alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



         I, Ethan D. Hokit, Chief Financial Officer of Military Resale Group,
Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify, 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 my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 of the Registrant, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



                                   By:  /S/ ETHAN D. HOKIT
                                   ------------------------------
                                   Name: Ethan D. Hokit
                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer

May 29, 2003

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Military Resale Group, Inc. and will be retained by Military Resale
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3553 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3553

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 22, 2010

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To exclude from consideration as income under the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 amounts received 
by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-related 
                disabilities of a member of the family.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Veterans Housing Opportunity 
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME.

    Paragraph (9) of section 4 of the Native American Housing 
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103(9)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Any amounts received by any member of the 
                family as disability compensation under chapter 11 of 
                title 38, United States Code, or dependency and 
                indemnity compensation under chapter 13 of such 
                title.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Joao Avelino Meneses PEDRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 06-70016, 06-72567.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Robert L. Lewis, Esquire, Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Kevin James Conway, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Joao Avelino Meneses Pedro, a native and citizen of Portugal, petitions for review of the the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, *Khan v. Holder,*584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

Pedro does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code section 288(a).

The BIA determined that Pedro is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Pedro’s due process retroactivity and equal protection challenges to this determination are unavailing. *See Abebe v. Mu-kasey,*554 F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pedro’s motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status where he failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the requested relief. *See Ordonez v. INS,*345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3547 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3547

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 936 South 250 East in Provo, Utah, as the ``Rex E. Lee Post Office 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REX E. LEE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 936 South 250 East in Provo, Utah, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Rex E. Lee Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rex E. Lee 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3547

