computing
      the actuarial equivalence of the reductions in the above numbered paragraphs,
      except for computing the actuarial equivalence of the benefit under the Ashland
      Inc. Nonqualified Excess Benefit Pension Plan under above paragraph
      (3).  The computation under said paragraph (3) shall be conducted
      using the same assumptions as apply to the computation of the benefit payable
      under the Ashland Inc. Nonqualified Excess Benefit Pension
      Plan.  Actuarial equivalence shall be determined as of the Effective
      Retirement Date.

    


    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,
      this Amendment No. 3 is executed this 10th of September,
      2007.

    


    
      	
              ATTEST:

            	 	
               ASHLAND
                INC.

            	 
	
               

                         /s/
                Linda L. Foss

            	 	
               

              By: 

            	
               

                 /s/ Susan B. Esler

            	 
	
              Secretary

            	 	
               

            	
               Vice-President,
                Human Resources and Communications
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2516 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2516

      To suspend temporarily the duty on nonwoven diffusion media.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on nonwoven diffusion media.

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

SECTION 1. NONWOVEN DIFFUSION MEDIA.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Nonwoven air        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          filter and                                                         31/2011.......
                          diffusion media
                          having layers of
                          fine denier
                          polyester fibers
                          (2 to 10 decitex,
                          with a length of
                          40 mm or more,
                          but not more than
                          80 mm), weighing
                          400 to 700 g/m2,
                          thermally bonded
                          and impregnated
                          in full depth
                          with an adhesive
                          coating,
                          reinforced on one
                          side with a
                          supporting woven
                          open-mesh scrim,
                          used in downdraft
                          spray cabins for
                          painting
                          applications
                          where the media
                          is required both
                          as an air filter
                          and as an air
                          diffuser,
                          providing
                          uniform,
                          nonturbulent air
                          flow (provided
                          for in subheading
                          5911.40.00 or
                          5911.90.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIGOBERTO SANTIZ GOMEZ, AKA Gerardo Luis Francisco Diego,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70975 Agency No. A095

- 793

- 679

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019 **

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Santiz Gomez , a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 70975

denial of a continuance. Sandoval

- Luna v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.
2008). We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations
in immigration proceedings

. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santiz Gomez’s motion
for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See Sandoval

- Luna , 526
F.3d at 1247 ( “[t]he decision to grant or deny a continuance is in the sound
discretion of the judge and will not be overturned except on a showing of clear

abuse ” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) )

. Contrary to Santiz
Gomez’s contention, Matter of L

- A

- B

- R

- , 27 I. & N. Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018) does
not affect the analysis of the motion to continue in his case. See id. a t 405

- 06. We

therefore decline to remand for consideration of Matter of L

- A

- B

- R

- . We also reject Santiz Gomez’s contentions that the IJ violated his due
process rights by not explaining the availability of asylum and related relief or pre conclusion voluntary departure

. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process clai m)

. Finally, w e lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Corro

- Barragan v. Holder , 718 F.3d3 18

- 70975

1174, 117 6

- 7 7 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court ’ s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial

of voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
.
<PAGE>

                                    Exhibit 10.5
                                          
                              RICHEY ELECTRONICS, INC.


                                          
                                  October 1, 1998

Mr. Richard N. Berger
7441 Lincoln Way
Garden Grove, CA 92642


               Re:  Employment Agreement
                    --------------------

Dear Richard:

          Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated as of April 1,
1993, between you and Brajdas Corporation, as amended by the Addendum to
Employment Agreement dated as of February 21, 1995 between you and Richey
Electronics, Inc. (the "Company") (as so amended, the "Employment Agreement").

          The Company hereby notifies you pursuant to Section 2 of the
Employment Agreement that your employment under the Employment Agreement shall
terminate upon the expiration of the current Additional Two-Year Period (as
defined in the Employment Agreement) on April 6, 1999.

                              
                              Very truly yours,

                              /s/ Donald I. Zimmerman
                              -----------------------
                              Donald I. Zimmerman
                              Chairman of the Compensation
                              Committee

Receipt Acknowledged


/s/ Richard N. Berger
---------------------
Richard N. Berger
exv10w43



 





EXHIBIT 10.43




THIRD AMENDMENT TO ESCO TECHNOLOGIES INC.

