alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas J. DEVEAU, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.

No. 02-3386.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Feb. 6, 2003.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas J. DeVeau seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because Mr. De-Veau’s allegations were not within the scope of appeal rights accorded an employee terminated during a probationary period, we *affirm.*

A probationary employee may appeal his termination to the Board only in limited circumstances. *See*5 C.F.R. § 315.806; *Pierce v. Gov’t Printing Office,*70 F.3d 106, 108 (Fed.Cir.1995). First, such an employee may appeal a termination that he “alleges was based on partisan political reasons or marital status.” 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b). Second, when the employee’s termination is based on conditions arising before his appointment, *see*5 C.F.R. § 315.805, the employee may appeal on the ground that the termination was not effected in accordance with certain procedural requirements. 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(c).

Mr. DeVeau’s appeal to the Board does not come within these narrow circumstances. The Navy terminated Mr. De-Veau based on his inability to be granted a security clearance within a reasonable period. Under Board precedent, denial of a security clearance during an employee’s probationary period is not a pre-appointment reason for termination within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(c). *See Von Deneen v. Dep’t of Transp.,*33 M.S.P.R. 420, 423, *affd,*837 F.2d 1098 (Table) (Fed.Cir.1987). Furthermore, Mr. DeVeau has not made a non-frivolous allegation that his termination was based on partisan political reasons or marital status.

On appeal to this court, Mr. DeVeau does not challenge the findings underlying the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, he argues his case on the merits, contending that the Navy had no justification for denying his security clearance. Because the Board correctly dismissed Mr. DeVeau’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, however, neither the Board nor this court may address the merits of his case.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1545 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1545

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade for the vessel MOONRAKER, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 1996

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
   coastwise trade for the vessel MOONRAKER, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, 
chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106 through 12108 of 
title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel MOONRAKER, United 
States official number 645981.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.17.13






Exhibit 10.17.13




SECOND AMENDMENT

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Second
Amendment”), made and entered into this 31st  day of January, 2012, to be effective as
of May 31, 2012, by and between OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC. (the “Company”), a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and having its principal
office at Thomasville, North Carolina, and John R. Congdon (the “Executive”), an individual
residing at Richmond, Virginia.



RECITALS:




The Company and the Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement,
effective June 1, 2008 and scheduled to expire on May 31, 2010. The term of the Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement was extended to May 31, 2012 by the First Amendment to Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement, and the parties desire to further extend its term to May 31, 2014.



AGREEMENT




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations contained in the
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, as amended , and of other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree as
follows:




1. Clause (i) of Section 5.1 of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement,
as amended by the First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, is hereby
amended to change “May 31, 2012” to “May 31, 2014”.




2. This Second Amendment may be executed simultaneously in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.




3. Except as otherwise provided in this Second Amendment, the terms and
provisions of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, as amended, shall continue in
effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment on the day and year first
above written.



EXECUTIVE




/s/ John R. Congdon



John R. Congdon



OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.



Attest:



	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Joel B. McCarty, Jr.
	 	By:
	 	/s/ David S. Congdon

	 
	 	 	 	 

	Secretary/Assistant Secretary
	 	 	 	Name: David S. Congdon

Title: President and CEO
EX 10.24 Amendment to Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan


AMENDMENT TO 
SYNNEX CORPORATION 
2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


In accordance with Section 17(b) of the SYNNEX Corporation 2003 Stock Incentive Plan, as restated and amended to date (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby further amended as follows:
1.  Section 4(b)(i) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows, effective January 4, 2011:
“(b)(i) Each Outside Director who first joins the Board of Directors after January 4, 2011, and who was not previously an Employee, shall receive a Nonstatutory Option to purchase 10,000 Shares (subject to adjustment under Section 11) and a number of whole Restricted Shares equal to $90,000 divided by the Fair Market Value of a Share as of the grant date.  For purposes of the calculation in the preceding sentence, any fractional Restricted Shares shall be disregarded.  The grant date for Options and Restricted Shares granted pursuant to this Section 4(b)(i) shall be the first business day after the election of the Outside Director to the Board of Directors; provided if the first business day after his or her election falls within a trading blackout period, then the grant date for Options or Restricted Shares shall be upon the expiration of the third trading day after the trading black-out period ends.”
2.  Section 4(b)(ii) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows, effective January 4, 2011:
“(b)(ii) On the first business day following the conclusion of each regular annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders after such Outside Director’s appointment or election to the Board of Directors, commencing with the first annual meeting occurring after January 4, 2011, each Outside Director who will continue serving as a member of the Board of Directors thereafter shall receive a number of whole Restricted Shares equal to $90,000 divided by the Fair Market Value of a Share as of such grant date, provided the Outside Director has served on the Board of Directors for at least six months; provided, further, if the first business day following the conclusion of the regular annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders after such Outside Director’s appointment or election to the Board of Directors falls within a trading black-out period, then the grant date for Restricted Shares granted pursuant to this Section 4(b)(ii) shall be upon the expiration of the third trading day after the trading black-out period ends.  For purposes of the calculation in the preceding sentence, any fractional Restricted Shares shall be disregarded.”
To record the amendment of the Plan, SYNNEX Corporation has executed this document 



