alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August
      6,
      2007





David
      Bassin





Re:
            Amendment
                to Stock Option Agreement (s) /Restricted Stock Award
                Agreement(s)





Dear
      David:





As
      you
      know, inVentiv Health, Inc. (the “Corporation”) has previously granted to you
      certain options (the “Options”) to purchase shares of common stock, $0.001 par
      value, of the Corporation. As of the date hereof, you are the owner of the
      following Options:





Option
                Number
            Option
                Grant Date
            Number
                of Option Shares00001750
            12/10/2003
            5,50000001918
            11/1/2004
            15,00000002585
            1/22/2007
            10,960





Additionally,
      you have been awarded restricted shares of common stock, par value $.001 per
      share, of the Corporation (the “Restricted Stock”) .
      As of
      this date hereof, you have been awarded the following Restricted Stock
      grants:





Award
                Number
            Award
                Date
            Number
                of Restricted Shares00002215
            1/3/2006
            2,75000002602*
            1/22/2007
            5,01500002623
            1/22/2007
            5,015





*
      denotes
      a performance based grant.





We
      hereby
      confirm the following:





1.
      Section 1(c) of each option agreement/notice of grant relating to the Options
      listed above is hereby amended to provide that such Options and the shares
      of
      common stock subject thereto shall immediately vest upon a Change of Control
      (as
      defined in Section 5(f) of the Employment Agreement dated January 1, 2003
      between you and the Corporation, as previously amended).





2.
      Section 3 of each of the notices of grant relating to award numbers 00002215
      and
      00002623 is hereby amended to provide that the shares of Restricted Stock
      subject thereto shall immediately vest upon a Change of Control.





3.  Section
      3
      of the notice of grant relating to award number 00002602 is hereby amended
      to
      provide that upon a Change of Control, a number of shares of Restricted Stock
      subject thereto equal to the Target Number (as defined in such notice of grant)
      shall immediately vest.





4.  All
      future grants of Options and Restricted Shares will provide for immediate
      vesting upon a Change of Control.





**2.**
            **Continuing
                Effectiveness of Stock Option Agreements/ Restricted Stock
                Awards**





Except
      as
      modified herein, the above-referenced award documentation remains in full force
      and effect.








Very
      truly yours,





INVENTIV
      HEALTH, INC.








By:        
      /s/ Eran Broshy


Eran
      Broshy


Chairman
      & CEO





/s/
      David Bassin


Accepted
      and agreed to by:        Dated:
      8/6/07           David
      Bassin
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Form 10-QSB of TrimFast Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the three months ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Magno, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.




/s/ Michael Magno
-----------------
Michael Magno
Chief Executive Officer
May 17, 2004
----

Exhibit 32 

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 reportof China Marketing Media Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yingsheng Li, President, ChiefExecutive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company. 

| /s/Yingsheng Li                               |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| Yingsheng Li                                  |
| *President,      Chief Executive Officer and* |
| *Interim Chief      Financial Officer*        |

August 26, 2008 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to China Marketing Media Holdings, Inc. and willbe retained by China Marketing Media Holdings, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

The forgoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing. 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50733 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID GARCIA-APOLONIA, also known as Roberto Trejo-Resendiz, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-02-CR-723-1-AML

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Garcia-Apolonia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia-Apolonia contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should haveNo. 03-50733 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Garcia-Apolonia maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Garcia-Apolonia acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 265 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to eliminate the general Medicaid 

funding limitations for territories of the United States, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2021 

Mr. SABLAN (for himself, Mr. CLEAVER, Mrs. RADEWAGEN, Mr. SAN NICOLAS, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. SIRES, Ms. 

VELA ́ZQUEZ, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. 

HASTINGS, Mr. CARSON, Mr. CASE, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. 

JACKSON LEE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Ms. MENG, Mr. TRONE, 

Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. NADLER, Ms. OCASIOCORTEZ, Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, and Ms. CHU) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the general Medicaid funding limitations for territories 

of the United States, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Insular Area Medicaid 

5 Parity Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 265 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF GENERAL MEDICAID FUNDING 

2 LIMITATIONS (‘‘CAP’’) FOR TERRITORIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1108 of the Social Secu4 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1308) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (f), in the matter preceding 

6 paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘subsection (g)’’ and in7 serting ‘‘subsections (g) and (h)’’; 

8 (2) in subsection (g)(2), in the matter pre9 ceding subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and para10 graphs (3) and (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘, paragraphs (3) 

11 and (5), and subsection (h)’’; and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub13 section: 

14 ‘‘(h) SUNSET OF MEDICAID FUNDING LIMITA15 TIONS.—Subsections (f) and (g) shall not apply to Puerto 

16 Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Is17 lands, and American Samoa beginning with fiscal year 

18 2021.’’. 

