alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.14a


                          FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND
                          RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This FIRST AMENDMENT,  made as of the 1st day of February, 1998, to the
Amended and Restated  Employment  Agreement,  made as of the 1st day of January,
1988,  and  amended as of July 23,  1990,  June 1, 1995 and March 1, 1997,  (the
"Agreement") between THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY, a Connecticut  corporation
(the "Company") and Robert L. Fiscus, an individual (the "Executive"),

                                WITNESSETH THAT:

     (1) The Company and the  Executive  hereby agree to amend the  Agreement as
set forth in sections (2) and (3) below:

     (2) By deleting the final sentence of Section (4)(b) in its entirety.

     (3) By inserting,  following  the second  sentence of Section  (4)(f),  the
following  sentence:  "For purposes of this  Agreement,  Total  Compensation  is
defined as the sum of the Executive's Base Salary and any amount paid or payable
to  the  Executive   pursuant  to  the  Company's  annual  Executive   Incentive
Compensation Program."

     (4) All the terms and  conditions of the  Agreement,  as amended hereby are
and shall remain in full force and effect.

     (5) This First  Amendment to the  Agreement  may be executed in one or more
counterparts,  each of  which  shall  be  deemed  an  original  but all of which
together will constitute one and the same instrument.

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

THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY

                                                    ATTEST:

By        /s/ Richard J. Grossi
  -------------------------------------
         Its Chairman of the
         Board of Directors and
         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         /s/ Kurt Mohlman
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                             Treasurer and
          /s/ Robert L. Fiscus                               Secretary
  -------------------------------------
             Robert L. Fiscus
# C_2015089EN.01004801.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/48

---

Action brought on 23 January 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

(Case F-8/15)

(2015/C 089/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions determining the applicants’ rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the applicants’ salary statement for the month of June 2014 in so far as they apply, for the first time, Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since 1 January 2014, in order to determine the reimbursement of their travel expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicants’ salary statement for the month of June 2014 in so far as they apply, for the first time, Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the version in force since 1 January 2014, in order to determine the reimbursement of their travel expenses;

| — | to the extent necessary, annul the standard decisions dated 15 October 2014 rejecting their claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent necessary, annul the standard decisions dated 15 October 2014 rejecting their claim;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
#### Roderick Bernard BODDIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S. KERNAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-15949.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Roderick Bernard Boddie, Soledad, CA, Peter Goldscheider, Esq., Palo Alto, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Peggy S. Ruffra, Esq., Jeffrey M. Laurence, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Roderick Bernard Boddie appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his conviction for first-degree robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Boddie contends that the state trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a mistrial based upon the jury’s receipt of an unredacted exhibit list. Assuming *arguendo*that Boddie has presented a federal constitutional claim, we conclude that the state appellate court’s decision in this case was neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor objectively unreasonable, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *Lockyer v. Andrade,*538 *52U.S. 63, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172-73, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Boddie has not established that the jury was actually exposed to extrinsic evidence before rendering its verdict, nor does it appear that the presumed error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” *See Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed this claim.1

The uncertified issues presented by Boddie in his appellate briefs filed with this court are treated as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability and are denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-l(e).

Boddie’s unopposed motion to file a late reply brief, filed on July 1, 2005, is granted. The Clerk shall file Boddie’s reply brief, received on July 13, 2005.

Boddie’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed June 13, 2005, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Boddie asks that this court consider *Crawford v. Washington,*541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). *Crawford*does not affect the outcome of this case.
No. 48746.

#### Protests 896559-G, etc., of Friedlaender & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Before these cases were heard on rehearing counsel for both parties agreed upon a stipulation of fact affecting certain items. New and material evidence was introduced as to some of the exhibits. It was conceded that certain of the items now in question consist of table articles composed of pressed glass, unpolished and not ground for purposes other than ornamentation, and that others consist of articles composed of pressed glass, unpolished and not ground. These items, as set out in this decision, were therefore held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 218(g) as claimed. As to all other items enumerated in the decision, the plaintiff failing to prove that they were not polished and/or not ground, the protests were overruled.
| Nevada                                                                               | 95-2583928                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| (State or Other Jurisdiction      of                                                 |  (I.R.S.      Employee |
|  Incorporation or      Organization)                                            | Identification      No.)    |
|                                                                                 |                        |
|  23251 Mulholland      Drive,  Woodland Hills, California  91364 |
|  (Address of Principal Executive      Offices)  (Zip    Code)              |

| Class                                     | Outstanding at August      13, 2009 |
|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Common      Stock, $0 Par value per share | 5,564,452                 |