this 4th day of January, 2011.


SYNNEX CORPORATION
By:       /s/ Simon Y. Leung                
Name: Simon Y. Leung 
Title: Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1702

To require institutions of higher education to provide voter registration information and opportunities to students registering for class, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 25, 1996

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

referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

A BILL

To require institutions of higher education to provide voter

registration information and opportunities to students

registering for class, 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. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Voter Reg5 istration Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

7 The purpose of this Act is—

8 (1) to increase voter registration accessibility to

9 students; and
2

•S 1702 IS

1 (2) to increase voter participation among col2 lege and university students.

3 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION

4 ACT OF 1993.

5 Section 7(a) of the National Voter Registration Act

6 of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–5(a)) is amended—

7 (1) in paragraph (2)—

8 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking

9 ‘‘and’’;

10 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the

11 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

12 (C) by adding at the end the following new

13 subparagraph:

14 ‘‘(C) each institution of higher education

15 (as defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher

16 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)) in

17 that State that—

18 ‘‘(i) receives Federal funds; and

19 ‘‘(ii) provides a 2-year or 4-year pro20 gram of instruction for which the institu21 tion awards an associate, baccalaureate, or

22 graduate degree.’’; and

23 (2) in paragraph (6)(A), by inserting ‘‘or, in

24 the case of an institution of higher education, with
3

•S 1702 IS

1 each registration of a student for enrollment in a

2 course of study,’’ after ‘‘assistance,’’.

3 SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION.

4 Institutions of higher education shall implement the

5 requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of

6 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) as amended by this

7 Act—

8 (1) in the case of an institution with enrollment

9 of not less than 10,000 students on the date of en10 actment of this Act, by 1997;

11 (2) in the case of an institution with enrollment

12 of not less than 5,000 and not more than 9,999 stu13 dents on the date of enactment of this Act, by Janu14 ary 1, 1998;

15 (3) in the case of an institution with enrollment

16 of not less than 2,000 and not more than 4,999 stu17 dents on the date of enactment of this Act, by Janu18 ary 1, 1999; and

19 (4) in the case of an institution with enrollment

20 of less than 2,000 students on the date of enactment

21 of this Act, by January 1, 2000.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-20628 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

David Penaloza-Nieto, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:22-CR-224-1 

______________________________ 

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David PenalozaNieto has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Penaloza-Nieto has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 23, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-20628 Document: 00516868708 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2023
No. 22-20628 

2 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 22-20628 Document: 00516868708 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2023
#### Anna Rue CAMP and John E. Venn, as Trustee of the Estate of Fariss D. Kimbell, Jr., M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-3213.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 22, 1993.

*429George W. Estess, Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod, Pensacola, FL, Talbot D’Alemberte, Adalberto Jordan, Steel, Hector & Davis, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Elmo R. Hoffman, J. Scott Murphy, Orlando, FL, William James Reedy, G.H. Small, Jr., Small & White, Atlanta, GA, J. Dixon Bridgers, III, Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Pensacola, FL, for defendant-appellee.

Before KRAVITCH, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

On April 16, 1992, we issued an opinion in this case in which we requested the Florida Supreme Court’s assistance with respect to a certified question concerning the intersection of insurance bad faith law and bankruptcy law. *See*958 F.2d 340 (11th Cir.1992). The Florida Supreme Court answered the question by holding that a bankruptcy trustee may bring an action against the bankrupt’s insurance company for the bad faith failure to settle a claim. *See*616 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1993). This holding was contrary to the district court’s decision.

We note, however, that the district court properly dismissed Anna Rue Camp, a judgment creditor of the bankruptcy estate, as a plaintiff in this case. 127 B.R. 879. The Florida Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy trustee, John E. Venn, can maintain an action against the insurer because the bankruptcy estate “stood in the shoes of the debtor and, in effect, the estate became the insured.” St. Paul’s duty to act in good faith, thus, only ran to the bankruptcy estate, and Camp may not maintain an action against St. Paul for bad faith. In fact, it strains logic to understand why Camp, who received a judgment approximately $2.75 million above the policy limits in her separate medical malpractice action, was damaged by St. Paul’s alleged bad faith refusal to settle within the policy limits in that case.

Therefore, the district court’s opinion is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and that of the Florida Supreme Court.
AMENDED & RESTATED
                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

     (REPLACES THE PROMISSORY NOTE DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 IN THE AMOUNT OF
                                  $100,000.00)

     VSUS Technologies Incorporated ("VSUS"), hereby promises to pay to the
order of Jenson Services, Inc. at 4685 South Highland Drive, Suite 202, Salt
Lake City, Utah 4117, or at such other place as the holder hereof may designate
in writing, the sum of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) dollars, payable as
follows:

     (i)  one-third (or $33,333.33) shall be due and payable upon the closing of
          the proposed merger transaction by and among VSUS, First Info Network,
          Inc. and 1st Alerts, Inc. (the "Closing");

     (ii) one-third (or $33,333.33) shall be due and payable thirty (30) days
          following the Closing; and

     (iii) one-third (or $33,333.34) shall be due and payable sixty (60) days
          following the Closing.

     Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this note, if the Closing does
not occur on or before July 13, 2005, the entire $100,000 owed under this note
shall become immediately due and payable.

     Prepayment of this note with interest to date of payment may be made at any
time without penalty.

     Interest shall accrue at ten (10) percent per annum after default
hereunder.

     In event of any default hereunder, the undersigned agree to pay to the
holder hereof reasonable attorney's fees, legal expenses and lawful collection
costs in addition to all other sums due hereunder.

     This promissory note shall be construed under the laws of the State of
Utah, and any action brought hereunder on default in payment of principal or
applicable interest may be brought in the federal and state courts situated in
Salt Lake County, Utah.

     Presentment, demand, protest, notice of dishonor and extension of time
without notice are hereby waived.

                                          VSUS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED


Dated: April 13, 2005                     By: /s/ Eli Kissos
                                              ----------------------------------

                                          Its: CEO and President
CERTIFICATIONS
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;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; andd)
    
    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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  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 controls over financial reporting.
  /s/ Michael J. RockenbachMichael J. RockenbachExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          30,188
<SECURITIES>                                    10,728
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,023
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (356)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,446
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,436
<PP&E>                                          16,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,571
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,462
<SALES>                                         55,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,757
<CGS>                                           25,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (218)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (248)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,534
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,583
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,534
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,951
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit No. 12.1

UnionBancal Corporation and Subsidiaries  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges Requirements

For the Years Ended December 31,(In millions, except ratios)

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009EXCLUDING INTEREST ON DEPOSITSIncome (loss) before income taxes and effect of accounting changes

$
1,090

$
1,044

$
868

$
412

$
(226
)Fixed Charges:Interest expense, excluding interest on deposits


83


194


278


288


132One third of rents, net income from subleases (A)


15


13


15


16


19Total fixed charges


98


207


293


304


151Earnings before taxes, fixed charges, and effect of accounting changes, excluding capitalized interest

$
1,188

$
1,251

$
1,161

$
716

$
(75
)Ratio of earnings to fixed charges requirements


12.12


6.04


3.96


2.36


(0.50
)INCLUDING INTEREST ON DEPOSITSFixed charges

$
98

$
207

$
293

$
304

$
151Add: Interest on deposits


303


649


991


639


408Total fixed charges including interest on deposits

$
401

$
856

$
1,284

$
943

$
559Earnings before taxes, fixed charges, and effect of accounting changes, excluding capitalized interest, as above

$
1,188

$
1,251

$
1,161

$
716

$
(75
)Add: Interest on deposits


303


649


991


639


408Total earnings before taxes, fixed charges, effect of accounting changes, and interest on deposits

$
1,491

$
1,900

$
2,152

$
1,355

$
333Ratio of earnings to fixed charges requirements


3.72


2.22


1.68


1.44


0.60


(A)The proportion deemed representative of the interest factor.


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit
99.2
  
 Media Release
   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    
    Contact: Janice McDill, 312.698.6707janice.mcdill@grubb-ellis.com
 Grubb & Ellis Company Amends $75 Million Credit Facility
    About Grubb & Ellis




---



##### 



2  2  2
08/05/08
Grubb & Ellis Company Amends $75 Million Credit Facility
 Forward-looking Statement