alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



Exhibit 10.7.2  


 
 

AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    
    


        THIS
AMENDMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made effective as of January 25, 2006 by and between Government Liquidation.Com, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the
"Company"), and the undersigned ("Executive"). 


Recitals:



        A.
Executive and the Company entered into an executive employment agreement dated as of June 13, 2001 (the "Executive Employment Agreement"); and 



        B.
Executive and the Company wish to amend the terms of the Executive Employment Agreement in this Agreement. 


Agreement:



        NOW,
THEREFORE, to induce Executive to continue such Executive's employment with the Company, and in consideration of the agreements contained herein and of such other good and valuable
consideration, the sufficiency of which Executive acknowledges, the Company and Executive,
intending to be legally bound, hereby agree that the Executive Employment Agreement is hereby amended in the following respect: 



        The
following section, entitled "8.5 Code Section 409A Matters," is hereby added to the Executive Employment Agreement: 


        "Anything
in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, if (A) on the date of Executive's "separation from service" (within the meaning of
Section 409A(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code")) with the Company, Executive is a "specified employee" (within the meaning of
Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code) and (B) as a result of such separation from service, Executive would receive any payment under this Agreement that, absent the application of
this Section 8.5, would be subject to the additional tax imposed pursuant to Section 409A(a) of the Code as a result of the application of Section 409A(2)(B)(i) of the
Code, then no such payment shall be payable prior to the date that is the earliest of (1) six months after the Executive's separation from service, (2) the Executive's death or
(3) such other date as will cause such payment not to be subject to such additional tax. Any payments which are required to be delayed as a result of this Section 8.5 shall be
accumulated and paid as a lump-sum on the earliest possible date determined in accordance the preceding sentence." 


        [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


1







 

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first written above. 



	

 	
 	
GOVERNMENT LIQUIDATION.COM, LLC
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  WILLIAM P. ANGRICK, III      
 William P. Angrick, III

Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





	
Agreed and Accepted:	
 	

 
	

By:  /s/  THOMAS B. BURTON      
	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 
	NAME:  Thomas B. Burton
	 	 





	
 	
 	

 
	Address:	 	9818 N. 86 St.

Scottsdale, AZ 85258




2











QuickLinks


AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sovereign Exploration Associates
International, Inc. (the "Company") on Amended Form 10-Q for the period ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, 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.



| |  | Sovereign
    Exploration Associates International, Inc..
    BY: /s/ Robert D. Baca
    Robert D. Baca, Chief Executive Officer
    May 19, 2006
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 1508.105 Does this part apply to me? Portions of this part (see table at § 1508.25(b)) apply to you if you are a(n)— ( a ) Person who has been, is, or may reasonably be expected to be, a participant or principal in a covered transaction;
( b ) Respondent (a person against whom the African Development Foundation has initiated a debarment or suspension action);
( c ) ADF debarring or suspending official; or
( d ) ADF official who is authorized to enter into covered transactions with non-Federal parties.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 21 , 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR

- 2013

- 0602

FROM: Reynaldo Forte , EPA Office of Air and Radiation

SUBJECT: May 21 , 2015, meeting with Los Angeles Department of Water and Power regarding

comments submitted on the Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on May 21 , 2015 to discuss the external stakeholders’ comments related to gross generation reporting vs. n et generation reporting as submitted to the docket for the Proposed Clean Power Plan . The Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

External Stakehold ers
Cindy Parsons, LADWP Robert Hodel, LADWP Leizl Lontok, LADWP Jodean Giese, LADWP

EPA

Reynaldo Forte , EPA HQ Colin Boswell , EPA HQ Jeremy Schreifels, EPA HQ Charles Frushour , EPA HQ
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63
of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Horne
International, Inc. (“Horne”), that, to the best of his knowledge and belief,
the Annual Report of Horne on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2009,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of Horne.





Date:
      November 11, 2009
                    By:
                    /s/
      Darryl
      K. HorneDarryl
      K. HornePresident
      and Chief Executive Officer





Date:
      November 11, 2009
                    By:
                    /s/
      Paige
      E. ShannonPaige
      E. ShannonChief
      Financial Officer




This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement has been
provided to Horne and will be retained by Horne and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 04, 2015. 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, March 04, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0136. RAYMOND J. BROWN v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 14D1861
#### Maria A. TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-50458.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 3, 2007.

Russell J.G. Amsberry, Law Offices of Russell Amsberry, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Shawn Kevin Fitzpatrick, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before KING, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

*336PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. See 5th Circuit Loc. R. 47.6.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

D.A.C.,

Respondent

v.

