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



Exhibit 10.16.1



AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of March 6, 2017 (the “Amendment”), by and between Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Thomas Mitro (the “Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive previously entered into an employment agreement dated as of July 31, 2013, which was amended and restated effective as of December 18, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other valid consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
		
	1.
	The Company and the Executive hereby agree to modify and amend Sections 9(c)(ii) and 9(c)(iv) of the Employment Agreement such that all references to “12 months” shall be deleted and replaced with “18 months”. 


		
	2.
	Section 9(c)(iii) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


“the Company shall pay Executive a Performance Bonus in an amount equal to 1.5 times the greater of (1) the target bonus for the applicable calendar year; and (2) the average of the Performance Bonus received by Executive for the two years immediately preceding termination.”
		
	3.
	For the sake of clarity, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement other than as modified herein shall remain in full force and effect. 


		
	4.
	This Amendment may be executed by .pdf or facsimile signatures in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.


[signature page follows]












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




	
	
	AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

	 

	 

	/s/ Richard Rubino

	By: Richard Rubino
Title: Chief Financial Officer

	 

	 

	EXECUTIVE



	/s/ Thomas Mitro

	Thomas Mitro
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      /s/ Michael R. RodriguezMichael R. RodriguezSenior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: COUNTY OF CARBON TAX 

CLAIM BUREAU JUDICIAL SALE OF 

LAND IN THE COUNTY OF CARBON 

FREE AND DISCHARGED FROM ALL 

TAX AND MUNICIPAL CLAIMS, 

MORTGAGES, LIEN CHARGES, AND 

ESTATES WHATSOEVER, HELD 

NOVEMBER 6, 2015 

Respondent

v.

CARBON COUNTY TAX CLAIM 

BUREAU,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 402 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

IN RE: COUNTY OF CARBON TAX 

CLAIM BUREAU JUDICIAL SALE OF 

LAND IN THE COUNTY OF CARBON 

FREE AND DISCHARGED FROM ALL 

TAX AND MUNICIPAL CLAIMS, 

MORTGAGES, LIEN CHARGES, AND 

ESTATES WHATSOEVER, HELD 

NOVEMBER 6, 2015 

Respondent

v.

CARBON COUNTY TAX CLAIM 

BUREAU, FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 403 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

LEHIGHTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, LEHIGHTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT,
[402 MAL 2018, 403 MAL 2018 and 404 MAL 2018] - 2

IN RE: COUNTY OF CARBON TAX 

CLAIM BUREAU JUDICIAL SALE OF 

LAND IN THE COUNTY OF CARBON 

FREE AND DISCHARGED FROM ALL 

TAX AND MUNICIPAL CLAIMS, 

MORTGAGES, LIEN CHARGES, AND 

ESTATES WHATSOEVER, HELD 

NOVEMBER 6, 2015 

Respondent

v.

CARBON COUNTY TAX CLAIM 

BUREAU,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 404 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.

PANTHER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6702

MUREL HOLLAND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL S. BRUCE, Officer, CO II; MARSHA

GRIFFIN, Officer, CO II; TODD ALEXANDER,

Officer, CO II,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; EUGENE M. NUTH,

Warden; CAPTAIN LOCKLEAR, CO V; LIEUTENANT

AULU, CO V; STUART H. SHAPIRO, M.D.; JEAN

SNYDER; PATRICIA WRIGHT, Doctor, M.D.; MARCIA

L. UPDIKE, Physician Assistant; MARVIN BRUCE,

Physician Assistant,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-96-1745-WMN)

Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: December 10, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-2-

Murel Holland, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General,

Glen T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Although the district court's order of judgment is marked as

"filed" on May 4, 1999, the district court's records show that it

was entered on the docket sheet on May 5, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet

that we take as the effective date of the district court's

decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

-3-

PER CURIAM:

Murel Holland appeals the district court's order granting

judgment as a matter of law to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983

(West Supp. 1999) action on the basis that the pain and/or injury

Holland suffered was de minimis and therefore insufficient to

sustain a viable claim.

We review a district court's grant of judgment as a matter of

law de novo. See Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v.

Objective Inc., 180 F.3d 583, 588 (4th Cir. 1999). On review, the

facts are viewed and inferences are drawn in a light most favorable

to the nonmoving party. See Singer v. Dungan, 45 F.3d 823, 827

(4th Cir. 1995). We have reviewed the record in light of the

relevant case law and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court's order. See Holland v. Lanham No. CA96-1745-WMN (D. Md. May 5, 1999).* 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

THE HOOPSKIRT LOFTS

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

v.

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI AND ANN

BORIS

PETITION OF: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 589 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

THE HOOPSKIRT LOFTS

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

v.

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI AND ANN

BORIS

PETITION OF: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 590 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

THE HOOPSKIRT LOFTS

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

v.

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI AND ANN

BORIS

PETITION OF: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 591 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

THE HOOPSKIRT LOFTS

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION :

:

: No. 592 EAL 2017[ 589 EAL 2017, 590 EAL 2017, 591 EAL 2017, 592 EAL 2017, 593 EAL 2017, 594 EAL

2017, 595 EAL 2017 and 596 EAL 2017 ]

- 2 v.

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI AND ANN

BORIS

PETITION OF: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

THE HOOPSKIRT LOFTS

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

v.

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI AND ANN

BORIS

PETITION OF: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 593 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

THE HOOPSKIRT LOFTS

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

v.

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI AND ANN

BORIS

PETITION OF: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 594 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

THE HOOPSKIRT LOFTS

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

v.

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI AND ANN

BORIS :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 595 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court[ 589 EAL 2017, 590 EAL 2017, 591 EAL 2017, 592 EAL 2017, 593 EAL 2017, 594 EAL

2017, 595 EAL 2017 and 596 EAL 2017 ]

- 3 PETITION OF: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI :

:

THE HOOPSKIRT LOFTS

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

v.

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI AND ANN

BORIS

PETITION OF: VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 596 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
SIP Revision Appendix III MOBILE Input and Output Files for 2013 Modeling of the NJ Existing I/M Program, NJ Proposed I/M Program and USEPA I/M Performance Standard
This folder contains that files used to run the USEPA MOBILE6.2 model. The input file is labeled “M6input.in” and the output file is labeled “M6INPUT.TXT”. The other MOBILE6 files are either NJ specific files or MOBILE6.2 default files. The emission factors from the output file are compiled in the Appendix IV spreadsheet.
These MOBILE file s are available electronically upon request.
EXHIBIT 14

Code of Ethics for Senior Executives of DuPont Photomasks, Inc. ("DPI")As adopted by DPI's Board of Directors on June 24, 2003

Each DPI senior executive (vice president or equivalent and above) (each a "Covered Person") is required to adhere to this Code of Ethics. Any failure to observe
this Code of Ethics may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. This Code of Ethics supplements, and does not replace, DPI's Business Ethics Policy and Procedure.
However, in the event of any conflict between this Code of Ethics and DPI's Business Ethics Policy and Procedure, this Code of Ethics will prevail.

DPI's
Chief Executive Officer is accountable for compliance with this Code of Ethics. However, all questions regarding the interpretation and application of this Code of Ethics, and the
granting of any waivers with respect to this Code of Ethics, will be resolved by DPI's Board of Directors, in consultation with DPI's General Counsel and outside counsel as appropriate.

---

QuickLinks
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2112

To revise the boundary of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic

Site in Larue County, Kentucky, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1996

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

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To revise the boundary of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace

National Historic Site in Larue County, Kentucky, 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. REVISION OF BOUNDARY OF ABRAHAM LIN4 COLN BIRTHPLACE NATIONAL HISTORIC

5 SITE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—On acquisition of the land known

7 as Knob Creek Farm pursuant to subsection (b), the

8 boundary of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National

9 Historic Site, established by the Act of July 17, 1916 (39
2

•S 2112 IS

1 Stat. 385, chapter 247; 16 U.S.C. 211 et seq.), is revised

2 to include the land.

3 (b) ACQUISITION OF KNOB CREEK FARM.—The Sec4 retary of the Interior may acquire, by donation only, the

5 approximately 228 acres of land known as Knob Creek

6 Farm in Larue County, Kentucky.

Æ
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

I,Theodore R. Maloney, Chief Executive Officer of MediCor Ltd. (the “Registrant”),certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             TheRegistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

(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;

(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)     Disclosedin this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of this annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             TheRegistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing 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)     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Dated: November 2, 2006        |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| /s/ Theodore R.  Maloney       |   |
| Theodore R.  Maloney,          |
| Chief Executive  Officer       |
| (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Gladstone Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by the Company,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that 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: July 29, 2015



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/Melissa Morrison                  
|Melissa Morrison                     
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 21

- 1845 Filed January 25, 2023
MARKUS EARL HARDING, Applicant

- Appellant,

vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer , Judge.