----

----

----

|             ExhibitNo. | Description                                                                                                                                                                           |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 10.1                                                 | Amendment      to Employment Agreement effective April 1, 2009 by and between Registrant      and Cary L. Cheldin.                                                                         |
| 10.2                                                 | Amendment      to Employment Agreement effective April 1, 2009 by and between Registrant      and Lester Aaron                                                                             |
| 10.3                                                 | Employment      Agreement effective April 1, 2009 by and between Registrant and Terry L.      Kinigstein                                                                                   |
| 31.1                                                 | Certificate      of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a),      as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002      (filed herewith). |
| 31.2                                                 | Certificate      of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a),      as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002      (filed herewith). |
# C_2015381EN.01004002.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/40

---

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-10/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Inquiry procedure - Report of the Committee of Inquiry - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint))

(2015/C 381/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and E. Raimond, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 November in De Nicola v EIB (F-52/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:243), and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

De Nicola

EIB

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Mr Carlo De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carlo De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

1

---
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**UnionCarbide Corporation and Subsidiaries**

 

 

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

I, Edward W. Rich, VicePresident, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Union Carbide Corporation(the “Corporation”), certify that:

 

1.               the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 

 
| /s/ EDWARD W. RICH             |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Edward W. Rich                 |   |
| Vice President,  Treasurer and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer        |   |
| Date:  April 29, 2008     |   |

 

36

----
#### Douglas ASHBY, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Grant Wenzlick; et al., Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-35394.

D.C. No. CV-01-01446-AJB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted on briefs March 8, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Charles A. Ringo, Beaverton, OR, N. Robert Stoll, David F. Rees, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter, PC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steve D. Larson,Scott A. Shorr, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter, PC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant and Plaintiffs.

Barnes H. Ellis, James N. Westwood, Stoel Rives, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee and Defendant.

Stephen A. Redshaw, Stoel Rives, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before HUG, REINHARDT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Relying on its previous decision in *Mark v. Valley Insurance Co.,*275 F.Supp.2d 1307, 1317 (D.Or.2003), the district court held that, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, there can be no “increase in any charge” if the policy is an initial policy and the rate is *56the first rate charged to the consumer. It also held that no adverse action occurs if the insurance company renews a policy at the same rate it previously charged the consumer. In light of *Edo v. GEICO Casualty Co.,*No. 04-35279, we overrule these holdings and reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with that opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

**

 This *disposition is*not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 35.1



AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB



I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby
certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the
“Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and
“Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of February 25, 2016 among
the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2016-1 Owner Trust, as follows:



| | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2017, and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 22nd day of May, 2017.



| | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                   
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Paul C. Honda                                       
| | Vice President and Assistant Secretary              
| | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of KT High-Tech Marketing, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015
of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
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 represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ Michael Mo
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: July 15, 2016
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1951** 

OTIS A. KASHIF , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. AMERIGROUP CORPORATION , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri ct of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00239

- MSD

- FBS )

Submitted : December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Otis A. Kas hif, Appellant Pro Se. William McCardell Furr, Bryan C. R. Skeen, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Otis A. Kashif appeals the district court ’ s order dism issing his age

- based employment discrimination claim
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Kashif v. Amerigroup Corp. , No. 2:10

- cv - 00239

- MSD

- FBS (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2011) . 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
#### Penson & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7423.

Invoice dated Walsall, England, March 1944.

Certified April 1944.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 9, 1944.

Entry No. 733325.

(Decided October 27, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the 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 here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6429.

Entry No. 752026, etc.

Invoices dated Tunstall, England, April 10, 1942, etc.

Certified April 25, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 23, 1942, etc.

(Decided October 9, 1946)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley 8. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the 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 earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly..
# C_2015381EN.01001801.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 31 August 2015 — Verners Pudāns

(Case C-462/15)

(2015/C 381/21)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verners Pudāns

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 (1) establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, be interpreted as allowing, in principle, a Member State to apply income tax to payments under the support schemes listed in Annex I to that regulation?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.

1

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

NO. 03
- 21
- 00096
- CV

In re Office of the Attorney General

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relator , the Office of the A t torney G e neral of Texas , has filed a petition f o r wri t
of mandamus , along with an o pposed e mergency m otion for t emporary r elief

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 52.10(a). Relator seeks to stay a hea ring s cheduled for March 2, 20 21, at which
R elator ’ s motion to dismiss based on lac k of subject matter jur isd i ction and /or Plaintiffs ’ veri fied
motion for te mporary injunction will be heard

. We partially grant the motion pending further
order of this Court and temporarily stay any portion of the March 2, 202 1 hearing concerning the

m otion for t emporary i njunctio n
. See id . 52.10(b). The Cour t otherwise deni es the motion
insofar as it see ks a stay of any portion of the hearing concerning R elator ’ s m otion to d ismiss

. The Court orders the real party in inter est to file a response to the petition for writ of mandam u s on or before Monday, March 8, 2021

.It is ordered on March 1, 2021

.

Before Chief Ju stice Byrne, Justices Baker a nd Smith.