alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
76 A.3d 535

#### Douglas E. BASHAM, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee.

No. 1 WAP 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 23, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2013, the above captioned appeal is quashed for failure to file a brief.
EXHIBIT 32(A)

                            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 Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Dwight Foster, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1. The Report 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.


Date:  December 13, 2003                         / s /  Dwight Foster
                                                 ----------------------

                                                 DWIGHT FOSTER,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
exv10w05



 








Exhibit 10.05





Compensation Arrangement between Flextronics International Ltd. and Nicholas Brathwaite



Nicholas Brathwaite, our Chief Technology Officer and a newly-identified named executive officer,
receives an annual base salary of $650,000 and is eligible to receive a bonus of up to a maximum of
200% of base salary. The actual bonus paid, if any, to Mr. Brathwaite is based 50% on achievement
of quarterly and annual EPS targets and 50% on the performance of the Company’s Components business
unit.
Distribution

Brian P. Krier, Esq.

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of the Regional Solicitor

170 S. Independence Mall West, Suite 630E

The Curtis Center

Philadelphia, PA 19106

James P. McHugh, Esq.

Hardy Pence PLLC

P.O. Box 2548

Charleston, WV 25329

Ali A. Beydoun, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA,

201 12th Street South, Suite 401, Arlington, VA 22202-5450

April Nelson, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

US Department of Labor

201 12th St. South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Melanie Garris

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Administrative Law Judge William B. Moran

Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP. **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual MortgagePass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2006-AR2 Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) inall material respects, except for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., for whom I have insufficient information to base an assessment; and5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report inaccordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10–K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: None. The following unaffiliated parties did not provide sufficient information upon which reasonable reliance could be based:Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.  

 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
#### Gagik GABRIELYAN; Marine Grigoryan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70693.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

*179Gittel Gordon, Esq., Law Offices of Git-tel Gordon, La Jolla, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Alexandra J. Shepard, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret K. Taylor, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gagik Gabrielyan and Marine Grigoryan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Gabrielyan testified the police questioned him about documents and thought he had information about an assassination attempt. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the police harassed Gabrielyan as part of a legitimate criminal investigation and not on account of his membership in a particular social group, an imputed political opinion, or any other protected ground. *See Dinu v. Ashcroft,*372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails. *See id.*

Because Gabrielyan failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Gabrielyan failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Armenia. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit
10.1


August 3, 2006


Steven R. McCracken


One SeaGate


Toledo, Ohio 43666


Dear Steve:


Reference is made
to a certain letter agreement dated March 31, 2004 between you and the
Owens-Illinois, Inc. (the “Company”), as amended by letter agreement dated March
10, 2005, setting forth the terms of your employment as Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer.


1.     Upon
your acceptance hereof, paragraph 5 of the Letter will be deemed to be amended
to read, in its entirety, as follows:


“5.  Employee
Benefits and Perquisites.  You will
participate in the Company’s employee benefit plans (except for severance or
incentive plans) as in effect from time to time, including its health plan and
life insurance plan (col­lectively, the “Employee Benefits”), on the
same basis as those benefits are generally made available to other senior
executives of the Company.  You will be
provided with four weeks (20 days) per year of paid vacation.  You will have use of a Company car and will
be reimbursed for reasonable fees paid for financial consulting.


Provided that prior to April 1, 2009 you (a) are not terminated by the
Company for Cause, or (b) do not resign from the Company, the retirement
benefit (annuity and/or lump sum) payable to you upon your retirement from the
Company under the Owens-Illinois Salary Retirement Plan and Supplemental
Retirement Benefit Plan (the “Plans”) would be calculated based on a Life
Annuity equal to the O-I Annuity Amount (as defined below).  Capitalized terms used herein without
definition shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plans.


The “O-I Annuity Amount” means an amount equal to the Calculated Annuity
Amount (as defined below) less the Offset Annuity Amount (as defined below).


The “Calculated Annuity Amount” means a Life Annuity calculated upon your
retirement from the Company based on Years of Service equal to your Years of
Service with the Company, plus your years of service with your prior employer.


The “Offset
Annuity Amount” means a Life Annuity calculated by taking the monthly annuity
amount receivable by you from your prior employer as of April 1, 2004 and
calculating the actuarial equivalent thereof on the date of your 









 



retirement using (i) the Applicable Interest Rate and (ii) a remaining life
expectance at the time of retirement using the Applicable Mortality Table.


