alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                (MEREDITH, CARDOZO, LANZ & CHIU LLP LETTERHEAD)



The Board of Directors
Logic Devices Incorporated:


We consent to the use of our report included herein, dated March 2, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Logic Devices Incorporated (the
"Company") as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows and related
schedules for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1997.



Meredith, Cardozo, Lanz & Chiu LLP
San Jose, California
March 24, 1998
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor on behalf of Pendley v. Highland Mining Co, Docket No. WEVA 2006-506-D              

#   Secretary of Labor on behalf of Pendley v. Highland Mining Co, Docket No. WEVA 2006-506-D

meeting_030812.pdf

meeting030812.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Hudson Holding Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin C. Cunningham, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                                                  
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 25, 2009 |  | /s/ Martin C. Cunningham                         
|                    |  | Martin C. Cunningham                             
|                    |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 10.3



                      TRANSBOTICS SECURES AGV SYSTEM ORDER
                            IN THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

CHARLOTTE,  NC - September  27, 2007 - Transbotics  Corporation,  (OTC BB: TNSB)
(www.transbotics.com),  announced it received an order for an  Automatic  Guided
Vehicle System (AGVS) from a new customer in the aerospace industry.  The order,
totaling approximately  $1,470,000,  is to be installed over approximately eight
months and will include multiple wire-guided vehicles,  controls,  hardware, and
other related equipment, software, and engineering services.

"We are  pleased  to provide an AGV  system to the  aerospace  industry,  stated
Charlie Robison, CEO of Transbotics Corporation. "We hope this order will be the
first of many in this field."

For  over 20  years  Transbotics  Corporation  has  specialized  in the  design,
development,  support and  installation of automated  material  handling systems
with an emphasis on Automatic Guided Vehicles  (AGVs).  The Company is a systems
integrator  that   manufactures,   installs  and  supports  various   automation
technologies including: AGVs, robots, conveyors, batteries, chargers, motors and
other related products.

Transbotics  provides unique automation  solutions to a variety of industries in
addition to the automotive (tier one supplier), including aerospace and defense,
food  and  beverage,  paper  and  allied  products,  newsprint  and  publishing,
entertainment,  microelectronics,  plastics  and  primary  metals.  Transbotics'
current customers  include Fortune 500 companies as well as small  manufacturing
companies.

This release  (including  information  incorporated by reference  herein) may be
deemed  to  contain  certain  forward-looking  statements  with  respect  to the
financial condition, results of operation, plans, objectives, future performance
and business of the Company.  These  forward-looking  statements involve certain
risk, including,  without limitation,  the uncertainties detailed in Transbotics
Corporation Securities and Exchange Commission filings.


                                       26
Exhibit 10.(c)(c)

LOGO

279 Bayview Drive, Barrie, Ontario L4M 4W5



BRIAN E. LEVYPresidentChief Executive OfficerTel. (705) 728-6242Fax (705)728-6742




April 22, 2003



Mr. Ean G. Daoust

30 Dove Crescent

Barrie, ON

L4N 7Z3



Dear Ean:



The following letter is to confirm your employment arrangements with InterTAN, Inc. (the Company), and replaces your current employment arrangements with
InterTAN Canada Ltd. Effective the date hereof, you will assume the position of Vice President of the Company but will retain the title of Senior Vice President, Sales Channels of the Companys subsidiary, InterTAN Canada Ltd. Your compensation
and benefits will be as described below and, in consideration, you agree to devote your primary working time, skill, attention and best efforts to the business of InterTAN, Inc. and InterTAN Canada Ltd. All dollar amounts referred to herein are
denominated in Canadian dollars. Unless otherwise stated.



|               | 
|-------------- | 
|Base Salary:   | 
|               | 
|Bonus:         | 
|               | 
|Stock Options: | 



---

|                            | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Company Car:                | 
|                            | 
|Deferred Compensation Plan: | 
|                            | 
|Stock Purchase Plan:        | 
|                            | 
|Group RRSP:                 | 
|                            | 
|Insurance:                  | 



2



---

|          | 
|--------- | 
|          | 
|          | 
|Vacation: | 



If the foregoing accurately sets forth
our understanding, please acknowledge below and return a copy of this letter to me.



Sincerely,



InterTAN, Inc.,



|/s/ Brian E. Levy      
|-----------------------
|                       
|Brian E. Levy          
|President &            
|Chief Executive Officer



************



Accepted and agreed to this 8th day of May, 2003.



|/s/ Jeffery A. Losch |  |  |  | /s/ Ean G. Daoust
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------
|Witness              |  |  |  | Ean G. Daoust    



3
#### Rudy Mateo MIGUEL, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-71100.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*477Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.*

Filed Jan. 27, 2016.

Judith L. Wood, Esq., Law Office of Judith L. Wood and Jesse Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Oil, Enitan Otunla, Daniel Shieh, Esq., Margaret Kuehne Taylor, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Rudy Mateo Miguel, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance. We dismiss the petition for review.

Miguel sought a continuance to await adjudication of the 1-130 visa petition his current wife filed on his behalf in 2010. As Miguel now concedes, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (“USCIS”) website indicates that the petition was denied on May 19, 2014. *See*Pt’r Reply Br. at 10 n. 11. Accordingly, his challenge to the denial of the continuance to pursue that relief is moot. *See Pedroza-Padilla, v. Gonzales,*486 F.3d 1362, 1364 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007); *see also United States v. Strong,*489 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir.2007) (“An appeal is moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In reaching this conclusion, we take judicial notice on our own motion of an online USCIS case status report at https:// egov.uscis.gov/casestatus/ mycasestatus. do;jsessionid=BE48E5810ADD 30AF7A1BFF216A70672C that corresponds to the receipt number for Miguel’s 1-130 petition that appears in the administrative record, and confirms that the petition was denied on May 19, 2014. *See Dent v. Holder,*627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.2010) (taking judicial notice of agency records).

