alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 22, 1998



John W. Henry & Company
One Glendinning Place
Westport, Ct. 06880
Attn: Ms. Beth Kenton


         Re:      Management Agreement Renewal
                  Select Advisors Futures Fund

Dear Ms. Kenton:

We are  writing  with  respect  to  your  management  agreement  concerning  the
commodity pool to which reference is made above (the "Management Agreement"). We
would like to extend the term of the Management  Agreement through June 30, 1999
and make the  attached  modification  on Rider 1. All  other  provisions  of the
Management Agreement will remain unchanged.

Please indicate your agreement to and acceptance of this modification by signing
one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Daniel Dantuono
at the address above or fax to 212-723-8985.  If you have any questions I can be
reached at 212-723-5416.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT INC.



By:
         Daniel A. Dantuono
         Chief Financial Officer,
         Director & Treasurer

AGREED AND ACCEPTED

JOHN W. HENRY & COMPANY

By:


Print Name:

DAD/sr
#### Pedro Moreno ROJO, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 12-10183

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 5, 2012.

Peter Reed Hill, Peter R. Hill, PC, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner.

*953Sheri Robyn Glaser, Sabatino F. Leo, David V.. Bernal, Krystal Samuels, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Alfie Owens, DHS Chief Counsel, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent.

Before CARNES, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Pedro Moreno Rojo, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order denying Rojo’s motion to terminate removal proceedings. On appeal, Rojo argues that his conviction for distribution of Alprazo-lam was not an aggravated felony because Alprazolam is not listed as a controlled substance in 21 U.S.C. § 812.

We review *de novo*whether a prior conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony. *Accardo v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*634 F.3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir.2011).

“Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). An “aggravated felony” includes “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as *defined in section 802 of Title*21).” *Id.*§ 1101(a)(43)(B) (emphasis added).

In turn, 21 U.S.C. § 802 defines “controlled substance” as “a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(6). Those five schedules of controlled substances are listed at 21 U.S.C. § 812.

Importantly, section 812 explicitly instructs that its lists of controlled substances should be updated and republished annually. The “[r]evised schedules are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1308 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.” *Id.*§ 812 n. 1. In other words, the definition of “controlled substance” in 21 U.S.C. § 802 incorporates the revised schedules as published in 21 C.F.R. § 1308. '

Alprazolam is not listed in any of the five original schedules found in 21 U.S.C. § 812. However, it is listed in 21 C.F.R. § 1308.14(c) — and accordingly has been incorporated into § 802.

We agree with the BIA that Rojo’s conviction for distribution of Alprazolam is an aggravated felony because Alprazolam is a “controlled substance ... as defined in section 802 of Title 21.”

PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit 99.2

In
connection with the Annual Report of Sharper Image Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey P. Forgan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to my knowledge:



|By: | /s/JEFFREY P. FORGANJeffrey P. Forgan
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 

April 28,
2003

---

QuickLinks
IMMUCELL CORPORATION

EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF BAKER NEWMAN & NOYES, LLC

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors

ImmuCell Corporation

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-2631 and No. 333-65514 of ImmuCell Corporation on Form S-8 of our report, dated March 20, 2008, relating to our audit of the financial statements which appear
in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ImmuCell Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.



|                |  |  |  |                          
|--------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|Portland, Maine |  |  |  | /s/ Baker Newman & Noyes 
|March 25, 2008  |  |  |  | Baker Newman & Noyes, LLC
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 934 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 934

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 22, 2020.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Rules: Ms. Matsui.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Christian, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 674]

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered May 4, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, held in abeyance, and the matter remitted for further proceedings with new counsel assigned to defendant’s request to withdraw his plea.

At sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, and made accusations against his attorney. The attorney made a lengthy factual recitation that refuted defendant’s claims. The attorney’s recitation, which went beyond a mere explanation of his performance, was clearly adverse to his client’s position, and the court denied the motion only after this recitation was completed. This situation created a conflict of interest requiring the assignment of new counsel to represent defendant on the motion *(see People v Mitchell,*21 NY3d 964, 967 [2013]; *People v Rozzell,*20 NY2d 712 [1967]). Although the attorney suggested that assignment of new counsel would be appropriate, the court directed the attorney to continue.

Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a new opportunity to move to withdraw his plea, with representation by new counsel. Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certifications are being madeto accompany the Registrant’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended May 1, 2010:**

 

 

**Certification of Chief ExecutiveOfficer(1)**

 

----

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc.(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended May 1,2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  June 7, 2010 |   | /s/    BURTON  M. TANSKY |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Burton M. Tansky                             |
|                      |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer       |

 

 

**Certification of Chief FinancialOfficer(1)**

 

----

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc.(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended May 1,2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  June 7, 2010 |   | /s/    JAMES  E. SKINNER          |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | James E. Skinner                                      |
|                      |   | Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----

(1) A signed original forthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NeimanMarcus, Inc. and will be retained by Neiman Marcus, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 832 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2020 

Ms. GRANGER (for herself, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. 

MEADOWS, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. 

BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. FLORES, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. WEBER of Texas, 

Mr. OLSON, Mrs. WALORSKI, Mr. CARTER of Texas, Ms. CHENEY, Mr. 

COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of 

Georgia, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mr. PALMER, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. BRADY, 

and Mr. GRIFFITH) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ethics 

RESOLUTION 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

Whereas, on December 20, 2019, Speaker Pelosi extended an 

invitation for President Trump to address a joint session 

of Congress on February 4, 2020; 

Whereas, on February 4, 2020, President Trump delivered 

his State of the Union address, in which he honored the 

sacrifice of the following American heroes and their families: 

General Charles McGee, one of the last surviving 

Tuskegee Airmen, who served in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 832 IH 

Kayla Mueller, a humanitarian aid worker who was 

caring for suffering civilians in Syria when she was kidnapped, tortured and enslaved by ISIS for over 500 days 

before being murdered by ISIS leader Abu Bakr alBaghdadi; 

Army Staff Sergeant Christopher Hake, who was 

killed while serving his second tour of duty in Iraq by a 

roadside bomb supplied by Iranian terrorist leader Qasem 

Soleimani; and 

Sergeant First Class Townsend Williams, who is 

currently serving his fourth deployment in the Middle 

East and his wife Amy, who works full time for the Army 

and devotes hundreds of hours helping military families; 

Whereas immediately following the address, while still presiding over the joint session, Speaker Pelosi ripped up an 

official copy of the President’s remarks, which contained 

the names and stories of these patriots who sacrificed so 

much for our country; and 

Whereas the conduct of Speaker Pelosi was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to 

the discredit of the House: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives dis2 approves of the behavior of Speaker Pelosi during the joint 

3 session of Congress held on February 4, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31**

 

**IMMUCELL CORPORATION**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Michael F. Brigham, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ImmuCell Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: 

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to me by others, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 33-8392]; 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

 

Date: March 29, 2005
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 21, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 21, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A1897. B & B MOVERS et al. v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Order entered June 4, 2014 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00503-CV 

IN RE JAMES PENNEY AND RUTH PENNEY, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 301st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-06-1835-T 

ORDER 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

 JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.2
 
  th
   Grant of Option not
 Exercise Price
 Term




---



##### 



Exercise of Option
      Method of Exercising Option




---



##### 



Transferability of Option
 Termination of Service by Optionee




---



##### 



Disability
 Termination of Service by Company without Cause or by Optionee with Good Reason
 Death
 Termination for Cause
 Change of Control




---



##### 








---



##### 




  Securities Matters




---



##### 



Governing Law
 th
 Transdel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.By:
    /s/ John LomoroName:
    John LomoroTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer/s/ John BonfiglioOptionee:  John Bonfiglio, Ph.D.




---



##### 



Number of Shares to be purchased:Purchase price per Share:
    
    
    $Total purchase price:
    
    
    $
 
    
    A.
    
    Enclosed is cash or my certified
check, bank draft, or postal or express money order in the amount of
$________
in full/partial [circle one]payment for such Shares;
  
    
    B.
    
    Enclosed is/are _____ Share(s) with a total fair market value of $_____
on the date hereof in full/partial [circle one]payment for such Shares;
  
    
    C.
    
    I have provided notice
to_____[ insert name of
broker], a broker, who will render full/partial [circle one]payment for such Shares.
[Optionee should attach to the notice of exercise provided to such broker a copy of this
Notice of Exercise and irrevocable instructions to pay to the Company the full exercise
price.]
  
    
    D.
    
    I elect to satisfy the payment for Shares purchased hereunder by having the Company
withhold newly acquired Shares pursuant to the exercise of the Option.




---



##### 



*
 DATED:__________ ____, 20__Optionees Signature 
 *
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                               11,950
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       148,012
<ALLOWANCES>                          5,000
<INVENTORY>                         153,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    328,033
<PP&E>                               45,665
<DEPRECIATION>                       10,551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,304,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               451,213
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                             272
<COMMON>                              1,076
<OTHER-SE>                        (384,989)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,304,964
<SALES>                           1,071,338
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,071,338
<CGS>                               280,698
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       280,698
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,342,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    552,097
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                       66,957
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      34,000
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      (451,140)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy and Budget, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business and other matters specified, as follows:

# DATE AND TIME: 

Friday, June 26, 2009 at 2 p.m.

# SUBJECT MATTER: 

Discussion of future NSF budgets.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

                        This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site (                        *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb*) for information or schedule updates, or contact: Jennie Moehlmann, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7000.                    

Ann Ferrante,

Writer-Editor.

[FR Doc. E9-14962 Filed 6-22-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2018

ABREHET A. AMLESOM,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A79-343-081)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 29, 2004

 

Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,

Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior

Litigation Counsel, Lyle D. Jentzer, Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Abrehet A. Amlesom, a female native and citizen of

Eritrea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of her

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under

the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture, and voluntary

departure. We deny the petition for review.

On appeal, Amlesom raises challenges to the immigration

judge’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility

for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying

eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he

presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could

fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). See also Blanco de

Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 284 (4th Cir. 2004)

(immigration judge’s denial of asylum upheld “unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”).

Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the

evidence of record and conclude that Amlesom fails to show that the

evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant

the relief Amlesom seeks.
- 3 -

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of

Amlesom’s applications for withholding of removal and protection

under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for withholding

of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of

persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987).

To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant

must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she

would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Based on our review of the

record, we find that Amlesom has failed to meet either one of these

standards.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with 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.

PETITION DENIED