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 936 South 250 East in Provo, Utah, as the ``Rex E. Lee Post Office 
                              Building''.
```
Exhibit 4.15


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      4.15

     

     

    
      CONVERSION
        AGREEMENT

      


      This
        Agreement executed on March
        12, 2007
        is made
        by and between Cobalis
        Corp.,
        a
        Nevada corporation (the “Company”) with its principal place of business located
        at 2445 McCabe Way, Suite 150, Irvine CA 92614 and Marko
        Balac
        (the
“Consultant”), with an address at 9 Lago Norte, Irvine, CA 92612.

      


      NOW
        THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the covenants and
        obligations set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration,
        the
        receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree
        as
        follows:

      


      Consulting
        Fees Conversion:
        The
        Consultant has rendered general office administration support services to
        the
        Company continuously from January 1, 2007, at the rate of $3,000 a month,
        with a
        balance due of $9,000 (nine thousand) as of March 31. 

      


      The
        Parties hereby agree to convert $9,000 (nine thousand), into 9,184 (nine
        thousand one hundred eighty-four) fully-paid and non-assessable free trading
        shares, at the conversion rate of $0.98 (closing price of the Company’s stock on
        March 9, 2007) per share, upon the execution of this Agreement.


      


      Furthermore,
        the Parties agree to convert $9,000 (nine thousand) of Consultant’s fees for his
        future services to the Company (April-June 2007) into 9,184 (nine thousand
        one
        hundred eighty-four) fully-paid and non-assessable free trading shares, at
        the
        conversion rate of $0.98 (closing price of the Company’s stock on March 9, 2007)
        per share, upon the execution of this Agreement and submission of applicable
        invoice(s) for the actual subsequent services.

      


      The
        Company agrees to take immediate steps to file S-8 registration with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission in order to fulfill its obligation to
        the
        Consultant.

      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
        date
        first written above.

      
 

    

    
      
        	The Company
                (Cobalis,
                Corp.)	 	 	The
                Consultant (Marko Balac)
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ 	 	 	/s/ 
	
                
Chaslav
                Radovich	 	 	
                
Marko
                Balac
	President 	 	 	 


      

    

     

     

     

    1
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.13.1  


 
 

AMENDMENT NO. 1
  To the Employment Agreement Dated January 15, 1999
  By and Between Ronald F. Woestemeyer &
  PROS Revenue Management, L.P. (Successor in Interest to PROS Strategic Solutions,
 Inc.)    
    


This
is Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the above referenced Employment Agreement, and shall be effective this 2nd day of February, 2004. 


1.0    Amendment to Section 3(a) of Employment Agreement.    The second sentence of paragraph 3(a) shall be amended
and the revised section 3(a) shall now read as follows: 



Salary.    Employee shall be paid a salary of $19,479.17 per month, less applicable withholdings and deductions, in accordance with the
Company's normal payroll procedures (the "Salary"). Any increase in the Salary shall be at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Managers. 




2.0    Effect on the Employment Agreement.    Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement and all other
documents executed in connection therewith, shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed. 


        EXECUTED
in Houston, Texas, this 2nd day of February 2004. 



	 	 	Employee
	

 	
 	

/s/ Ronald F. Woestemeyer
 Ronald F. Woestemeyer
	

 	
 	
PROS Revenue Management, L.P.

(Successor in Interest to PROS Strategic Solutions, Inc.)
	

 	
 	

/s/ Charlie Murphy
 Charlie Murphy

Executive Vice President & C.F.O.













QuickLinks


AMENDMENT NO. 1 To the Employment Agreement Dated January 15, 1999 By and Between Ronald F. Woestemeyer & PROS Revenue Management, L.P. (Successor in Interest to PROS Strategic Solutions, Inc.)
Exhibit 4.2


    
      

    

    Exhibit
      4.2

     

    NOTATION
      OF GUARANTEE

     

    For
      value
      received, each Guarantor (which term includes any successor Person under the
      Indenture) has, jointly and severally, fully and unconditionally and irrevocably
      guaranteed, to the extent set forth in the Indenture, dated as of April 20,
      2006
      (the “Indenture”),
      among
      Brigham Exploration Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
      the
      Guarantors and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee (the “Trustee”),
      and
      subject to the provisions in the Indenture, (a) the due and punctual payment
      of
      the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes (as defined in
      the
      Indenture), whether at maturity, by acceleration, redemption or otherwise,
      the
      due and punctual payment of interest on overdue principal and premium, and,
      to
      the extent permitted by law, interest, and the due and punctual performance
      of
      all other obligations of the Company to the Holders or the Trustee all in
      accordance with the terms of the Indenture and (b) in case of any extension
      of
      time of payment or renewal of any Notes or any of such other obligations, that
      the same will be promptly paid in full when due or performed in accordance
      with
      the terms of the extension or renewal, whether at stated maturity, by
      acceleration or otherwise. The obligations of the Guarantors to the Holders
      of
      Notes and to the Trustee pursuant to the Guarantee and the Indenture are
      expressly set forth in Article Ten of the Indenture and reference is hereby
      made
      to the Indenture for the precise terms of the Guarantee. This Guarantee shall
      be
      governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New
      York.

     

     

    
      
        	
                Date:
                  April 9, 2007

              	
                BRIGHAM,
                  INC.

              
	 	 	 	 
	 	
                By: 
                  

              	
                /s/
                  Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.

              	 
	 	 	
                Name: 
                  

              	Eugene
                B. Shepherd, Jr. 
	 	 	
                Title:

              	Chief
                Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
                BRIGHAM
                  OIL & GAS, L.P.

              
	 	 	 	 
	 	
                By:
                  

              	
                BRIGHAM,
                  INC., 

              
	 	 	
                Its
                  managing general partner

              
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
                By:

              	
                /s/
                  Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.

              	 
	 	 	
                Name:
                  

              	Eugene
                B. Shepherd, Jr. 
	 	 	
                Title:
                  

              	Chief
                Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tremaine F. PLUMMER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-7732.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 16, 2008.

Decided: May 6, 2008.

Tremaine F. Plummer, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tremaine F. Plummer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for evidentiary hearing and request for reduction of sentence. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S. Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 23, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on November 19, 2007. Because Plummer failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Alan KAUFMAN, Individually, d.b.a. Center for Asthma & Allergy of Bronx and Westchester, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SWIRE PACIFIC HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-10623.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 6, 2011.

Stephen Frederick Rosenthal, Robert C. Josefsberg, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, FL, Juan Luis Quintana, Quintana & Associates, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Elliot H. Scherker, Stephen James Binhak, Danielle N. Gamo, Brigid F. Cech Samóle, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BARKETT, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant-Plaintiff Alan Kaufman (“Kaufman”) appeals: (1) the district court’s summary judgment order, dated December 18, 2009, granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee-Defendant Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc. (“Swire”) on Counts I, II, and IV; (2) the district court’s order, dated October 9, 2009, grant*790ing Swire’s motion to strike the testimony of Kaufman’s experts, Jose Perea and Ralph Puig; and (3) the district court’s dismissal order, dated June 23, 2009, dismissing with prejudice Kaufman’s claims in Counts III and V. With respect to the dismissal order, Kaufman only appeals the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal with prejudice of Count V in its entirety.

Even without considering Kaufman’s experts, we conclude the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to Counts I, II, and IV and dismissing Count V in its entirety at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. As to Count V, we conclude the complaint stated a cause of action for actual damages. As to Counts I, II, and IV, the record presents genuine issues of material fact unsuitable for resolution at the summary judgment stage. Because factual issues for trial are presented even without Kaufman’s experts, we need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion in granting Swire’s motion to strike in order to decide the summary judgment issues as to Counts I, II, and IV. Further, we note that the district court ruled “that Mr. Jose Perea and Mr. Ralph Puig’s testimony be excluded unless timely offered for rebuttal.” Given the reversal of the summary judgment order and the district court’s allowing Kaufman’s experts to testify anyway (albeit limited to rebuttal), we conclude both parties on remand should now be given adequate opportunity to depose each other’s experts before trial and each party’s experts should be allowed to testify at trial. We vacate the above district court orders to the extent stated above and remand this case.

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR TRIAL.
#### Marcus Dairy, Inc., Appellant, v Jacene Realty Corp. et al., Defendants, and Columbia Equities, Ltd., Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 31]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, West-*494Chester County (Coppola, J.), dated February 20, 1997, which, upon a decision of the same court dated January 8, 1997, granted the motion by the defendant Columbia Equities, Ltd., pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it and, in effect, denied the plaintiff’s cross motion to compel discovery of Columbia Equities, Ltd., and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Columbia Equities, Ltd.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion by Columbia Equities, Ltd., to dismiss the complaint is denied, and the plaintiffs cross motion to compel discovery is granted.

The disposition of this matter by summary dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) is premature. It appears from the documentation and brief deposition testimony submitted by the plaintiff, that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion of Columbia Equities, Ltd. to dismiss may exist, but cannot now be stated, and that discovery is required (see, CPLR 3211 [d]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Dean BRIERTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10839

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 14, 2011.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Matthew John Guide, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jerry Brierton has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229, 232-33 (5th Cir.2011). Brierton *333has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.