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



 EXHIBIT 10.16 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO 

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 Second Amendment (“Amendment”) made as of the 15th day of December, 2008 to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (“Employment Agreement”) dated as of November 29, 2002, as
subsequently amended as of November 1, 2007, by and between Boston Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal executive office in Boston, Massachusetts (the “Company”), and Edward H. Linde
(“Employee”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto
desire to amend the Employment Agreement further to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire that this Amendment be deemed a modification and an amendment to the Employment Agreement. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,
the Company and Employee agree as follows: 
  
 1. Subparagraph
8(e)(iii) of the Employment Agreement is amended by deleting the penultimate sentence of clause (A) thereof and substituting therefor the following: 
  
 “The Severance Amount shall be paid in equal installments in accordance with the Company’s then payroll practice over a twelve (12) month
period beginning with the first payroll date that occurs at least thirty (30) days after the Date of Termination.” 
  
 2. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to their respective terms, and nothing contained
herein shall be deemed a waiver of any right or abrogation of any obligation otherwise existing under the Employment Agreement except to the extent specifically provided for herein. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as a sealed instrument by the Company and by
Employee as of the date first above written. 
  

					
	BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ E. Mitchell Norville
		 	Name:	 	E. Mitchell Norville
		 	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President,
 Chief Operating Officer


	
	/s/ Edward H. Linde
	 EDWARD H. LINDE



  

 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40218

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

JAIME MORIN-GARCIA,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 1:18-CR-925-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jaime Morin-Garcia

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 4, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40218 Document: 00515146744 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2019
No. 19-40218

2

has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). MorinGarcia has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

 Case: 19-40218 Document: 00515146744 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2019
* 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
SAE JOON KIM, aka Kim Sae J., Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 06-72725 Agency No. A070-459-936
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 12, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Sae Joon Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) ordering his removal. Kim is one of several individuals identif ied by the government as having allegedly 

# FILED
MAR 17 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 received their lawful permanent residence status through the fraudulent scheme of Leland Sustaire, a former Supervisory Adjudications Officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We deny the petition for review. Kim’s challenge to the finding of removability fails because he conceded that he was removable as charged in immigration court. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c); Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey , 547 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that where the non-citizen concedes removability, “‘the government’s burden in this regard is satisfied.’” (quoting Estrada v. INS , 775 F.2d 1018, 1020 (9th Cir. 1985))), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 2799 (2009). We also reject Kim’s argument that we should equitably estop his removal in light of Sustaire’s criminal wrongdoing. Because “the government is not bound by the unauthorized acts of its agents,” Kim cannot show “affirmative misconduct going beyond mere negligence” on the part of the government to warrant estoppel. Watkins v. U.S. Army , 875 F.2d 699, 707 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Young Sun Shin , 547 F.3d at 1022 (holding that “the government cannot be saddled with the felonious, unauthorized issuance of residency documentation by a thieving employee”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 441.484 Financial management services. ( a ) States may choose to provide financial management services to participants, or their representatives, as applicable, self-directing PAS, with the exception of those participants utilizing the cash option who directly perform those functions, utilizing a financial management entity, through the following arrangements: ( 1 ) States may use a reporting or subagent through its fiscal intermediary in accordance with section 3504 of the IRS Code and Revenue Procedure 80-4 and Notice 2003-70; or
( 2 ) States may use a vendor organization that has the capabilities to perform the required tasks in accordance with Section 3504 of the IRS Code and Revenue Procedure 70-6. When private entities furnish financial management services, the procurement method must meet the requirements set forth in 45 CFR 75.326 through 75.340.
( b ) States must provide oversight of financial management services by performing the following functions: ( 1 ) Monitoring and assessing the performance of financial management entity, including assuring the integrity of financial transactions they perform.
( 2 ) Designating a State entity or entities responsible for this monitoring.
( 3 ) Determining how frequently financial management entity performance will be assessed.
( c ) A financial management entity must provide functions including, but not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Collect and process timesheets of the participant's workers.
( 2 ) Process payroll, withholding, filing and payment of applicable Federal, State and local employment-related taxes and insurance.
( 3 ) Maintain a separate account for each participant's budget.
( 4 ) Track and report disbursements and balances of participant funds.
( 5 ) Process and pay invoices for goods and services approved in the service plan.
( 6 ) Provide to participants periodic reports of expenditures and the status of the approved service budget.
( d ) States not utilizing a financial management entity must perform the functions listed in paragraph (c) of this section on behalf of participants self-directing PAS, with the exception of those participants utilizing the cash option who directly perform those functions.
( e ) States will be reimbursed for the cost of financial management services, either provided directly or through a financial management entity, at the administrative rate of 50 percent.
[73 FR 57881, Oct. 3, 2008, as amended at 81 FR 3012, Jan. 20, 2016]
#### § 493.1 Basis and scope.

