alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit



Exhibit 10(iii)A(44)



 


AMENDMENT No. 6
TO
ACUITY BRANDS, INC
AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into as of the 24th day of October, 2016, by and between ACUITY BRANDS, INC. (the “Company”) and RICHARD K. REECE (“Executive”);


W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into a Severance Agreement, dated as of April 21, 2006 (“Severance Agreement”), and amended as of October 28, 2009, March 30, 2010, March 28, 2014, October 27, 2014, and October 26, 2015, providing for the payment of certain compensation and benefits to Executive if Executive’s employment is terminated under certain circumstances; and


WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Severance Agreement in the manner hereinafter provided;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Agreement is hereby amended, as follows:


1.
Section 4.2 is hereby amended by deleting “100%” from clause (i) and substituting “120%” in lieu thereof.
2.
This Amendment to the Severance Agreement shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment.  Except as hereby modified, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


COMPANY


EXECUTIVE                     ACUITY BRANDS, INC.






______________________________        By:  ______________________________
RICHARD K. REECE                        Vernon J. Nagel
        Chairman, President and CEO
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40045 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANGELA GONZALEZ-CAPETILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-925-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Angela Gonzalez-Capetillo appeals her jury conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute. She argues that her defense counsel had an actual conflict of interest because he previously represented Amada Quintanilla Moralez, one of the unindicted coconspirators in this case. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot generally be resolved onNo. 03-40045 -2- direct appeal unless they have first been raised in the district
court. United States v. Gibson , 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995). Because the issue whether defense counsel had an actual conflict of interest was not raised in the district court, the record is not sufficiently developed and this court cannot fairly evaluate the merits of the ineffectiveness claim at this time.
See United States v. Kizzee , 150 F.3d 497, 503 (5th Cir. 1998). Gonzalez-Capetillo argues that the Government was required to, but did not, prove that she knew of the drug type and quantity involved in the instant offense. She concedes that the argument is foreclosed by United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez , 319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 2241 (2003), but states that she is raising it to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. In Gamez-Gonzalez , this court held that the Government does not need to prove knowledge of the drug type or quantity. Id . at 699-700. One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of a prior panel in the absence of an en banc reconsideration or a superseding Supreme Court decision. United States v. Crouch , 51 F.3d 480, 483 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY PAUL COLLINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1516 DFL GGH P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

On November 17, 2004, the parties filed a joint scheduling statement. On

December 22, 2004, the court ordered petitioner to file within one hundred twenty days either an

amended petition or a request to hold this action in abeyance. On April 20, 2005, the parties filed

an amended joint scheduling statement. In this document, petitioner’s counsel states that

additional time is required to review the record. The court will grant petitioner’s request for

extension of time. No further extensions will be granted but for a showing of substantial cause.

The parties also request that respondent be granted ninety days to file a responsive

pleading and that petitioner be granted sixty days to file a reply. The court will grant respondent

sixty days to file the responsive pleading and petitioner thirty days to file a reply. The parties

may request additional time if necessary.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01516-JKS-GGH Document 13 Filed 05/06/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within one hundred twenty days of this order petitioner shall submit either an

amended petition containing exhausted claims only, or a statement identifying both exhausted

and unexhausted claims, together with a request to hold this action in abeyance; all discovery

motions shall be filed within this time as well; 

2. Respondent’s response to the amended petition is due sixty days after the filing

of the amended petition; petitioner may file a responsive pleading thirty days thereafter.

DATED: 5/5/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

col1516.sch

Case 2:04-cv-01516-JKS-GGH Document 13 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In connection with the quarterly report of Global Golf Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ford Sinclair, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 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. 
 Dated this October 20, 2004  /s/ Ford Sinclair
 Ford Sinclair, CEO and CFO
NO. 07-07-0502-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

FEBRUARY 5, 2008

______________________________

TERRY GOODMAN, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE DRUG IMPACT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

NO. 99289; HONORABLE LARRY GIST, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Terry Goodman, acting pro se, filed a document with this Court on

December 21, 2007, entitled “Petition for Discretionary Review,” which, as we read the

document, raises issues regarding the merits of his conviction and sentencing in cause

number 99289 in the Drug Impact Court of Jefferson County. We dismiss for want of

jurisdiction.
2

This Court’s appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to cases appealed from trial

courts within our district. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201 (Vernon 2004). Appellant

identifies no applicable exception to this general rule.

Further, we take judicial notice that a case search of the Ninth District Court of

Appeals’s website reveals that an appeal of the judgment entered in cause number 99289

in the Drug Impact Court of Jefferson County is currently pending before that Court.

Appellant has identified no authority for our jurisdiction to consider this appeal, especially

as it appears that the appeal is currently pending before another Court.

For these reasons, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over appellant’s attempted

appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0001052671
<NAME>                        forestindustry.com, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         517,805
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  79,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               602,114
<PP&E>                                         73,002
<DEPRECIATION>                                 15,848
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 659,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,033
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1
<COMMON>                                       1,531
<OTHER-SE>                                     538,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   659,268
<SALES>                                        264,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,144
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  371,732
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (107,588)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (107,588)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (107,588)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.017)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.017)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
                               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Essex Portfolio, L.P. on Form 10-
Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Keith R. Guericke, Chief
Executive Officerof Essex Property Trust, Inc., the general partner of
the registrant Essex Portfolio, L.P., hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

August 13, 2003

By: /s/ KEITH R. GUERICKE

Keith R. Guericke
                  Cheif Executive 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK VALENZUELA, JR., No. CIV S-04-0460 MCE JFM P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On June 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00460-MCE -JFM Document 11 Filed 09/07/05 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

2

By order filed July 15, 2005, petitioner was granted until August

1, 2005 to file objections. Petitioner has filed objections to

the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 22, 2005,

are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is

dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d).

