alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd**.

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on Form 10-Q for the quarterending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon Hoffman ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934: and

 

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

 

 
| DATE:  | **November 6, 2008** | ** ** | BY:                                   | /s/ **Sheldon Hoffman** |
|--------|---------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|   |                      |       |                                  |
|   |                      |       | Sheldon  Hoffman                      |
|   |                      |       | Chief  Executive Officer and Director |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 16009

D.C. No. 1:15

- cv

- 001776

- DAD

MJS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Vasilis Fotiou Sakellaridis appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We have

* This dispo sition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

J. CABRERA, Correctional Officer at CSP

- Corcoran,

Defendant

- Appellee. 

# FILED

DEC 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL Sjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Andres v. Marshall , 867

F.3d 1076, 1077 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sakellaridis

did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and he fa iled to raise a genuine dispute

of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable

to him. See Williams v. Paramo , 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth

the burden

- shifting framework for exhaustion); see also R oss v. Blake , 136 S. Ct.

1850, 1858

- 60 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies

are unavailable).

AFFIRMED.

2 17

- 16009
Exhibit 10.41

LOGO

February 20,
2007

Alan
G. Morse
c/o iPCS, Inc.
1901 N. Roselle Road
Schaumburg, IL 60195

Dear Mr. Morse:

Reference
is made to the Employment Agreement, dated as of August 5, 2005 (the "Employment Agreement"), between you and iPCS Wireless, Inc., and to the Agreement and
General Release, dated as of February 12, 2007 (the "Release"), between you and iPCS Wireless, Inc. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth
in the Employment Agreement.

In
consideration for your execution of the Release, the Company hereby agrees to amend the Employment Agreement, effective on the date that the Release becomes final and irrevocable, to
provide that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Employment Agreement:

1.     The
Company shall delay the payments and benefits set forth in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 5(d) of the Employment Agreement until
the first business day following the six-month anniversary of the Termination Date (such date being the "Initial Payment Date").

2.     On
the Initial Payment Date, the Company shall (a) make a single cash lump sum payment to Executive in an amount equal to the aggregate amount of all payments
that, but for this amendment, would have been made to Executive pursuant to clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 5(d) of the Employment Agreement during the
six-months immediately preceding the Initial Payment Date and (b) thereafter continue to provide the payments and benefits pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) of
Section 5(d) of the Employment Agreement for the remainder of the Continuation Period (which will not exceed 12 months from the Initial Payment Date).

The
foregoing change will constitute an amendment of your Employment Agreement when the Release becomes final and irrevocable. Please acknowledge this amendment by countersigning below.

| |  | Very truly yours, iPCS, Inc.
| |  | ----------------------------
| |  | By:                         

|                                                        |  |               |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------- |  | 
|AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
this 22nd day of February, 2007
|                                                        |  |               |  | 
|By:                                                     |  | Alan G. Morse |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138880 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138880 

 COA: 281860 

Wayne CC: 07-007035-FC 

THOMAS ARDRECE BAKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 19, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended August 2, 2008 of Stein Mart, Inc. (the Form 10-Q), I, Linda M. Farthing, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: September 10, 2008 |  | /s/ Linda M. Farthing                
|                         |  | Linda M. Farthing                    
|                         |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



16
NO. 12-15-00110-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DORIS NELL FONTENOT,

APPELLANT

V.

JIMMIE BYRON FONTENOT,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in this case was signed on April 14, 2015, 

and Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. On April 20, 2015, Appellant timely filed a 

notice of appeal in the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The notice of appeal failed to 

contain the information required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e), i.e., a 

certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court's judgment.

On April 27, 2015, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). She 

was further notified that unless she filed an amended notice of appeal on or before May 27, 2015, 

the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The 

deadline for filing an amended notice of appeal has passed, and Appellant has not corrected her 

defective notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-04-

00004-CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. 

Hubert, No. 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. 

denied).
2

Opinion delivered June 3, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 3, 2015

NO. 12-15-00110-CV

DORIS NELL FONTENOT,

Appellant

V.

