alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January 30, 2013


 





Shad Stastney


445 Park Avenue, 16th Floor


New York, NY 10022


 


Dear Shad:


 


Infusion Brands, Inc. is pleased to offer
you the position of Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer, based in our Clearwater, Florida location. This employment will become
effective upon your acceptance of this offer and completion of a satisfactory background check, as per company policy. Your anticipated
start date is on or before Friday, February 1, 2013.


 


		·	Your base compensation will be $175,000/annum,
but accrued only, and not payable until the latter of (i) 1/1/2014, or (ii) the date INBI’s obligation to Vicis is fully
redeemed. 



		·	Your responsibilities include but are
not limited to: 



		o	Strategic Direction & Biz Development 



		o	Investor Relations & SEC Reporting/Audit



		o	Acting Legal Advisor 



		·	Infusion Brands common stock
options will be recommended and awarded no later than (i) 1/1/2014, or (ii) the date INBI’s obligation to Vicis is fully
redeemed. 



		·	Your engagement with INBI
is at-will and is for no specific period of time. Both you and Company have the right to terminate your employment with Company
at any time, for any reason or no reason, with or without cause. This is the full and complete understanding between you and the
Company regarding this term, and no employee or representative of the Company, other than the Chairman and CEO, has any authority
to enter into any agreement to the contrary. Any such agreement must be in writing and signed by you and the Chairman and CEO.



 


Company Policies are outlined in the Infusion
Brands Employee Guidebook, which you will receive upon acceptance of this offer. Your engagement will also be subject to your acceptance
of the terms and conditions and execution of the NDA/NC Agreement.


 


Infusion Brands, Inc. has been strongly
recognized by the industry, its customers and partners. We welcome you to our team in creating a world class organization, and
look forward to a mutually rewarding relationship.


 





14375 Myerlake Circle,
Clearwater, FL 33760


Phone: 727-230-1031 FAX:
727-230-1032


http://www.InfusionBrands.com














    	 



    	 



    

 


 


 


 





Please sign and date this letter, indicating
your acceptance, and return it to me no later than 6:00 PM EST on Friday, February 1, 2013.


 


Best Regards,


 


/s/ Lisa D. Martinez


 


Lisa D. Martinez


VP of Human Resources


 


I accept this offer after reviewing and fully understanding
the terms and conditions of the offer for engagement with Infusion Brands, Inc.


 


	/s/ Shad Stastney	 
	 	 
	Signature	 
	 	 
	Shad Stastney 	 
	Print Name	 
	 	 
	February 18, 2013	 
	Date	 


 





14375 Myerlake Circle,
Clearwater, FL 33760


Phone: 727-230-1031 FAX:
727-230-1032


http://www.InfusionBrands.com
# cpsaat33
EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in  Post-Effective  Amendment No. 1
to  the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  33-34566)  pertaining  to the
EnviroSource,  Inc. Savings Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.33-26633),
Post-Effective  Amendment  No. 1 to the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8 No.
33-1549), and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  33-13728),  each of which pertains to  EnviroSource,  Inc.'s  Incentive
Stock Option Plan,  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-46925) pertaining to
the Envirosafe Services,  Inc. Stock Option Plan, and the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-53019)  pertaining to the EnviroSource,  Inc. 1993 Stock Option
Plan of our report  dated  February  13, 1998 with  respect to the  consolidated
financial statements and schedule of EnviroSource,  Inc. included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                  /s/Ernst & Young LLP



Stamford, Connecticut
March 27, 1998
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 985

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

111 West Washington Street in Bowling Green, Ohio, as the ‘‘Delbert 

L. Latta Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2003

Mr. GILLMOR (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. TURNER of Ohio, 

Mr. OXLEY, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. BOEHNER, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KUCINICH, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. BROWN of 

Ohio, Mr. LATOURETTE, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. REGULA, Mr. RYAN

of Ohio, and Mr. NEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 111 West Washington Street in Bowling 

Green, Ohio, as the ‘‘Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 111 West Washington Street in Bowling Green, 
2

•HR 985 IH 

1 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Delbert L. 

2 Latta Post Office Building’’. 

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

6 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

7 to the Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building.