DIRECTORS’ EXTENDED COMPENSATION PLAN




     WHEREAS, ESCO Technologies Inc. (“Company”) adopted the ESCO Technologies Inc. Director’s
Extended Compensation Plan (“Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company retained the right to amend the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan effective as of December 31, 2007;



     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of October 3, 2007, the Plan is amended by adding the following
sentence at the end Paragraph 3 of Section III:




Any election to receive the actuarial equivalent of the entire benefit in a lump
sum, or revocation of such election, that is made by a Director whose annual benefit
under Paragraph 1 of Section III has increased since December 31, 2004 (i) shall, if
made before January 1, 2008, apply only to amounts that would not otherwise be
payable in 2007 and may not cause an amount to be paid in 2007 that would not
otherwise be payable in 2007, or (ii) shall, if made after December 31, 2007, be
made at least one year prior to the date payment of a lump sum or quarterly
installments would otherwise be made or commence, and payment or commencement of
such annual benefit shall (except in the case of the death of the director) be
deferred for a period of five years from the date such payment would otherwise have
been made or commenced.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Amendment was adopted on the 3rd day of October, 2007.
************Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-102627, No. 333-107990, No.333-115628 and No. 333-117425) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-112027) of Plains Exploration & Production Company of our report dated March 9, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Houston, TX 

 

March 9, 2006
#### Donald J. Jones et al., Appellants, v Town of Carroll et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 2, 2010;

decided September 14, 2010

Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*15 NY3d 139 (2010)].
#### In the Matter of Andrew Ophardt, Appellant, v Julio Vasquez, Commissioner, Community Development of City of Rochester, et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 26, 2010;

decided October 19, 2010

*868On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
1 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. -1- United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 8, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________ No. 03-41365 SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________ BRANDON CREIGHTON SAMPLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. HARRELL WATTS, National Inmate Appeals Administrator; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

______________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas (C-02-CV-428)

______________________________________________________________________________ Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge: 1 In this appeal, we review the district court's decision to grant the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants - Appellees, Harrell Watts and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Plaintiff - Appellant, Brandon Sample, argues that the implementation by the Bureau of-2-

Prisons of Program Statement 1351.05 prohibiting inmates from possessing copies of their Presentence Report was either a change to existing Bureau of Prisons rule 28 C.F.R. § 513.44 or a change to existing policy. According to Sample, the Bureau of Prisons should have complied with the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice and comment requirements when the bureau promulgated Program Statement 1351.05. According to Sample, because the Bureau of Prisons failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, Program Statement 1351.05 is invalid, and the Bureau of Prisons must provide him with a copy of his Presentence Report in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 513.44. We disagree. Contrary to Sample’s assertion, 28 C.F.R. § 513.44 does not state that inmates must be provided with copies of their Presentence Reports, but instead addresses the fees to be assessed for copies of disclosable documents requested by prisoners. 28 C.F.R. § 513.44. Program Statement 1351.04 explains what documents are disclosable, and Program Statement 1351.05 further explains that Presentence Reports are disclosable, but may not be possessed by inmates in the prison area. The Bureau of Prisons implemented this prohibition in response to an emerging problem where inmates pressure other inmates for a copy of their Presentence Report to learn if they are informants, gang members, or have financial resources. Thus, Program Statement 1351.05 did not contradict or alter an existing rule of longstanding policy or practice, and the Adminstrative Procedures Act’s notice and comment requirements do not apply. See Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Babbitt , 238 F.3d 622, 627-30 (5 th Cir. 2001); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Johnson , 22 F.3d 616, 621 (5 th Cir. 1994). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision. AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   245433
<ALLOWANCES>                                      8000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                310725
<PP&E>                                          337527
<DEPRECIATION>                                (279531)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2000405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2408759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     750000
<COMMON>                                        291404
<OTHER-SE>                                     3916718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2000405
<SALES>                                         967260
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                967260
<CGS>                                           822028
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1043809
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                205279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               16502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (77549)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                               (1126162)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1213771)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.132)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>