The O-I Annuity Amount would be used for the calculation of benefits
(annuity and/or lump sum) due to you upon your retirement from the Company
based on your Final Average Earnings with the Company.”


2.     Except as otherwise provided herein, the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
    /s/ James W. Baehren

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: James W.
  Baehren

  
	
   

  	
  Its: Senior Vice
  President

  
	
  Acknowledged and
  Agreed:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
    /s/ Steven R. McCracken

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Steven R.
  McCracken
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I,Grayling Hofer, Chief Accounting Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) 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 my knowledge:  1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.  Dated: August 1, 2006  /s/Grayling Hofer Grayling Hofer Chief Accounting Officer Principal Financial Officer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's financial  statements for the six months ended June 30, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                           1,153
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,191
<PP&E>                              486
<DEPRECIATION>                      175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    4,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               460
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                         4,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       4,612
<SALES>                               30
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      47
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    (3)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (994)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (994)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                          (994)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0
        



</TABLE>
#### James Smiley BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.Q. HICKMAN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-15600.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 27, 2008.

Donald Masuda, Esq., Kenny N. Giffard, Esq., Law Offices of Donald Masuda, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Laura Wetzel Simpton, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner James Smiley Brown appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his jury-trial conviction for making terrorist threats and for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

As a threshold matter, we reject the state’s contention that Brown’s claim was procedurally defaulted under *In re Dixon,*41 Cal.2d 756, 759, 264 P.2d 513 (1953). *See Park v. California,*202 F.3d 1146, 1152-53 (9th Cir.2000).

Brown contends that the district court erred by denying his claim that his right to due process and a fair trial was violated when he was observed by the jury while being removed from a sheriffs van in handcuffs and leg shackles. Brown’s argument fails as he cannot demonstrate that actual prejudice resulted from the jury’s brief and inadvertent observation of him in restraints. *See Ghent v. Woodford,*279 F.3d 1121, 1132-33 (9th Cir.2002).

Brown’s request that we remand to the district court to reopen discovery and to conduct an evidentiary hearing is denied. *See Sims v. Brown,*425 F.3d 560, 577 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          16,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,735
<INVENTORY>                                     19,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,928
<PP&E>                                          85,421
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,382
<BONDS>                                         50,147
<COMMON>                                           177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196,021
<SALES>                                        248,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               248,063
<CGS>                                          198,750
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       935
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,231)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,231)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                              2,516
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      47,551
<ALLOWANCES>                       (1,295)
<INVENTORY>                        67,908
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  152,407
<PP&E>                            140,542
<DEPRECIATION>                    (73,712)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    367,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             182,793
<BONDS>                           156,897
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           18,796
<OTHER-SE>                        (40,903)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      367,882
<SALES>                           233,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  233,859
<CGS>                             167,438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     167,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 19,499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (660)
<INCOME-TAX>                       11,610
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (12,270)
<DISCONTINUED>                     (4,700)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    (8,455)
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (25,425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (1.49)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
      10.7

    


    Summary
      of Consulting Arrangement with Mark Germain

    


    Collexis
      Holdings, Inc. has an oral consulting arrangement with Mark Germain, Chairman
      of
      its Board of Directors. Pursuant to this arrangement, Mr. Germain receives
      $10,000.00 per month for his consulting services. This arrangement is at-will
      and may be terminated at any time by either party.
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 
-  Guides 
-                   Section 105(c)(3) Complaints              

#   Section 105(c)(3) Complaints

Pursuant to section 105(c)(3) of the Mine Act, a miner has the right, within 30 days of the Secretary's determination that the provisions of section 105(c) have not been violated, to file an action on his or her own behalf before the Commission, charging discrimination or interference in violation of section 105(c)(1).  30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3).

In accordance with this right, the Commission's Office of the General Counsel has prepared the attached resource for informational purposes.  

 

Complaint%20of%20Discrimination%20FINAL%20.pdf

##### 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: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW

SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

October 20, 2014

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 29, 2014

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of 

Labor v. Black Beauty Coal Co., Docket Nos. LAKE 2008-378-R, 

et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred 

in concluding that the resumption of mining in an area following a 

roof fall in that area constituted a violation and whether an on-shift 

examination of another area was required.)

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD 

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.