alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement




 Exhibit 10.11.2 
 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment to Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2006 (herein called this “Amendment”), is
entered into between the Argonaut Group, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Mark E. Watson, III (the “Employee”). 
 RECITALS: 
 WHEREAS, Company and Employee have heretofore entered into a certain Amended and Restated Executive Employment
Agreement, dated as February 7, 2005 (herein called the “Employment Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, Company and Employee now
desire to amend the Employment Agreement in certain respects, as hereinafter provided, 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises
and the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 SECTION 1. The reference to “February 7, 2010”
in Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as “February 7, 2011”. 
 SECTION 2. The
reference to “$50,000” in Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as “$70,875”. The reference to “$600,000” in Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is
amended in its entirety to read as “$850,500”. The parties acknowledge that as a result of an interim adjustment by the Company’s Board of Directors as provided under the Employment Agreement the Employee’s Base Salary prior to
giving effect to this Amendment is $720,000. 
 SECTION 3. This Amendment shall be deemed to be an amendment to the Employment Agreement, and
the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed in each and every respect. All references to the Employment Agreement in any other document, instrument, agreement or writing shall hereafter be deemed to refer
to the Employment Agreement as amended hereby. 
 SECTION 4. This Amendment shall be a contract made under and governed by the internal laws
of the State of Texas. 
 SECTION 5. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall
constitute one and the same instrument, and any party hereto may execute this Amendment by signing one or more counterparts. Facsimile signatures shall be deemed originals. 
 SECTION 6. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Company and Employee and their respective successors and assigns. 

 

 1 









 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year above written.

  

					
	Argonaut Group, Inc.:	 	Employee:
			
	By:	 	 /s/ John R. Power, Jr.
	 	 /s/ Mark E. Watson III

		 	 John Power, Chairman
 Compensation
Committee,
 Board of Directors of
 Argonaut Group,
Inc.
	 	Mark E. Watson III

  

 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marlon Roberts, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 43]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered January 14, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of *4%*to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s initial and subsequent suppression motions without a hearing. We note that the felony *246complaint, indictment, voluntary disclosure form and arraignment transcript provided defendant with enough information upon which to make a proper suppression motion *(see People v Mendoza,*82 NY2d 415 [1993]). Although in his initial papers defendant asserted that he did not match the description transmitted by the observing officer, his factual allegations were insufficient *(see People v Jones,*95 NY2d 721, 729 [2001]). Although defendant raised other suppression theories in his renewal motions (denominated reargument motions), he did not set forth any additional pertinent facts that he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence prior to the determination of the first motion *(see*CPL 710.40 [4]; *People v Washington,*238 AD2d 43 [1998], *lv denied*91 NY2d 1014 [1998]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Malone, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 4, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129880(76) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED Marilyn Kelly 

AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & Maura D. Corrigan 

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS 

OF AMERICA and UNITED BROADCASTING 

NETWORK, INC., 

Plaintiffs-CounterdefendantsRobert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

Appellants, 

v SC: 129880 

 COA: 248412 

Washtenaw CC: 97-008442-CB 

HELEN DORSEY, PAT CHOATE, and

EDWARD MILLER,

Defendants-Counterplaintiffs/ThirdParty Plaintiffs-Appellees,

and 

KAY CASEY,

 Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

DANIEL SHERRICK, ROY WYSE, and JOYCE 

FRANK, 

Third-Party Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 29, 

2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

TAYLOR, C.J., concurs and states as follows: 

This Court reversed the Court of Appeals “for the reasons stated in the partial 

dissent” at the Court of Appeals (emphasis added). Defendants have filed affidavits and 

a docket sheet which call into question one of the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals 

partial dissent. I concur with the order denying the motion for reconsideration because 

the second reason stated in the Court of Appeals partial dissent is an independent reason 

supporting our earlier reversal of the Court of Appeals. 

d0927 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 4, 2006 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1087 Received in Senate (RDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1087

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 1996

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                    For the relief of Nguyen Quy An.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NGUYEN QUY 
              AN.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the inability of Nguyen Quy An to 
meet the requirements of section 316 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act that relate to having the status of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence, and residence and physical presence in the United 
States, if otherwise qualified he shall be considered eligible for 
naturalization and, upon filing an application for naturalization and 
being administered the oath of renunciation and allegiance pursuant to 
section 337 of such Act, shall be naturalized as a citizen of the 
United States.
    (b) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) 
shall apply only if the application for naturalization is filed with 
appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         467,806
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  452,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,743
<INVENTORY>                                    517,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,904,635
<PP&E>                                         625,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                 406,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,721,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,522,090
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         28
<COMMON>                                         8,939
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,190,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,721,544
<SALES>                                        749,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               786,011
<CGS>                                          548,315
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,907,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,385
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,906
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,280,253)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,283,396)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,283,396)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)
        

</TABLE>
39779.

#### DEICH et al. v. AMERICAN DISCOUNT COMPANY.

Decided April 24, 1963.

