alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No.3 to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.7 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (“Company”) and Robert Charles Mahoney (“Executive”) entered into an
Employment Agreement dated as of July 11, 2006 and as previously amended (“Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, all defined terms
used herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement unless specifically defined herein; 
 WHEREAS, as of November 12,
2008 the Compensation Committee (“Committee”) of the Board of Directors of ON Semiconductor Corporation considered and approved an increase, effective January 4, 2009, of the maximum target bonus percentage for the Executive from 65%
to 75% of his Base Salary during the applicable Performance Cycle under a bonus Program established and approved by the Committee and/or Board; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive now wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the increase to the maximum target bonus percentage to 75% consistent with the Committee’s approvals and make certain related conforming changes
to the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for mutual consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby
amended as follows: 
 1. Effective January 4, 2009, Section 2(b) of the Agreement related to “Compensation” is hereby amended by
replacing such section in its entirety with the following: 
 “(b) In addition to the Base Salary, during the Employment
Period, the Executive shall be eligible to participate in the bonus program established and approved by the Board (the “Program”) and, pursuant to the Program, the Executive may earn a bonus (the “Bonus”) on an annual or other
performance period basis (a “Performance Cycle”) of up to a maximum target of 75% of Base Salary earned during the applicable Performance Cycle or an additional amount as approved by the Board under the Program and in each case based on
certain performance criteria; provided that the Executive is actively employed by the Company on the date the Bonuses are paid under the Program, except as provided in Section 5(a) herein. The Bonus may be paid annually or more frequently
depending upon the Performance Cycle, as determined by the Board and pursuant to the Program. The Bonus will be specified by the Board, and the Bonus will be reviewed at least annually by the Board.” 
  

 1 








 2. This Agreement shall amend only the provisions of the Agreement as set forth herein. Those provisions of the Agreement
not expressly amended shall be considered in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Company have executed
this Amendment as of the 30 day of April 2009. 
  

									
	COMPANY:	 		 	Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/    COLLEEN MCKEOWN

		 		 		 	Name:	 	Colleen McKeown
		 		 		 	Title:	 	Senior Vice President of Human Resources
			
	EXECUTIVE:	 		 	Robert Charles Mahoney, in his individual capacity
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/    ROBERT CHARLES MAHONEY

		 		 		 	Name:	 	Robert Charles Mahoney
		 		 		 	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, Sales and Marketing

  

 2
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ERSKIN JOSEPH HARPER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5858/LAC/EMT

OKALOOSA COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

September 2, 2021 (ECF No. 11). Efforts have been made to furnish the parties a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and afford them an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). All mail

addressed to the Plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable. No objections have

been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

11) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05858-LC-EMT Document 14 Filed 12/23/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with an order of the court and failure to keep the court apprised of his

current address. 

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5858/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05858-LC-EMT Document 14 Filed 12/23/21 Page 2 of 2
4.1803 Verifying CAGE codes prior to award.

(a) Contracting officers shall verify the offeror’s CAGE code by reviewing the entity’s registration in

the System for Award Management (SAM). Active registrations in SAM have had the associated

CAGE codes verified.

(b) For entities not required to be registered in SAM, the contracting officer shall validate the CAGE

code using the CAGE code search feature at https://cage.dla.mil.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.18 - Commercial and Government Entity Code
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           9,719
<SECURITIES>                                     5,193
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,261)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,089
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,487
<PP&E>                                          13,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,636)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,549
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            94
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,017
<SALES>                                         15,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,050
<CGS>                                            3,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    628
<INCOME-TAX>                                       188
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                440
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       440
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134759 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan ANGELA R. ROSA and JOHN B. ROSA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134759 COA: 268651 Benzie CC: 05-007272-NO GARY HENNING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 31, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2007

Clerk
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). A H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. HE NR Y A . P AN I AG UA , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30165 D. C . No . 3 : 0 3 - c r - 0 0 1 7 1 - J KS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka J a m e s K . S i ngl e t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H e nryA . P a ni a guaappe a l s f r om the 18- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng r e v o c a tio n o f

h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED MA R 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA H / Res ea r ch 09- 30165

P ani agua cont ends thathi s s ent ence i m perm i ss i bl y i ncre as es the se nt ence im p o se dfo r th e u n d er lyin g o ff en se an dth at itv io lates th e E ig h th A m en d m en t’ s pr ohi bi t i on a ga i ns tc rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc ourti m pos e d the bo tt om -of- the-G ui del i nes 18-m on th sent ence t o run consec ut i ve t o the se nt ence i m p o sed fo r th e d ru g co n sp i racy co n v i ct i o n u n d erl yi n g th e su p erv i sed rel ease vi ol a t i on. T he r e c or d r e f

l e c t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourti m pos e d the 18- m onth s e nt e nc e f or the l e gi t i m a t e purpos e of puni s hi ng P a ni a guaf

orbr e a c hi ng the c ourt ’ s trus tby v io la tin g th e c o n d itio n s o f h is s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e . Se e U ni te d State s v . Si m tob , 485 F . 3d 10 58 , 10 62 -63 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). M oreover, P ani agua fai l ed t o d em on stra t e that hi s c on se cut i ve se nt ence i s gross l y di spropo rt i on at e t o h i s vi ol at i on of m andat ory te rm s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . See U n i ted S ta tes v. Mei n ers , 485 F . 3d 1211, 1213 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ; s e e al s o L oc k y e rv . A ndr ade , 53 8 U . S . 63 , 72 (200 3). AF F I RME D.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-72,231]

                    By application dated December 5, 2009, the United Steel Workers, Local 6816-18, requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers                           ( print page 7030)                        and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on November 5, 2009. The Notice of Determination will soon be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that imports of Trityl Losartan did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding customers of the subject firm.

The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

## Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of December, 2009.

Del Min Amy Chen,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-3010 Filed 2-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EX-34 (f)
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers Center
300 Madison Avenue
New York NY 10017
Telephone (646) 471-3000
Facsimile (813) 286-6000


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria, that JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the "Company")
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities
and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities
transactions backed by residential mortgages and home equity loans, for which
the Company acts as Custodian (the "Platform"), as of September 30, 2006 and for
the period from January 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006 excluding the criteria
1122(d) (1)(i)-(iv), (2)(i)-(vii), (3)(i)-(iv), and (4)(iii)-(xv), which the
Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by it with
respect to the Platform. Appendix A to management's assertion identifies the
individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as
constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or
amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the period ended
September 30, 2006 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 1, 2007
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR FISCAL QUARTER ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<CASH>                              839,885
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     2,642,576
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                         604,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  3,307,190
<PP&E>                            2,110,847
<DEPRECIATION>                      768,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   13,013,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             2,606,132
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                          30,722
<COMMON>                          1,967,960
<OTHER-SE>                        6,115,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     13,013,927
<SALES>                           4,215,858
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  4,941,248
<CGS>                             3,114,981
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     3,530,991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  6,758,811
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  181,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (5,529,969)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (5,529,969)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (5,529,969)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.31)


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7184

BOBBY DEONTRAY WYCHE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. BRYAN LEE PULLEY, Administrator of Nash Correctional Institution, Nashville, North Carolina , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Loretta C. Biggs , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv - 01014

- LCB

- JLW )

Submitted : March 24, 2020 Decided: April 9, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kevin P. Bradley, I, KEVIN P. BRADLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Unp ublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bobby Deontray Wyche seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Wyche’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (201 8 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (201 8 ). W he n the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. S ee Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the deni al of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wyche has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wyche’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

. DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.01
CERTIFICATION
I, Michael D. Alexander, certify that:
1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of The Furia Organization, Inc. for the six month period ended December31, 2004;
2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report; 
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 
4.     The registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and have

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls which could adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls; and

6.     The registrant’s other certifying officersand I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date: April 1, 2005
By: 
/s/ Michael D. Alexander  
  
Michael D. Alexander
  
Chief Executive Officer
 
****