alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of December 15, 2006, by and between STAR
SCIENTIFIC, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and JONNIE R. WILLIAMS (“Executive”). 
 Recital 
 Company and Executive are parties to that certain Executive Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), dated as of December 30,
2005. The term of the Employment Agreement expires on December 31, 2006, and the parties desire to extend such term until March 31, 2007. 
 Agreement 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises, the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties hereunder,
and for other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Recital. The recital to this Agreement is incorporated by reference. 
 2. Extension of
Term. Section 1.7 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting such section and replacing it with the following: 
 1.7 Term. Unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 4 hereof the term of this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2006 and shall continue until March 31, 2007 (the
“Term”). 
 3. Ratification and Confirmation. Except as modified herein, all of the terms of the Employment Agreement are
hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 4. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the
parties and their respective heirs, executors, personal representatives, successors, and permitted assigns, and to the benefit of no other party. 
 5. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without reference to its conflicts of laws principles. 
 6. Counterparts; Facsimile or Electronic Delivery. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of signed copies of this Agreement by facsimile or by other electronic means shall be sufficient and shall be binding on the parties whether or not subsequent
delivery of original documents is contemplated by the parties. 
  







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

  

					
	COMPANY:	 	
		
	STAR SCIENTIFIC, INC.	 	
			
	By:	 	/s/ Paul L. Perito	 	[SEAL]
	 Name:
 Title:
	 	 Paul L. Perito
 Chairman, President and Chief
Operating Officer
	 	


  
  

					
	EXECUTIVE:	 	
		
	 /s/ Jonnie R. Williams 
	 	[SEAL]
	Name:	 	Jonnie R. Williams
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 3, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51289 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMIE BERNARD GRIMSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-511-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jamie Bernard Grimsley appeals the 60-month sentence imposed upon his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. He argues that he received two criminal history points based on the district court’s erroneous finding that he was on probation for traffic offenses at the time that he committed the instant offense. He argues that but for those two points, he would have been eligible for a two-level “safety valve” decreaseNo. 05-51289 -2- pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(7), which would have resulted in a lesser sentence. In rejecting Grimsley’s argument, the district court relied on the state court judgment and probation violator’s warrant for three separate case numbers, all of which involved Grimsley’s convictions of violations of various traffic laws. The judgment set forth one sentence for all three case numbers, multiple fines that correlated with the respective case numbers, and one outstanding amount owed on those fines. Although the probation violator’s warrant bore the number of a case that was not scored in the criminal history section of the presentence report, the warrant included a list of the offenses charged in the case that was scored as well as a notation of the outstanding fine owed on all three cases. The documents relied on by the district court had sufficient indicia of reliability to support their probable accuracy. See United States v. Angeles-Mendoza , 407 F.3d 742, 749-50 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court’s finding that the warrant related to all three cases was plausible in light of the record as a whole. Id. at 750. Grimsley has not shown that the district court’s factual findings and inferences therefrom were clearly erroneous.
See Angeles-Mendoza , 407 F.3d at 750; United States v. Caldwell , 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 18, 2014

h0611

Order 

Clerk

June 18, 2014

147743

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147743

COA: 308244

Bay CC: 10-010892-FH

ROBERT RICHARD-HOWARD NELSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 30, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). 

We ORDER the Bay Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003-03, to 

determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint attorney Wendy 

Barnwell, if feasible, to represent the defendant in this Court. If this appointment is not 

feasible, the trial court shall, within the same time frame, appoint other counsel to 

represent the defendant in this Court. If the defendant is not indigent, he must retain his 

own counsel. The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of 

the order appointing counsel, or of the ruling that the defendant is not entitled to 

appointed counsel, addressing the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
|   | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Dated: November 8, 2010 |
|--------|-------------------------|

|                    |
|-------------------------|
| /S/ Matthew S. Porter   |
| Matthew S. Porter       |
| Chief Financial Officer |
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**Certification**

I, Bennie H. Duck,certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-K of First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.               The Company’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for theCompany and based on such evaluation:

a)        Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and

b)       Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport (based on such evaluation); and

c)        Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)        Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)       Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  July 24,2007
|   | By: /s/ BENNIE H. DUCK   |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Bennie H. Duck           |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RONALD FRANK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 543 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of February, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,264,308
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  290,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,164
<INVENTORY>                                    525,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,046,850
<PP&E>                                      38,378,085
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,542,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,100,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,905,250
<BONDS>                                      7,690,219
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    23,724,484
<OTHER-SE>                                     844,843
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,100,304
<SALES>                                     56,418,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            56,418,387
<CGS>                                       17,507,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,507,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            37,478,863
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             684,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                697,175
<INCOME-TAX>                                   140,221
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            556,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   556,954
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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 of Apple REIT Seven, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of September 30, 2008, and for the period then ended.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ GLADE M.
KNIGHT    
|Glade M. Knight        
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|November 3, 2008       
|                       
|/s/ BRYAN
PEERY        
|Bryan Peery            
|Chief Financial Officer

November 3, 2008



24
#### Deborah Jo BILLINGS, Petitioner, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. C-86-164.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 18, 1987.

