alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Compensation
      Amendment

    


    


    It
      is
      further understood and agreed that the undersigned herein; Mr. Nick Cirillo,
      whom has been retained to serve as the Chief Executive Officer shall be entitled
      to an annual equity assignment in connection with his services to, and on behalf
      of the Company. It is further understood that Mr. Cirillo will be compensated
      on
      a per annum basis pursuant to the attached schedule articulated herein referred
      to as “Schedule A”. 

    


    Such
      compensation shall be issued on the anniversary date of the employment agreement
      as adopted by the company and shall continue as long as Mr. Cirillo is employed
      with the Company. Further, such compensation shall be reviewed and revised
      in a
      manner consistent with the employment agreement to mitigate any increases in
      responsibility as inured.

    


    “Schedule
      A”

    


    
      	
              Stock

            	 	
              Warrants
                (*)

            
	
              1,500,000
                Common Shares

            	 	
              3,000,000
                Common Warrants

            


    

    


    Notes:
      All such warrants, as issued and assigned, shall be subject to a bonafide Board
      Resolution affording the assignee the right to convert same on a cashless basis
      pursuant to such assignment having been issued in accordance with the governing
      employment agreement. Further, it is understood and accepted that such assignee
      must be in the full time employment of the Company pursuant to the terms and
      conditions as set forth.

     

     

     

    
      	
              Agreed:

            	 	
              Agreed:

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
               

            	 	
               

            
	
              Clickable
                Oil

            	 	
              Mr.
                Nick Cirillo

            
	 	 	 
	
              Dated:

            	 	
              Dated:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 26, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Node.js Foundation (“Node.js Foundation”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, HackerOne, San Francisco, CA; Chef Software, Inc., Seattle, WA; Profound Logic, Dayton, OH; and Keymetrics, Inc., Paris, FRANCE, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Node.js Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On August 17, 2015, Node.js Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58297).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 14, 2017. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 7, 2017 (82 FR 42363).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2017-24771 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Quarterly Report of WorldQuest Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R.
Stephen Polley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 result of operations of the
Company.

|            |  |                       |  |                                       |  | 
|----------- |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | 
|By:         |  | /s/ R. Stephen Polley |  |                                      
|            |  |                       |  |                                      
|            |  | Name:                 |  | R. Stephen Polley                     |  | 
|            |  | Title:                |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|            |  |                       |  |                                       |  | 
|May 9, 2003 |  |
Exhibit 23.1






CONSENT OF STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.,


INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (No. 333-135663), 2004 Stock Purchase Plan (No. 333-116405 and 333-153072) and 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (No. 333-132603, 333-18601 and 333-114013), of HemaCare Corporation of our report dated March 23, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of HemaCare Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009 included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K).




/s/ Stonefield Josephson, Inc.




CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




Irvine, California


March 23, 2010
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304

Gerard Poliquin,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-24711 Filed 11-9-17; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
#### Eric WOODRUFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-0325-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 22, 2010.

*625Eric M. Woodruff, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

William G. Ballaine (Kevin P. Sullivan, on the brief), Landman Corsi Ballaine *&*Ford P.C., New York, NY, for Appellee.

SUMMARY ORDER

*Pro se*plaintiff Eric Woodruff, who sued defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation under federal and state law for disability discrimination in employment, appeals from the dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act claims as time-barred. *See*42 U.S.C. § 12112 *et seq.*
      *1*
      **We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint *de novo,*accepting the allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor, *see, e.g., LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC,*570 F.3d 471, 475-76 (2d Cir.2009), consistent with the pleading standards articulated in *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*- U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), and *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). In doing so, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the cabe, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that plaintiffs claims were properly dismissed for the reason stated by the district court, ie., they were untimely filed. *See*42 U.S.C. § 12117(a); *see also National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan,*536 U.S. 101, 109-10, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). We are not persuaded by plaintiffs contention that his administrative complaint was timely filed within 300 days of the final disposition 6f a grievance proceeding challenging his termination because “the pendency of a grievance, or some other method of collateral review of an employment decision, does not toll the running of the limitations periods.” *Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks,*449 U.S. 250, 261, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980); *see also Bates v. Long Island R.R.,*997 F.2d 1028, 1037 (2d Cir.1993) (noting that “grievance proceeding did not toll the limitations period” for disability discrimination claim).

We have considered Woodruffs other arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

. As Woodruff's appeal does not address his New York State Human Rights Law claim, we deem all arguments with respect to this cause of action waived. *See, e.g., Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mortensen,*606 F.3d 22, 28-29 (2d Cir.2010). In any event, this claim is also time-barred because Woodruff failed to file suit within three years of termination as required by New York law. *See Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp.,*110 F.3d 898, 907 (2d Cir.1997) (citing *Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.,*58 N.Y.2d 293, 306-07, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 238-40, 448 N.E.2d 86 (1983)).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40191

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISRAEL AVILES AVALOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:12-CR-894-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Israel Aviles Avalos

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Aviles Avalos has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

counsel’s assessmentthat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-40191 Document: 00512419839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
No. 13-40191

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40191 Document: 00512419839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
**Exhibit 3.2e**
 **RESOLUTION
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF**
 
 **VENTIV
HEALTH, INC.**
 
 **On
June 16, 2004**
 
 
 RESOLVED,
that Article I, Section 7 of the By-Laws of the Corporation be, and it hereby
is, amended in its entirety to read as follows:
 
 
 
 SECTION 7. Organization. Meetings
of stockholders shall be presided over by the Chairman, if any, or in the
Chairman’s absence, the Chief Executive Officer, or if none or in the Chief
Executive Officer’s absence, the Chief Financial Officer, or if none or in the
Chief Financial Officer’s absence, any other elected officer of the Corporation.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the person who would otherwise be entitled to
preside over the meeting in accordance with the preceding sentence (whether or
not present at the meeting) may designate another person, whether or not an
elected officer, to preside over the meeting. If no elected officer of the
Corporation is present and no other person has been designated in the manner
provided above, a meeting of stockholders shall be presided over by a chairman
chosen by the stockholders entitled to vote who are present in person or by
proxy at the meeting. The Secretary of the Corporation, or in the absence of the
Secretary an Assistant Secretary, shall act as the secretary of the meeting, but
if neither the Secretary nor an Assistant Secretary is present, the presiding
officer of the meeting shall appoint any person present to act as secretary of
the meeting.
**Michigan Supreme Court** 

**Lansing, Michigan**

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

February 24, 2014 

# Order

Clerk February 24, 2014

148442 ( 77 )

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT, f/k/a DEPARTMENT

OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 148442

v COA: 297663

Ingham CC: 89

- 064557

- CE

REXAIR, INC.

, Defendant

- Appell ant

.

________________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce

to participate as amicus cur iae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on February

18, 2014, by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce on the application for leave to appeal

is accepted for filing.
#### Rafael ROMERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-6961.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 11, 2015.

Decided: Jan. 19, 2016.

Rafael Romero, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Romero seeks to appeal the district court’s decision to return his motion for miscellaneous relief without docketing it because the motion pertained to the filing fee in a case that was closed in 2013. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012). The decision Romero seeks to appeal is not an appealable judgment or order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-2048WM

_____________

Marc Colley, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Board of Police Commissioners, Kansas * Appeal from the United States 

City, MO; James F. Ralls, President; * District Court for the Western

Jack W. R. Headley, Vice-President; * District of Missouri.

Dona Boley, Treasurer; Stacey Daniels, *

Dr., Member; Honorable Emanuel * [UNPUBLISHED]

Cleaver, ex-officio member, all parties *

above in their official capacities as *

members and officers, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: October 16, 1997

Filed: November 4, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

At a time when Marc Colley was a Kansas City police officer, Colley was

involved in a physical altercation with an arrestee at police headquarters. The incident

was captured on police video tape, and the tape was replayed on television. Colley was
-2-

later convicted of assault and lost his job as a police officer. Colley then sued the

members of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City (the Board) contending

the Board released the tape to the media in violation of state and federal law. The

district court granted the Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R.

Civ. P.12(c). The district court rejected Colley's state law claims because the tape's

release did not violate state law and the Board was entitled to sovereign immunity on

Colley's action for invasion of privacy under state tort law. The district court also ruled

that Colley could not maintain his federal claims against the Board under a respondeat

superior theory. Contrary to Colley's view, Colley's criminal activity is not protected

by the federal constitutional right to privacy. See Eagle v. Morgan, 88 F.3d 620, 625

(8th Cir. 1996)

Having reviewed the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings de novo

using the same standard that governs motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), see

Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990), we conclude the

judgment of the district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"Letter of Commissioner Sola to President Joe Biden - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nBqQn2kSnr\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/ftdo\/letter-of-commissioner-sola-to-president-joe-biden\/\">Letter of Commissioner Sola to President Joe Biden<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/ftdo\/letter-of-commissioner-sola-to-president-joe-biden\/embed\/#?secret=nBqQn2kSnr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Letter of Commissioner Sola to President Joe Biden” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"nBqQn2kSnr\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Federal Maritime Commissioner Louis E. Sola wrote the President on November 7, 2023 regarding policies to incentivize decarbonization. Text of the letter: Dear Mr. President:  The maritime industry is challenged by the lack of policies incentivizing decarbonization. The \u201cEnergy Efficiency and Decarbonization Technical Guide\u201d outlines the Maritime Administration\u2019s efforts to tackle the barriers of decarbonization. Although [...]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
FILED 

 U.S.COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 09/16/99 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

 PUBLISH 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

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

No. 96-4884

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

D. C. Docket No. 95-2588-CV-SM

WALTER L. STONE, individually, and as Natural

Guardian of S.P.S., a minor,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEORGENE WALL, GINA WALL MASTERSON,

BROCK GREEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

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

(September 16, 1999)

Before EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, WELLFORD*, Senior Circuit Judge.**

___________________

*Honorable Harry W. Wellford, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by

desigantion.

**This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
2

PER CURIAM:

In this diversity suit, plaintiffs asserted a common law action for interference

with a parent/child relationship or abduction. The United States District Court for

the Southern District of Florida dismissed the claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

12(b)(6), concluding that Florida recognized no claim for which relief could be

granted on those grounds. We certified the question to the Supreme Court of

Florida, see Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1443 (11th Cir. 1998), and asked:

Whether a cause of action exists for interference with the parent/child

relationship where a third party (that is, a nonparent who has no

custody rights over that child) intentionally abducts a minor child

from a parent legally entitled to the child’s custody?

The Supreme Court of Florida has answered “Yes.” See Stone v. Wall, 734

So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1999). Therefore, we VACATE the district court decision,

dismissing this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,

and REMAND for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.