alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.33

                      AMENDMENT NO. 5 (THE "AMENDMENT") TO
                          EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
      THE UNIVISION NETWORK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ("UNLP") AND RAY RODRIGUEZ,
               (AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, THE "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT")

                                 January 1, 2000

         To:      Ray Rodriguez
                  c/o UNLP

Dear Ray:

         Your Employment Agreement will expire on December 31, 2001 (the
"Term"). UNLP desires to extend the Term for an additional one-year period. You
and we hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

         1. TERM. The Term is hereby extended for an additional one-year period.
The Employment Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2002, unless earlier
terminated in accordance with the terms set forth in the Employment Agreement.

         2. SALARY. Your annual Base Salary rate shall be Eight Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($800,000) for calendar year 2002.

         3. COMPETITIVE ACTIVITIES. The terms "competing with the business of
the Company or any of its affiliates" and "activity competitive with or adverse
to Company's Spanish language broadcasting and cable business" as set forth in
the Standard Terms and Conditions of the Employment Agreement include, without
limitation, the following: any and all forms of media, communication and
entertainment, including, without limitation, television, radio, the Internet
(including e-services and e-commerce), music, movies, theater, print and
visual/audio entertainment via all methods of delivery whether now known or
hereafter invented, contemplated or devised.

         4. OTHER. Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and
conditions set forth in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect, and the parties hereby ratify and confirm the Employment Agreement, as
amended hereby.

         5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT. Upon its execution by you and UNLP,
this Amendment shall become effective as of the date first written above.

         6. EXCLUSIVITY. During the Term, Employee shall not directly or
indirectly enter into any discussions or negotiations with anyone other than
Employer for the performance of services by Employee after the expiration of the
Term. Employee will negotiate in good faith exclusively with Employer if
Employer elects to seek an extension or renewal of Employee's Employment
Agreement prior to the expiration of the Term.

         Please indicate your agreement to this Amendment to the Employment
Agreement by signing in the space provided below.

                                     THE UNIVISION NETWORK
                                     LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


                                     By: /s/ George W. Blank
                                         ------------------------------------
                                             George W. Blank
                                             Chief Financial Officer


I have read the preceding Amendment and agree to its terms and conditions:


/s/ Ray Rodriguez
------------------------
Ray Rodriguez
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6925

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAYNE ALLEN FLETCHER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:02-cr-00008)

Submitted: December 3, 2007 Decided: October 1, 2008

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Allen Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se.

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

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Allen Fletcher seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude Fletcher 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 145

Expressing congratulations and thanks to United States and NATO troops

for successfully bringing peace to Kosovo and halting the brutal ethnic

cleansing of Kosovar Albanians.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1999

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (for himself, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. TURNER, Mr.

SPRATT, Ms. CARSON, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. ROMEROBARCELO ́, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. WYNN, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. EVANS, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. DAVIS of Florida,

Mr. FROST, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. THOMPSON

of Mississippi, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. BOYD, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. MCDERMOTT,

Mr. LANTOS, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr.

SKELTON, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas,

Mr. DINGELL, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. DEUTSCH, Ms. ESHOO, and Mr. SISISKY) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing congratulations and thanks to United States and

NATO troops for successfully bringing peace to Kosovo

and halting the brutal ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians.

Whereas the United States sent over 37,000 troops as part

of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (‘‘NATO’’) deployment to Kosovo;
2

•HCON 145 IH

Whereas 23,259 of these troops operated 723 United States

aircraft and prepared for the use of ground force, and

14,238 troops conducted naval and marine operations;

Whereas these troops put their own safety at risk, in order

to bring an end to the brutal ethnic cleansing of Kosovar

Albanians;

Whereas United States and NATO forces were successful in

bringing an end to the brutal ethnic cleansing of Kosovar

Albanians in only 11 weeks;

Whereas on June 10, 1999, Yugoslav President Slobodan

Milosevic complied with international demands and withdrew Yugoslav troops from Kosovo;

