alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 5 to the Courter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.01 
 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 Amendment dated as of March 13, 2007 (this
“Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement dated April 1, 1999 and amended on August 1, 2001, October 22, 2001, May 12, 2005 and January 29, 2007, by and between IDT Corporation (the “Company”)
and James A. Courter (the “Executive”) (collectively the “Agreement”). 
 WITNESSETH 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to modify the terms and conditions of the Agreement on the terms set forth herein. 
 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 Section 6(a) of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety, with the following: 
 “(a) Annual Base Salary. Effective February 1, 2007, the Company shall pay to the Executive an annual base salary (the “Base
Salary”) at a rate not less than Eight Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Dollars ($856,000), less applicable taxes, such salary to be paid in conformity with the Company’s payroll policies relating to its senior executive officers. During the
Term, the Executive’s Base Salary shall be increased, if necessary, so that the Base Salary is not less than the Base Salary of the highest paid employee(s) of the Company or any of the Company’s controlled entities.” 
 All of the other terms and conditions of the Agreement and Amendments remain unchanged by this Amendment. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer and the Executive has signed this Amendment as of
the date first above written. 
  

	
	IDT CORPORATION
	
	/s/ Ira A. Greenstein
	Ira A. Greenstein, President
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	/s/ James A. Courter
	James A. Courter
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cigma Metals Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Antonio Jaramillo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to s.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 aspects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Antonio Jaramillo
Dated: November 13, 2012
 By:
Antonio Jaramillo
 Title:
Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Director)
 
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not 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, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
#### § 20.64 Foreign export permits.

No person shall import, possess or transport, any migratory game birds killed in a foreign country unless such birds are accompanied by export permits, tags, or other documentation required by applicable foreign laws or regulations.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1463

In re: JEFFREY A. MARTINOVICH,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(4:12-cr-00101-AWA-RJK-1; 4:18-cv-00028-AWA)

Submitted: August 16, 2019 Decided: August 20, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Martinovich, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Martinovich petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court 

has unduly delayed acting on his requeststhat the district court rule on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion and his motion for an issuance of a certificate of appealability. He seeks an 

order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s 

docket reveals that, on May 6, 2019, the district court denied Martinovich’s § 2255 motion, 

and on May 21, 2019, the district court denied a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, 

because the district court has recently decided Martinovich’s case, we deny the mandamus 

petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to supplement the 

mandamus petition. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
Case 16-26102 Doc 13 Filed 09/14/16 Entered 09/15/16 09:32:02 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 514

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for a

House of Representatives election limitation on contributions from persons other than local individual residents.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 21, 1993

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

on House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

provide for a House of Representatives election limitation

on contributions from persons other than local individual

residents.

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

3 SECTION 1. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTION LIMI4 TATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS

5 OTHER THAN LOCAL INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS.

6 Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act

7 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end

8 the following new subsection:
2

•HR 514 IH

1 ‘‘(i)(1) A candidate for the office of Representative

2 in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress

3 may not, with respect to a reporting period for an election,

4 accept contributions from persons other than local individ5 ual residents totaling in excess of the total of contributions

6 accepted from local individual residents.

7 ‘‘(2) As used in this subsection, the term ‘local indi8 vidual resident’ means an individual who resides in the

9 congressional district involved.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 MIV Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Alan P.
Lindsay, as President and 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, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Alan Lindsay
--------------------
Alan P. Lindsay
CEO and Chairman
January 14, 2007
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 497

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to authorize the United States Trade

Representative to respond in a reciprocal manner to foreign acts, policies,

and practices that deny national treatment to United States trade.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 21, 1993

Mr. CONDIT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to authorize the United

States Trade Representative to respond in a reciprocal

manner to foreign acts, policies, and practices that deny

national treatment to United States trade.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Trade and Reci5 procity Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE TRADE ACT OF 1974.

