alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Robin Young
                                 ----------------------
                                 Robin Young
                                 Chief Executive Officer

November 7, 2007

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

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Ben Choi
                                 ----------------------
                                 Ben Choi
                                 Chief Executive Officer

November 7, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31913-31914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15848]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XQ11


Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program

AGENCY: Alaska Fishery Science Center (AFSC), National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS will hold a workshop for participants in the Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program who are required to 
submit a crab Economic Data Report.

DATES: The workshop will be held on Friday, July 17, 2009, from 9:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific standard time.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Pacific Seafood Processors 
Association office Conference Room, 1900 W. Emerson Place, Number 205, 
Seattle, WA 98119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Brian Garber-Yonts, AFSC, 206-526-
6301 or Steven K. Minor at 360-440-4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS Alaska Fishery Science Center staff and 
the Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee are holding a 
workshop for Crab Rationalization Program fishing industry members to 
review, discuss, and comment on draft revised crab economic data report 
(EDR) forms to improve the quality of information collected in the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program. The 
revised EDRs are intended to address critical data quality limitations 
resulting from the design of the existing forms. The workshop is 
intended to ensure that NMFS receives consistent and accurate 
information. Participation from individuals involved in completing the 
EDR forms is important. This workshop is part of a process to respond 
to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council's Crab 
Rationalization Program economic data collection requirements. The 
workshop discussion also will address ``Best Practices'' 
recommendations for recordkeeping and data validation documentation 
issued by the EDR auditor.
    This is NOT a committee meeting or a presentation or discussion of 
any analysis. It is a workshop for industry input on EDR forms. It is 
open to the public and any interested stakeholders.
    Copies of the draft revised EDR forms and other relevant documents 
can be downloaded from the NMFS Alaska Regions BSAI CRAB EDR website 
at:
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/crab/rat/edr/default.htm
    This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Brian Garber-
Yonts (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by DATE.


[[Page 31914]]


    Dated: June 29, 2009.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-15848 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
#### UNITED STATES v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc., et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Feb. 2, 1940.

John T. Cahill, of New York City, Thurman Arnold, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul Williams, Robert L. Wright, John F. Clagett, J. Stephen Doyle, and Thomas Lynch, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Seymour Krieger, Sp. Atty., of Washington, D. C., J. Frank Cunningham, Sp. Atty., Seymour Simon, Sp. *101Atty., and William P. Farnsworth, Sp. Atty., of New York City, for the United States.

Schwartz & Frohlich, of New York City, for defendant Columbia Pictures Corporation.

BONDY, District Judge.

The motion to vacate the notice of examination is denied. It is directed that the examination of Harry Cohn take place in Los Angeles, California, unless he is in or comes to New York, in which event the deposition may be taken in New York.

An affidavit has just been submitted to the court indicating that Mr. Cohn is now in New York. If this is so, he must submit to the examination in New York as stated in the notice of examination.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6489

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. PATRICK NATHAN BROXTON, a/k/a, Nique , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Paula Xinis , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cr - 00352

- PX

- 1 )

Submitted : February 24, 2022 Decided: February 28, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Charles Burnham, BURNHAM & GOROKHOV PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Amy L

. Schwartz, Special Assistant U nited States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Patrick Nathan Broxton filed a motion for compassi onate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which the district c ourt denied on October 16, 2020 . Broxton subsequently filed an emergency motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion
for reconsideration of his motion for compassionate release . The court denied the motions

. Broxton appea ls the denial of these motions , arguing that the district court failed to consider his postconviction rehabilitation evidence

. W e affirm. “[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to motio ns under § 3582,” because § 3582 motions are “criminal in nature.” United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010). And, there are no federal statute s or rule s that authorize a motion for reconsideration in the criminal sentencing context. See id. at 235

- 36. We therefore
conclude that the district court erred in construing Broxton’s postjudgment motions as
motions for reconsideration rather than renewed motion s for compassionate release. However, th e error was not prejudicial because the district court did not abuse its
disc r etion in denying relief

. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating that a district court’s denial of a compass ionate release motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Broxton’s motions failed to demonstrate sufficient change in his situation to warrant compassionate release, and the court sufficiently explained its reasons for the denial in light of its incorporation of its original findings on Broxton’s initial compassionate release motion

. S ee United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion).3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Bonnie G. Eckelberg, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Red Trail Energy, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andc) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: May 15, 2007                                   /s/ Bonnie G. Eckelberg   Bonnie G. Eckelberg   Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16092]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, IBD Genetics Ancillary 
Studies.
    Date: July 29, 2009.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Dan E. Matsumoto, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of 
Health, Room 749, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 
(301) 594-8894, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e535f4a4d4b53514a515a7e5b464a4c5f1050575a5a551050575610595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82efe3f6f1f7efedf6ede6c2e7faf6f0e3acecebe6e6e9acecebeaace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16092 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 2:10-cv-06297-CCC -JAD Document 33 Filed 09/21/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 332
Case 2:10-cv-06297-CCC -JAD Document 33 Filed 09/21/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 333
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Rivera, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 14]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered April 1, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of seven and five years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not specify any grounds for objection *(see People v Tonge,*93 NY2d 838 [1999]), he did not preserve any of *451his current challenges to testimony about an officer’s conversation with the nontestifying victim, including his claims that the evidence violated the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause, as well as being inflammatory, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. The fact that defendant’s trial occurred before the decision of the United States Supreme Court in *Crawford v Washington*(541 US 36 [2004]) has no bearing on the preservation requirement *(People v Lopez,*25 AD3d 385 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 758 [2006]). Were we to review these claims, we would find that any hearsay or Confrontation Clause violation was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]) because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and because the testimony at issue related only to a peripheral matter. Furthermore, the testimony was not inflammatory. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
# Requests Report
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Roy BLANKS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-11582

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 7, 2012.

Steven E. Butler, Kenyen Ray Brown, Donna Barrow Dobbins, Michele Carstens O’Brien, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard Earl Shields, Richard E. Shields, Esquire, Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

John Roy Blanks, Jr., Mt. Meigs, AL, pro se.

Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard E. Shields, appointed counsel for John Roy Blanks, Jr. in this direct criminal appeal, has filed both a motion to withdraw from further representation of Mr. Blanks and a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Mr. Blanks has not objected to the *Anders*brief filed by Mr. Shields, and our independent review of the entire record reveals that Mr. Shields’ assessment of the relative merit of Mr. Blanks’ appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, Mr. Shields’ motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Mr. Blanks’ conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., petitioner, v. Francisco RODRIGUEZ, et ux.

No. 10-1285.

June 20, 2011.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
**Exhibit
      23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
      FIRM**





We consent
      to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-34019,
      333-01019, 333-52199, 333-133389 and 333-133391 on Form S-8 of our reports
      dated
      March 14, 2008 relating to the financial statements (which report expresses
      an
      unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the
      Company’s adoption of new accounting standards) and financial statement schedule
      of Calgon Carbon Corporation and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of
      Calgon Carbon Corporation and subsidiaries internal control over financial
      reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Calgon Carbon
      Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.




Deloitte
      & Touche LLP




Pittsburgh,
      Pennsylvania


March
      14,
      2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,894-01

EX PARTE WILLIE JAMES DAVIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1445782-A IN THE 248 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of

methlenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) in an amount of less than one gram, and was sentenced

to nine months in state jail. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary and that his conviction violates due process

because the evidence in his case was tested and found not to contain any MDMA, even though the

lab test shows that the evidence contained methamphetamine, a different controlled substance.
2

The parties have entered agreed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the trial court

has determined that Applicant’s decision to plead guilty in this case was not a voluntary and

intelligent choice. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 144578201010 in the 248 District Court of th

Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County

to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench

warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: February 3, 2016

Do not publish
##### Table of Contents



Exhibit 10.23
 Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
2004 Broad-Based Stock Incentive Plan




---



##### 



Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
2004 Broad-Based Stock Incentive Plan
  ARTICLE
    
    PAGEARTICLE 1.
    
    PURPOSE OF THE PLAN; TYPES OF AWARDS
    
    
    1ARTICLE 2.
    
    DEFINITIONS
    
    
    1ARTICLE 3.
    
    ADMINISTRATION
    
    
    5ARTICLE 4.
    
    COMMON STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN
    
    
    7ARTICLE 5.
    
    ELIGIBILITY
    
    
    7ARTICLE 6.
    
    STOCK OPTIONS IN GENERAL
    
    
    8ARTICLE 7.
    
    TERM, VESTING AND EXERCISE OF OPTIONS
    
    
    9ARTICLE 8.
    
    EXERCISE OF OPTIONS FOLLOWING TERMINATION OF
EMPLOYMENT
    
    
    10ARTICLE 9.
    
    RESTRICTED STOCK
    
    
    11ARTICLE 10.
    
    ADJUSTMENT PROVISIONS
    
    
    13ARTICLE 11.
    
    GENERAL PROVISIONS
    
    
    14




---



##### Table of Contents



Purpose
 Authorized Plan Awards
 
         1




---



##### Table of Contents



2




---



##### Table of Contents



3




---



##### Table of Contents



4




---



##### Table of Contents



nolo contendere
     
  The Committee
 Powers of the Committee
  5




---



##### Table of Contents



Liability
 Establishment and Certification of Performance Goals
 No Waiver of Performance Goals
 6




---



##### Table of Contents



Performance Grants Not Mandatory
 
  Common Stock Authorized
     Shares Available
 
  Participation
 Incentive Stock Option Eligibility
 7




---



##### Table of Contents



Exercise Price
 Limitation on Incentive Stock Options
 Determination of Fair Market Value
    Limitation on Option Awards
 8




---



##### Table of Contents



Transferability of Options
   
  Term and Vesting
 Exercise
  9




---



##### Table of Contents



Deferred Delivery of Nonqualified Stock Option Shares
 
  Retirement; Other Termination by Corporation or Subsidiary; Change in Control
   Death or Total Disability
  10




---



##### Table of Contents



Termination For Cause; Other Termination by Optionee
 Special Termination Provisions for Options Granted to Non-Senior Officers
      
  In General
 Minimum Vesting Period for Certain Restricted Stock Awards
 11




---



##### Table of Contents



Waiver of Vesting Period for Certain Restricted Stock Awards to Non-Senior
Officers
 Limitation on Restricted Stock Awards
 Issuance and Retention of Share Certificates By Corporation
 Stock Powers
 Release of Shares
 Forfeiture of Restricted Stock Awards
 Assignment, Transfer, Etc. of Restricted Stock Rights
 Deferred Delivery of Formerly Restricted Stock
 12




---



##### Table of Contents



Share Adjustments
    Corporate Changes
 Fractional Shares
 Binding Determination
 13




---



##### Table of Contents



Effective Date
 Termination of the Plan
 Limitation on Termination, Amendment or Modification
      No Right to Grant of Award or Continued Employment
 No Obligation
 Withholding Taxes
   14




---



##### Table of Contents



Listing and Registration of Shares
    Disinterested Director
 Gender; Number vice versa
 Applicable Law
 Headings
 15