JIMMIE BYRON FONTENOT,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 14-1726-E)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Case 3:09-cr-00695-PGS Document 26 Filed 09/14/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 47
Case 3:09-cr-00695-PGS Document 26 Filed 09/14/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 48
#### Miguel Angel MARTINEZ-MERLOS; Cristina Martinez, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of United States, Respondent.

No. 12-2658.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 20, 2013.

Filed: April 5, 2013.

Jonathan Willmoth, Willmoth Immigration Law, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Petitioner.

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Ann Carroll Varnon, Benjamin Zeitlin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Miguel Martinez-Merlos (Martinez-Merlos), a citizen of El Salvador, and his wife Christina Martinez (Martinez), a citizen of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge’s adverse decision. After careful consideration of the petition, we find no basis for reversal.

First, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Martinez-Merlos’s application for cancellation of removal. *See Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey,*509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of cancellation of removal for failure to prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship); *see also Gomez-Perez v. Holder,*569 F.3d 370, 372-73 (8th Cir.2009) (jurisdictional bar applied to petitioner’s argument that BIA had applied “an incorrect legal standard by failing to adequately consider certain factors,” as petitioner was merely challenging BIA’s discretionary conclusion that circumstances did not merit cancellation of removal). Second, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s decision to deny Martinez asylum and withholding of removal. *See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey,*551 F.3d 775, 781, 784 (8th Cir.2008) (this court upholds denial of asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence; denial of asylum dictates same outcome on withholding-of-removal claim based on same underlying factual allegations); *see also Constanza v. Holder,*647 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (membership in particular social group requires that members hold immutable characteristic, or common trait such as sex, color, kinship, or shared past experiences, and that group has sufficient particularity and visibility to be perceived by society as cohesive group).

*599Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 746

To prohibit the Federal Government from entering into contracts with companies that do not include certifications for certain financial reports required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2003

Mr. STRICKLAND (for himself, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. LIPINSKI, and Mr. DEUTSCH) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To prohibit the Federal Government from entering into contracts with companies that do not include certifications 

for certain financial reports required under the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Responsibility in Fed5 eral Contracts Act’’. 
2

•HR 746 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH COMPANIES 

2 WITHOUT FINANCIAL REPORT CERTIFI3 CATIONS. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH COMPA5 NIES FAILING TO CERTIFY THEIR FINANCIAL RE6 PORTS.—The Federal Government may not enter into, or 

7 approve any subcontract under, a contract with any com8 pany filing periodic reports under section 13(a) or 15(d) 

9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m, 

10 78o(d)) if, before the date on which the contract is ex11 pected to be awarded, the certification required under sec12 tion 302(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 

13 7241) has not been made for the most recent periodic re14 port due before such date. 

15 (b) PERIOD OF PROHIBITION.—A prohibition under 

16 subsection (a) shall remain in effect with respect to a com17 pany for the one-year period beginning on the date that 

18 the most recent periodic report was due. 

19 (c) WAIVER.—The President may waive the prohibi20 tion in subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver 

21 is in the national security interest of the United States. 

22 (d) LIST OF COMPANIES FAILING TO CERTIFY.—The 

23 Securities and Exchange Commission shall make available 

24 to the public on a quarterly basis a list of companies that 

25 have failed to make the certification required under sec-
3

•HR 746 IH 

1 tion 302(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 

2 7241). 

3 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to 

4 contracts entered into after the date of the enactment of 

5 this Act.

Æ
[No. 31696-0-II.

Division Two.

December 13, 2005.]

#### Colin McKee, *Respondent,*v. Ulysses Martin et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 02-2-09762-1, Frank Cuthbertson, J., entered April 30, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Van Deren, A.C.J., concurred in by Hunt and Penoyar, JJ.
###### **EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lloyd Hoffman Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934: and

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |            |   |   |                                              |
|--------|-----------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
| DATE:  | March  12, 2005 |   | BY:    | /s/Lloyd Hoffman                                  |   |
|   |            |   |   | Lloyd Hoffman                                     |
|   |            |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President |

 

----
Exhibit
35.1
 
 
 SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
 OF
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
 FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009
 
