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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.24

November 12, 2001

                   2002 Compensation Plan for Thomas Sparrvik

The main focus this year is to grow the company and continue on the path of
profitability. The main challenge will be to continue to motivate the staff
while located in San Diego. This reward system intends to motivate you to
fulfill both the Company tasks and, in the long term, create shareholder value
for all shareholders of KMC

The existing contract between us will remain in effect as a base contract,
however, your monthly base salary will be reduced to $2000/month effective
01/01/02, and you will not be part of the KMC benefit plans as of that date.

A "per quarter" bonus will be paid to you, based on the following quarterly
Operating Profit:
----------------

     .    If less than $150K, then $0/Qtr.
     .    If more than $150K, but less than $399K, then $5,000/Qtr.
     .    If more than $400K, but less than $600K, then $7,500/Qtr.
     .    If more than $600K, butless than $900K, then $10,000/Qtr.
     .    If more than $900K, then $15,000/Qtr.

A "year end" bonus of $20,000 will be paid to you if the 2002 Annual Operating
                                                              ----------------
Profit for KMC exceeds $2.0 million.
------

A "year end" bonus will be paid to you based on the following 2002 annual
Revenue results:
-------

     .    If at least $18.5 million, then $7,500.
     .    If between $18.5 million and $21.5 million, then an additional
          $12,500, prorated.
     .    If $21.5 million or more, then $20,000.

Before the bonuses are paid, financial results must be received and approved by
the Audit Committee Chairman.

No Q3 or Q4 bonus will be paid if the 2002 YTD cumulative Operating Profit at
the end of these quarters is less than $1 million.

This agreement will be added to your existing contract and will be in effect Q1
through Q4, 2002.


/s/ Thomas Sparrvik                             /s/ Richard L. Poss
-------------------------                       --------------------------------
Thomas Sparrvik                                 Richard L. Poss
President/CEO                                   Chairman, Compensation Committee


                                                /s/ David C. Malmberg
                                                --------------------------------
                                                David C. Malmberg
                                                Chairman
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 Novastar Financial, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W. Lance Anderson,
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:




(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: August 11, 2010
            /s/
      W. Lance AndersonW. Lance
      AndersonChairman of the Board
      of Directors andChief Executive
      Officer


This
certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.




---
2009-1366.

#### Alliance Excavating, Inc. v. Triangle Real Estate Servs., Inc.

Franklin App. No. 08AP-535, 2009-Ohio-2761.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.
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 Psychiatric Solutions, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joey A. Jacobs, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, and I, Jack E. Polson, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, each
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.

Date: November 4, 2005

                                           /s/ Joey A. Jacobs
                           -----------------------------------------------
                                             Joey A. Jacobs
                           Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

                                           /s/ Jack E. Polson
                                     ----------------------------
                                            Jack E. Polson
                                       Chief Accounting Officer
#### Susan F. KEEVER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martha Medlock GALLAGHER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-1747.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 26, 2009.

Decided: March 3, 2009.

*617Thomas B. Kakassy, Thomas B. Kakas-sy, PA, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellant. Geoffrey A. Planer, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Martha Medlock Gallagher appeals the district court’s order affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings to determine the non-dischargeable portion of a state court tort award. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Gallagher seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. District court orders remanding matters to the bankruptcy court for further consideration are not final orders. *See Legal Representative for Future Claimants v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re The Wallace & Gale Co.),*72 F.3d 21, 24 (4th Cir.1995); *see also Capitol Credit Plan of Tenn., Inc. v. Shaffer,*912 F.2d 749, 750 (4th Cir.1990) (holding that district court order remanding for the bankruptcy court to address two arguments not previously addressed by the bankruptcy court was not a final decision). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                                        State of
Subsidiary                                            Incorporation
----------------------------------------            -----------------

Car Care, Inc.                                      Delaware
Care Investment, Inc.                               Delaware
Colonial Full Service Car Wash, Inc.                Texas
CRCD, Inc.                                          Texas
Eager Beaver Car Wash, Inc.                         Florida
F.E.D. Properties, Inc.                             New York
50's Classic Car Wash of Lubbock, Inc.              Texas
Mace Car Wash - Arizona, Inc.                       Arizona
Mace Car Wash, Inc.                                 Delaware
Mace Security Centers, Inc.                         Colorado
Mace Security Products, Inc.                        Delaware
Mace Texas I, Inc.                                  Delaware
Mace Texas II, Inc.                                 Delaware
Mace Trademark Corp.                                Delaware
Mace Truck Wash, Inc.                               Delaware
Mace Wash, Inc.                                     Delaware
MSP Retail, Inc.                                    Colorado
Worth Manufacturing Company, Inc.                   Texas
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Susan Myers WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4996.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 11, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 7, 2011.

*597Lora E. Collins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, David C. Stephens, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Susan Myers Wallace pleaded guilty to embezzlement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656 (2006). The *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(2009) called for a sentencing range of fifteen to twenty-one months, and Wallace received a fifteen-month sentence. Wallace now appeals, claiming that the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence because it failed to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). A sentence is procedurally reasonable where the district court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. *Id.*at 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586. The district court is not required to “robotically tick through § 3553(a)’s every subsection.” *United States v. Johnson,*445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir.2006). However, the district court “must place on the record an ‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate review.’ ” *United States v. Carter,*564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.2009) (quoting *Gall,*552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586) (internal footnote omitted).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court provided an adequate individualized assessment, taking into account counsel’s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing Wallace’s fifteen-month sentence. *See United States v. Lynn,*592 F.3d 572, 576, 578 (4th Cir.2010) (providing standard of review for properly preserved procedural sentencing error); *see also Gall,*552 U.S. at 46, 128 S.Ct. 586.