This part sets forth the conditions that all laboratories must meet to be certified to perform testing on human specimens under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). It implements sections 1861(e) and (j), the sentence following section 1861(s)(13), and 1902(a)(9) of the Social Security Act, and section 353 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by section 2 of the Taking Essential Steps for Testing Act of 2012. This part applies to all laboratories as defined under “laboratory” in § 493.2 of this part. This part also applies to laboratories seeking payment under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The requirements are the same for Medicare approval as for CLIA certification.

[57 FR 7139, Feb. 28, 1992, as amended at 79 FR 25480, May 2, 2014]
No. 99-2035.

#### Cooper Industries, Inc. *v.*Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “What is the standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a challenge to the constitutionality of a punitive damage award?”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: MOTHER, B.R. AND 

FATHER, R.R.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 128 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: MOTHER, B.R. AND 

FATHER, R.R.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 129 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: MOTHER, B.R. AND 

FATHER, R.R.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 130 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: MOTHER, B.R. AND 

FATHER, R.R.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 131 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Adolfo Domigues v The State.

*No. 1000.*

*Decided May 20th, 1896.*

Complaint as the Basis for an Information.

Under Article 467, Code Crim. Proc., a complaint by some credible person, charging a defendant with an offense, is a prerequisite to, and must be filed with, the information; and where a record on appeal shows that there was no complaint, upon which the information is based, the prosecution will be dismissed.

Appeal from the County Court of Nueces. Tried below before Hon. W. B. Hopkins, County Judge.

Appeal from a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, a fine of $50.

No statement necessary.

[No briefs for either party have come to the hands of the reporter.]

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted under an information charging him with unlawfully carrying on and about his person a pistol.' The record does not contain a complaint. The complaint is a prerequisite to an information. The statute provides: “An information shall not be presented by the District or County Attorney, until oath has been made by some credible person charging a defendant with the offense. The oath shall be reduced to writing and filed with the information.” Code Crim. Proc., 1895, Art. 467. In the language of Judge Sherwood (Supreme Court of Missouri): “The information must *426be bottomed on a complaint.” As tbe case is thus submitted, the record is a correct transcript of the papers and proceedings in the court below. The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

*Reversed and Dismissed.*
HomeHuman Trafficking

# Human Trafficking

77 items

        -    Media Note  		U.S. Ambassador-at-Large to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons Cindy Dyer’s Travel to the Republic of Korea and Japan	  January 19, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		National Human Trafficking Prevention Month 2023	  Antony J. BlinkenJanuary 19, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Peru and U.S. Highlight Key Achievements and Commit to Extension During Third Annual Child Protection Partnership Dialogue	  November 14, 2022 
        -    DSS Releases  		Criminal Charges Unsealed Against Haitian Gang Leaders For Kidnappings of U.S. Citizens	  November 7, 2022 
        -    DSS Articles  		Diplomatic Security Service and Romanian law enforcement rescue U.S. citizen from human traffickers	  November 3, 2022 
        -    DSS Releases  		Kuwaiti Diplomat And Wife Charged With Forced Labor Of Domestic Workers And Related Fraud Offenses	  October 11, 2022 
        -    		Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan 2022 – 2026	  September 13, 2022 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Fact Sheets for 2022 Trafficking in Persons Report	  July 29, 2022 
        -    Video Remarks  		Briefing with Acting Director Kari Johnstone On the Release of the 2022 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report	  Kari JohnstoneJuly 19, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing with Juan Gonzalez, National Security Council Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere and Brian A. Nichols, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs	  Brian A. NicholsJune 1, 2022 

previous page123456…8next page

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7070

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRICK GRANT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00615-RDB-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2021 Decided: October 19, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Grant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Grant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse 

of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted.*

 See United States 

v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard of review and outlining 

steps for evaluating compassionate release motions), petition for cert. filed, No. 21-5624 

(U.S. Sept. 8, 2021). 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Even if the district court improperly construed U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 1B1.13(2) as binding, see United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 283 (4th Cir. 2020), 

such error was harmless in light of the court’s explanation of how relief was unwarranted 

under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
#### THE UNITED STATES v. WAYNE COUNTY, KENTUCKY.

[53 C. Cls., 417; 252 U. S., 574.]

Decided April 19, 1920.

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below.

