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

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed his fourth request for an extension of time to file a second

amended complaint pursuant to the court’s order of February 1, 2005. In this court’s order of

May 11, 2005, plaintiff was advised that no further extensions of time would be granted and was

reminded that this court’s April 13, 2005 findings and recommendations had been held in

abeyance pending receipt of his second amended complaint. Good cause appearing, the fourth

request for extension of time will be denied, and the findings and recommendations will be

forwarded to the district court for consideration. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 13, 2005 request for an extension

of time is denied. 

DATED: June 2, 2005.

/kf; jenk2520.36b 

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 1
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

WILLIAM ROCHA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2274 FCD GGH P

vs.

CA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed July 15, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02274-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 11/09/05 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 11/8/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

roch2274.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02274-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 10.38

 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of November 6, 2014, by and between PCM, INC., a Delaware corporation, (the “Company”), and Frank F. Khulusi, an individual (“Executive”).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement, effective January 1, 1995, as amended, setting forth the terms and conditions of Executive’s employment with the Company (the “Employment Agreement”);

 

WHEREAS, the parties hereto mutually desire to amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein.

 

AGREEMENT

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

1.                                     The annual base salary rate effective December 1, 2014 shall be reduced from eight hundred thirty three thousand dollars ($833,000) to an amount equal to five hundred eighty three thousand dollars ($583,000.00), subject to increases as the Board of Directors or any authorized Committee thereof may from time to time approve; provided, however, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or otherwise, for purposes of determining any payments that may become due to Executive under the Agreement following a termination without Cause, a termination for Good Reason or a Change of Control, the annual base salary shall be deemed to be eight hundred thirty three thousand dollars ($833,000.00) or such greater amount that is equal to any annual base salary greater than eight hundred thirty three thousand dollars ($833,000) that is approved at any time by the Board of Directors or any authorized Committee thereof.

 

2.                                      Except to the extent specifically modified herein, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect.

 

3.                                      This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each party hereto and delivered to the other party hereto, it being understood the parties need not sign the same counterpart.

 

4.                                      Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.

 

1











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Third Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date and year first above written.

 

 

	
PCM, INC.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
EXECUTIVE
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/Frank   F. Khulusi
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Frank F. Khulusi
    	
 
    


 

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6758

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GODWIN ASIFO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:09-cr-00032-CMH-1)

Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Godwin Asifo, Appellant Pro Se. Jack Hanly, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Godwin Asifo seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Asifo 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
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.2

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 of Chartwell Technology Inc. (the Company)
on Form 20-F for the period ended October 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry Foster, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(3) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(4) |  | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
          aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of all the Company.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Barry Foster
Barry Foster
Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------

April 23, 2003
II 

Calendar No. 449 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4853 

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from promulgating or 

enforcing rules regarding disclosure of artificial intelligence-generated 

content in political advertisements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr. BUDD) introduced the following bill; which was 

read the first time 

JULY 31, 2024 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 

promulgating or enforcing rules regarding disclosure of 

artificial intelligence-generated content in political advertisements. 

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 ‘‘Ending FCC Meddling 

5 in Our Elections Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4853 PCS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

2 COMMISSION RULES REGARDING DISCLO3 SURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-GEN4 ERATED CONTENT IN POLITICAL TV AND 

5 RADIO ADVERTISEMENTS. 

6 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘rule’’ 

7 has the meaning given the term in section 804 of title 5, 

8 United States Code. 

9 (b) PROHIBITION.—The Federal Communications 

10 Commission may not— 

11 (1) finalize or enforce the proposed rule adopt12 ed under the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking enti13 tled ‘‘In the Matter of Disclosure and Transparency 

14 of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content in Polit15 ical Advertisements’’ (FCC 24–74; MB Docket No. 

16 24–211), adopted July 10, 2024; or 

17 (2) promulgate or enforce any rule that is sub18 stantially similar to the proposed rule described in 

19 paragraph (1). 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 449 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4853 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commiserated content in political advertisements. garding disclosure of artificial intelligence-gen- sion from promulgating or enforcing rules reJULY 31, 2024 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
SYNL-2015.01.03-10K EX 10.4


Exhibit 10.4


Second Amendment to the 2005 Stock Awards Plan


Effective November 13, 2014


The undersigned, being all of the directors of Synalloy Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”) do hereby consent to and adopt the following Second Amendment to the 2005 Stock Awards Plan (the “Plan”) as set forth in the resolutions adopted at the November 13, 2014 Board of Directors’ meeting.


RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors hereby amends the Plan in the following respects:


		
	A.
	Section 6.B of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:




Cancellation of Unvested Stock Awards on Termination of Employment. Any portion of a stock award that has not vested prior to the termination of an employee’s employment with the Company as the result of retirement (minimum age of 62), death or disability, shall become 100% vested; otherwise, any portion of a stock award that has not vested prior to the termination of an employee's employment with the Company for any other reason, shall be automatically cancelled. In the event of death, the employee’s estate would receive the balance of the shares.


		
	B.
	Section 6.B of the Plan shall be amended to state that 100% of the total number of unvested shares would vest in the event of (i) and (ii) to read as follows:




Sale or Merger.  Notwithstanding the vesting schedule set forth in Section 6.A above, 100% of the total number of unvested shares will vest in the  event that there is either (i) the acquisition of more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding voting securities of the Company or a subsidiary or division of the Company in which the employee is employed (calculated on a fully diluted basis) by any person during any consecutive 12-month period of time; or (ii) the sale of more than fifty percent (50%) in value of the assets of the Company over any consecutive 12-month period of time.


		
	C.
	Reaffirmation.  The Plan shall remain otherwise in full force and effect and unchanged.
Order entered January 28 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00144

- CR

TENEKA KASHUN ALEXAN DER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Tr ial Court Cause No. F09

- 21009

- Y



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.

On January 13, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why

appellant’s brief has not been filed. On January 27, 2014, we received appellant’s motion to

dismiss th e appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a). Accordingly, we VACATE the January 13,

2014 order requiring findings. We will dispose of the motion to dismiss in due course.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
# C_2008120EN.01010001.xml

| 16.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/100

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (Codified version)’

COM(2007) 587 final

(2008/C 120/21)

On 24 October 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Council Directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (Codified version).

Proposal for a Council Directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (Codified version).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 440th plenary session of 12 and 13 December 2007 (meeting of 12 December 2007), by 129 votes in favour with six abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 12 December 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

FAMOUS TATE EXPO CENTER, LLC, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3319

)

JAMES AND NICOLE GILLIAM; MARY )

WERNER; CHRISTY MILLER; BOBBY )

AND SUSAN KALLAZHATHIL; AND )

RAFAEL MIOLAN, )

Respondent. )

)

Opinion filed March 20, 2019.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit

Court for Hillsborough County; Gregory P. 

Holder, Judge. 

Jared M. Kruker and Dineen Pashoulos, of 

DPW Legal, Tampa

For Petitioner.

David S. Johnson, Scott W. Anderson

And Bonnie C. Daboll of Johnson Daboll 

Anderson, Tampa 

For Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

LaROSE, C.J., MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ, Concur.
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 Keane, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John J. Leahy Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: March 15, 2005 |  | /s/JOHN J. LEAHYJohn J. Leahy
Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### Helen L. Doxtator, Appellant, v Robert H. Doxtator et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 388]

—In an action to recover money due pursuant to, *inter alia,*a so-ordered stipulation of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and an income execution order, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated June 29, 1994, which denied her motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant Robert H. Doxtator summary judgment in his favor and substituting therefor a provision denying summary judgment to Robert H. Doxtator; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to International Business Machines Corporation.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover a one-third share of money paid by International Business Machines Corporation (hereinafter IBM) to Robert H. Doxtator, her former husband, on or about July 31, 1992, pursuant to IBM’s Individual Transition Option Program II exit incentive plan.

IBM cannot be held liable pursuant to the so-ordered stipulation of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York dated January 5, 1988, inasmuch as it was not a party to that agreement. Nor can IBM be held liable pursuant to the terms of the Income Execution Order dated February 19, 1988, inasmuch as it applied only to Doxtator’s "gross weekly or bi-weekly income” and not to a one-time lump sum payment.

We further conclude, however, that the provision in the so-called stipulation pursuant to which Doxtator consented to the entry and service upon his employer of a wage deduction order deducting, *inter alia,*one-third of his gross income during the period of time from November 9, 1987 to March 1, 1993, raises a triable issue of fact *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to a one-third share of the payment Doxtator received pursuant to the Individual Transition Option Program II exit incentive plan. Balletta, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
No. 62581.

#### Schroeder Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 293691-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the merchandise reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
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

JEFFREY MARSHALL,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-04-1932 LKK GGH PS

vs.

HOME DEPOT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On February 28, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01932-LKK -GGH Document 39 Filed 03/28/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 28, 2006, are

ADOPTED; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110 (E.D. Cal.

1997); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: March 27, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

marshall.jo

Case 2:04-cv-01932-LKK -GGH Document 39 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7286

ELTON E. COLEMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICKY HARRISON, Warden, Manning Correctional

Institution, in his individual and/or official

capacity,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina

Department of Corrections, in his individual

and/or official capacity; LARRY C. BATSON,

General Counsel, South Carolina Department of

Corrections, in his individual and/or official

capacity,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-93-2571-6-20AK)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2
3

Elton E. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Ronald Stanley, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting a

directed verdict in favor of the Defendant in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1994) action. We have reviewed the record and the transcript of

the district court's decision and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Coleman v.

Harrison, No. CA-93-2571-6-20AK (D.S.C. July 17, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 58998.

protests 171717-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Border Brokerage Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.