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






Exhibit 10.3.5
AMENDMENT No. 5 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT No. 5 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment No. 5”), is entered into as of September 26, 2016, by and between Third Point Reinsurance Ltd., a Bermuda company (the “Company”), and J. Robert Bredahl (the “Executive”).


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into a certain Employment Agreement dated as of January 26, 2012, an Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement dated as of November 10, 2014, an Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement dated as of March 1, 2015, an Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement dated as of November 24, 2015, and an Amendment No. 4 to Employment Agreement dated as of May 4, 2016 (collectively, the “Employment Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Executive’s duties to provide for direct reporting to the Board of Directors of the Company; and


WHEREAS, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration given by each party to this Amendment No. 5 to the other, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive agree to amend the Employment Agreement on the terms set forth below.


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:
1.      Section 2 (a) Duties, of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 


		
	(a)
	Duties.  During the Employment Term and from and after September 30, 2016, the Executive shall serve as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company and the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Underwriting Officer of Third Point Reinsurance Company Ltd. (“OpCo”).   In his capacity as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Underwriting Officer of OpCo, the Executive shall perform such duties, services and responsibilities on behalf of the Company and OpCo consistent with such position as may be reasonably assigned to the Executive from time to time. In performing such duties hereunder for the Company and for OpCo, the Executive shall report to the Board of Directors of the Company and the Board of Directors of OpCo, as applicable.













2.    The parties hereto agree that except as specifically set forth in this Amendment No. 5, each and every provision of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as set forth therein.




[Signature Page Follows]







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 5 to be executed, and the Executive has hereunto set his hand, in each case effective as of the day and year first above written.
THIRD POINT REINSURANCE LTD.
By: /s/ John R. Berger             
Name: John R. Berger 
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer








By: /s/ Christopher S. Coleman        
Name: Christopher S. Coleman 
Title: Chief Financial Officer




EXECUTIVE
/s/ J. Robert Bredahl                 
J. Robert Bredahl
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

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “interrogatories and request for production

of documents to defendant.” Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for

discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that

party’s responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response

and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery

requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 23, 2005

“interrogatories and request for production of documents to defendant” will be placed in the

court file and disregarded. Plaintiff is cautioned that further filing of discovery requests or

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 25 Filed 06/03/05 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

2

responses, except as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but

not limited to, a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: June 2, 2005.

/kf

whit2313.411a 

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 25 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DANIEL W. FAERFERS and 

KATJA FAERFERS,

NO. CIV. S 04-2690 MCE PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

CAVIAR CREATOR, INC, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On March 4, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their first amended

complaint. On March 14, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to

dismiss portions of Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. In

opposition, Plaintiffs acknowledged the merit of Defendants’

motion and requested leave to file a second amended complaint. 

(Opp’n at 1:21-25.) Defendants have offered to challenge aspects

of Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in a later motion. 

(Reply at 1:18-23.) 

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 18 Filed 05/18/05 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

 This matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral 1

argument. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

The Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

third cause of action for fraud. Plaintiffs are granted twenty

(20) days from the date of this order to file a second amended

complaint. 

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 18 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 46129.

#### Protests 969714-G, etc., of American Import Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400-the court dismissed the protests.
Opinion issued July 25, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00306-CV

———————————

MCDANIEL HOMES, LLC AND GERALD RYAN MCDANIEL, 

Appellants/Cross-Appellees

V.

THOMAS MOORE AND KRISTY MOORE, 

Appellees/Cross-Appellants

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 20-CV-0766

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 20, 2023, appellants/cross-appellees, McDaniel Homes, LLC and 

Gerald Ryan McDaniel (collectively, “appellants”), filed a notice of appeal from the 

trial court’s January 23, 2023 judgment. On April 21, 2023, 
2

appellees/cross-appellants, Thomas Moore and Kristy Moore (collectively, 

“appellees”), filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s January 23, 2023 

judgment. On June 26, 2023, appellants and appellees filed an “Agreed Motion to 

Dismiss Appeal.” In the motion, the parties represented that they had “settled all 

their claims,” and they requested that we dismiss their appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(a)(2).

No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2), (c).

Accordingly, we grant the parties’ motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

(Section 906 Certification)

Thomas E. Vessey and Beth Sanders hereby certify as follows:

1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of 1st Centennial Bancorp.

2. The Form 10-K of 1st Centennial Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2006 complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the information contained in the report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 1st Centennial Bancorp.



|                     |  |  |  |                                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: March 08, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    THOMAS E. VESSEY                  
|                     |  |  |  | Thomas E. Vessey, Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 08, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    BETH SANDERS                      
|                     |  |  |  | Beth Sanders, Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 13

- 00285

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF HEN RIETTA CANNON STONE, DECEASED

From the 278th District Court Madison County, Texas Trial Court No. 09

- 11985

- 278

- 10

ORDER

This appeal was referred to mediation on February 27, 2014. A mediator was
assigned in the same order and mediation was to take place within 30 days from the
date the assignment of the mediator. We have received a letter from appellees that

mediation has been set for a time beyond the 30 day period ordered. We construe this
letter to be a motion to extend the time to participate in mediation.
Accordingly, the motion is granted. Mediation is ordered to occur within 60
days of our February 27, 2014 ref erral order. All other provisions of the order dated
February 27, 2014 remain in place.