Æ
I~ 

Milton Joseph Taylor, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

D.C. Housing Authority et aI., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

NOV f 9 2009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

Og ~19f) 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth 

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available 

only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least 

plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to 

plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues the District of Columbia Housing 

Authority, its regional administrator, a residential manager and the Housing Authority's attorneys 

for "threatening to evict" him from the Barry Farm Dwellings for non-payment of late rental fees 

and utility fees. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and an order staying the eviction proceedings. 

Although plaintiff has invoked the Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments to the 
Constitution, Compi. at 2, 8, he has stated no facts supporting constitutional violations. See Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) ("[A] plaintiffs obligation to provide 

the "grounds" of his "entitle [ ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do .... Factual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]") (citations omitted); accord 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1951 (2009) ("bare assertions" of "constitutional 

discrimination claim" are "not entitled to be assumed true"). J Because the complaint neither 

presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are 

not of diverse citizenship, it will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum 

Opinion. 

Date: October ,;1.. (",2009 United States District Judge 

J The complaint and attachments show that plaintiff received the process due him under 

the Fifth Amendment in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia, where plaintiff alleges that he was forced to enter "into a consent judgment ... to pay 

$1,295." CompI. at 5. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the local court proceedings. See 

Flemingv. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 

(1995). 

2
##### 



Exhibit 99.0 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM Board of Directors and Stockholders
Slippery Rock Financial Corporation We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Slippery Rock
Financial Corporation and subsidiary as of June 30, 2004, and the related
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the three and
six-month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, and the consolidated statement
of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, and the
consolidated statement of changes in stockholders equity for the six-month
period ended June 30, 2004. These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Companys management. We conducted our review in accordance with standards
of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight
Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding
the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such
an opinion. Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have previously audited,
in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes
in stockholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated January 30, 2004 we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements. /s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
Wexford, PA
July 16, 2004
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 775

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity 

immigrant program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. HALL, Mr. FORBES, 

Mr. BOYD, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. 

CULBERSON, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. BURNS, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate 

the diversity immigrant program.

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—

5 (1) the ‘‘Security and Fairness Enhancement 

6 for America Act of 2003’’; or 

7 (2) the ‘‘SAFE for America Act’’. 
2

•HR 775 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF DIVERSITY IMMI4 GRANTS.—Section 201 of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (a)—

7 (A) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of para8 graph (1); 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end of para10 graph (2) and inserting a period; and 

11 (C) by striking paragraph (3); and

12 (2) by striking subsection (e). 

13 (b) ALLOCATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISAS.—

14 Section 203 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended—

15 (1) by striking subsection (c); 

16 (2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

17 (c),’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b),’’; 

18 (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) 

19 and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); 

20 (4) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

21 (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b)’’; and 

22 (5) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), and 

23 (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) and (b)’’. 

24 (c) PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STA25 TUS.—Section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amend26 ed—
3

•HR 775 IH 

1 (1) by striking subsection (a)(1)(I); and 

2 (2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘(a), (b), or 

3 (c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) or (b)’’. 

4 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

Æ
Wiley B. McAfee 

District Attorney 

May 14, 2015 

Mr. Jeffery D. Kyle 

Clerk of Court of Appeals 

P. O. Box 12457 

Austin, TX 78711 

Re: Case No. 03-15-00290-CR; Rafael Hernandez-Prado v. The State of Texas 

Appeal from Cause No. 9767A in the 33rd District Court of Burnet County 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Please accept this letter as our designation of Lead Counsel for the State of 

Texas, Appellee, in the above described case. Lead Counsel for this case is: 

Gary W. Bunyard 

Assistant District Attorney 

P.O. Box 725 

Llano, TX 78643 

(325) 247-5755 (voice) 

(325) 247-5274 (fax) 

g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.us 

Texas State Bar No. 03353500 

811 Berry Street • P.O. Box 725 • Uano. Texas 78843 • 325-247.5755 • Fax 325-247-5274 

Sincerely,^ 

cc: Mr. Gary E. Prust 

Attorney for Appellant 

via eServe 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00290-CR

5277323

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

5/14/2015 8:32:45 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/14/2015 8:32:45 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- Dominion Virginia Power Under ContractNo. SP0600-04-C-8253 APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59346

Albert B. Krachman, Esq. Najib S. Latoff, Esq.

Blank Rome LLP Washington, DC Col Robert J. Preston II, USAF

Acting Air Force ChiefTrial Attorney Marvin K. Gibbs, Esq.