We accordingly affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**




Certifications





I,
      Lei,
      Ming, Chief Executive Officer certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dark Dynamite Inc.





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the 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 quarterly report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;





4.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing
      and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(c) and 15d-(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 relating to the Registrant, including its consolidates subsidiaries,
      is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this report is being prepared;





b) Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures, and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this
      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 period 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):





a)
      all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
      and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors
      any
      material weaknesses in internal controls (all of which do not apply);
      and





b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls, (all of which
      do
      not apply); and





Date:
      August 19, 2006








/s/
      Lei, Ming


Lei,
      Ming
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2632

AMENDMENT
In the Senate of the United States,

November 11 (legislative day, November 2), 1993.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2632) entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize appropriations for the Patent and Trademark Office in the Department of Commerce for fiscal year 1994’’, do pass with the

following

AMENDMENT:

Page 3, after line 2, insert:

1 SEC. 5. PATENT TERM EXTENSION FOR OLESTRA.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The terms of United States patents

3 numbered 4,005,195, 4,005,196, and 4,034,083 (and any re4 issues of such patents) shall each be extended for a period

5 beginning on the date of its expiration through December

6 31, 1997.

7 (b) POST-MARKET SURVEILLANCE.—The holders of the

8 patents extended under this section shall, following the first

9 permission for marketing olestra, undertake a post-market

10 program that shall provide data regarding the influence of

11 olestra-containing products upon the overall dietary intake

12 of fats. Such data shall be subject to the usual standards

13 of professional peer review. At the end of the study period,

14 such data shall ber submitted to the Food and Drug Admin15 istration for review. Such study data shall be in a format
2

HR 2632 EAS

1 which shall be made available to Congress for public review.

2 The requirements of this subsection shall not in any manner

3 preempt the authority of the Food and Drug Administra4 tion to request and to receive any other information it de5 termines necessary in the course of its ongoing regulatory

6 activities.

7 SEC. 6. PATENT TERM EXTENSIONS FOR AMERICAN LE8 GION.

9 (a) BADGE OF AMERICAN LEGION.—The term of a cer10 tain design patent numbered 54,296 (for the badge of the

11 American Legion) is renewed and extended for a period of

12 14 years beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,

13 with all the rights and privileges pertaining to such patent.

14 (b) BADGE OF AMERICAN LEGION WOMEN’S AUXIL15 IARY.—The term of a certain design patent numbered

16 55,398 (for the badge of the American Legion Women’s Aux17 iliary) is renewed and extended for a period of 14 years

18 beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, with all

19 the rights and privileges pertaining to such patent.

20 (c) BADGE OF SONS OF THE AMERICAN LEGION.—The

21 term of a certain design patent numbered 92,187 (for the

22 badge of the Sons of the American Legion) is renewed and

23 extended for a period of 14 years beginning on the date of

24 enactment of this Act, with all the rights and privileges per25 taining to such patent.
3

HR 2632 EAS

1 SEC. 7. INTERVENING RIGHTS.

2 The renewals and extensions of the patents under sec3 tion 6 shall not result in infringement of any such patent

4 on account of any use of the subject matter of the patent,

5 or substantial preparation for such use, which began after

6 the patent expired, but before the date of the enactment of

7 this Act.

8 SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date

10 of the enactment of this Act.

Attest:

Secretary.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7378

WALTER D. BOOKER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SGT. T. JOHNSON; TEC. E. STOVALL; OFC. JOHN DOE; TEC. R. BAGNELL , Defendants

- Appellees , and DET. M. LUCK; DET. T. KEOUGH , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv
- 00833

- JCC

- TCB )

Submitted : March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Walter D. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. James Arthur Cales, III, FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS , Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Walter D. Booker appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Booker v. Johnson , No. 1:14

- cv
- 00 833

- JCC

- TCB (E.D. Va. June 25, 2015; Sept. 8, 2017) . 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 99.1SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT OF AMERISTAR CASINOS, INC.Ameristar Casinos, Inc. (“ACI”) hereby agrees to furnish supplementally to the Securities andExchange Commission upon request a copy of all omitted exhibits and schedules to the CreditAgreement dated as of November 10, 2005 among ACI, the Lenders party thereto from time to time,Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Joint Lead Arranger and Syndication Agent, Deutsche Bank SecuritiesInc., as Joint Lead Arranger, the Documentation Agents and Managing Agents party thereto, andDeutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Administrative Agent.     Dated as of March 15, 2006               AMERISTAR CASINOS, INC.
EXHIBIT 23.2

                              Hollywood Media Corp.
                          2255 Glades Road, Suite 237W
                            Boca Raton, Florida 33431




March 29, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to the Commission's recently promulgated Temporary Note 3T to Article 3
of Regulation S-X regarding requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP audit clients
as set forth in Release No. 33-8070, effective March 18, 2002, this letter is to
advise the Commission that we have, as of the date hereof, received written
representation from Arthur Andersen LLP that its audit of the financial
statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001 (to which this letter is filed as Exhibit 23.2) was subject to
Arthur Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing
practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in
compliance with professional standards, and that there was appropriate
continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of
national office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Sincerely,

Hollywood Media Corp.

By: /s/  Mitchell Rubenstein
    ------------------------
Chairman of the Board
And Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joaquin HERNANDEZ-NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50564.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Randy K. Jones, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, Rees F. Morgan, Assistant U.S., Cob-lentz, Patch, Duffy *&*Bass, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*510Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joaquin Hernandez-Navarro appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the 8-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hernandez-Navarro’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

Because Hernandez-Navarro has fully served his custqdial sentence and is not subject to a term of supervised released, we dismiss this appeal as moot. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); *United States v. Palomba,*182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1999).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

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