7 Section 301(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

8 2411(c)) is amended—
2

•HR 497 IH

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through

2 (6) as paragraphs (3) through (7), respectively; and

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow4 ing new paragraph:

5 ‘‘(2)(A) For purposes of carrying out the provi6 sions of subsection (b) with respect to any act, pol7 icy, or practice of a foreign country that denies na8 tional treatment to United States trade—

9 ‘‘(i) action by the United States shall be

10 treated as being appropriate under section

11 304(a)(1), and

12 ‘‘(ii) the United States Trade Representa13 tive shall, subject to subparagraph (B) and in

14 addition to any other action considered appro15 priate and feasible, impose with respect to trade

16 by that country and its nationals in the United

17 States conditions, limitations, and prohibitions

18 that are similar to those implemented through

19 such act, policy, or practice.

20 ‘‘(B) The United States Trade Representative

21 shall notify Congress of any act, policy, or practice

22 described in subparagraph (A) 90 days before im23 posing conditions, limitations, and prohibitions as

24 required by subparagraph (A)(ii). If during such 90-

25 day period such act, policy, or practice ceases, the
3

•HR 497 IH

1 United States Trade Representative may withdraw

2 such notification.’’.

Æ
#### § 90.605 Forms to be used.

Applications for conventional and trunked radio facilities must be prepared on FCC Form 601 and must be submitted or filed in accordance with § 90.127 and part 1, subpart F of this chapter.

[63 FR 68967, Dec. 14, 1998]
In re William Frederick COLWELL and Ruby Colwell, Debtors.

William Frederick Colwell, Ruby Colwell, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Royal International Trading Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-5626

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (No. 97-8500-CIV-ASG),

Alan S. Gold, Judge.

Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA, Circuit Judge, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Colwells jointly filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Although Florida law does not recognize

legal separations the Colwells had been separated for 31/2 years before filing the petition. Prior to the

bankruptcy petition each had acquired a separate home and had obtained a separate homestead exemption on

that home.

Florida has chosen to opt out of federal exemptions and elected to apply its own. 11 U.S.C. §

522(b)(1); Fla. Stat. §§ 222.21 and 222.20; 3 Collier on Bankruptcy, § 522.08 at 522-44, n. 8a. The

Colwells asserted to the bankruptcy court that Article X, § 4 of the Florida constitution required that they be

granted separate homestead exemptions. Royal International excepted. In 1998 the bankruptcy court

sustained the exception, stating that it could find no case law to support dual homestead exemptions for

married individuals residing on two distinct, non-contiguous parcels of property. See In re Colwell, 208 B.R.

85 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1997). The Colwells appealed to the United States District Court, S.D. Florida, which

reversed the bankruptcy court. Royal appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
2

 Pursuant to Erie Railway the bankruptcy court must interpret and apply the Florida exemption law

in the same manner as a Florida state court. Florida state court decisions establish that as a matter of the

public policy of the state, giving a liberal construction as required, a homestead exemption can be established

to each of two people who are married but legitimately living apart in separate residences, if they otherwise

meet the requirements of the exception, and, by "legitimately" they mean that there is no fraudulent or

otherwise egregious act by the beneficiary of the exemption. Law v. Law, 738 So.2d 522 (Fla.App. 4th

Dist.1999); In re Englander, 95 F.3d 1028 (11th Cir.1996) (closely analyzing Florida law and using Florida

state court cases to determine the applicability of the Florida homestead exemption); Myers v. Lehrer, 671

So.2d 864, 866 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1996); Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Lopez, 531 So.2d 946, 948

(Fla.1988); Isaacson v. Isaacson, 504 So.2d 1309 (Fla.App. 1st Dist.1987); see also Radin v. Radin, 593

So.2d 1231 (Fla.App.3d Dist.1992). There is a presumption that the exemption applies. See Snyder v. Davis,

699 So.2d 999, 1002 (Fla.1997). The district court concluded that the living arrangements of the Colwells

were not shown to be the subject of fraud and that Royal had not brought forth evidence to overcome the

presumption favoring the exception. There was no error.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 95.2125 LPRS interference.

Operation of LPRS stations must not cause harmful interference to the United States Air Force Space Surveillance system (operating in the 216.88-217.08 MHz frequency band) or to reception within the service contour of any type of DTV or TV Broadcast station operating on Channel 13.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 20, 2018

N o. 04

- 15

- 00313

- CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

James Burke JARREAU

, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5552

Honorable N. Keith Williams , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice 1

On November 15, 2018, appellee James Burke Jarreau filed a motion for rehearing. After

review, we DENY Jarreau’s motion for rehearing.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20 th day of November, 2018

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court

1 Justice Chapa dissents without opinion to the denial of rehearing without requesting a response.
#### § 95.323 FCC inspection of station.

