alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Amended Employment Agreement dated December 8, 2003 by and between Crown



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
  
 THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between John P. Leighton (“Employee”) and Crown Financial Group, Inc., f/k/a M.H. Meyerson & Co., Inc., a New
Jersey corporation having an address at 525 Washington Boulevard, Jersey City, New Jersey 07310 (the “Employer”). 
  
 Employee and the Employer have entered into an amended and restated employment contract dated September 2, 2003 as amended by the First Amendment dated
October 17, 2003 (as amended, the “Contract”). 
  
 In
return for the Employer’s agreement to waive its right to terminate the Employee during the thirty (30) day period following execution of this Amendment by the parties hereto and to assist the Employer maintaining cost controls: 
  
 Employee hereby agrees, in response to the Employer’s demand, to
surrender, forfeit and release all rights with respect to all compensation from Employer payable for the period from October 1, 2003 through and including December 31, 2003. 
  
 Further, Employee hereby agrees that the Employer’s failure to pay the aforementioned compensation shall not constitute
“good reason” under Section 5.e. of the Contract. 
  
 Except as expressly amended herein, the terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective officers thereto duly authorized effective December
8, 2003. 
  

							
	 EMPLOYER
	  	 EMPLOYEE

				
	 By:
	 	 /s/    Jeffrey Hoobler

	  	 By:
	 	 /s/    John P. Leighton


	 Name:
	 	 Jeffrey Hoobler

	  	 Name:
	 	 John P. Leighton

	 Title:
	 	 COO
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is

not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10744

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAMAIHAN MAKAYU, also known

as Makayu Ramaihan,

Defendant-Appellant.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CR-54-1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

July 3, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counselfor Ramaihan Makayu filed a motion to withdraw and brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Makayu filed a response, a motion for appointment

of counsel on appeal, and a motion for continuance to file an appellate brief. Our review of the

record discloses that the issues raised by counsel do not give rise to an issue of arguable merit.

Makayu’s contention that he was denied his constitutional right barring double 

jeopardy cannot be determined fromthe record. Because the record does not contain documentation

of the forfeiture proceeding, this court cannot determine whether jeopardy attached in the previous

forfeiture proceeding, see United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448-49 (1989); United States v.

Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d 188, 192 (5th Cir. 1995), or whether Makayu waived his Fifth Amendment
right by entering a guilty plea. See Taylor v. Whitley, 933 F.2d 325, 327 (5th Cir. 1991), cert.

denied, 503 U.S. 988 (1992). Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED as frivolous.

Because counsel’s Anders motion is granted, Makayu’s motion for appointment of counsel

on appeal and motion for continuance to file an appellate brief are DENIED as moot.
BISNIS Trades & Tenders, January 29, 1999

----

International Copyright, U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service and U.S. Department of State, 1997.      All rights reserved outside of the United States.
The Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS) is the U.S. Department ofCommerce's information clearinghouse on trade and investment in the emerging markets of the newlyindependent states of the former Soviet Union.  BISNIS has created the "BISNIS Trades & Tenders"electronic newsletter to help U.S.. companies find business opportunities in these expanding markets.
These opportunities are provided solely as an informational service and do not represent an endorsementby the U.S. Department of Commerce. Verification of leads is the responsibility of the reader. BISNISmay consider other private sector-generated trade leads and tenders, in electronic form only, and publishon a space-available basis. 
Please send your leads to [email protected]
A full selection of BISNIS leads and other market intelligence is available via BISNIS OnLine at: www.mac.doc.gov/BISNIS
========================================================================
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2511 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2511

   To amend title 10, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
 Defense to provide veterans who have a 100 percent service-connected 
disability with space-available travel on military aircraft in the same 
 manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2003

 Mr. Michaud introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 10, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
 Defense to provide veterans who have a 100 percent service-connected 
disability with space-available travel on military aircraft in the same 
 manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SPACE-AVAILABLE TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT FOR 100 PERCENT 
              SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABLED VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 157 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 2641a the following new section:
``Sec. 2641b. Travel on Department of Defense aircraft: veterans with 
              100 percent service-connected disabilities
    ``The Secretary of Defense shall permit a former member of the 
armed forces who is entitled to compensation under the laws 
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a service-
connected disability rated as total to travel on unscheduled military 
flights within the continental United States and on scheduled overseas 
flights operated by the Air Mobility Command in the same manner and to 
the same extent as applies to retired members of the armed forces.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
2641a the following new item:

``2641b. Travel on Department of Defense aircraft: veterans with 100 
                            percent service-connected disabilities.''.
                                 <all>
```
Submitted on record and briefs November 5,1999,

affirmed November 15, 2000

#### MICHAEL WALDROP, *Appellant, v.*Robert LAMPERT, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, *Respondent.*

(98-04-29669M; CA A104651)

14 P3d 647

Bob Pangburn filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Kathleen Cegla, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, Deits, Chief Judge, and Armstrong, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*72PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We reject without discussion his claim that the court erred in concluding that he had not received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the underlying criminal case.

Petitioner also contends that the trial court failed to make appropriate findings to support its decision to require him to repay the cost of his court-appointed counsel in the post-conviction proceeding. We reject that argument on the ground that it was not preserved. *Bacote v. Johnson,*169 Or App 46, 7 P3d 729 (2000).

Affirmed.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-11-0170 - Final Rule: Physical Protection of Byproduct Material (RIN 3150-AI12)

Accession Number: ML112920070

Date Released: Friday, December 23, 2011

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML112920083 - SECY-11-0170 - Final Rule:  Physical Prorection of Byproduct Material (RIN 3150-AI12) (11 page(s), 12/8/2011)
    - ML112920098 - SECY-11-0170 - Enclosure 1: FRN - Final Rule:  Physical Protection of Byproduct Material (RIN 3150-AI12) (380 page(s), 12/8/2011)
    - ML113290229 - SECY-11-0170 - Enclosure 2: 10 CFR Part 37 Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material Implementation Plan (81 page(s), 12/8/2011)
    - ML112920106 - SECY-11-0170 - Enclosure 3: Information Security Proposal (4 page(s), 12/8/2011)
    - ML112920114 - SECY-11-0170 - Enclosure 4: Regulatory Analysis for Final Rule:  Physical Protection of Byproduct Material (10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 51, 71, and 73). (55 page(s), 12/8/2011)
    - ML112920118 - SECY-11-0170 - Enclosure 5: Environmental Assessment - and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Final Rule Amending (10 CFR PARTS 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 51, 71, and 73) Physical Protection of Byproduct Material. (9 page(s), 12/8/2011)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
B.C.D. 00-60

DEC 1 8 2000 EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Mid-Michigan Railroad, Inc. (MMRR) (BA. 4268)

Dallas, Garland & Northeastern Railroad. Inc. (DGNO-Texas) (B.A. 3890)

Dallas, Garland & Northeastern Railroad, Inc. (DGNO-Delaware)

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the

status of the above-referenced entities as employers under the Railroad

Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §231, et seq.) (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment

Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §351, et seq.) (RUIA).

As set forth in Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket No.33809, decided

October 25, 1999, Railtex, a non-carrier, changed its corporate family structure

by unifying all of its class III railroads into Delaware corporations. This

involved the assignment of the assets of DGNO (Texas) and MMRR. including

the assets of the Texas Northeastern Railroad, a division of MMRR, to DGNO

(Delaware). According to Ms. Kay Acuff, Payroll Supervisor. RailAmenca.1 the

DGNO (Texas) and MMRR assignment of assets to DGNO (Delaware) resulted

in DGNO (Texas) becoming an inactive corporation and MMRR remaining an

active corporation, except that MMRR’s Texas Northeastern Railroad Division

no longer exists as of September 30, 1999, the effective date ofthe assignment.

Ms. Acuff further advised that all employees of the affected entities continue to

perform service except that they are paid under a different federal

identification number.

Section 1(a)(1) ofthe Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §231(a)(1)), insofar as

relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the

Surface Transportation Board under part A of subtitle IV of Title

49, United States Code.

The evidence of record establishes that DGNO (Delaware) is a rail carrier

operating in interstate commerce by virtue of its taking over the operations of

DGNO (Texas), an existing rail carrier employer under the Acts administered

by the Board. Accordingly, it is determined that DGNO (Delaware) became an

employer within the meaning ofsection l(a)(l)(i) of the Railroad Retirement

Act (45 U.S.C. §23 l(a)(l)(i)) and the corresponding provision of the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act effective September 30. 1999, the date the

‘RailAmerica acquired direct control of RailTex and indirect control of

RailTex’s rail carrier subsidiaries by acquisition of all of the common stock of

RailTex. See STB Finance Docket 33813, decided November 3, 1999.

.1
Mid-Michigan Railroad, Inc. (MMRR) (BA. 4268)

Dallas, Garland & Northeastern Railroad, Inc. (DGNO-Texas) (B.A. 3890)

Dallas, Garland & Northeastern Railroad, Inc. (DGNO-Delaware)

assignment became effective. It is also determined that DGNO (Texas) is

terminated as an employer covered under the Acts of September 30, 1999, the

date on which its assets were assigned to DGNO (Delaware). MMRR remains a

covered employer under the Acts since its operations continue to exist.

V. M. Speakman, Jr.

Jerome F. Kever
Exhibit 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of Good Buddy's Coffee Express, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dated indicated below, hereby certify pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
that to his knowledge:

1.	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

December 23, 2005



/s/ Scott Massey
------------------------------------
Scott Massey
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

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 Noble Innovations, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James A. Cole, President and Principal Accounting 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ James A. Cole |
|--------|-------------------|

James A. Cole

President and Principal Accounting Officer

|   | November 14, 2007 |
|--------|-------------------|
No. II-09-005 February 3, 2009 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 562-4416 

NRC RESCHEDULES POSTPONED ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE 