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

20 (1) Section 1902(j) of the Social Security Act 

21 (42 U.S.C. 1396a(j)) is amended by striking ‘‘, the 

22 limitation in section 1108(f),’’. 

23 (2) Section 1903(u) of the Social Security Act 

24 (42 U.S.C. 1396b(u)) is amended by striking para25 graph (4). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 265 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply beginning with fiscal year 2021. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00372-CR

DAVID ALLEN RUSSELL

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

199th District Court of Collin County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 199-81323-2012

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 29, 2015
#### Frank Vitale et al., Respondents, v Jack Friedman et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[666 NYS2d 403]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered May 16, 1997, in favor of plaintiff landlords and against defendant tenants in the amount of $911,419.83, inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements, and bringing up for review a prior order, same court and Justice, entered April 22, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendants’ brief, granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an appraisal fixing the rent for the renewal term of the leased premises at an annual net base rent of $1,152,000, and denied defendants’ cross motion to vacate such appraisal and for appointment of a new neutral appraiser, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

Appraisers have broad discretion as to their methods and sources of information *(Perlbinder v Jakubovitz,*239 AD2d 294), and may determine “which of the myriad factors are relevant to a particular valuation and how such factors impact the valuation of the parcel of land * * * without interference or direction from the court”, absent an agreement expressly identifying such factors *(New York Overnight Partners v Gordon,*88 NY2d 716, 721 [citation omitted]). Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the methods and factors considered *15by the appraisers in this case fell outside the parameters of the appraisal as defined by the lease, and their disagreement with respect to the factors and various methods employed does not provide a basis for judicial review *(see, Rice v Ritz Assocs.,*88 AD2d 513, *affd*58 NY2d 923; *201-203 Lexington Ave. Corp. v 205/215 Lexington Ltd. Partnership,*224 AD2d 183, *lv denied*88 NY2d 813). There is also no merit to defendants’ contention that the written determination of the appraisers was insufficiently detailed *(see, Perlbinder v Jakubovitz, supra).*Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL MIRANDA-SANTANA, AKA

Miguel Santana Miranda, 

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70471

Agency No. A205-466-951

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 14, 2023** 

San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,***

District Judge.

 

FILED

APR 18 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Miguel Miranda-Santana petitions for review of a final order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

denying his application for cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent

residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We deny the petition for review.

1. The BIA applied the correct legal standards and did not ignore relevant

evidence. The BIA’s analysis of the hardships Miranda-Santana’s children would

face upon their father’s removal was plainly forward looking, see Figueroa v.

Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 497 (9th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Abebe

v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), and considered the hardship

factors cumulatively, see In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467, 472 (BIA

2002) (en banc). Nothing in the record overcomes our presumption that the BIA

considered all relevant evidence. See Szonyi v. Barr, 942 F.3d 874, 897 (9th Cir.

2019). 

2. Miranda-Santana does not “specifically and distinctly” argue that the BIA

improperly applied the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard in

§ 1229b(b)(1)(D) to the established facts of his case and therefore forfeits any such

claim. Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting

Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Miranda-Santana’s briefing argues that we would have jurisdiction over such a

2
claim, but does not address the merits of the hardship question. That is, Miranda

Santana does not explain why the established facts of his case amount to

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative upon removal.

PETITION DENIED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JACOBSON
RESONANCE ENTERPRISES, INC.'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,336,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,360,915
<PP&E>                                         155,288
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,521
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,517,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          195,788
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         45
<COMMON>                                        38,499
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,283,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,517,598
<SALES>                                          2,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,575
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               711,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (701,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (701,321)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brent Shaw, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Brent Shaw



Brent Shaw

Acting Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2003
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 16, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1295

Lower Tribunal No. 18-28145

________________

Bassem Essam El Mallakh,

Appellant,

vs.

Belgium Investments 960 Bay Dr,

Appellee.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, William Thomas, Judge.

Frank Law Firm, P.A., and Cody L. Frank (Fort Lauderdale); South 

Florida Law, PLLC, and Frank DelloRusso (Hallandale Beach), for appellant.

Bernhard Law Firm, PLLC, and Andrew J. Bernhard, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant, Bassem Essam El Mallakh, challenges an order denying his 

verified motion to vacate a default final judgment rendered in favor of 

appellee, Belgium Investments 960 Bay Drive. The trial court conducted an 

extensive evidentiary hearing, resolved all disputed factual issues, and 

articulated legal conclusions in a carefully reasoned, fourteen-page opinion. 

Adhering to the presumptions codified in the Supreme Court’s seminal 

decision, Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2015), the principles 

advanced in Lazcar International, Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2007), and the adage that we must decline to “substitute [our] judgment 

for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the 

witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court,”

Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 1955), as this “is not the 

function of the appellate court,” Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976), 

we affirm the order under review in all respects. 

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001088797
<NAME> ATERIAN CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5000000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0



</TABLE>