Whereas on June 10, 1999, NATO suspended air strikes on

Yugoslavia and announced a withdrawal of Serbian combat troops from Kosovo and the entry of NATO peacekeeping forces;

Whereas the efforts of United States and NATO troops

brought a successful and swift end to the military conflict

in Kosovo with an air campaign that did not require the

mobilization of ground troops;

Whereas NATO suffered only two noncombat casualties; and

Whereas NATO successfully reached a peace agreement with

Yugoslavia that ends all Yugoslav military action over

Kosovo and the brutal ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress expresses congratulations

3 and thanks to United States and North Atlantic Treaty

4 Organization troops for courageously fighting for the safe-
3

•HCON 145 IH

1 ty and protection of Kosovar Albanians and successfully

2 bringing peace to Kosovo.

Æ
No. 53841.

#### General Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6726-R (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The petition was dismissed.
No. 59336.

protest 197834-K (St. Albans).

#### Central Vermont Railway, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lumber similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Central Vermont Railway, Inc.*v. *United States*(31 Cust. Ct. 160, C. D. 1563), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the Registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, David E. Snyder, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
his knowledge and belief:



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



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

Date: March 27, 2009



/s/ David E. SnyderDavid E. Snyder Chief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

(Jimicum; CR06-223RSL)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

1 (206) 553-7970

THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LYNETTE JIMICUM,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 06-223RSL

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING

STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE

THE COURT having considered the stipulated motion of the parties to continue the trial

date, and the records and files herein, the Court hereby makes the following findings:

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuances would deny counsel the

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due

diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering the

continuances in this case and that the continuances are necessary to ensure effective trial

preparation and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a more speedy trial,

within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date be continued from September 18, 2006,

to November 27, 2006.

//

//

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of time from the current trial date of

Case 2:06-cr-00223-RSL Document 13 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

(Jimicum; CR06-223RSL)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

2 (206) 553-7970

September 18, 2006, up to and including the new proposed trial date of November 27, 2006,

shall be excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq. 

DONE this 18th day of August, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Presented by:

 s/ Patricia C. Lally 

PATRICIA C. LALLY

Assistant United States Attorney

WSBA #28910

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

Telephone: 206-553-2619

Fax: 206-553-0755

Email: Patricia.Lally@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00223-RSL Document 13 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

Residential Capital, LLC

Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Residential Capital, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

/s/ Thomas F. Marano

Thomas F. Marano

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2009

/s/ James N. Young

James N. Young

Chief Financial Officer

February 26, 2009
Before The First Division,

November 22, 1967

No. P67/408.

#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/31518 (Ogdensburg).

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of horsehair similar in all material respects to that the subject of *B. Feder*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 223, C.D. 2946), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
A89A2305.

#### FAULK v. LATHAM.

(391 SE2d 7)

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellee, acting as administratrix of the estate of Gussie B. Harrison, filed a complaint for interpleader in the Superior Court of Toombs County in an effort to determine her responsibility regarding disbursement of certain funds contained in a money market account left by the deceased. The appellant answered and filed a counterclaim alleging he is entitled to the funds, based on a purported oral agreement by the deceased to make a will in favor of Roy Russell, of whom he (the appellant) is the sole legatee. The appellant also sought an accounting, based on allegations that the deceased, and later the appellee, had failed to maintain the funds in accordance with the terms of this alleged agreement.

Relying on *Adams v. Dixon,*19 Ga. 513 (1855), and *Campbell v. Trust Co. of Ga.,*197 Ga. 37, 46 (28 SE2d 471) (1943), the trial court dismissed the interpleader action on the ground that the appellee, as administratrix, held an interest in the property of the estate and accordingly was not a disinterested stakeholder. The correctness of this ruling is not at issue in this appeal. Rather, we granted an application for interlocutory appeal filed by the appellant to address his contention that the trial court erred in granting the appellee’s subsequent motion to transfer the counterclaim to the county of her residence (Baldwin County), based on its determination that the interpleader action could not be maintained. Held:

Where a plaintiff sues in a county other than the county of his *523residence, he “submits himself, to the extent of such suit, to the equity jurisdiction of the county wherein the suit is brought. But this waiver of jurisdiction extends only to matters included in the pending litigation, and ordinarily a person not a party to that action cannot take advantage of such waiver.” *Chamblee Constr. Co. v.*Pickett, 227 Ga. 421, 422-423 (181 SE2d 32) (1971). Moreover, “the defendant generally has been allowed to assert only such affirmative relief against a nonresident plaintiff as is necessary for the defense of the main complaint.” *Ledford v.*Bowers, 248 Ga. 804, 806 (2) (c) (286 SE2d 293) (1982).

Decided February 2, 1990

Rehearing denied February 14, 1990.

*Bouhan, Williams & Levy, M. Brice Ladson, Peter D. Muller,*for appellant.

*Dickens & Associates, G. L. Dickens, Jr.,*for appellee.

The counterclaim brought by the appellant seeks a determination as to who is entitled to the deceased’s assets, which is the very issue the appellee sought to have adjudicated in bringing the interpleader action. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court incorrectly determined that the interpleader action and the counterclaim were not “sufficiently related so as to result in the waiver of the constitutional provisions concerning venue.” See *Bragg v. Gavin,*234 Ga. 70 (214 SE2d 532) (1975).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.*
No. P68/79.

protests 62/4397, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### Ucagco, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), and that the items of merchandise marked “T” covered by the foregoing protests consist *1003of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF

TRIAL AND RELATED MATTERS

(ALYSSA MARIE CHANG) – CR06-254RSM – 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101 1 (206) 553-1100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALYSSA MARIE CHANG, 

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-254RSM

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF

TRIAL AND RELATED MATTERS

Upon consideration of the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Continuance of Trial and

Related Matters, and the defendant’s agreement to continue the trial date until November 27,

2006,

THE COURT NOW FINDS that pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and 

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), the ends of justice served by continuing the trial date to November 27,

2006 (or up to December 11, 2006, if a later date is scheduled), outweigh the best interests of

the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, in that, as set forth in the parties’ Stipulation, it

has been demonstrated that (1) the parties have acted with due diligence in an effort to be

prepared for a trial on October 2, 2006; (2) defense counsel has demonstrated that he needs

until November 27, 2006, to adequately prepare for trial; (3) while the crime charged is not a

Case 2:06-cr-00254-RSM Document 17 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF

TRIAL AND RELATED MATTERS

(ALYSSA MARIE CHANG) – CR06-254RSM – 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101 2 (206) 553-1100

complex offense, the defense needs additional time to investigate the offense, conduct legal

research, and discuss the results of the investigation and legal research with his client.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial in this matter is continued until

November 27, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any pretrial motions be filed by October 26, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the purposes of computing the time limitations

imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174, the period of delay from 

October 2, 2006, up to November 27, 2006, is excludable time pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§

3161(h)(8)(A) and (h)(8)(B)(iv).

DATED this _6_ day of September 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Michael Filipovic

WSBA No. 12319

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Attorney for Alyssa Marie Chang

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

Tel. (206) 553-1100, Fax (206) 553-0120

Michael_Filipovic@fd.org

Agreed to by stipulation, notice of presentment waived, 

signature approved per telephone authorization:

s/ Lisca Borichewski

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:06-cr-00254-RSM Document 17 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 61099.

protests 275488-K, etc. (New York).

#### Wah Nan Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 60311, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,536
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,870
<PP&E>                                         307,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 322,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,288
<BONDS>                                        131,597
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           919
<OTHER-SE>                                     135,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   322,539
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,412
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,904
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   103
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,165
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,482
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,482
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>