alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



         This  Amendment to Employment  Agreement (the  "Amendment")  is entered
into by and between Phar-Mor,  Inc., a Pennsylvania  corporation (the "Company")
and Sankar Krishnan (the "Employee") as of June 23, 1998 (the "Effective Date").

         WHEREAS,  Employee is currently  employed by the Company  pursuant to a
written  Employment   Agreement  dated  as  of  June  13,  1997  (the  "Existing
Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS,  the Company  and the  Employee  desire to amend the  Existing
Agreement.

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. Section I.,  EMPLOYMENT  AND TERM, of the Existing  Agreement is amended,  to
wit, to provide that the Stated Term (the "Term") shall continue through June 4,
2000.

2. Section III.,  COMPENSATION,  sub-paragraph A., Base Salary, shall be amended
to provide that the base salary paid to Employee for the contract year beginning
June 5, 1999 through June 4, 2000 shall be $265,000.

3. Section III., COMPENSATION, sub-paragraph C., Stock Options, shall be amended
to provide that the stock options granted to the Employee on June 23, 1998 shall
be treated as existing options under the existing Agreement,  as amended herein,
and not as additional options, so that such options shall immediately vest if at
any time the Employee's employment is terminated by the Company without Cause or
the Employee terminates employment with the Company for Good Reason.

4.  Section IV.,  TERMINATION,  sub-paragraph  F.3.,  Other Than for Cause or by
Reason of Death or Disability,  shall be amended to provide that notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, should a Change of Control
occur during the first year of the term of this Existing  Agreement,  as amended
herein,  involving  any entity with which the Company is  currently  engaged and
subject to a  confidentiality  agreement,  then such Change of Control  shall be
deemed to have  occurred in the second year of the term  thereof for the purpose
of calculating any payments due Employee hereunder

5. All other terms and  conditions of the Existing  Employment  Agreement  shall
remain the same and any  defined  terms used  herein  shall have the  meaning as
defined in the Existing Agreement.




<PAGE>


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

PHAR-MOR, INC.

By:_______________________________            __________________________________
         Abbey J. Butler                                Sankar Krishnan
         Co-Chairman and Chief
         Executive Officer

By:_______________________________
         Melvyn J. Estrin
         Co-Chairman and Chief
         Executive Officer
### §10508. Voting assistance for blind, disabled or illiterate persons

Any voter who requires assistance to vote by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice, other than the voter's employer or agent of that employer or officer or agent of the voter's union.

(Pub. L. 89–110, title II, §208, as added Pub. L. 97–205, §5, June 29, 1982, 96 Stat. 135.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1973aa–6 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 97–205, §5, June 29, 1982, 96 Stat. 134, provided that this section is effective Jan. 1, 1984.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

TARAKESWAR CHAUDHARY, a.k.a.

Tarak Chaudhary,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50425

D.C. No. 8:10-cr-00001-JVS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Tarakeswar Chaudhary appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

OCT 05 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50425

Chaudhary first contends that the district court erred in imposing an

obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The record supports

the court’s conclusion that Chaudhary’s movement of his computers and

incriminating documents was purposefully calculated, and likely, to thwart the

investigation of his crime. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.1; United States v.

McNally, 159 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (application of obstruction of justice

enhancement is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Chaudhary next contends that the district court erred in denying his request

for a continuance to file supplemental briefing on the issue of the obstruction of

justice enhancement. Given the timing of Chaudhary’s request, as well as the fact

that he had previously briefed the question at issue, the court did not abuse its

discretion. See GCB Communications, Inc. v. U.S. South Communications, Inc.,

Nos. 09-17646, 10-16086, 2011 WL 1613152, at *3 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011) (case

management decisions of district court are reviewed for abuse of discretion);

United States v. Richter, 488 F.2d 170, 173-74 (9th Cir. 1973).

Chaudhary also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In

light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
3 10-50425

factors, Chaudhary’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

Chaudhary lastly contends that he was denied due process by the court’s

implicit reference to his ethnic background at sentencing. The record belies this

contention. The court’s expressed concern was with the abuse of trust resulting

from perpetrators of fraud targeting members of their own social group; it did not

impose sentence on the basis of Chaudhary’s ethnicity. 

AFFIRMED.
#### COOPER v. BROOKLYN TRUST CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 22, 1903.)

1. Executors and Administrators—Recovery for Services Rendered— Complaint—Alleg ati ons.

The allegations o£ the complaint in an action to recover for services rendered *a decedent, which alleged a promise to pay for the services and their value, and which averred that decedent agreed to make compensa-* tion therefor by will or otherwise, and that decedent made provision for the payment by a deposit of certain bonds, did not show an election to proceed as if on a performance made by the act of deposit.

Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.

Action by Alfred Cooper against the Brooklyn Trust Company, as executor of the will of Mary E. Raymond, deceased. From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, JENKS, and HOOKER, JJ.

James W. Ridgway, for appellant.

William N. Dykman, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We think that there should be a new trial. As the learned trial court said, the evidence put in by the plaintiff showed that the plaintiff had rendered services to the decedent outside of his duties as her courier, and that the decedent had promised payment therefor. We think that there was some evidence of the value of these services. The decedent deposited bonds in an envelope in her attempt to fulfill her promise. There were found in the envelope six bonds, each for $1,000. We think that such deposit of this amount may be regarded in the light of an admission that the services were reasonably worth that sum of money. The testimony as to the services, of the character thereof, of the promise to pay therefor, and of the deposit was received without objection under a complaint of services performed at the decedent’s instance and request and her promise of payment. It is true that the plaintiff not only alleges a promise and agreement to pay for the services, but a promise and agreement to make compensation therefor by will or otherwise, coupled with the allegation that the decedent did make provision for payment by the deposit. But it is not alleged that such deposit was performance, and the plaintiff, by thus pleading, does not elect to proceed as if upon a performance made by such act of deposit. The plaintiff does not plead that the bonds were his property, nor does he virtually take that position by seeking the recovery thereof. On the contrary, he declares upon the services, the promise to pay for the services, and the value thereof. We would not prejudge." But, as the evidence stood at the close of the plaintiff’s case, it is clear that the decedent intended to compensate the plaintiff for his services with six $1,000 bonds, and that her intention was not fulfilled by any change of purpose on her part. . The courts should not be astute to deprive the plaintiff of the trial of his claim by a jury.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
#### § 1802.26 Notification of decision and prohibition on adverse action.

The Coordinator shall communicate the decision of NACIC to the authorized holder, the originator, and other interested parties within ten (10) days of the decision by the Coordinator. That correspondence shall include a notice that no adverse action or retribution can be taken in regard to the challenge and that an appeal of the decision may be made to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) established pursuant to § 5.4 of this Order.
# C_2023251EN.01000101.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11115 – ADNOC / ÖBAG /OMV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 251/01)

On 11 July 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11115. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11115. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: GENERAL STATEWIDE JUDICIAL EMERGENCY

- SUPREME COURT OPERATIONS : : : No. 533 Judicial Administration Docket

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17 th day of March , 20 20 , in accordance with this Court’s order declaring a general, statewide judicial emergency, see 531 Judicial Administration Docket (March 16, 2020), on account of COVID

- 19, and to safeguard the health and safety of court personnel, court users, and members o f the public, the Court DIRECTS that the due dates for any filings due in the Supreme Court between March 16, 2020, and March 30, 2020, are EXTENDED by 15 days, except for

A. Matters governed by Rule of Appellate Procedure 903(c)(1)(ii) (relating to

appea ls in matters arising under the Pennsylvania Election Code);

B. Matters governed by Rule of Appellate Procedure 3331 (relating to the review of special prosecutions or investigations);

C. Matters classified as Children’s Fast Track, see Pa.R.A.P. 102 (relating to definitions); and

D. Any matters where the Supreme Court Prothonotary directs otherwise. Filings encompassed by exceptions A, B, or C above must be made within the time established by general rule using the PACFile electronic filing system. See Pa.R.A.P. 125 (relating to electronic filing).[533 Judicial Administration Docket

- 2 ]

Any future orders regarding Supreme Court operations during the COVID

- 19 situation will be docketed at this number and will be posted on the Unified Judicial System website. The Prothonotary is DIRECTE D to transmit this order to the Pennsylvania Bar Association, with a request that such association promptly forward the notice to all

members.
### §501. Advertising practice; restrictions

An individual, firm, or corporation practicing before an agency of the United States may not use the name of a Member of either House of Congress or of an individual in the service of the United States in advertising the business.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 381.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 101. | Apr. 27, 1916, ch. 89, §1, 39 Stat. 54. |

Statutes at Large

The words "may not" are substituted for "It shall be unlawful for". The words "agency of the United States" are substituted for "any department or office of the Government". The words "an individual in the service of the United States" are substituted for "officer of the Government" in view of the definitions in sections 2104 and 2105.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Longs Drug Stores Corporation (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 29, 2004 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  |                                                                 
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 12, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    WARREN F. BRYANT
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                         | 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  | Warren F. Bryant Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  |                                                                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 12, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    STEVEN F. MCCANN
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                         | 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  | Steven F. McCann Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Longs Drug Stores Corporation and will be retained by Longs Drug Stores Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.3

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven G. Larson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Drexler Technology
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

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

        (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated 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 quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

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

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

Date: August 11, 2004

/s/ Steven G. Larson
--------------------
Steven G. Larson
Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)


                                       51
#### Thordarson Electric Manufacturing Company, appellant, v. Clara McCabe, otherwise known as Clara Andrade, and C. L. Andrade, appellees.

Gen. No. 29,800.

Action to recover damages to plaintiff from alleged wrongful acts *635of the defendants in sale of plaintiff’s merchandise. Judgment for defendants. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Lupe, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Lambert & Mayer, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
### SUBCHAPTER II—EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1968—Pub. L. 90–351, title V, §1001(c), June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 235, substituted "EMPLOYMENT LIMITATIONS" for "LOYALTY, SECURITY, AND STRIKING" in subchapter heading.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/    Jack C. BridgesJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-PresidentAugust 14, 2008Date
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9860 

To redesignate Camp Nelson National Monument. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 

Mr. BARR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To redesignate Camp Nelson National Monument. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Camp Nelson National 

5 Monument Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CAMP NELSON NATIONAL MONUMENT. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 2303 of the John D. Din8 gell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act 

9 (Public Law 116–9) is amended— 

10 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘HERITAGE’’; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9860 IH

1 (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘Camp 

2 Nelson Heritage National Monument’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘Camp Nelson National Monument’’; and 

4 (3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘Camp 

5 Nelson Heritage National Monument’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘Camp Nelson National Monument’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to Camp Nelson Heritage National Monument shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to Camp Nelson National 

11 Monument. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
METAL / NONMETAL

Serious Accident

Surface Limestone – A miner operating an empty articulating haul 

truck lost control on a downhill grade and overturned. The driver was 

hospitalized with serious injuries but survived, likely because he was

wearing his seat belt.

BEST PRACTICES

• Always wear a seat belt when operating mobile equipment.

• Task train mobile equipment operators adequately and ensure each 

operator can demonstrate proficiency in all phases of mobile equipment 

operation before performing work. 

• Conduct adequate pre-operational checks and correct any defects 

affecting safety in a timely manner prior to operating mobile equipment.

• Maintain control of self-propelled mobile equipment while it is in motion. 

• Post safe speed limits for the mine roads and remind mobile 

equipment operators to reduce speed when weather conditions 

change.