SeniorTrial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL Appellant appealed from a 7 March 2014 contracting officer's final decision and the Board docketed the appeal as ASBCA No. 59346. By motion dated 19 June 2014, appellant requested to withdraw its appeal, stating that the 7 March 2014 decision had been rescinded, rendering the appeal moot. Appellant further represented that government counsel does not object to appellant's withdrawal ofits appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice. Dated: 15 July 2014

Administrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCA No. 59346, Appeal ofDominion Virginia Power, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals
CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

  In connection with theReport on Form 10-Q of TMP Inland Empire VI, (the “Company”) forthe period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, John Fonseca,certify, 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 Intentionally omitted;
```

                                            Date: August 22, 2005                         By:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEIDREA RENAYE GRAHAM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1412

[August 29, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Joseph Marx, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 50-2012-CF-010107-AXXX-MB.

Deidrea Renaye Graham, Florida City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                                    
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------
|Date: June 3, 2011 |  | /s/ Ed Roffman                     
|                   |  | Ed Roffman, Chief Financial
Officer
|                   |  | (Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

MAY 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 02C01-9701-CC-00013

Appellee, * MADISON COUNTY

VS. * Hon. Franklin Murchison, Judge

DANNY RAY LACY, * (First-degree murder)

Appellant. *

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the judgment of my colleagues that the sentence and

conviction should be affirmed and write separately only to address whether "double

weighing" (use of the underlying felony as an aggravating circumstance for the

imposition of a greater sentence) is permissible in a life without parole sentence. 

The majority correctly notes that in State v. Frederick D. Butler, Dewayne B. Butler,

and Eric D. Alexander, No. 02C01-9604-CR-00128, slip op. at 21 (Tenn. Crim. App.,

at Jackson, March 19, 1997), app. granted, Nov. 3, 1997, our court held that

"double-weighing" is appropriate in these circumstances. I believe, however, that

the reasoning of this court in State v. James Lloyd Julian, II, No. 01C01-9511-CV00371, slip op. at 17 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, July 24, 1997), perm. to app.

filed, Oct. 30, 1997, is more persuasive. In Julian, Judge David Welles spoke for

the panel: "We do not believe the legislature intended to except those receiving life

without parole from the protections against double enhancement afforded those

receiving death and those receiving lesser sentences." Cf., State v. Middlebrooks,

840 S.W.2d 317 (Tenn. 1992). In my opinion, this view better reflects the intent of

our statutory scheme. See State v. Jones, 883 S.W.2d 597 (Tenn. 1994). I agree,

however, with the conclusion reached by the majority. The sentence should be

affirmed, because no double weighing occurred in this case. 

__________________________________

Gary R. Wade, Judge
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 13, 2022.

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, June 13, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22D0390. MONIKABEN MUKESHDHAI PATEL v. JUDY ANN SIMMONS FAMILY 

TRUST.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16CI01688
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         180,513
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,240,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (49,512)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,294,425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,747,143
<PP&E>                                       4,151,641
<DEPRECIATION>                               (854,336)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,638,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          952,084
<BONDS>                                        694,642
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,563
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,988,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,591,167
<SALES>                                      4,400,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,412,297
<CGS>                                        3,289,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,150,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                240,628
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (24,245)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            264,873
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   264,873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm in the headnote to the Selected
Financial Data included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2001 and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-47646) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Plan, 2000
Director Option Plan, 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 2000 Stock Plan and
options to purchase Series E Preferred Stock; the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-55504) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Plan; the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-74768) pertaining to the Transilica Inc. 2001 Amended and
Restated Equity Incentive Plan (as assumed by the registrant) and Domain
Knowledge, Inc. 2000 Stock Option, Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Plan (as
assumed by the registrant); the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-67850)
and related Prospectus of Microtune, Inc. for the registration of up to
$250,000,000 of its securities; the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.
333-75412) and related Prospectus of Microtune, Inc. for the registration of
7,206,125 shares of its common stock of our report dated January 29, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Microtune, Inc. included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                                Ernst & Young LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 6, 2002
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.7 
 Director Compensation 
 Each director of Farmers National Banc Corp. (the
“Corporation”) who is not an employee of the Corporation shall receive an annual retainer fee of $32,000. Directors with significant additional duties shall receive the following additional retainers: (i) $5,000 for the independent
Board Chair; and (ii) $1,500 for each committee chair. Non-employee directors are also eligible for grants under the Corporation’s equity award plans.