If an authorized FCC representative requests to inspect any station in the Personal Radio Services, the station operator or licensee must make the station and any applicable records available for inspection.
Case 16-27312 Doc 5 Filed 08/25/16 Entered 08/25/16 13:18:27 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-27312 Doc 5 Filed 08/25/16 Entered 08/25/16 13:18:27 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
Rebamburg@aol.com 

10/28/2005 01:53 PM 

To James Turner/R6/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc 

bcc 

Subject Re: Rogers Rd Easement 

History: ^ This messagehas been replied to. 

Jim: 

Please find attached the legal description of the Gentry Property at the Rogers Road Landfill, which will be 

identified as Exhibit A to the document. I've not attached an Exhibit B, for the property is not used for 

anything. It has vegetation and grass growing on the property, but no use is currently proposed by the 

Gentrys. ' • 

Should we include something just to cover them? Let me know your thoughts. 

Thanks Again, 

Bob 

City of Jacksonville, Arkansas 

By: Robert E. Bamburg 

City Attorney 

P.O. Box 5913 

Jacksonville, AR 72078 

501-982-6303 (Phone) 

501-982-2280 (Fax) 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email 

and any attachments contain confidential 

and privileged information intended solely 

for the intended recipient. If you are not 

the intended recipient, please do not 

review, retransmit, copy, or convert any of 

this information. If received in error, 

rebamburq@aol.com please notify me and delete this message, gentry legal doc 

9050346 

002300
,,w 

GENTRY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (ROGERS ROAD LANDFILL PROPERPr') 

The W Vl of the SE VA of the NE V4 of Section 28, T3N, RlOW, Pulaski County, 

Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: 

Beginning at the Southwest corner of the SE V4 NE V4 of Section 28, T3N, RlOW; 

thence North 00 degrees 15 minutes 28 seconds,East 1341.18 feet along the 

West line of the SE V4 NE V4 of said Section to a point; thence South 89 degrees 

57 minutes 53 seconds East 661.07 feet to a point; thence South 00 degrees 22 

minutes 46 seconds West 1339.29 feet to a point on the South line of the SE VA, 

NE 1/4 of said Section; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds West 

658.21 feet along said line to the point of beginning, containing 20.296 acres, 

more or less. 

002301
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on October 3, 2006 at the U.S. Forest Service Office, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This Committee, established by the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and other matters raised by the Secretary.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held October 3, 2006, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the U.S. Forest Service Office, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arla Hains, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, (530) 543-2773.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Items to be covered on the agenda include: (1) New Member Orientation; (2) the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act; and (3) Public Comment. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above.

Dated: August 29, 2006.

Terri Marceron,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 06-7404 Filed 9-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7220

ALFONZO HOWARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL STEPHAN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. 

Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:21-cv-03356-RMG)

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfonzo Howard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7220 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Alfonzo Howard seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and dismissing as untimely Howard’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition

and the court’s order denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief.

*

 See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 

U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute 

of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(1)). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, 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 denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 

U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Howard has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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

* Although Howard asserts on appeal that he did not consent to the jurisdiction of a 

magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the district court properly referred Howard’s 

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for proposed findings and recommendations.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7220 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5053 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5053

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 5 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to extend for one year Water 
    Bank Act agreements that are due to expire on December 31, 1994.

    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 ``Water Bank Extension Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER BANK ACT AGREEMENTS.

    (a) Subject to subsection (b), any agreement entered into under the 
Water Bank Act (16 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) and due to expire on December 
31, 1994, may be extended for one year under section 6 of the Water 
Bank Act (16 U.S.C. 1305).
    (b) The authority to extend Water Bank Act agreements under this 
Act may only be exercised to the extent that the amount available for 
obligation under the Wetlands Reserve Program (16 U.S.C. 1637 et seq.), 
and the amount used for the extention of Water Bank Act agreements 
under subsection (a), does not exceed $93,200,000 as provided for the 
Wetlands Reserve Program under the Agricultural, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1995.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 4, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```