*555Johnie O’Neal, Asst. Public Defender, Tulsa, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PARKS, Judge:

The petitioner, Deborah Jo Billings, pled guilty to Escape From a Penal Institution (21 O.S. Supp.1983, § 443) in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-85-2946, and was sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment on December 16, 1985. A motion to withdraw the guilty plea was filed on December 26, 1985, alleging “ignorance of the law” and “misrepresentation of the law by her attorney.” The motion did not request an evidentiary hearing, petitioner presented no evidence in support of the motion, and no evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw was ever held. According to petitioner, the trial court overruled the motion.

A careful review of the transcript of the plea proceeding establishes that the trial judge meticulously followed the guidelines set forth by this Court in *King v. State,*553 P.2d 529, 534-36 (Okl.Cr.1976). The record wholly rebuts the two general allegations made by petitioner in her motion to withdraw. The trial court conducted an appropriate interrogation of the petitioner and defense counsel regarding petitioner’s past and present mental state. The trial court advised petitioner of the nature and consequences of her guilty plea, informing petitioner that by entering a guilty plea she would be waiving her right to a jury trial, to confront the witnesses against her, and her privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Petitioner was informed that the minimum sentence was two (2) years while the maximum was seven (7) years, that she was presumed innocent, and that the State had the burden of proving all material allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court determined that the plea was voluntary and not the result of force, threats or coercion. Petitioner stated that she was guilty of the Escape as set out in the Information. The trial court followed the negotiated plea agreement whereby the petitioner was sentenced to the minimum punishment of two (2) years.

On the basis of the foregoing, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow petitioner to withdraw her guilty plea. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is hereby DENIED.

BRETT, P.J., and BUSSEY, J„ concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11





                  STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                 Year Ended December 28, 1997     Year Ended December 29, 1996
                                                 ----------------------------     ----------------------------

(in thousands, except per share loss)               Basic            Diluted            Basic           Diluted
------------------------------------                -----            -------            -----           -------

<S>                                              <C>                <C>              <C>               <C>
Average shares outstanding                          8,931              8,931            8,596             8,596

Effect of dilutive stock options - due to
the Company's net loss, assumed conversion
of stock is anti-dilutive.                              0                  0                0                 0
                                                 --------           --------         --------          --------

      Totals                                        8,931              8,931            8,596             8,596
                                                 --------           --------         --------          --------
                                                 --------           --------         --------          --------

Net loss                                         $(32,220)          $(32,220)        $(24,804)         $(24,804)
                                                 --------           --------         --------          --------
                                                 --------           --------         --------          --------

Basic loss per share                             $  (3.61)          $  (3.61)        $  (2.89)         $  (2.89)
                                                 --------           --------         --------          --------
                                                 --------           --------         --------          --------

</TABLE>


Note:  Prior period shares outstanding used to compute loss per share have been
restated to conform with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128
("Earnings Per Share").  The restatement did not materially impact loss per
share as previously reported. Earnings Per Share for the year ended December 31,
1995 is not available as the Company was not a separate entity with its own 
capital structure for the full year in 1995.


                                          22
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 435 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 435

   Notifying the President of the United States of the election of a 
             Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2014

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Notifying the President of the United States of the election of a 
             Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the President of the United States be notified of 
the election of the Honorable Andrew B. Willison as Sergeant at Arms 
and Doorkeeper of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1573 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

city of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 4, 2009 

Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the city of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CITY OF HERMISTON, OREGON, WATER RECY4 CLING AND REUSE PROJECT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

6 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h 

7 et seq.) is amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1573 IS

1 (1) by redesignating sections 1631, 1632, and 

2 1633 as sections 1632, 1633, and 1634, respectively; 

3 (2) by inserting after section 1630 the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 1631. CITY OF HERMISTON, OREGON, WATER RECY6 CLING AND REUSE PROJECT. 

7 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera8 tion with the city of Hermiston, Oregon, may participate 

9 in the design, planning, and construction of permanent fa10 cilities to reclaim and reuse water in the city of 

11 Hermiston, Oregon. 

12 ‘‘(b) FUNDING.— 

13 ‘‘(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of 

14 the costs of the project described in subsection (a) 

15 may not exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the 

16 project. 

17 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The Secretary may not pro18 vide funds for the operation and maintenance of the 

19 project described in subsection (a).’’; 

20 (3) in section 1632 (as redesignated by para21 graph (1)), by striking ‘‘1630’’ each place it appears 

22 and inserting ‘‘1631’’; 

23 (4) in section 1633(c) (as redesignated by para24 graph (1)), by striking ‘‘1633’’ and inserting 

25 ‘‘1634’’; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1573 IS

1 (5) in section 1634 (as redesignated by para2 graph (1)), by striking ‘‘1632’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘1633’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con5 tents contained in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects 

6 Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 

7 102–575; 106 Stat. 4600) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating the items relating to sec9 tions 1631, 1632, and 1633 as the items relating to 

10 sections 1632, 1633, and 1634, respectively; and 

11 (2) by inserting after the item relating to sec12 tion 1630 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 1631. City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Appendix J : Plant Assemblage Toxicity Index (PATI) model, input files, and uncertainty analysis

Zip files available upon request.

Contact the atrazine Chemical Review Manager (Listed as the Agency Contact in the atrazine Registration Review docket EPA - HQ - OPP - 2013 - 0266 )