 
 The
undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Citibank (South Dakota), National
Association ("CBSD"), as Servicer under the Amended and Restated Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated as of October 5, 2001 (as amended through the date
hereof, the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") as supplemented by the Series
2000 Supplement thereto dated as of September 26, 2000 (as amended through the
date hereof, the "Series 2000 Supplement" and, together with the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement, the "Agreement") each between CBSD, as Seller, Servicer and
as successor by merger to Citibank (Nevada), National Association, as Seller,
and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee; and as Managing
Beneficiary of Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust (the "Issuing Entity") under
the Indenture dated as of September 26, 2000 (as amended and supplemented
through the date hereof, the "Indenture") between the Issuing Entity and
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, does hereby certify
that:
 
 1.  CBSD
is the Servicer under the Agreement and the Managing Beneficiary of the Issuing
Entity.
 
 2.  A
review of the servicing activities of CBSD during the fiscal year ended December
31, 2009 (the "Reporting Period") and of its performance under the Agreement and
the Indenture was conducted under my supervision.
 
 3.  To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, CBSD has fulfilled all of its
servicing obligations under the Agreement and the Indenture in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate this 25th
day of March, 2010.
 
 
 /s/ Douglas C. Morrison
 ___________________________
 Douglas
C. Morrison
 Vice
President
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 705

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain table tennis tables. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2003

Mr. SCHROCK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain table tennis 

tables.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN TABLE TENNIS TABLES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 
2

•HR 705 IH 

‘‘ 9902.95.06 Table tennis tables constructed 

of particle board 

encapsulated in 

aluminum, sealed 

by a frame of 

square aluminum 

tubing and having a bottom side 

covered with a 

stamped and corrugated piece of 

aluminum (provided for in subheading 

9506.40.00) ....... Free Free No change On or before 

12/31/2006 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Amendment to Executive Severance Plan



 Exhibit 10.33 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO 

CHICO’S FAS, INC. EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Chico’s FAS, Inc. (the “Employer”) maintains the Chico’s FAS, Inc. Executive Severance Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees;

 WHEREAS, the Employer deems it necessary and desirable to amend the Plan to clarify the timing of payment of severance
benefits under the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, this Second Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent
those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the amendment; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority
reserved to the Employer by Section 7.1 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2013, as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 Section 5.01 of the Plan is hereby amended to delete the first sentence thereof and replace it with a new sentence which shall read as follows:



 A Participant’s Benefit shall be paid in accordance with normal payroll practices, with the first
payment commencing on the first payroll date occurring following the completion of a sixty (60) day period after the Participant ‘s Employment Termination Date, provided the Participant has executed and not revoked the Separation Agreement
within such sixty (60) day period; otherwise, no benefits are payable to the Participant under the Plan. 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Employer has caused this amendment to be executed by a duly authorized representative this 10th day of January, 2013. 
  

			
	Chico’s FAS, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Sara K. Stensrud

	EVP-Chief Human Resources Officer



  
 1
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 944

To ensure that amounts in the Victims of Crime Fund are fully obligated. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2003

Mr. SIMMONS (for himself, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. FLAKE, Mrs. JOHNSON

of Connecticut, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. MCHUGH, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. 

CASE, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. BAKER, Mr. 

ETHERIDGE, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. SHIMKUS, Ms. LOFGREN, 

Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. 

MATHESON, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

MANZULLO, Mr. HOLDEN, Ms. HART, Ms. NORTON, and Ms. WOOLSEY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL

To ensure that amounts in the Victims of Crime Fund are 

fully obligated.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 944 IH 

1 SECTION 1. FULL OBLIGATION OF AMOUNTS IN THE VIC2 TIMS OF CRIME FUND. 

3 Section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 

4 (42 U.S.C. 10601) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(h)(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in 

7 this Act (including the emergency reserve referred to in 

8 subsection (d)(5)), the Director shall ensure that all sums 

9 in the Fund in a fiscal year are in fact obligated in the 

10 subsequent fiscal year. 

11 ‘‘(2) A provision of law may not be construed as 

12 modifying or superseding the provisions of paragraph (1) 

13 unless that provision of law—

14 ‘‘(A) specifically refers to this section; and 

15 ‘‘(B) specifically states that such provision of 

16 law modifies or supersedes the provisions of this sec17 tion.’’.

Æ