*Crawford, Leeb & Calhoun, John R. Calhoun,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Kennedy & Sognier, John G. Kennedy, Jr., A. Ben Conner, Ernest DeWitt,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

The Supreme Court of Georgia *(American Discount Co. v. Deich,*218 Ga. 726, 130 SE2d 595) having reversed our judgment *(Deich v. American Discount Co.,*107 Ga. App. 22, 129 SE2d 179), said judgment is hereby vacated and the judgment of the trial court is reversed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
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 on Form 10-K/A of InPoint Commercial Real Estate Income, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Mitchell A. Sabshon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

|   |
|--------|
|   |   |
| By:    | /s/ Mitchell A. Sabshon |
| Name:  | Mitchell A. Sabshon |
| Title: | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |
| Date:  | November 14, 2019 |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,736
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,958
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      5,345
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          27,267
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            27,075
<LOANS>                                        276,075
<ALLOWANCE>                                        827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 329,897
<DEPOSITS>                                     248,070
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,027
<LONG-TERM>                                     53,409
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,391
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 329,897
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,046
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  492
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    61
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,599
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,243
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,026
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,573
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,464
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         960
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       960
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.25
<LOANS-NON>                                        208
<LOANS-PAST>                                       109
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   827
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  827
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                70
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            757
        

</TABLE>
#### § 15.737-7 Authority to prohibit practice.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 207(j), if the General Counsel finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that a former officer or employee of the Department violated 18 U.S.C. 207 (a), (b) or (c), the General Counsel in his/her discretion may prohibit that person from engaging in practice before the Department or a separate statutory agency thereof for a period not to exceed five years, or may take other appropriate disciplinary action.
Restriction changed to publicly available 

on March 13, 2009 by authority of the 

Aeronautics Mission Directorate.
Restriction Changed to _____________________

 Date _____________________

 By authority of _____________________

Restriction changed to publicly available 

on March 13, 2009 by authority of the 

Aeronautics Mission Directorate.





































Restriction changed to publicly 

available on March 13, 2009 

by authority of the Aeronautics 

Mission Directorate.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 06-7574 

EUGENE NESBITT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL G. BERG,

Defendant - Appellee,

PARRIS N. GLENDENING; MARTIN O’MALLEY;

EDWARD T. NORRIS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (1:06-cv-01605-WMN)

Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Nesbitt, Jr. appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nesbitt v.

Berg, No. 1:06-cv-01605-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2006). 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
#### In the Matter of Bibi Lallmohamed, Respondent, v Saheed Lallmohamed, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 622]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from (1) an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Clark, J.), dated June 28, 2004, and (2) an amended order of protection of the same court dated September 21, 2004, which, after a hearing, upon a finding that he committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment and stalking, granted the mother’s petition for an order of protection.

Ordered that the appeal from the order of protection dated June 28, 2004, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the amended order of protection dated September 21, 2004; "and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order of protection dated September 21, 2004, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court *(see Matter of King v Flowers,*13 AD3d 629 [2004]), and that determination is entitled to great weight on appeal *(see Matter of De La Cruz v Colon,*16 AD3d 496 [2005]). The Family Court properly determined that the mother proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the father committed acts constituting the family offenses of harassment and stalking warranting the issuance of an order of protection *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Fenal Law §§ 120.45, 240.26 [1]; *Matter of Wissink v Wissink,*13 AD3d 461 [2004]; *Matter of Charlene J.R. v Walter A.M.,*307 AD2d 1038 [2003]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofDecember 1, 2016 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor,Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association as MasterServicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator and Trustee and Park BridgeLender Services, LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewerrelating to the Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2016-UBS12, Commercial MortgagePass-through Certificates, Series 2016-UBS12 

**(MCSI 2016-UBS12)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.  All servicing activitiesand performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.  A review of theservicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period ofDecember 7, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.  To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ AdamSinger                                 Date: March 1, 2017

 Adam Singer, ManagingDirector
NO. 07-10-0046-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C FEBRUARY 17, 2010

__________________ ____________
ROBERT PATRICK WHITEAKER AND ROBERT WHITEAKER RANC HES, INC., APPELLANTS
V. DOUG LATHEM, APPELLEE

__________________ _______________ FROM THE 69 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARTLEY COUNTY; NO.4371-H; HONORABL E RON ENNS, JUDGE

__________________ _____________ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before this Court is Appellants' Motion to Dismiss Appeal Without Prejudice in which they represent t hat the issues presented in this appeal have been rendered moot by this Court's Order on Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Judgment rendered in cause number 07-10-00001-CV on February 4, 2010. Without passing on the merits of the case, the motion to di smiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed2 without prejudice. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Having dismissed the appeal at Appellants = request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1210

To amend the Railway Labor Act concerning the applicability of requirements

of that Act to United States air carriers and flight crews engaged

in flight operations outside the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1995

Mr. RAHALL (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr. OBERSTAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend the Railway Labor Act concerning the applicability

of requirements of that Act to United States air carriers

and flight crews engaged in flight operations outside

the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF RAILWAY LABOR ACT PRO4 VISIONS TO AIR CARRIERS AND FLIGHT

5 CREWS OPERATING OUTSIDE THE UNITED

6 STATES.

7 (a) FOREIGN COMMERCE.—Section 201 of the Rail8 way Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 181) is amended by adding at
2

HR 1210 IH

1 the end the following: ‘‘As used in this title, the term ‘for2 eign commerce’ includes flight operations (excluding

3 ground operations performed by persons other than flight

4 crew members) conducted in whole or in part outside the

5 United States (as defined by section 40102(a)(41) of title

6 49, United States Code) by an air carrier (as defined by

7 section 40102(a)(2) of such title).’’.

8 (b) EMPLOYEE.—Section 202 of such Act (45 U.S.C.

9 182) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘As

10 used in this title, the term ‘employee’ also includes flight

11 crew members employed by an air carrier (as defined by

12 section 40102(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code) while

13 such flight crew members perform work in whole or in part

14 outside the United States (as defined by section

15 40102(a)(41) of such title).’’.

Æ