alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.24


 


April 11,
2008


 


David
J. de Poincy


2117
Dana Court


Flower
Mound, TX 75028


 


Dear
David,


 


The
purpose of this letter is to outline the current terms of your employment and
Sabre’s commitment to provide certain stock options and compensation once these
programs are fully developed. All prior agreements including your initial offer
of employment letter dated November 2, 2007 are still in place except as
modified by this letter. The Non-compete, Non-solicitation and Confidentiality
Agreement referred to and attached with the initial offer letter remains in
force.


 


Effective
March 10, 2008, you were promoted to President Sabre Divisions and
Executive Vice President Central Operations. 
You will continue to report directly to me.  Your annualized base pay was increased to
$200,000 or $3846.15 per week.


 


Reporting
to you in your new position are:


 


·                  Dean Barkman, VP & GM Sabre Tubular
Structures


·                  Brian Newberg, VP & GM Sabre Towers &
Poles


·                  John Pleiss, VP & GM Sabre Site
Solutions


·                  Lloyd Myers, Corporate Director Operations


·                  General Manager Sabre Galvanizing Inc. —
position currently open


·                  Director Procurement — position currently
open


 


You
will continue to be eligible for Sabre’s benefits outlined in your initial
offer letter.  This includes 18 days of
PPL.


 


Once
an annual incentive bonus plan is developed for the senior management group,
you will be eligible to participate in that program.


 


It
is Sabre’s intent to make available to you 3000 stock option shares at an
option price of $32.86 per share. Separate stock option documents will be
provided to you once the stock is available, which the company expects to
resolve in the near future.  We
understand you were provided with Sabre Industries’ stock option document
indicating the 1500 shares as part of the initial offer of employment package. The
Company is providing an additional 1500 shares at this time.  You became vested in 20% of the initial 1500 options
on your date of hire, November 13, 2007. 
As of the date of this letter there remain 2700 shares that are not
vested. For the remaining 2700 shares, you will vest 20% per year on each
anniversary of your date of hire.


 


Congratulations
on your promotion. Please let me know if you have any questions.


 


	
  Sincerely,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  James D. Mack

  	
   

  
	
  James
  D. Mack

  	
   

  
	
  CEO
  Sabre Industries, Inc.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1888 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-ethylhexyl 4- 

methoxycinnamate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-ethylhexyl 

4-methoxycinnamate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-ETHYLHEXYL 4-METHOXYCINNAMATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.60 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 2-ethylhexyl 4-methoxycinnamate) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1888 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of D.C. P.C., Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska and J.C., Appellees.

No. S-944.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Feb. 28, 1986.

Stephan R. West, Alaska Legal Services Corp., Ketchikan, for appellant.

Mark L. Ells, Asst. Dist. Atty., Ketchi-kan, for appellee State of Alaska.

Bruce Davies, Ketchikan, for appellee J.C.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

In this appeal from a superior court order of foster placement of an Indian child, we find it necessary to vacate the order and remand because no written findings of fact were entered as required under Children’s Rules 21(c) and 22(d). The findings requirement serves three basic functions: (1) it aids the trial judge’s analytical process; (2) it may be relevant for collateral estoppel purposes; and (3) it aids the appellate court on review. *Merrill v. Merrill,*368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962). Of these, the first and the third are implicated here. Of special importance is the lack of a finding concerning the issue of whether the continued custody of the child by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. Such a finding is mandated under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e).

Additionally, section 1912(e) requires that a qualified expert witness testify that continued custody of the child by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. Although a qualified expert testified that the child had been sexually abused, no expert gave the predictive testimony required by statute.1

For the above reasons, the order is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for supplemental proceedings.2

1

. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the witness was a qualified expert for purposes of section 1912(e), given her education, training, and work experience in the field of sexual abuse of children. *See*H.Rep. No. 1386, 95th Cong.2d Sess. 22, *reprinted in*1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad News 7530, 7545; United States Department of the Interior, Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed.Reg. 67583, 67593 (1979).

2

. We find no violation of the reasonable proximity provision of 25 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that evidence of the special needs of the child in overcoming an emotionally based learning disability justified continued placement with relatives who would temporarily be moving to Seattle.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350,


Chapter
      63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
      (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
      undersigned officer of Smart Balance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Form
      10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in
      the
      Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Company.





Date:
                August 8, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Stephen B. HughesStephen
                B. HughesChairman
                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                executive officer)
**EXHIBIT
31.2**
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, David
G. Zahka, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Talk America Holdings,
Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this annual report;
 
 4.  The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)  [omitted
pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8283 (June 5, 2003)]
 
 c)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 d)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the 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 who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
 
 March 28,
2005
 
 /s/ David G. Zahka
 David G.
Zahka
 Chief
Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          27,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 575,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        538,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   575,989
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,567
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,094
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,273
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,821
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,821
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 LEGACY BANCORP, INC.
 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Rule 13a  14(a) / 15d-14(a)
 I, Stephen M. Conley, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Legacy Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:
May 12, 2006
    
    /s/ Stephen M. ConleyStephen M. ConleyChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer
 23
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Richard Cosme, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered October 30, 2013, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of public urination (New York Health Code 153.09), and sentencing him to a fine of $500.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered October 30, 2013, modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the fine to $250; as modified, judgment of conviction affirmed.</p><p>Defendant failed to preserve his present contention that the trial court acted as a prosecutor and deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial (<i>see People v Kello</i>, 96 NY2d 740 [2001]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits (<i>see People v DeLeyden</i>, 10 NY2d 293 [1961]; <a href="../2010/2010_51882.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Hightower</i>, 29 Misc 3d 131</a>[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51882[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010], <i>lv denied </i>16 NY3d 831 [2011]).</p><p>Defendant's contention that there is no statutory authority which permitted the electronic recording of the proceedings below is unpreserved, and no prejudice is apparent from the record (<i>see People v Harrison, </i>85 NY2d 794, 796 [1995] ["reversal is not required if defendant is not prejudiced by the absence of a stenographic record"]). We note in this regard that "[a]ppeals were perfected, heard and justly determined with the aid of such other devices long before modern stenography and the stenotype machine arrived on the scene" (<i>People v Rivera</i>, 39 NY2d 519, 523 [1976]). Although a real-time stenographic transcription is superior to an electronic recording that is later transcribed (see <a href="../2016/2016_04973.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Smith</i>, 27 NY3d 643</a>, 650 [2016]), the latter may suffice to satisfactorily demonstrate whether genuine appealable and reviewable issues do or do not exist. It is only upon an appropriate showing that this cannot be accomplished that a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal (<i>see generally People v Glass</i>, 43 NY2d 283, 286 [1977]).</p><p>We find the fine to be excessive to the extent indicated.</p><p>In addressing the merits of this appeal, we have considered and rejected the People's contention that the appeal must be dismissed on the ground that defendant failed to file an affidavit of errors (see <i>People v Wanass</i>, calendar no. 14-212, decided herewith).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: March 09, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
* 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.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10550 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. SAMUEL CORTES-BELTRAN Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:08-CR-1-ALL
Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Samuel Cortes-Beltran presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. GomezHerrera, 523 F.3d 554, 557-64 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (July 2, 2008) (No. 08-5226), which held that any disparity in sentencing between fast-track and non-fast-track jurisdictions is a function of Congressional policy and is not “unwarranted” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), and by United Statesv. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526-27 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (June 30, 2008 ) (No. 08- United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 8, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-10550

2 5101) which held that the lack of a fast-track program does not result in a violation of equal protection rights. See also United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2008) (No. 08-5514). Cortes-Beltran also raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United S tates v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by United Statesv. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a district court may order a term ofimprisonment to run consecutively with an unimposed state sentence. The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and thejudgment ofthe district court is AFFIRMED.
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

77) IV-C-43 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:55 AM Sheet 77 of 232 
P.2 

^ ' t0Sr " 4 > 

"CZ-C--M3 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

<TAN as' -98a 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Fred Grandy 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Grandy: 

This in response to your January 11, communication 

relaying the concerns of Mr. Willi-am L. Mouw regarding EPA's 

regulatory proposal to require onboard canisters on new 

vehicles to control refueling emissions. To assist you with 

your response, I have enclosed a copy of our proposal for your 

review. Section E (pages 31177-31182) explains EPA's overall 

rationale for proposing onboard controls. If you would like 

further details of our analysis, please contact Mr. Philip 

Carlson of the Standards Development and Support Branch of the 

Emission Control Technology Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105 (FTS 374-8270 or Commercial (313) 668-4270). 

Thank you for sending Mr. Mouw's letter which we will 

place in our public docket for consideration in the next 

phase of our rulemaking process. 

Sincerely yours, 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Enclosure 

l/ca Docket A-87-11
ALASKA SEAFOOD C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2013

- 0652

DCN: 00 30 2 CBI

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thaddeus Dawson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James J. Leff, J.), rendered January 17, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree , and assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from ten to twenty years and from seven and one-half to fifteen years, respectively, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The charges against defendant arose from his stabbing of Roberto Sealey during an argument outside of Grand Central Terminal, where Sealey worked as a shoeshiner. Defendant testified that in the fifteen-minute period immediately preceding the stabbing he had drunk "forty ounces of a boilermaker”, which he described as a mixture of Bacardi rum and beer, and that he was "high” when the incident occurred. We think that, notwithstanding the absence of testimony regarding objective indicia of intoxication, e.g. slurred speech and a lack of balance, this testimony constituted " 'sufficient evidence of intoxication * * * for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis’ ” *(People v Rodriguez,*76 NY2d 918, 920), and that, accordingly, defendant’s request to charge intoxication should have been granted.

To the extent that such a charge would have been inconsis*263tent with the proffered defense of justification, "a defendant’s entitlement to a charge on a claimed defense is not defeated solely by reason of its inconsistency with some other defense raised”. *(People v Butts,*72 NY2d 746, 748.)

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ.