alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MOHAMMED KWANING, a/k/a Kofi , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00600

- GLR

- 2 )

Submitted : June 26, 2020 Decided: July 14, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Mohammed Kwaning, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mohammed Kwaning appeals the district court’s order denying his post

- judgme nt motion to correct the record pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(e). Kwaning filed his motion after we affirmed his conviction and sentence. See United States v. Kwaning , 786 F. App’x 388 (4th Cir. 2019), cert. denied , 140 S. Ct. 1231 (2020). The district court denied the motion for reasons stated in the Government’s opposition thereto. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order

. See United States v. Kwaning , No. 1:14

- cr - 00600

- GLR

- 2 (D. Md . Dec. 20, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0003357

25-FEB-2015

07:45 AM
**Exhibit 99**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted), Leonard P. Shaykin, the ChiefExecutive Officer of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), and Gordon Link, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

**1.**        The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the “Periodic Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

**2.**        The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by thePeriodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

 

| Dated: March 26, 2003                             |   |   |                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Leonard P. Shaykin                            |   |   | /s/ Gordon Link                            |
|                                                   |   |   |                                            |
| **Leonard P. Shaykin****Chief Executive Officer** |   |   | **Gordon Link****Chief Financial Officer** |
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 101 (Thursday, May 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25610-25611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12425]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee June 3, 2009 
Public Meeting

ACTION: Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee June 3, 
2009 Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 
5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage 
Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for June 3, 2009.

    Date: June 3, 2009.

[[Page 25611]]

    Time: 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Location: United States Mint, 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 
20220.
    Subject: Review candidate designs for the 2010 American Veterans 
Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin, and design options for the 
James Buchanan Liberty Obverse First Spouse Gold Coin for 2010; and 
discuss 2010 Lincoln cent obverse design.
    Interested persons should call 202-354-7502 for the latest 
update on meeting time and room location.
    In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
    <bullet> Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or 
design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, 
Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
    <bullet> Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to 
the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of 
commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding 
the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
    <bullet> Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level 
for any commemorative coin recommended.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cliff Northup, United States Mint 
Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20220; or 
call 202-354-7200.
    Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for 
the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the 
following number: 202-756-6830.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).

    Dated: May 22, 2009.
Edmund C. Moy,
Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. E9-12425 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
**Exhibit 23.2****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-06565, 33-83160, 333-145113, and 333-145114) and Form S-3 (No. 333-143996) of Zoltek Companies, Inc.of our report dated December 27, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule as ofSeptember 30, 2006 and for the two years then ended of Zoltek Companies, Inc., which appears in this Form 10-K.*/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP**St. Louis, Missouri*
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About Grants 
-  Programs 
-  Environmental and Resource Economics Programs  

# New Technologies for Ag Extension

###### Share

Print FriendlyEmailTwitterFacebook

              -  Environmental and Resource Economics Programs                   -  Extension Risk Management Education Program 
                -  New Technologies for Ag Extension 

The purpose of the New Technologies for Ag Extension Program (NTAE) is to increase the capacity of the Cooperative Extension System (CES) to adopt new and innovative technology applications for delivering science-based educational resources from land-grant and other partner institutions about matters of high importance to the general public.

#### Funding Priority

Funding for NTAE is authorized under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended (7 U.S.C. 341, et seq.). Section 7403 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (FCEA) of 2008 amends section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 (7 U.S.C. 343(d)) regarding eligibility. 

#### Eligibility

The eligibility to compete for NTAE funding includes 1862 land-grant institutions, 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University. Eligibility is also provided to the University of the District of Columbia. 

#### Types of Projects

The successful NTAE applicant delivers state of the art technology and software applications, high quality leadership and staff, training for an exceptional CES workforce, legally binding contractual and financial instruments, and comprehensive evaluation, communications and marketing activities. 

#### Funding Opportunity

Visit the New Technologies for Agricultural Extension Funding Opportunity page. 

#### Resources

NIFA Extension

  

Sarah Rocker

Education

Advanced Technologies
#### Shawn Green, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Submitted May 24, 2010;

decided July 1, 2010

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*14 NY3d 793 (2010)].
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-20546 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RUBEN TORRES CASTILLO, also known as Ruben Torres, also known as Ruben Zamora, also known as Juan Torres Garcia, also known as Juan Garcia, also known as Ruben Torres-Castillo, also known as Ruben Dario ZamoraCastillo, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CR-119-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The F e d e r a l P ub l i c D e f ender appointed to represent Ruben Torres Castillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres Castillo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 16, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-20546 Document: 00511573842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2011No. 10-20546

counsel’s assessment that th e a p p e a l p r e s e nt s n o n onfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APP E A L IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 10-20546 Document: 00511573842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 21

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF
                       ACTION PERFORMANCE COMPANIES, INC.
                            (AS OF DECEMBER 20, 2000)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               STATE OR COUNTRY
                                               OF INCORPORATION
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                             OR ORGANIZATION
------------------                             ---------------
<S>                                            <C>
Action Corporate Services, Inc.                    Arizona
Action Performance Holdings GmbH                   Germany
Action Performance International, Ltd.(5)          United Kingdom
Action Racing Collectables, Inc.                   Arizona
Action Sports Image, L.L.C.                        Arizona
APC Europe GmbH(1)                                 Germany
APC Minichamps GmbH(1)                             Germany
AW Acquisition, Inc.                               Arizona
Chase Racewear, L.L.C.                             North Carolina
Creative Marketing & Promotions, Inc.              North Carolina
Danhausen GmbH                                     Germany
Goodsports Holdings Pty. Ltd.                      Australia
Goodsports International, Ltd.                     United Kingdom
Goodsports International Pty. Ltd.(3)              Australia
Goodsports Licensing UK Ltd.(3)                    United Kingdom
Goodsports Sportswear Pty. Ltd.(3)                 Australia
goracing.com, inc.                                 Delaware
goracing Direct Sales, L.L.C.(4)                   Arizona
goracing Interactive Services, Inc.(4)             Arizona
Grand Prix, Inc. Ltd.(2)                           United Kingdom
Lang Miniaturen GmbH & CoKG                        Germany
Minichamps GmbH (7)                                Germany
Minichamps North America, Incorporated(7)          Florida
Paul's Model Art GmbH & CoKG                       Germany
Performance Plus Nutritional, L.L.C.               Delaware
RYP, Inc.                                          North Carolina
Racing Collectables Club of America, Inc.(6)       Arizona
The Fan Club Company, L.L.C.(4)                    Arizona
</TABLE>




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

(1)   wholly owned subsidiary of Action Performance Holdings GmbH

(2)   wholly owned subsidiary of Action Performance International, Ltd.

(3)   wholly owned subsidiary of Goodsports Holdings Pty. Ltd.

(4)   wholly owned subsidiary of Racing Collectables Club of America, Inc.

(5)   wholly owned subsidiary of Goodsports International, Ltd.

(6)   wholly owned subsidiary of goracing.com, inc.

(7)   wholly owned subsidiary of Paul's Model Art GmbH & CoKG
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,714
<SECURITIES>                                    10,915
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,552
<PP&E>                                           8,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,833
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,900
<COMMON>                                       136,182
<OTHER-SE>                                    (111,344)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,598
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   470
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,892
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,119)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,119)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,119)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.25





SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CASH INCENTIVE


BONUS PLAN FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS







Pursuant to their employment letter agreements, executive officers of Craft Brewers Alliance, Inc. (the "Company"), are eligible for annual cash incentive bonus opportunities subject to attainment of corporate level goals and individual performance objectives.





Bonus opportunities related to corporate level goals:


The annual incentive bonus opportunities related to corporate level goals for the Company’s executive officers are set by the Compensation Committee (the "Committee") of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") each year as a percentage of the executive’s annual base salary.  For 2011, the percentages range from 32 percent to 56 percent of base salary.  The corporate level goals are generally defined by objectively measureable financial metrics, including, achieving specified target levels of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”), sales revenues, either for the Company as a whole or for certain key regions or brands, market share, depletion growth, and similar measures.  For 2011, the corporate component of the target bonuses is tied 50 percent to achievement of a specified EBITDA target and 50 percent to achievement of a specified sales revenue target for the Company.





Achievement above or below the specified target levels for the financial metrics may result in an upward or downward adjustment in the bonus amount payable.  Typically, the adjustment is calculated as the product of a defined factor (2.5% for 2011) and the percentage by which the actual achievement of a given financial metric is above or below the target level.  If the Company fails to achieve a specified financial target at the 80 percent level or above, no part of the bonus opportunity associated with that target is earned.





Bonus opportunities related to individual performance objectives:


The annual incentive bonus opportunities related to individual performance objectives for the Company’s executive officers are also set by the Compensation Committee each year and, for 2011, range from 8 percent to 14 percent of the executive’s respective annual base salary.  The individual performance objectives are generally based on achieving financial, strategic, operational and other goals in functional areas for which the executive has responsibility.  Individual performance objectives are tied to the officer's role in achieving the Company's strategic and operating goals.


Payout of Bonuses:


The Committee determines the extent to which corporate level objectives and individual performance goals have been satisfied following the end of each fiscal year.  Any annual cash incentive bonus award approved by the Committee for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer is subject to review and ratification by the Board.  Payment of bonuses, if any, is made promptly following the Committee's determination.  An executive will not be entitled to receive a bonus unless he or she remains employed by the Company through the date of the Committee's determination.
No. 863.

#### Melville et al., Trustees, et al. *v.*Weybrew et al.

March 2, 1942.

*Mr. Irving B. Melville*for petitioners.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

PHILADELPHIA COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT COALITION, LAURA 

BLAU, AND CHARLES J. WALSH, III

v.

TERESA F. ISABELLA AND 325 S. 18TH 

STREET, LLC

PETITION OF: 325 S. 18TH STREET, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 351 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

CHARLES J. WALSH, III AND LAURA 

BLAU AND PHILADELPHIA COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT COALITION

v.

TERESA F. ISABELLA AND 325 S. 18TH 

STREET, LLC

PETITION OF: 325 S. 18TH STREET, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 352 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

CHARLES J. WALSH, III AND LAURA 

BLAU AND PHILADELPHIA COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT COALITION, INC. 

TERESA F. ISABELLA AND 325 S. 18TH 

STREET, LLC

PETITION OF: 325 S. 18TH STREET, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 353 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER
[351 EAL 2020, 352 EAL 2020 and 353 EAL 2020] - 2

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of February, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.

Application for Relief Seeking Leave to Amend the consolidated petitions is 

GRANTED.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 112 

Relating to correcting a clerical error in the enrollment of S. 3693. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 20, 2006 

Mr. REID submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Relating to correcting a clerical error in the enrollment of 

S. 3693. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill, S. 3693, 

3 the Secretary of the Senate shall insert ‘‘or reentries’’ 

4 after ‘‘States, reentry’’ in section 212(a)(9)(C)(iii)(II) of 

5 the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 

6 6(b)(1)(C) of the bill. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
No. 286.

#### Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *v.*Southwest Consolidated Corp.

March 9, 1942.

Mr. Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.

314 U. S. 598.
No. 67.

#### Southport Petroleum Co. *v.*National Labor Relations Board; and Stewart *v.*Davidson, Judge.

No. 756.

February 16, 1942.

Mr. Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.

No. 67, *ante,*p. 100.
#### Baljit KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72603.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 26, 2009.

Sabey Marina Abraham, Esquire, Law Offices of Vaughan De Kirby, A.P.C., Har-deep Singh Rai, Indus Law Group LLP, San Francisco, CA, Tsz-Hai Huang, The Huang Law Firm, Walnut Creek, CA, for Petitioner.

James Nicholas Boeving, Esquire, Mark Lenard Gross, Esquire, Deputy Chief Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Baljit Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Kumar’s admission that he made false statements regarding incidents of past persecution to immigration officials in the United Kingdom, *see Al-Harbi v. INS,*242 F.3d 882, 889-90 (9th Cir.2001) (changing story regarding incidents of past persecution supported adverse credibility finding), and his submission of a fraudulent document that goes to the heart of his claim, *see Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004) (use of fraudulent documents supported adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, Kumar has failed to establish that he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Kumar’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evi*626dence to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.