*Per curiam:*Affirmed upon the authority of (1) *United States*v. Cress, 243 U. S., 316, 329; *United States*v. *Welch,*217 U. S., 333, 339; *United States*v. *Grizzard,*219 U. S., 180, 185; (2) *St. Louis*v. *Western Union Tel. Co.,*148 U. S., 92, 101; *Western Union Tel. Co.*v. *Richmond,*224 U. S., 160, 169. And see *Stockton*v. *Baltimore c& New York R. R. Co.,*32 Fed., 9; (3) *Farrel*v. O'Brien, 199 U. S., 89, 100; *Goodrich*v. *Ferris,*214 U. S., 71, 79; *Brolan*v. *United States,*236 U. S., 216, 218; *Sugarman*v. *United*States, 249 U. S., 182, 184.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,942
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,155
<PP&E>                                          36,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,525
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,046
<OTHER-SE>                                     (29,525)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,046
<SALES>                                         60,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,910
<CGS>                                           45,821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,906
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,817)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,817)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22310]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6743]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting: Corrected 
Notice

    In a Federal Register notice dated September 9, 2009 (74 FR 46476), 
the Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) announced a meeting to be 
held at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, September 23, 2009, in Room 1422 of the 
United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice corrects the title and the 
agenda only. This is a meeting of the advisory committee. The corrected 
agenda follows.
    The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the ninety-
sixth Session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Legal 
Committee (LEG) to be held be held at the IMO Headquarters, United 
Kingdom, from October 5 to October 9, 2009.
    The primary matters to be considered include:

--Provision of financial security;
--Fair treatment of seafarers in the event of a maritime accident;
--International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution; 
Damage, 2001: implementation of the Convention;
--Piracy: review of national legislation;
--Matters arising from the one hundred and second regular session of 
the Council;
--Technical co-operation activities related to maritime legislation;
--Review of the status of conventions and other treaty instruments 
adopted as a result of the work of the Legal Committee;
--Work programme.

    Instructions to members of the public wishing to attend this 
meeting were included in the original Notice.
    Additional information regarding this and other IMO SHC public 
meetings may be found at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/imo.

    Dated: September 10, 2009.
J. Trent Warner,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. E9-22310 Filed 9-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
## NUMBER 13

- 2 4

- 00 407

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

ALICIA GARZA AND

LEROY GARZA

, Appellant s

,

v.

ISIDRO RAMIRO ARMIJO AND

NICOLE CHRISTINE ARMIJO

, A ppellee s

.

ON A PPEAL FROM THE 93 RD DISTRICT COURT

OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before J ustice s Longoria, Tijerina

, and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

This matter is before the Court on an unopposed amended motion dismiss appeal

.

The parties have resolved the dispute and entered into a settlement agreement and now

request the dismissal of this appeal

.2 The Court, having considered the unopposed amended motion, is of the opinion

that the agreed motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a) (1), ( 2 ). T he

amended motion dismiss is granted , and the appeal is hereby dismissed

.

The costs are taxed against the appellant s

. See id. R. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement

of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the

appeal at appellants’ request , no motion for rehearing will be entertained.

L. ARON PEÑA JR.

Justice

D elivered and filed on the

12th day of September , 20 2 4

.
prefix="bisnis/"arURL = new Array("leads/20000128tt.htm","country/000124telecomsamara.htm","country/000127trends.htm","country/000127labels.htm","isa/000127cons.htm","isa/000127comp.htm","country/9908armagrib.htm","country/9908armelec.htm","country/9908armtelcom.htm","country/9908armsoft.htm","country/9908armpharm.htm","country/9909arminvst.htm","country/000128charter-ua.htm","country/000127monop.htm","country/000127callingcards.htm","country/000124conf-ua.htm","intern.htm")arTXT = new Array("BISNIS Briefs:  Trades and Tenders 1/28/2000","Russia: Telecom Industry in Samara","Moldovan Economic Trends - December 1999","Kazakhstan: Updates to Labeling Requirements","Ukraine: Cottage 2000 Show","Ukraine: Updates on Computer Hardware and Software Markets","Armenia's Food Processing Sector:  Investment Opportunities","Brief Overview of Armenian Electronics Market","Brief Overview of Armenia's Telecommunication Services Market","Brief Overview of Software Market in Armenia","Brief Overview of Armenia's Pharmaceutical Market","Armenia: Investment Climate Statement","Ukrainian Business Air Charters","Ukraine's Anti-Monopoly Regulations Changed","MCI Markets Prepaid Calling Cards in Ukraine","Roundtable Discussion on Russia and Ukraine: Germany, March 1 and March 3, 2000","<br>Internships at BISNIS"  )