DATED: September 7, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00460-MCE -JFM Document 11 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1



ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.



Certification of Chief Executive Officer 
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted 
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with this quarterly report of Essex Property Trust, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report"),
I, Keith R. Guericke, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





Date: November 14, 2002			/s/ Keith R.  Guericke

Keith R. Guericke
                                  Chief Executive Officer

---
No. 46707.

#### Protests 23573-K, etc., of the Columbia Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same as that passed upon in *Wing Duck*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 133, C. D. 446) the wines in question were held not to be distilled spirits and therefore not subject to the internal revenue tax. The protests were therefore sustained as to certain of the items.
Attachment not available electronically.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of

orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/28/96TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT H. KETCHUM, also known as

BOB KETCHUM, also known as R. H.

KETCHUM, also known a ROBERT

KETCHUM, also known as KENT C.

NORMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Case No. 95-1527

(D.C. 95-X-115)

(District of Colorado)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument. 
Appellant Robert H. Ketchum appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellant has a history of filing frivolous appeals. 

His access to the courts has been properly restricted by the district court, and these

restrictions have been affirmed on appeal. See Ketchum v. Cruz, 775 F. Supp. 1399,

1403-04 (D. Colo. 1991), aff’d, 961 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we

agree with the district court’s decision. Mr. Ketchum’s allegations are frivolous. We 

deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal. See Attach. (Dist.

Ct. Order and Appendix A).

Moreover, Mr. Ketchum’s efforts to litigate in violation of the limitations placed

on him by the above cases may result in further sanctions, including possible fines. See

Fed. R. App. P. 38 (allowing a court of appeals to “award just damages and single or

double costs to the appellee” if “an appeal is frivolous”); Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d

1462, 1469 (10th Cir.) (recognizing a court of appeals’ power under Fed. R. App. P. 38

“to impose sanctions . . . for the filing of frivolous appeals” and its “inherent power to

impose sanctions that are necessary to regulate the docket, promote judicial efficiency,

and . . . to deter frivolous filings”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 999 (1990); Van Sickle v.

Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1437 (10th Cir. 1986) (imposing on the pro se plaintiff double

costs and “a limited contribution to the United States for the cost and expenses of this 

action”). “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Mathew 11:15 (King James).

The mandate shall issue forthwith.
3

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JOSHUA WARD,

NO. Cr. S-04-0678 FCD PAN

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS),

CALIFORNIA AMTRAK, STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, JACOB KEATING

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CITY OF

SACRAMENTO, YOLO COUNTY,

WEST SACRAMENTO CITY, and 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 

COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________/

----oo0oo----

On April 5, 2004, this action was removed from Sacramento

Superior Court to this court. On August 4, 2004, a Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order was issued setting all case

management dates up to and including a trial date. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00678-FCD-PAN Document 38 Filed 05/03/05 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

27

28

2

On April 12, 2005, defendants’ Union Pacific, and National

Railroad Passenger Corp. (AMTRAK) filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment to be heard on May 27, 2005. 

A preliminary review of the file and the docket, in

preparation for the pending motion, shows that no return of

service has been filed showing service was completed upon

defendants Jacob Keating, Sacramento County, City of 

Sacramento, Yolo county, and City of West Sacramento as required

by Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l) and Local Rule 4-20(b). 

The court, therefore, makes the following orders:

1. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why defendants Jacob

Keating, Sacramento County, City of Sacramento, Yolo county, and

City of West Sacramento should not be dismissed for failure to

timely serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

2. Plaintiff shall file their response to the Order to

Show Cause on or before May 20, 2005.

3. A hearing on the order to show cause will follow the

hearing on the motion for summary judgment set for May 27, 2005

at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00678-FCD-PAN Document 38 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10723)

#### The Heyman Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 739-H, etc.

(Decided April 15, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley é Garter*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, were submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto that the merchandise and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues in *United States*v. *The Heyman Company, Inc.,*50 Cust. Ct. 564, ARD 157.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that said merchandise was exported prior to March 1,1956 and that the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Mexico, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was $0.075 per pound net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in ARD 157 be incorporated with the record in these cases and that these appeals for reap-praisement be submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the merchandise described herein.

Upon the agreed facts and the cited authority, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals for reappraisement and that such value is $0.075 per pound, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4405 

To amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the natural gas tax. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. LEE, Mr. RICKETTS, Mrs. HYDESMITH, Mr. HOEVEN, Mrs. BRITT, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. 

VANCE, Mr. COTTON, and Mr. BARRASSO) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to repeal the natural gas 

tax. 

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 ‘‘Natural Gas Tax Re5 peal Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 Section 136 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7436) 

8 (relating to methane emissions and waste reduction incenVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:01 Jul 10, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4405.IS S4405

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4405 IS

1 tive program for petroleum and natural gas systems) is 

2 repealed. 

3 SEC. 3. RESCISSION. 

4 The unobligated balance of any amounts made avail5 able under section 136 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 7436) (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment 

7 of this Act) is rescinded. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS