alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JOSB FY 2012 EX 10.5(e)






Exhibit 10.5(e)




FIFTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of the 2nd day of April, 2013 to that certain EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of January 30, 2009 (as previously amended, the “Employment Agreement”), by and between JAMES W. THORNE (“Employee”) and JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. (“Employer”).     


FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the Employment Agreement, hereby amend the Employment Agreement and agree that, subject to earlier termination as otherwise set forth in the Employment Agreement, the last day of the Employment Period shall be January 31, 2015.


Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to its terms. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the remainder of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control and prevail. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have those respective meanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment shall hereafter be deemed a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes. The terms of employment set forth in this Amendment have been approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Employer.


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




JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.


	
				
	By:
	/s/ CHARLES D. FRAZER
	 
	/s/ JAMES W. THORNE

	 
	Charles D. Frazer,
Senior Vice President-General Counsel
	 
	JAMES W. THORNE
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1677 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1677

    To modify the boundary of Yosemite National Park, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2013

Mr. Costa (for himself, Mr. Honda, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Chu, Mr. 
 Schiff, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Lowenthal, and Mr. Cartwright) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To modify the boundary of Yosemite National Park, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Yosemite National Park Boundary 
Expansion Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to modify the boundary of Yosemite 
National Park to protect from potential development the scenic and 
biological value of property adjacent to the Park.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
        ``Yosemite National Park Location Map for Boundary Line 
        Adjustment (BLA) Areas''.
            (2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Yosemite National 
        Park in the State of California.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 4. YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK.

    (a) Acquisition of Land.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire the land or an 
        interest in the land described in subsections (b) and (c) for 
        addition to the Park.
            (2) Means.--An acquisition of land under paragraph (1) may 
        be made by donation, purchase from a willing seller with 
        donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
    (b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in subsection (a)(1) 
is the approximately 1,575 acres of land adjacent to the Park, as 
generally depicted on the map.
    (c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and available 
for inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
    (d) Boundary Modification.--The boundary of the Park shall be 
revised to reflect the acquisition of the land under subsection (a).
    (e) Administration.--The Secretary shall administer any land or 
interest in land acquired under subsection (a)(1) as part of the Park 
in accordance with the laws (including regulations) applicable to the 
Park.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)of section  1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),the undersigned officer of Waterford Wedgwood plc and WaterfordWedgwood U.K. plc (together, the "Company"),hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

TheAnnual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the"Report") of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Dated: September 29, 2005

|  | Signature: /s/ PETER B.CAMERON Name:        Peter B. CameronTitle:           Chief Executive Officer |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United StatesCode) and is not being filed as part of theReport.

----
#### § 1710.5 Availability of forms.

Information about the availability of RUS forms and publications cited in this part is available from Administrative Services Division, Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-1500. These RUS forms and publications may be reproduced.
#### Cheshire Commercial Corporation *v.*Philip Messier et al.

*Neil F. Murphy,*in support of the petition.

*Alvin M. Murray,*in opposition.

Submitted May 24

decided June 2, 1971

The petition by the defendants for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
```

[House Report 106-909]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-909

======================================================================

 
 WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO THE 
  SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 
                               COMMITTEE

                                _______
                                

 September 28, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 599]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 599, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to a special rule reported on the legislative day of October 2, 
2000, providing for consideration or disposition of a 
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4578) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, or any 
amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon. 
Finally, H. Res. 586, 592 and 595 are laid on the table.

                                

```
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 NL Industries,  Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Harold C. Simmons,
Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  and I,  Gregory M.  Swalwell,  Chief
Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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/  Harold C. Simmons
     ---------------------------------------
     Harold C. Simmons
     Chief Executive Officer


/s/  Gregory M. Swalwell
     ---------------------------------------
      Gregory M. Swalwell
      Chief Financial Officer


November 11, 2003


Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
#### Bankers Trust Company, Executor, et al. *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Weston

*Bernard Glaser,*in support of the petition.

Submitted November 4

decided November 23, 1971

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Pair-field County at Stamford is granted.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER



I, Robert S. Stefanovich, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment
No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Cryoport, Inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: September 23, 2016



| | /s/ ROBERT S. STEFANOVICH    
| | -----------------------------
| | Robert S. Stefanovich        
| | Chief Financial Officer      
| | (Principal Financial Officer)
April 9, 2013



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MARIA SUAREZ , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00182

- CV V.

DOW CORNING CORPORAT ION AND
DOW CORNING WRIGHT C ORPORATION , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Cou rt heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on January 29, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Maria Suarez. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### § 1709.202 [Reserved]
Order entered March 21, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01505-CV

WILLIAM E. ROBINSON, JR., Appellant

V.

BORAL WINDOWS LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-16397

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Nowell

Before the Court is appellant’s Motion for Temporary Order to Lift Stay of Proceedings

in the Trial Court Pending Resolution of the Appeal. We DENY the motion.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Spansion Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i.) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended July 1, 2007 (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: August 10, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Bertrand F. Cambou                                  
|                      |  |  |  | Bertrand F. Cambou President and Chief Executive
Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1740

GAIL E. PACE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CROSSMARK; DEBBIE RIDGEWAY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:10-cv-02797-HMH)

Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gail E. Pace, Appellant Pro Se. Lucas James Asper, Thomas 

Howard Keim, Jr., FORD & HARRISON, LLP, Spartanburg, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gail E. Pace appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss her claims pursuant to 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 

U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2011). The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The 

magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed and 

advised Pace that failure to timely file specific objections to 

this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district 

court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Pace 

has waived appellate review by failing to file specific 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### §§ 1717.905-1717.949 [Reserved]
---

Exhibit 32.1

|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 Annual Report of Fitmedia Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my 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.

|Dated: | December 15, 2006 | /s/ Timothy Crottey                                       
|------ | ----------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------
|       |                   | Timothy Crottey                                           
|       |                   | President, Chief Executive Officer,                       
|       |                   | Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting
      Office

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

CHEN, Correctional Medical Doctor,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16653

D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01762-MJS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted January 18, 2017***

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Jeremy Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a 

jury verdict in favor of defendant in Jones’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Jones’s request 

for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied.

FILED

JAN 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-16653 

retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the 

district court’s evidentiary rulings and reverse only when an erroneous evidentiary 

ruling is prejudicial. Gribben v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 528 F.3d 1166, 1171-72

(9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court excluded the document that Jones sought to use only for 

impeachment on the basis that it had not been disclosed previously. However, 

“impeachment evidence does not have to be revealed in pretrial disclosures.” Id.; 

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) (requiring disclosure of documents used to 

support claims or defenses, unless use would be solely for impeachment).

Nevertheless, the erroneous evidentiary ruling does not warrant reversal because 

the jury’s verdict on each of Jones’s claims was supported by evidence other than 

defendant’s unimpeached testimony. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 

1010, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversal requires an abuse of discretion and prejudice); 

Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(prejudice requires conclusion that “more probably than not,” the error tainted the 

verdict). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Emmett Hastings, appellee, v. Able Transfer Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 8,133.

Opinion filed January 3, 1930.

Green & Rice, for appellant; Lawrence A. Rice, of counsel. J. A. Miller, for appellee; Sidney H. Block, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBiconic cargo return vehicle with an advanced recovery system. Volume 1: Conceptual designThe conceptual design of the biconic Cargo Return Vehicle (CRV) is presented. The CRV will be able to meet all of the Space Station Freedom (SSF's) resupply needs. Worth note is the absence of a backup recovery chute in case of Advanced Recovery System (ARS) failure. The high reliability of ram-air parachutes does not warrant the penalty weight that such a system would create on successful missions. The CRV will launch vertically integrated with an Liquid Rocket Booster (LRB) vehicle and meets all NASA restrictions on fuel type for all phases of the mission. Because of the downscaled Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) program, the CRV has been designed to be able to transfer cargo by docking directly to the Space Station Freedom as well as with OMV assistance. The CRV will cover enough crossrange to reach its primary landing site, Edwards Airforce Base, and all secondary landing sites with the exception of one orbit. Transportation back to KSC will be via the Boeing Super Guppy. Due to difficulties with man-rating the CRV, it will not be used in a CERV role. A brief summary of the CRV's specifications is given.Document ID19900016736Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 2, 1990Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186520NAS 1.26:186520Accession Number90N26052Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NGT-21-002-800Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900016736.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024