J.E.H.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 237 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit
      32.2


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
      I, George P. Morris, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
      that
      to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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





Dated:
                August 19, 2008*/s/
                George P. Morris*George
                P. MorrisChief
                Financial Officer





The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or
      as a separate disclosure document.
#### § 1508.900 Adequate evidence.

*Adequate evidence* means information sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act or omission has occurred.
Page 1 of 1 Meeting Summary

December 17 , 2010, 3 :0 0 PM to 4 :00 PM

Room S

- 12100 , 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Beyond Pesticides : Jay Feldman, Nichelle Harriott Participants

Physicians for Social Responsibility : Kristen Welker

- Hood Chemical Sensitivity Disorders Association : Lawrence Plumlee

Food and Water Watch : Kathy Dolan The Endocrine Disruptor Exchange : Theo Colborn, Lynn Carro ll National Association of Clean Water Agencies : Cynthia Finley

Zelle Hoffmann : Perry Wallace

Informed Green Solutions : Car ol Westinghouse

EPA: Vick i Dellarco, Jennifer Mclain, Joa n Harrigan

- Farrelly, Bob Perlis, Steven Bradbury, Diana Eignor

, Tim McMahon

On Friday

, December 17 , 2010, AD hosted a meeting with Beyond Pesticides and other groups listed above to discuss the petition to ban triclosan that was submitted to EPA b y Beyond Pesticides and Food & Water Watch. The petitioners submitted an Agenda in which they requested discussion on the possible outcome(s) of the petition, extension of the comment period on the petition, collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, existing and new biomonitoring data on triclosan occurrence in the environment, EPA’s process for examining triclosan under the various regulatory statutes governing EPA program offices, and any new data examining endocrine effects and effects on the developing fetus as well as other susceptible subpopulations. Summary

In response to the submission of the request for extension of t he comment period, EPA published a notice of availability in the Federal Register dated February 2, 2011, extending the comment period for the triclosan petition for an additional 60 days. Next Steps
#### In the Matter of Kormann’s Hofbrau, Inc., Petitioner, against John F. O’Connell et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, et al., Respondents.

Cohn, J.

(dissenting). The State Liquor Authority has revoked the restaurant *931wine and beer license of petitioner upon the ground that the licensee has violated subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in that it suffered and permitted its premises to become disorderly.

The licensed premises occupied as a restaurant in the year 1900 has been continued as such uninterruptedly in the same location. The principal officers and stockholders of the petitioner corporation are husband and wife who for many years worked in the restaurant for the former owner and who in 1943 purchased the business from him. They have been operating it ever since. In the premises there is no bar and the only beer sold is bottled beer. The testimony is ample that highly reputable people, including employees of many of the New York City departments, as well as school teachers and businessmen, patronize the restaurant and that it was at all times and still is respectably conducted.

In order to sustain the authority’s determination there must be substantial evidence that petitioner permitted its premises to become disorderly; that in one way or another the alleged illegal activities were instigated, consented to or caused by the licensee; that it had knowledge or should have had knowledge of what was taking place; and that it made no effort to prevent the use of the premises for the alleged unlawful purposes. The mere presence in the restaurant on two occasions of persons in possession of narcotics who were unknown to the officers of petitioner at a time when such persons did not to its knowledge engage in any illegal activities or at a time and under circumstances when their action or conduct did not indicate to officers of the petitioner that they were in any way engaged in illegal activities, is insufficient to sustain a finding of suffering or permitting disorder to the premises. *(Matter of Toyos*v. *Bruckman,*266 App. Div. 28, appeal dismissed 291 N. Y. 745; *Matter of Arnold Reuben, Inc.,*v. *State Liq. Authority,*268 App. Div. 981, affd. 294 N. Y. 730; *Matter of Stevensville Lake Holding Corp.*v. *O’Connell,*269 App. Div. 804; *Matter of Konopka*v. *Bruckman,*265 App. Div. 1068, revd. 290 N. Y. 777.)

The determination of the State Liquor Authority is based wholly upon inferences which are not warranted by the proof. There is no substantial evidence to justify the revocation. Accordingly, I dissent and vote to annul the determination appealed from.

Dore, J. P., Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur in decision; Cohn, J., dissents and votes to annul the determination in opinion.

Determination confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion.
EXHIBIT 11

MARKWEST HYDROCARBON, INC.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
(000s, except per share data)

|                                                              |  | For the Quarter Ended
September 30, 2000 |       | For the Year Ended
September 30, 2000
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------- | ----- | -------------------------------------
|Net income                                                    |  | $                                        | 1,325 |                                      
|Weighted average number of outstanding shares of
common stock |  |                                          | 8,450 |                                      
|Basic earnings per share                                      |  | $                                        | 0.16  |                                      
|                                                              |  |                                          |       |                                      
|Net income                                                    |  | $                                        | 1,325 |                                      
|Weighted average number of outstanding shares of
common stock |  |                                          | 8,450 |                                      
|Dilutive stock options                                        |  |                                          | 39    |                                      
|                                                              |  |                                          |       |                                      
|                                                              |  |                                          | 8,489 |                                      
|Earnings per share assuming dilution                          |  | $                                        | 0.16  |                                      
|                                                              |  |                                          |       |                                      

---
#### § 120.55 Access information.

*Access information* is information that allows access to encrypted technical data subject to this subchapter in an unencrypted form. Examples include decryption keys, network access codes, and passwords.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4193 

To provide that there shall be no net increase in the acres of certain Federal 

land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the 

National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest 

Service unless the Federal budget is balanced for the year in which 

the land would be purchased. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2012 

Mr. STIVERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that there shall be no net increase in the acres 

of certain Federal land under the jurisdiction of the 

Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest Service 

unless the Federal budget is balanced for the year in 

which the land would be purchased. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4193 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Land Acquisition to 

3 cut National Debt Act’’ or the ‘‘LAND Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LAND ACQUISI5 TION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior may 

7 not use Federal funds to purchase land that would result 

8 in a net increase of land acreage that would be under the 

9 jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish 

10 and Wildlife Service, or the Bureau of Land Management 

11 unless the Federal budget is balanced for the year in 

12 which the land would be purchased. 

13 (b) DUCK STAMP FUNDS.—Subsection (a) shall not 

14 apply to land purchased with funds made available 

15 through the sale of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and 

16 Conservation Stamps. 

17 SEC. 3. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND ACQUISITION. 

18 The Secretary of Agriculture may not use Federal 

19 funds to purchase land that would result in a net increase 

20 of land acreage included in the National Forest System 

21 unless the Federal budget is balanced for the year in 

22 which the land would be purchased. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Sam Cohen, appellee, v. Westfall Storage, Van and Express Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,360.

Action to recover for the negligence of defendant as a warehouseman in carting and storing certain rugs and other articles. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. J. W. Sehulman, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court

*602at the October term, 1921.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed October 30, 1922.

Raber, Kostner, Andalman & Arvey, for appellant; Nat. M. Kahn, of eounsol. No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Murry, Appellant.

Motion granted and decision and order entered February 25, 1977 amended by adding the following memorandum: In dismissing the indictment we have considered the unavailability of evidence by which the crimes charged in the indictment may be proved, the prejudice to defendant resulting from the lengthy delay in bringing the prosecution to trial and other factors, all of which constrain us to dismiss as a matter of discretion in the interests of justice (see *People v Clayton,*41 AD2d 204; and cf. *People v Belkota,*50 AD2d 118). Present—Marsh, P. J., Simons, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARTIN HERRERA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00043-CR

Appeal from the

41st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20140D05440)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Court Reporter’s third request for an extension of time within 

which to file the Reporter’s Record until August 30, 2017. NO FURTHER REQUESTS 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Leticia Perez, Court Reporter for the 41stDistrict Court, 

for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record for the above styled and numbered 

cause, and forward the same to this Court on or before August 30, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 31, 2017

No. 04-17-00112-CV

GARY BEAVERS CONSTRUCTION, Gary W. Beavers, and Amy Beavers,

Appellant

v.

Robert W. SKLOSS and Jaclyn H. Nguyen,

Appellee

From the 452nd District Court, Edwards County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4048

The Honorable Robert Hoffman, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s second motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellee’s brief is due 

September 1, 2017. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2319

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Jewell Leroy Chatman, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 19, 1997 Filed: December 2, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jewell Leroy Chatman pleaded guilty to robbing a federally-insured Minneapolis , Minnesota bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Ba sed on a total offense level of 22 and a Category IV criminal history, the presentence report (PSR) recommended a Guid elines imprisonment range of 63 to 78 months. Chatman sought a downwar d departure from this Guidelines range pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, p.s. (1995), arguing that Category IV overstated his criminal history andThe Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minnesota. -2- Category II would be more ap propriate. The district court refused to depart downward. 1 No ting that, in addition to the five countable convictions underlying his criminal history score, Chatman had been charged with criminal conduct in five other instance s, the district cou rt concluded Category IV overstated neither the seriousness of the defendant & s cri minalhistory nor his likelihood of recidivism. The court, however, granted th e gove rnment & s motion for downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guideline s Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (1995), and sentenced Chatman to 46 months imprisonment an d three years supervised release. Chatman appeals, and we affirm.
We conc lude that, because the district court was aware of its authority to depart , Chatman & s s entence is unreviewable. See United States v. Hall , 7 F.3d 1394, 1396 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.