alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
fsb2a40907ex10_alliance.htm


    AMENDMENT
      TO THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT

     

     

    
      This
        Amendment to the Consulting Agreement is made as of the 27th day of
        September
        2007. 

    

         

        BETWEEN

     

        ALLIANCE
      RECOVERY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”),

     

        AND

     

        GLOBAL
      CONSULTING GROUP, INC., a Maryland corporation (the
“Consultant”)

     

    WHEREAS,
      the Company and the Consultant executed that certain Consulting Agreement dated
      September 9, 2007.

     

    WHEREAS,
      the Company and the Consultant desire to amend the Consulting Agreement to
      reflect a modification to the Consultant compensation.

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment
      to the Consulting Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration
      the
      receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the
      Consultant agree as follows:

     

        1)    Schedule
      B)
      of the Consulting Agreement shall be amended to clarify the date by which
the shares must be issued and now reads: Payment shall be defined as
      the
      value of 333,334 shares of the Client’s common stock to be issued to the Company
      on the commencement date of the Agreement, or as shortly
      thereafter.

     

    
          2)    All
        other
        terms of the Consulting Agreement shall remain in full force and
        effect.

    

     

     

     

     

      (Signature
        pages to follow)

    

     

     

     

                                                                                ALLIANCE RECOVERY CORPORATION:

     

     

    
                                                                                  By:
/s/Peter
        Vaisler              

                                                                                    PETER
        VAISLER,
        C.E.O.

    

     

     

                                                                                GLOBAL
      CONSULTING
      GROUP, INC.:

     

     

    
                                                                                  By:
/s/Josh
        Yudell                  

                                                                                    JOSH
        YUDELL
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorena Vivina RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50488.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 9, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 16, 2010.

Timothy C. Perry, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Frederick Carroll, Law Offices of Frederick M. Carroll, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and HOLLAND, Senior District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable H. Russel Holland, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Rodriguez’s appellate waiver is enforceable. The district court’s oral pronouncement does not supersede the waiver. The district court merely stated that Rodriguez could contest whether her waiver was en*188forceable before an appellate court, not that Rodriguez could appeal her sentence on the merits. Further, the government objected to any suggestion by the district court that Rodriguez had a right to appeal. *See United States v. Buchanan,*59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.1995). The government did not breach the plea agreement by not recommending safety-valve relief because Rodriguez lied during her safety-valve debrief and in her subsequent proffer. *See United States v. Shrestha,*86 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir.1996). Rodriguez’s argument that enforcement of the appellate waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice is nothing more than an attempt to have the court consider the merits of her appeal, which the court cannot do because she has waived her right to appeal.

DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Cadus Pharmaceutical Corporation:

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (Nos.
333-21871 and 333- 58151) on Form S-8 of Cadus Pharmaceutical Corporation of our
report  dated March 17, 2003,  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of
Cadus  Pharmaceutical  Corporation  and  subsidiary  as of December 31, 2002 and
2001,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of  operations,  stockholders'
equity  and  comprehensive  income  and cash  flows for each of the years in the
three-year  period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December
31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Cadus Pharmaceutical Corporation.

                                            /s/ KPMG LLP
                                            ------------
                                                KPMG LLP

Melville, New York
March 28, 2003
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
 Suite 501, 55 University Avenue, Toronto, ON  M5J 2H7
 T(416) 947-0907F(416) 947-0395
 www.rpacan.com
 
 
 CONSENT OF LEE P. GOCHNOUR
  I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the El Morro Project, Region III, Chile,” dated March 23, 2012, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2011, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
  Dated this 26th day of March, 2012
  (Signed) “Lee P. Gochnour”
  Name: Lee P. Gochnour, MMSA
 Title: Associate Principal Environmental Scientist Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
Exhibit 10.29

Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation

Effective beginning July 1, 2007, non-employee
directors of Environmental Power Corporation (the Company) are compensated as follows:



| |  |  | A monthly retainer of $4,000, except that the non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors (the Board) will receive a monthly retainer of $7,000,
and the Chair of the Audit Committee of the Board will receive a monthly retainer of $4,833.33; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The grant of a stock appreciation right (SAR) under the Companys 2006 Equity Incentive Plan based on 15,000 shares of the Companys common
stock, except that the Chairman of the Board will receive a SAR based on 26,250 shares of the Companys common stock.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In September 2008, the Board unanimously authorized the Company to defer payment of the monthly cash fees set forth above until further notice. The Company has been accruing these fees on its financial statements at such times as they would
otherwise become due.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-04169, No.333-56593, No. 333-40328, No. 333-64106, No. 333-85204, No. 333-104462, No. 333-114845, No.333-123858 and No. 333-133229 of Quiksilver, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports, dated January 11,2007, relating to the Financial Statements of Quiksilver, Inc., and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and our report dated January 11, 2007,relating to the Financial Statements of Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Quiksilver, Inc./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPCosta Mesa, California
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 11, 2016

No. 04

- 14

- 00620

- CV

Rosa Obregon PEREZ , Ricardo O. Perez, individually and as next friend of Rosa Elia Perez,

Maria Perez Jalomus, Juan Jose Perez, Julio Perez, Jr., and Fernando Perez

, Appellant s

v.

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

,

A ppellee

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26130

Honorable Robert Cadena, Judge Presiding



### ORDER ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice , d issenting

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On April 28, 2016, appellee filed a motion for rehearing en banc. On Ju ne 1, 2016,

appellants filed a response to motion for rehearing en banc. On June 13, 2016, appelle e filed a

reply on rehearing en banc. A majority of the en banc court grants appellee ’s motion for

rehearing en banc and orders en banc reconsideration of the panel’s opinion and judgment. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.7. Accordingly, “the panel’s judgment...[ will] not become final, and the case

will be resubmitted to the court for en banc review and disposition.” Id.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of July, 20 16

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
1

GLD

- 226 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12

- 2490

___________

JAMES MURRAY,

Appellant

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS;

HARRELL WATTS

___________________________________ _

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 3:12

- cv

- 00771 ) District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Purs uant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 12, 2012

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and BARRY

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : July 24, 2012 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

James Murray filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition in the Un ited States

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He claimed that he was being2

denied access to legal materials and was not allowed to act in court on his own behalf.

The District Court dismissed the petition, and we will summarily af firm its

judgment

. 1 Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 248 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see also

3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6

. While habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

can be used to challenge the “execution” of a federal sentence

, Cardona v. Bledsoe , 681

F.3d 533, 535 (3d Cir. 2012)

, they cannot be used to attack confinement conditions

.

Rather, such claims should be raised in a civil

- rights suit

. See Leamer v. Fauver , 288

F.3d 532, 544 (3d Cir. 2002) ; see also Porter v. Nussle , 534 U.S. 5 16, 520, 532 (2002)

(discussing broad definition of “prison conditions”); Brown v. Mills , 639 F.3d 733, 734

(6th Cir. 2011) (approving the conversion of a § 2241 petition that attacked, inter alia,

“restricting . . . access to legal materials [and] to the law library” as a civil

- rights

complaint). The District Court therefore correctly dismissed the petition without

prejudice to Murray’s commencing another action in the proper context.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the District Court will be aff irmed.

Murray’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.

1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and conduct de novo review. Ballentine
v. United States , 486 F.3d 806, 808 (3d Cir. 2007) ; Fowler v. U.S. Parole Comm’n , 94 F.3d 835, 837 (3d Cir. 19 96)

.
Exhibit 31.1

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

I, James L. Holbrook, Jr., certify that: 

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of EMAK Worldwide, Inc.; 

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does 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 statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information related to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

 

 

|   |   |   | /s/ James L. Holbrook, Jr.                                                     |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | James L. Holbrook, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |

 

 

Dated: April 2, 2007
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



<PERIOD-TYPE>            FISCAL YEAR END
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>               JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                             3,661
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  14,606
<PP&E>                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   865,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            558,324
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                           3,091
<OTHER-SE>                       304,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     865,765
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       0
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 254,889
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 6,472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (261,361)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (261,361)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                    (261,361)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.01)

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ITEM 8 OF
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,628
<SECURITIES>                                    18,485
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,113
<PP&E>                                          11,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,953
<BONDS>                                          7,769
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,233
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,663
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,685)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,685)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,685)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.90)
        

</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 14, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16281

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00233-CR-9-ODE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

DERON HALL, 

a.k.a. D-Shock, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(July 14, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Deron Hall appeals his sentence of 90 months of imprisonment for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine. 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), 846. Hall argues that the district court

should not have enhanced his sentence by two levels for the possession of a

firearm. We affirm.

We review de novo the application of an enhancement for the possession of

a dangerous weapon to a sentence. United States v. Pham, 463 F.3d 1239, 1245

(11th Cir. 2006). A district court may enhance a sentence by two levels “[i]f a

dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed” during an offense

involving drugs. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). A defendant charged in a conspiracy to

distribute drugs may receive a two-level enhancement for the possession of a

firearm when a coconspirator possessed the weapon in furtherance of the

conspiracy and the possession was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. 

United States v. Fields, 408 F.3d 1356, 1359 (11th Cir. 2005). “Once the

government shows that a firearm was present, ‘the evidentiary burden shifts to the

defendant to show that a connection between the firearm and the offense is clearly

improbable.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Hall, 46 F.3d 62, 63 (11th Cir. 1995)).

2
The district court did not err by enhancing Hall’s sentence. Hall argues that

the government failed to prove he knew about, possessed, or saw a coconspirator

in possession of a firearm during the drug conspiracy, but that argument is

incredible in the light of the evidence that Hall worked for a national organization,

the Black Mafia Family, that distributed cocaine and transported drugs and

firearms in hidden compartments of modified high-end luxury cars. Hall loaded

and unloaded cocaine from a storage facility and a Hummer sport utility vehicle

where law enforcement discovered several firearms. Even if Hall did not possess

a firearm, it was reasonably foreseeable that a cohort possessed a firearm during

the conspiracy. See United States v. Westry, 524 F.3d 1198, 1221 (11th Cir.),

cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 251 (2008), and, 129 S. Ct. 902 (2009); Pham, 463 F.3d at

1245–46; Fields, 408 F.3d at 1359. Hall failed to present any evidence that the

connection between the firearms and the conspiracy was clearly improbable.

Hall’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

3
| 1.   | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended      December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      Section 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/      Clark Wilson                      |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Clark      Wilson                          |   |
|   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | February      13, 2009                     |   |
|   |                                       |   |
|   | /s/      Cindy Hammes                      |   |
|   | Cindy      Hammes                          |   |
|   | Vice      President, Finance               |   |
|   | February      13, 2009                     |   |

----