WITH USEC ON OHIO GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT 

 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has rescheduled a predecisional enforcement 

conference in Atlanta with officials of the United States Enrichment Corporation’s Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant in Portsmouth, Ohio. The conference had been originally scheduled for 

Thursday, Jan. 29, but weather conditions forced it to be postponed. The conference, which will 

discuss an apparent violation of NRC requirements associated with the movement of a liquid 

uranium hexafluoride cylinder, is now scheduled for Thursday, Feb. 5. 

The rescheduled meeting will begin at 1 p.m. (EST) at the NRC Region II office in 

Atlanta, located in the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., S. W., Suite 23T85. 

The meeting will be open to observation by the public, and NRC officials will be available at its 

conclusion to answer questions from interested observers. 

NRC officials said that in September 2008 a plant employee discovered that a cylinder 

containing liquid uranium hexafluoride or UF6 had been moved to a storage pad without using 

either an approved overhead crane or cart as mandated by the facility’s safety requirements. An 

NRC inspection later found that USEC took immediate corrective actions and completed a 

thorough investigation after the event, which did not result in a mishap. 

No decision on enforcement action will be made at the meeting. NRC officials will 

review information presented by USEC at the meeting and reach a decision on appropriate 

regulatory action at a later date. 

The NRC inspection report on the issue is available through the Region II office or 

through the NRC Web page at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The number to access the 

document is ML090050150. 

 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20003 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DANNY MEDELLIN, also known as DJ Storm, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-830-6

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Danny Medellin on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed both an original and supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Medellin has filed a pro se response. Our independent review of counsel’s briefs, Medellin’s pro se response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
# L_2021067EN.01005701.xml

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 67/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 67/57

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 164/2018

of 6 July 2018

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2021/225]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision (EU) 2018/229 of 12 February 2018 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Commission Decision 2013/480/EU (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision (EU) 2018/229 of 12 February 2018 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Commission Decision 2013/480/EU (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Decision (EU) 2018/229 repeals Commission Decision 2013/480/EU (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision (EU) 2018/229 repeals Commission Decision 2013/480/EU (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement.

| (3) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text of point 13cab (Commission Decision 2013/480/EU) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement is replaced by the following:

‘
  32018 D 0229: Commission Decision (EU) 2018/229 of 12 February 2018 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Commission Decision 2013/480/EU (OJ L 47, 20.2.2018, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Decision (EU) 2018/229 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 7 July 2018, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 6 July 2018.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Oda Helen SLETNES

---

(1)  
  OJ L 47, 20.2.2018, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 266, 8.10.2013, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
### **CHAPTER 177—ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS DISPOSAL**

Sec.
17701.
Definitions.
17702.
Transfer of Government-owned long-lines communication facilities in and to Alaska.
17703.
National defense considerations and qualification of transferee.
17704.
Contents of agreements for transfer.
17705.
Approval of Federal Communications Commission.
17706.
Gross proceeds as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury.
17707.
Reports.
17708.
Nonapplication.
### §1752. Research

The Secretary is authorized to carry out research and research training in the diagnosis, treatment, and control of sickle cell anemia based upon the screening examinations and treatment provided under this subchapter.

(Added Pub. L. 93–82, title I, §109(a), Aug. 2, 1973, 87 Stat. 186, §652; renumbered §1752 and amended Pub. L. 102–83, §§4(b)(1), (2)(E), 5(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 404–406.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–83 renumbered section 652 of this title as this section and substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Sept. 1, 1973, see section 501 of Pub. L. 93–82, set out as an Effective Date of 1973 Amendment note under section 1701 of this title.
Amended Schedule 2.1



 Exhibit 10.15 
  
 Schedule 2.1 
 to the 
 Directors’ Deferred Compensation and Benefits 
 Trust Agreement 
  
 Benefit Plans and Other
Arrangements Subject to Trust 
  
 (1) Sunoco, Inc.
Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan; 
  
 (2) The entire
funding for all the Indemnification Agreements with the current and former directors set forth below shall be Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in the aggregate upon a Potential Change in Control, and an amount upon a Change in Control calculated
on the basis of the Indemnification Agreements with the following directors: 
  

					
	 	 	(a)	 	Raymond E. Cartledge
	 	 	 (b)
	 	Robert J. Darnall
	 	 	 (c)
	 	Mary J. Evans
	 	 	 (d)
	 	Ursula F. Fairbairn
	 	 	 (e)
	 	Thomas P. Gerrity
	 	 	 (f)
	 	Rosemarie B. Greco
	 	 	 (g)
	 	James G. Kaiser
	 	 	 (h)
	 	Robert D. Kennedy
	 	 	 (i)
	 	Richard H. Lenny
	 	 	 (j)
	 	Norman S. Matthews
	 	 	 (k)
	 	R. Anderson Pew
	 	 	 (l)
	 	G. Jackson Ratcliffe
	 	 	 (m)
	 	John W. Rowe
	 	 	 (n)
	 	Alexander B. Trowbridge

  
 (3) Benefits payable
to former directors of the Company (or their beneficiaries) in pay status as of the date of termination of the Sunoco, Inc. Non-Employee Directors’ Retirement Plan. 
  

 1