We deny as moot Miguel’s April 24, 2014, “Motion to Supplement Record With DHS Records Not Filed With EOIR.”

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
           This schedule contains summary financial  information
           extracted  from  Venture  World  Ltd.  June 30,  1997
           financial statements and is qualified in its entirety
           by reference to such
           financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                       0000826683
<NAME>                                      Venture World Ltd.

       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                  JUN-30-1997

<CASH>                                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              0
<PP&E>                                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         1,300
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                    (6,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  0
<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-PRIMARY>                                                 .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 .00
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-64615) of American Land Lease, Inc. of our reports dated March 6, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of American Land Lease, Inc.;management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting; and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of American Land Lease, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Certified Public Accountants 

Tampa,Florida 

March 6, 2007
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1502

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Julian McClain, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 2005

Filed: September 22, 2005

___________

Before BYE, BRIGHT, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Julian McClain appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

claiming error resulting from the district court’s use of a disputed drug quantity

calculation in violation of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), judicial

bias, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

McClain withdrew his objection to the drug quantity calculation in the Presentence report. (Tr. at 4-5.) This withdrawal constituted an admission. United States
-2-

v. Hipolito-Sanchez, 998 F.2d 594, 596 (8th Cir. 1993); see United States v. MoraHiguera, 269 F.3d 905, 912-13 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirmatively declining to object to

drug quantity calculation in pre-sentence report at sentencing hearing constitutes a

waiver of the issue). The district court could rely on the admission in sentencing

without erring under Booker. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756.

McClain’s judicial bias argument was not raised on appeal and therefore the

district court’s statements are reviewed under the plain error standard. United States

v. Sypolt, 346 F.3d 838, 839 (8th Cir. 2003). Under such standard, McClain must

demonstrate a “reasonable probability, based on the appellate record as a whole, that

but for the error [the Defendant] would have received a more favorable sentence.”

United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 970 (8th Cir. 2005). McClain has failed to do

so. Indeed, the district court granted a larger downward departure than was sought

by the government and indicated its willingness to grant a reduction in sentence

should the government file a Rule 35(b) motion. (Tr. at 23-24, 26.) The district

court’s statements were personal characterizations of McClain based upon its

interpretation of the submissions before it and did not evince any personal bias

requiring recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455.

McClain argues ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel decided

not to dispute the drug quantity established by reference to McClain’s prior

attestations. McClain’s counsel made an objectively reasonable decision to not risk

losing a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility by disputing previous

attestations. Finally, the failure to cite to Blakely or Booker created no prejudice for

McClain since no Booker error was committed. Accordingly, McClain suffered no

ineffective assistance of counsel. Thai v. Mapes, 412 F.3d 970, 978 (8th Cir. 2005).

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________
Exhibit 32



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The
undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the foregoing Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by Fidelity BancShares (N.C.), Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|      |  |                                      
|----- |  | -------------------------------------
|      | 
|By:   |  | /s/ Billy T. Woodard                 
|Date: |  | May 7, 2004                          
|      |  | Billy T. Woodard                     
|      |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|      | 
|By:   |  | /s/ Mary W. Willis                   
|Date: |  | May 7, 2004                          
|      |  | Mary W. Willis                       
|      |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ANDRE TREMAYNE HODGE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D12-5624 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed August 6, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ashley Moody, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Allyn M. Giambalvo, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

VILLANTI, Judge. Andre Tremayne Hodge seeks review of his convictions and sent ences in seven separate circuit court cases, all of which arose out of a crime spree that occurred- 2 - in January 2012. Having considered the entire record and the S tate's partial concession of error, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for fu rther proceedings. Hodge initially entered pleas of not guilty to all of the cha rges in all seven of the cases. However, after t he trial court denied Hodge's mo tions to suppress his statements and certain physical evidence, Hodge reached a plea agreement with the State that involved him changing his pleas to no contest in exc hange for the State's waiving certain sentencing enhancements. The trial court subse quently held a change of plea hearing, during which it addressed all of the charges i n all of the cases except one—circuit court case number 12-CF-003535. In that single cas e, the trial court never held a plea colloquy with Hodge and never received a change of his plea. Nevertheless, the trial court sentenced Hodge for the three off enses charged in that case, and a written judgment and sentence were later rendered b ased on a no contest plea that was never actually entered. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(k) requires the tria l court to determine in open court that a guilty or nolo contendere plea i s voluntarily entered and that there is a factual basis for such plea. Here, Hodge never formally changed his plea of not guilty in circuit court case number 12-CF-003535, and no trial was ever held on the charges in that case. Hence, the legal requirements of rul e 3.170(k) were clearly not fulfilled, and the trial court erred in convicting and sent encing Hodge in that case. Because we are unable to correct this inadvertency by appellate mandate, we must reverse Hodge's conviction and sentences in case number 12-CF-0 03535 and remand for further proceedings. And bec ause it appears that this erro r was simply an oversight- 3 - on the part of all involved, we encourage the State to work wit h Hodge to effectuate the intent of his original plea agreement. In all other respects, we affirm. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

DAVIS, C.J., and BLACK, J., Concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
 Company
 Periodic
Report
 /s/ Richard B. Berliner

Richard B. BerlinerChief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Patrick G. Mackey

Patrick G. MackeySenior Vice President(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and is not
being filed as part of the Periodic Report or as a separate disclosure document.
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Berliner
Communications, Inc. and will be retained by Berliner Communications, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 28