Markus Harding appeals the district court’s denial of his postconviction

relief application. AFFIRMED.

Scott M. Wadding of Sease & Wadding, Des Moines, for appellant. Brenna Bird , Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J. , Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J.* *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (202 3 ).2

VAITHESWARAN , Presiding Judge
. A jury found Markus Earl Harding guilty of first

- degree burglary, domestic abuse assault, domestic abuse assault while using or displaying a dangerous
weapon, false imprisonment, and fourth

- degree theft. Harding raised a single issue on direct appeal: whether the district court erred in admitting statements of an unavailable witness under the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception to the hearsay rule and the conf rontation clause. See State v. Harding , No. 18

- 1060, 2020 WL 4497926 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2020). The court of appeals affirmed his convictions. Id. at *3. Harding filed a postconviction

- relief action raising several claims. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, addressed the claims on the merits, and denied them. On appeal, Harding raises entirely new claim s

. First, Harding contends his attorneys on direct appeal and at the postconvictio n hearing were ineffective in “failing to challenge the district court’s exclusion of the alleged victim’s prior inconsistent statements.” The State responds that Harding failed to preserve error but acknowledges a “narrow exception that can allow an appe llate court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim on appeal if the existing record is already sufficiently developed to enable consideration and resolution.” See Goode v. State , 920 N.W.2d 520, 526

– 27 (Iowa 2018). The record is inadequate to addres s the claim

. Second, Harding claims his criminal trial attorney was ineffective in failing to make an offer of proof and in failing to object to testimony on why domestic abuse victims recant their statements

. The record is also inadequate to address th is claim.3

W e preserve the claim s for “possible future litigation.” Brown v. State , No. 19

- 1815, 2021 WL 1661157 , at *6 ( Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2021); see also Karns v. State , No. 21

- 0758, 2022 WL 2348144 , at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. June 29, 2022). AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 24.2**

 

UnionBanCalCorporation

February 22,2006

 

**WHEREAS,**officers of UnionBanCal Corporation (the “Corporation”) have made presentationsto the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors regarding theCorporation’s financial results for the year ended December 31, 2005; and

 

**WHEREAS,**the Audit Committee has had an opportunity to review and comment on suchresults; and

 

**WHEREAS**,based on the Audit Committee’s discussion with management and the independentauditors and the Audit Committee’s review of the representation of managementand the report of the independent auditors to the Audit Committee,the Audit Committee recommended that the Board of Directors include theaudited consolidated financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005, to be filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission;

 

**NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED**that the President and ChiefExecutive Officer, the Vice Chairmen and the Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer and such other officers of the Corporation as they shalldesignate in writing, be, and they hereby are, authorized and empowered onbehalf of the Corporation to execute the Form 10-K, in substantially theform submitted to the Board, and file it with the Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andwith such other governmental agencies or instrumentalities as such officersdeem necessary or desirable, and to prepare, execute, deliver and file any amendmentor amendments to the Form 10-K, as they may deem necessary orappropriate, provided, however, that prior to filing, all proposed changes tothe draft Form 10-K, which was presented to the Board, shall be reviewedwith the Chair of the Audit Committee, who shall determine if the substantivenature of the changes warrant further discussion with the full Audit Committee;and

 

**FURTHERRESOLVED** that David I. Matson, David A. Anderson, John H.McGuckin, Jr. and Morris W. Hirsch, be, and each of them with full powerto act without the other hereby is, authorized and empowered to prepare,execute, deliver and file the Form 10-K and any amendment or amendmentsthereto on behalf of and as attorneys for the Corporation and on behalf of andas attorneys for any of the following: the chief executive officer, thechief financial officer, the principal accounting officer, and any otherofficer of the Corporation.

 

I certify that the foregoingresolution was adopted by the Board of Directors of UnionBanCal Corporation atthe Regular Meeting of said Board held on February 22, 2006.

 

I further certify that theforegoing resolution now stands on the records of the books of the Corporationand has not been modified, repealed or set aside in any manner whatsoever andis now in full force and effect.

 

Dated: February 22,2006

 
|   | /s/ John H.  McGuckin, Jr.         |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John H.  McGuckin, Jr.,  Secretary |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



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



The undersigned Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
First Republic Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the date hereof pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the 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 11, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ WILLIS H. NEWTON, JR.
|                      |  |  |  | Name:                     |  | Willis H. Newton, Jr.                                
|                      |  |  |  | Title:                    |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer