alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS AMENDMENT, dated as of the 22nd day of January, 2004, by Regions
Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Carl E. Jones,
Jr. ("Officer"), amends the Employment Agreement between Officer and the
Company, dated as of September 1, 2001 (the "Employment Agreement").

         Officer and the Company have determined that it is in the best
interests of Officer, the Company and its shareholders to amend the Employment
Agreement pending the transactions (collectively, the "Merger") contemplated by
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of January 22, 2004, between Union
Planters Corporation, a Tennessee corporation and the Company (the "Merger
Agreement"). Therefore, in order to accomplish these objectives, Officer and the
Company desire to enter into this Amendment which will amend the terms of the
Employment Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

         The parties hereto agree and acknowledge that, solely for purposes of
the Employment Agreement, a "Change in Control" as defined in Section 2 of the
Employment Agreement shall be deemed not to have occurred as a result of the
Merger. In the event that the Merger shall not occur for any reason, this
Amendment shall be null and void ab initio and shall be of no force and effect.



                                 * * * * * * * *




<PAGE>

         The terms of the Employment Agreement not hereby amended shall be and
remain in full force and effect, and are not affected by this Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Officer has hereunto set Officer's hand and,
pursuant to the due authorization, the Company has caused these presents to be
executed in its respective name on its behalf, all as of the day and year first
above written.

                                            CARL E. JONES, JR.

                                            /s/ Carl E. Jones, Jr.
                                            ------------------------


                                            REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION



                                            By /s/ Richard D. Horsley
                                              ----------------------
                                            Name:  Richard D. Horsley
                                            Title: Chief Operating Officer



                                      -2-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YESAYI INDIKUSHYAN and ALBERT INDIKUSHYAN,

Petitioners,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 71017

Agency Nos. A097

- 857

- 788

A095

- 665

- 876

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 10, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Yesayi Indikushyan and Albert Indikushyan, citizen s of Armenia, petition

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“ BIA ”) order denying their

motion to reopen removal proceedings

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUL 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 71017

1252

. We review for abuse of discr etion the denial of a motion to r eopen,

Najmabadi v

. Holder

, 597 F

. 3d 983

, 986 ( 9th Cir

. 2010 ), and we dismiss in part

and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ arguments, raised for the first

time on appeal, as to changed country conditions and why the proffered evidence

was previously unavailable. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th

Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings

below).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as

untimely, where the motion was filed more than four years after the final order of

removal, and petitioners did not argue that any regulatory exception to the time

limitations applied. S

ee 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)

. To the extent petitioners challenge

t he BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte

, we lack jurisdiction

. See

Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction

to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of

reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSE D in part; D ENIED in part

.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY**

**SECTION 302CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Dan W.Matthias, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mothers Work, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)  designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)  evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)  disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of theinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

a)  all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b)  any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| August 16, 2004 |                      | **/s/ DAN W. MATTHIAS** | ** ** |
|-----------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|------------|
| Date            | Dan W. Matthias           |                    |
|            | *Chief Executive Officer* | * *                |

 

----
Editorial Note on Subpart F of Part 531
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart F of part 531 appear at 70 FR 31305, May 31, 2005.

§ 531.611 Miscellaneous provisions. ( a ) A locality rate may be paid only for those hours for which an employee is in a pay status.
( b ) Payment of, or an increase in, a locality rate is not an equivalent increase in pay within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 5335. (*See* § 531.407(c).)
( c ) A locality rate is included in an employee's *total remuneration,* as defined in 5 CFR 551.511(b), and *straight time rate of pay,* as defined in 5 CFR 551.512(b), for the purpose of overtime pay computations under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.
( d ) Consistent with § 531.610, a reduction or termination of a locality rate under § 531.609 is not an adverse action for the purpose of 5 CFR part 752, subpart D, or an action under 5 CFR 930.211.
[70 FR 31305, May 31, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 66154, Nov. 7, 2008]
§ 340.202 General. ( a ) *Definitions. Part-time career employment* means regularly scheduled work of from 16 to 32 hours per week performed by an employee of an agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 3401 (a) through (f), who has an appointment in tenure group I or II and who becomes employed on such part-time basis on or after April 8, 1979. *Tenure group I* applies to employees in the competitive service under career appointments who are not serving probation and permanent employees in the excepted service whose appointments carry no restrictions or conditions.
*Tenure group II* applies to employees in the competitive service serving probation, career-conditional employees, and career employees in obligated positions. It also includes employees in the excepted service serving trial periods, whose tenure is indefinite solely because they occupy obligated positions; or whose tenure is equivalent to career-conditional in the competitive service.
( b ) *Agency Exceptions.* As an exception to the general definition of part-time employment in § 340.202(a) and under the authority provided in 5 U.S.C. 3402(a)(3), an agency may permit an employee who has an appointment in tenure group I or II to perform regularly scheduled work of from 1 to 15 hours per week.
( c ) *Mixed Tours of Duty.* The provisions of this subpart and the term “part-time career employment” do not apply to employees with appointments in tenure groups I or II who work under mixed tours of duty. For this purpose, a mixed tour of duty consists of annually recurring periods of full-time, part-time, or intermittent service as long as the employee does not work part-time more than 6 pay periods per calendar year.
[44 FR 57380, Oct. 5, 1979, as amended at 49 FR 17722, Apr. 25, 1984; 60 FR 3061, Jan. 13, 1995]
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30028

Conference Calendar

__________________

BENJAMIN SEMIEN, JR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN OF

OPELOUSAS,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-94-2014

- - - - - - - - - -

March 21, 1995

Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Semien, Jr., a resident of St. Landry Parish,

Louisiana, filed a complaint alleging that his civil rights had

been violated because the First Federal Savings & Loan of

Opelousas, Louisiana, took his money and refused to cancel his

mortgage. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because the sole defendant, First

Federal Savings & Loan of Opelousas, is not a state actor as
No. 95-30028

-2-

required under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Resident Council of Allen

Parkway Village v. U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., 980 F.2d

1043, 1050 (5th Cir.) (to obtain relief under § 1983 a plaintiff

must prove that he was deprived of a right under the Constitution

or laws of the U.S. and that the person depriving him of that

right acted under color of state law), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct.

75 (1993). The district court also cautioned Semien about filing

frivolous lawsuits. 

On appeal, Semien has not presented anything to show that

this suit has any basis in federal law. Semien has not asserted

that the savings and loan is a state actor, nor has he asserted

any basis for diversity jurisdiction. The amount in controversy

is at most $40,000. Semien is a resident of Louisiana and First

Federal Savings & Loan of Opelousas apparently has its principal

place of business in Louisiana. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and

(c). Semien's claim has no basis in law or in fact, and the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing it as

frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733-34

(1992). Semien's appeal is without arguable merit and thus,

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Semien is cautioned that if he persists in filing frivolous

actions, the full panoply of sanctions, including contempt of

court, will be brought to bear. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
J~~~~o srA r

~

s 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

o ~~~~ e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

z ~llfti► r 

F~ 0 rq` PROj~G~~ 

O ( ;T 2 p 2 1 0 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

William B. Mackie 

Acting Director, National TRt1 Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Dear Mr. Mackie: 

We received your letter dated October 20, 2010, requesting the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the draft recertification memo the Carlsbad Field 

Office (CBFO) plans to issue to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (LANL). This request is in accordance with the CBFO procedures that are 

intended to ensure that the Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 

site certifications correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization activities 

at DOE transuranic (TRU) waste generator sites. 

EPA approved LANL CCP's contact-handled (CH) and remote-handled (RH) TRU waste 

characterization programs in June 2007 and February 2008, respectively (EPA Air pocket Nos. 

A-98-49, Item 11-A4-88 and A-98-49, Item II-A4-96. 

Upon review of the draft recertification memo for LANL CCP, EPA determines that it 

appropriately authorizes characterization and certification of TRU contact-handled, retrievablystored solids (S3000), and contact-handled, retrievably-stored debris (S5000) and Off Site 

Recovery Program (OSRP) sources packaged as newly-generated debris (S5000) waste at 

LANL. The EPA limitations concerning the TRU waste characterization program for CH and RH 

wastes contained in EPA's June 21, 2007 and February 19, 2008, approval letters remain 

applicable and are appropriately included in Attachment 4 of your site recertification. We concur 

that the waste characterization equipment, procedures and waste streams encompassed in your 

draft recertification letter for LANL CCP agree with EPA's existing approvals at the site. 

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclabte 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft re-certification memo 

for LANL CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Ed Feltcorn (202-343- 

9422). 

Sincerely, 

~ 

Edward Feltcorn 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

cc: (Electronic Distribution) 

Christine Gelles, DOE HQ 

Alton Harris, DOE HQ 

Ed Ziemianski, CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO QA 

J.R. Stroble, CBFO NTP 

Nonma Castaneda, CBFO NTP 

Court Fesmire, CBFO NTP 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA 

Jonathan Edwards, EPA 

Tom Peake, EPA 

Raymond Lee, EPA 

Steve Zappe, NMED
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

www.nrc.gov

 

No. I-05-058 November 4, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC ASSIGNS NEW SR. RESIDENT INSPECTOR 

TO OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have selected Marc S. Ferdas

as the new senior resident inspector at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey Township, N.J.

"Marc’s experience and commitment to safety will help the NRC ensure that Oyster Creek

conducts operations with the highest safety standards to protect the public health and safety," said NRC

Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins. 

Ferdas replaces Robert Summers, who was reassigned to the NRC Regional Office in King of

Prussia. 

Ferdas joined the NRC in 1998 as a reactor engineer intern. After a period of training, he was

assigned as a region-based inspector in the Region I Division of Reactor Safety. As such he performed

inspections at nuclear power plants in the northeastern United States. Most recently, he was a resident

inspector at the Hope Creek site in Hancock’s Bridge, N.J., for three years. 

Ferdas earned a degree in chemical engineering from Rutgers College of Engineering in

Piscataway, N.J. He also received a master’s in engineering management from Drexel University in

Philadelphia. 

Every commercial nuclear power plant in the U.S. has at least two NRC resident inspectors.

They have an office and work at the facility, conducting regular inspections and monitoring significant

work projects.

The Oyster Creek resident inspectors can be reached at 609/693-0702.

###
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 15, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 15, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0328. JENNIFER MILLER et al v. 2018-4 IH BORROWER, LP.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

24CV00341
§ 2634.407 Certification of qualified trust by the Office of Government Ethics. ( a ) *General.* After the Director approves the independent trustee, the interested party or a representative will prepare the trust instrument for review by the Director. The representative of the interested party will use the model documents provided by the Office of Government Ethics to draft the trust instrument. Any deviations from the model trust documents must be approved by the Director. No trust will be considered qualified for purposes of the Act until the Office of Government Ethics certifies the trust prior to execution.
( b ) *Certification procedures.* ( 1 ) After the Director has approved the trustee, the interested party or the party's representative must submit the following documents to the Office of Government Ethics for review: ( i ) A copy of the proposed, unexecuted trust instrument;
( ii ) A list of the assets which the interested party proposes to place in the trust; and
( iii ) In the case of a pre-existing trust as described in § 2634.409 which the interested party asks the Office of Government Ethics to certify, a copy of the pre-existing trust instrument and a list of that trust's assets categorized as to value in accordance with § 2634.301(d).
( 2 ) In order to assure timely trust certification, the interested parties and their representatives will be responsible for the expeditious submission to the Office of Government Ethics of all required documents and responses to requests for information.
( 3 ) The Director will indicate that he or she has certified the trust in a letter to the interested parties or their representatives. The interested party and the independent trustee may then execute the trust instrument.
( 4 ) Within 30 days after the trust is certified under this section by the Director, the interested party or that party's representative must file with the Director a copy of the executed trust instrument and all annexed schedules (other than those provisions which relate to the testamentary disposition of the trust assets), including a list of the assets which were transferred to the trust, categorized as to value of each asset in accordance with § 2634.301(d).
( 5 ) Once a trust is classified as a qualified blind or qualified diversified trust in the manner discussed in this section, § 2634.312(b) applies less inclusive financial disclosure requirements to the trust assets.
( c ) *Certification standard.* A trust will be certified for purposes of this subpart only if: ( 1 ) It is established to the Director's satisfaction that the requirements of section 102(f) of the Act and this subpart have been met; and
( 2 ) The Director determines that approval of the trust arrangement as a qualified trust is appropriate to assure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
( d ) *Revocation.* The Director may revoke certification of a trust pursuant to the rules of subpart E of this part.
### §§856 to 857–5. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–372, title II, §271(3), (4), Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3094

Section 856, acts May 22, 1917, ch. 20, §16, 40 Stat. 88; June 21, 1955, ch. 172, §2(b), 69 Stat. 169; 1965 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. July 13, 1965, 30 F.R. 8819, 79 Stat. 1318; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 4, eff. Oct. 3, 1970, 35 F.R. 15627, 84 Stat. 2090, related to relative rank of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officers when serving with Army, Navy, or Air Force. See section 3062 of this title.

Section 857, acts May 22, 1917, ch. 20, §16, 40 Stat. 88; Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 837, title V, §501(d)(1), 70 Stat. 883; 1965 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. July 13, 1965, 30 F.R. 8819, 79 Stat. 1318; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 4, eff. Oct. 3, 1970, 35 F.R. 15627, 84 Stat. 2090; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(m)(2), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 277, related to service of commissioned officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for purposes of servicemen's and veterans' benefits. See section 3072 of this title.

Section 857–1, Pub. L. 91–621, §1, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1863, related to applicable definitions. See section 3002 of this title.

Section 857–2, Pub. L. 91–621, §2, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1863, related to retirement grade and pay. See section 3046 of this title.

Section 857–3, Pub. L. 91–621, §3, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1863; Pub. L. 98–498, title III, §310(a), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2306; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(m)(3), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 277, related to service for purposes of certain statutory rights, privileges, immunities, and benefits and provision of medical and dental care. See sections 3072 and 3073 of this title.

Section 857–4, Pub. L. 91–621, §4, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1863, related to commissary privileges. See section 3074 of this title.

Section 857–5, Pub. L. 91–621, §5, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1864, related to applicability of statutes that had applied to commissioned officers of the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Environmental Science Services Administration.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Repeals

Pub. L. 91–621, §8, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1867, provided that all provisions of law inconsistent with Pub. L. 91–621 were repealed, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 107–372, title II, §271(3), Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3094.