PER CURIAMIn the Estate of Stone Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion granted Order issued and filed April 3, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's 1999 audited financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                     200
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                          1000                    1000
<OTHER-SE>                                         350                  (1200)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1350                     100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1350)                   (100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1350)                   (100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
September 22,2008 

Mr. James I. Palmer, Jr. 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsythe Street, S.W. 

Environmental Protection Division Air Protection Branch 

4244 International Parkway Suite 120 Atlanta Georgia 30354 

4041363-7000 Fax: 4041363-71 00 

iolcomb, 

.. Couch. 

Commissioner 

Ph.D., Director 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 

RE: SIP Element Under Clean Air Act Section 1 10(a)(2)(G) 

Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

Dear Mr. Palmer: 

EPA Region 4 contacted the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) on September 

18, 2008 via telephone regarding Georgia EPD's letter to EPA Region 4 dated July 23, 2008.' 

The telephone conversation pertained to CAA section 1 10(a)(2)(G), whether Georgia EPD would 

be required to submit an emergency episode plan for PM2,5, and whether Georgia would have 

existing authority to administer such a plan. The federal requirement is based on a priority 

region classification2. EPA Region 4 acknowledged that the agency has not yet proposed a PM2,5 

classification scheme. EPA Region 4 informed Georgia EPD that EPA Headquarters is 

considering an ambient concentration threshold of 140.5 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3) on 

a 24-hour basis as the threshold for requiring the development of an emergency episode plan for 

PM2,5 (i.e., regions in the state would be classified as Priority I11 if such an ambient threshold 

was not exceeded during the most recent three years worth of ambient data13. Based on such 

criteria, air quality control regions in Georgia would be classified as Priority I11 (based on 

calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007) if EPA proposed and promulgated such an ambient 

concentration classification scheme. This classification would exempt Georgia EPD fiom 

adopting an Emergency Episode Plan for PM2.5 and Georgia EPD's State Implementation Plan 

would fulfill the CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for PM2.5. 

Pursuant to Georgia Rule for Air Quality Control Act: Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 

12-9, et. seq.) Georgia EPD is authorized to implement emergency air pollution episode 

measures. 

If you have any questions, please contact Jimmy Johnston at 404-363-7014 or via e-mail at . . jlmrny.johnston@,dnr.state.na.us. 

' Letter from Dr. Carol Couch (GA EPD) to Mr. Jimmy Palmer, Jr. (EPA Region 4) regarding SIP Elements Under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) - Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

Implementing regulation for CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) is 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart H. 

A PMt.5 ambient concentration of 140.5 mglm3 on a 24-hour basis would correspond to an AQI Category of "Unhealthyn or Code 

Red based on ; however, the agency issued a paper for discussion on February 12,2007 that add;essed EPA's "initial thoughts" 

about possible revisions to the Air Quality Index (AQI) and Significant Harm Level (SHL) for PM2.~. 
Jimmy Palmer, Jr. 

September 22,2008 

Page 2 

Sincerely, 

Carol A. Couch 

Director 

CAC: JJ:JK:sj 

c: Dick Schutt, EPA Region TV 

Lynorae Benjamin, EPA Region IV 

Chuck Mueller 

Susan Jenkins
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

** PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof EnerNOC, Inc. (the “Company”), for the quarter ended September 30,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), we, Timothy G. Healy, Chief Executive Officer of the Companyand Timothy Weller, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,to such officer’s knowledge, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: November 9,2009

 
| By:    | /s/ Timothy G. Healy    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Timothy G. Healy        |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                    |   |
|   |                    |   |
| By:    | /s/ Timothy Weller      |   |
|   | Timothy Weller          |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
No. 51026.

#### Petition 5851-R of Fung Chong & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The petition was dismissed.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONSI, Enrique Marco, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.àr.l.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date May 15, 2006   /s/ ENRIQUE MARCO  Enrique Marco  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)
(Reap. Dec. 10753)

#### U.S. Basket Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3096-H.

(Decided May 12, 1964)

*Stein*<f *Shostak*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated on the attached Schedule, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of handbag baskets manufactured by Japan Braid Hat Mfg. Co., Ltd. of Japan and exported from Japan.

> That all the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> *559IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule is not included on the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, required to be valued in accordance with Section 402(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export 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, were the invoiced unit value, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for re-appraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value is the invoiced unit value, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 44999.

#### Protest 24897-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of pipe kazoos in chief value of metal. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained on the authority of Abstract 44122.
Before the Third Division,

April 29, 1954

No. 58054.

protests 162773-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Ambriola Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON STEVENS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2124 MCE GGH P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On October 24, 2005, petitioner requested an extension of time to file and serve a

traverse. On November 1, 2005, petitioner filed his traverse.

Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for an extension

until November 22, 2005 is denied as moot and his November 1, 2005 traverse is deemed timely.

DATED: 12/12/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

stev2124.111t

Case 2:04-cv-02124-MCE -GGH Document 33 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 1