alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 
  

									
		  		  		  	 





	
	Internal Memo
					
	To:	  	J. Michael Peffer	  	From:	  	Ursula M. Burns	  	Xerox Corporation
		  		  		  	Chairman and Chief	  	45 Glover Avenue
		  		  		  	Executive Officer	  	Norwalk, CT 06856-4505
					
	C:	  	D. Ford, S. Morno-Wade,	  	Date:	  	July 22, 2016	  	
		  	C. Diamond	  		  		  	

 New Role and Election to Corporate Officer 

Mike, I am pleased to offer you the position of Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the current Xerox Corporation, effective August 5, 2016. This
is a Corporate Officer position, reporting to me and based in Norwalk, Connecticut. 
 In assuming this role, your base salary will increase to $500,000
(from $316,207) effective August 1, 2016. Your 2016 annual bonus target will increase from 50% to 75% of your new base salary, also effective August 1. In addition, you will receive an RSU award of $300,000 on August 1, bringing your 2016
Executive Long-Term Incentive Program (E-LTIP) award value to $550,000. 
 In conjunction with your new role, your stock ownership level will increase
from 1X to 2X your annual base salary. 
 I look forward to your acceptance of this offer and your continued contributions. If you have any questions,
please call Darrell Ford at XXX-XXX-XXXX. 
 Sincerely, 
 /s/
Ursula M. Burns 
 UMB:cd 
 I ☒
Accept     ☐ Decline this offer: 
  

							
	/s/ J. Michael Peffer	 		  	7/22/16	  	
	Signature	 		  	Date	  	

 Xerox Internal Use Only
```

[111th Congress Public Law 299]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3269]]

Public Law 111-299
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the building occupied by the Government Printing Office 
located at 31451 East United Avenue in Pueblo, Colorado, as the ``Frank 
     Evans Government Printing Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 14, 
                         2010 -  [H.R. 5706]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The building occupied by the Government Printing Office located at 
31451 East United Avenue in Pueblo, Colorado, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Frank Evans Government Printing Office Building'' 
during the period in which the building is occupied by the Government 
Printing Office.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    With respect to the period in which the building referred to in 
section 1 is occupied by the Government Printing Office, any reference 
in a law, map, regulation, document, record, or other paper of the 
United States to that building shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Frank Evans Government Printing Office Building''.

    Approved December 14, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5706:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111-591 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Sept. 15, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 1, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
**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**

|  | • | the                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,                2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the                date                hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | • | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|--|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
> 
**SAMHSA, an agency in        the Department of Health and Human Services, is the Federal Government's        lead agency for improving the quality and availability of substance        abuse prevention, addiction treatment, and mental health services in the        United States.**

     Privacy      Statement  |  Site      Disclaimer  |   Accessibility

| What's              New | Highlights | Topics | Data | Drugs | Pubs | Short              Reports | Treatment | Help | Mail | OAS |
|-------------------------|------------|--------|------|-------|------|----------------------------|-----------|------|------|-----|

 

 

##
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00577-CR

Tommy Johns, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3031399, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Tommy Johns guilty of aggravated sexual assault. See Tex.

Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2004-05). The district court assessed punishment, enhanced

by a previous felony conviction, at imprisonment for forty years.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to

examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: June 16, 2005

Do Not Publish
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund VI,  L.P.,  Series 12 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarter  ended
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I, Thomas J. Riha,
Chief  Financial  Officer  of WNC &  Associates,  Inc.,  general  partner of the
Partnership, hereby certify 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  result  of
               operations of the Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
November 19, 2004
No. 48517.

#### Protests 29843-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question ■consists of 3-tube horns composed in chief value of base metal, not plated, and that they are similar to the merchandise involved in Abstract 40185. In accordance therewith the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was sustained.
No. 49179.

#### Protests 101316-K, etc., of Wm. C. Scarlett & Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 1, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00589-CV KENDRICK IGBINOBA, Appellant V. SKYHOUSE FRISCO STATION, LP, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 001-01645-2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Goldstein The filing fee and clerk’s record in this case have not been filed. By postcards dated May 16, 2024 and July 18, 2024, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so woul d result in dismissal of the appeal. By letter dated July 8, 2024, we informed appe llant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for the cler k’s record. We directed appellant to provide, within ten days, verification he (1) had either paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record, or (2) is enti tled to proceed without payment of costs.–2– We cautioned appellant that fa ilure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, ap pellant has not paid th e filing fee, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

240589F.P05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT KENDRICK IGBINOBA, Appellant
No. 05-24-00589-CV V. SKYHOUSE FRISCO STATION, LP, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 001-01645- 2024. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Reichek and Garcia participating. In accordance with this Court’s opini on of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered August 1, 2024
#### In the Matter of Neil D. Levin, as Acting Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nationar, Respondent. Richmond County Savings Bank et al., Appellants.

[634 NYS2d 73]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 23, 1995, which denied the customers’ motions to compel the Superintendent of Banks to remit the proceeds of checks collected by him after he took possession of the failed bank, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly determined that the Superintendent is entitled to withhold the proceeds of checks that the failed bank had received and forwarded for collection before being taken over, and for which the bank had given the customers provisional credit but had not received final settlement from the payor banks. Under UCC 4-213 (3), when a collecting bank receives final settlement for a check for which it has previously given its customer a provisional credit, provisional credit is automatically "firmed up” as final, at which point the bank’s "agency” status terminates and it becomes a debtor to its customer for the amount of the item (UCC 4-213, Comment 9). Under UCC 4-214 (3), a bank’s intervening insolvency does not interfere with this firming up process. Thus, the customers became creditors of the bank, and, as such, are required to submit their claims pursuant to the rules set forth in Banking Law § 620 *et seq.*

We reject the customers’ claim that their relegation to the status of creditors amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property for a nonpublic use, since they knowingly brought themselves within a preexisting statutory regime *(see, American Cont. Corp. v United States,*22 US Ct Cl 692, 697). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
* 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 April 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40996 Summary Calendar

DAVID CARPENTER, Plaintiff-Appellee.

versus TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant,

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CV-124

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The district court did not abuse i ts discretion in awarding Carpenter front-pay damages, even though the court declined to award back-pay damages because of Carpenter’s failure to mitigate those back-pay damages. See Giles v. General Electric Co. , 245 F.3d 489, 490 (5th Cir. 2001); DeLoach v. Delchamps, Inc. , 897 F.2d 815, 822-33 (5th Cir. 1990). And, given its broad equitable powers in USERRA cases, 38 U.S.C. § 4323(e); Coffy v. Republic SteelNo. 06-40996 -2- Corp. , 447 U.S. 191, 196 (1980), the district did not abuse its discretion in awarding one year ’s salary without considering Carpenter’s prospective $7-per-hour future income. Consequently, the court did not err in awarding Carpenter attorneys’ fees. 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h)(2); Buckhannon v. Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. West Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources , 532 U.S. 598, 602 (2001). In his brief, Carpenter attempts to cross-appeal the district court’s upholding the jury’s finding of no damages, but Carpenter

never filed a notice of appeal, hence we cannot entertain his argument. FED . R. APP . P. 4(a)(3); see , e.g. , Positive Black Talk, Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc. , 394 F.3d 357, 365 n.5 (5th Cir. 2004). AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.42


                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                        SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND RELEASE


         THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of March 29, 1996, between
MICKEY ELFENBEIN ("Elfenbein") and K-TEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Minnesota
corporation (the "Company").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the parties have entered into the Separation Agreement and
Release dated as of February 19, 1996 (the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as herein provided,

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises set
forth below, the adequacy of which the parties acknowledge, the parties agree as
follows:

         1. Paragraph 2(b)(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

                  "(ii) Elfenbein may receive up to an additional $100,000
         (which amount shall be escrowed to assure performance of the Company's
         obligations hereunder) if he disposes of 350,000 of his shares of the
         Company pursuant to a Stock Transfer and Loan Repayment Agreement of
         even date herewith by and between Elfenbein and K-5 Leisure Products,
         Inc. on the following basis:

                           If Shares                            Additional
                           ---------                            ----------
                         Disposed Of By                       Amount Received
                         --------------                       ---------------

                         May 31, 1996                              $100,000

                                  or

                         after May 31, 1996
                         and on or before June 30, 1996            $ 65,000

                                  or

                         after June 30, 1996
                         and on or before August 1, 1996           $ 35,000

                                  or

                         after August 1, 1996                           -0-"

         2. The period within which Elfenbein may rescind the Agreement is
hereby extended to April 5, 1996.

         3. Except as herein expressly provided, this Agreement as amended
hereby shall continue in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the day and year written below their respective signatures to this
Agreement.

                                    K-TEL INTERNATIONAL, INC.



                                    By /S/ Philip Kives
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Philip Kives, Chairman
                                       and Chief Executive Officer



                                        /S/ Mickey Elfenbein
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    Mickey Elfenbein
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

SERGEI PORTNOY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1850 DFL DAD PS

vs.

US BANK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On August 4, 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 ten days. Plaintiff 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.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01850-DFL-DAD Document 61 Filed 10/24/05 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. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff’s sole

remaining federal cause of action and the state law claims are dismissed without prejudice for

lack of federal jurisdiction.

DATED: 10/21/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01850-DFL-DAD Document 61 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 51717.

#### Protest 114836-K of Paramount Distillers, Inc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of barrel No. 15 was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 30, 2015

No. 04-15-00366-CV

Juan Miguel MATA,

Appellant

v.

Maria Elena MATA,

Appellee

From the County Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2714

Honorable Amado J. Abascal III, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT

OF JURISDICTION. 

It is so ORDERED on September 30, 2015.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 30th day of September, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0175 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0175

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 May 2007 on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities for prepacked products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, and amending Council Directive 76/211/EEC (13484/1/2006 - C6-0039/2007 - 2004/0248(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 076 E , 27/03/2008 P. 0093 - 0093 *

P6_TA(2007)0175

Nominal quantities for pre-packed products ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 May 2007 on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities for prepacked products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, and amending Council Directive 76/211/EEC (13484/1/2006 — C6-0039/2007 — 2004/0248(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (13484/1/2006 — C6-0039/2007),

- having regard to its position at first reading [1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0708),

- having regard to the amended Commission proposal (COM(2006)0171),

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A6-0144/2007);

1. Approves the common position as amended;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] OJ C 288 E, 25.11.2006, p. 52.

--------------------------------------------------
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LUIS YORDAN-ORTIZ, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

13 USCMA 29, 32 CMR 29

*30No. 15,636

April 6, 1962

*Colonel W. H. Blackmarr, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Herrod, Captain Jerome D. Meeker*and *First Lieutenant Robert L. Brosio*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Francis M. Cooper, Captain Stanley M. Wanger,*and *Captain William A. Zeigler*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

We granted accused’s petition for review, *inter alia,*on a contention that the trial proceedings, held at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, were tainted by command control. See United States v Kitchens, 12 USCMA 589, 31 CMR 175; United States v Smith, 12 USCMA 594, 31 CMR 180; United States v Barrett, 12 USCMA 598, 31 CMR 184. After appellant’s brief was filed, the United States requested that the findings and sentence be set aside. Under all the circumstances, we conclude such action is appropriate.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.