alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.27 

Amendment

Effective as of April 15, 2001, this Amendment amends the Change in ControlAgreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of March 7, 2000, by and between GeorgeKadifa ("Executive") and Corio, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the"Company").

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which arehereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replacedwith the following:

"1. Benefits Upon a Change in Control. If (i) during the term of thisAgreement and while Executive remains as an employee of the Company, the Companyshall be subject to a Change in Control and (ii) within one (1) yearfollowing such Change in Control the Company terminates the employment ofExecutive involuntarily and without Business Reasons or a ConstructiveTermination occurs, then in such case Executive shall be entitled to receive thefollowing: (A) Executive's base salary and vacation accrued through theTermination Date, (B) vesting of all outstanding stock options and other equityarrangements vested and held by Executive through the Termination Date, plusacceleration of the greater of (1) one-half of the options and other equityarrangements that remain unvested as of the Termination Date or (2) anadditional twelve (12) months of vesting of such options and other equityarrangements from the Termination Date, and (C) to the extent required by COBRAonly, continuation of group health benefits pursuant to the Company's standardprograms or in effect at the Termination Date, for a period of not less than 18months (or such longer period as may be required by COBRA), provided thatExecutive makes the necessary conversion."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Amendment, in thecase of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of the day and year firstwritten above.

 

COMPANY

CORIO, INC.

 

By: 	/s/ John Whittle						
Its: 	VP, General Counsel					
 

EXECUTIVE

	/s/ George Kadifa					

George Kadifa
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CASE NO. DA 22-0427

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MISSOULA COUNTY,

Plaintiff, Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF MONTANA; MONTANA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; and BRIAN 

GOOTKIN, in his official capacity as the Director 

of the Montana Department of Corrections,

Defendants, Appellees.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Appeal from the Montana First Judicial District 

Lewis and Clark County Cause No. ADV-2020-588

Honorable Judge Mike Menahan

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

 Brian J. West Colleen E. Ambrose

Dylan Jaicks Montana Department of Corrections

Civil Deputy County Attorneys P.O. Box 201301

Missoula County Attorney’s Office Helena, MT 59620-1301

200 W. Broadway St. cambrose@mt.gov 

Missoula, MT 59802 Attorney for Appellees 

bwest@missoulacounty.us 

djaicks@missoulacounty.us

Attorneys for Appellant Missoula County

12/28/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0427
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION TO FILE OPENING BRIEF 2 

 

Upon unopposed motion of Appellant Missoula County for an extension of 

time to file its Opening Brief, and there being no objection from opposing Counsel, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Appellant Missoula County is granted a sixty (60) day 

extension, up to and including March 10, 2023, within which to file its Opening

Brief.

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 28 2022
Motion Granted; Order filed December 5, 2013. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00587-CR

____________

LONNIE RAY MOORE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court

Washington County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16,197

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal 

is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this Court his desire 

to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 21st District Court to afford 

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure; that 

the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before December 20, 2013;
that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to 

appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief with this court within thirty days

of that date.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Morgan Keegan, Inc. 2000 Annual Report and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          19,716
<RECEIVABLES>                                  731,831
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            481,535
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                            7,562
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            390,656
<PP&E>                                          26,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,732,276
<SHORT-TERM>                                   100,290
<PAYABLES>                                     860,477
<REPOS-SOLD>                                   207,488
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                              5,560
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             130,851
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,842
<OTHER-SE>                                     240,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,732,276
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              140,452
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           100,911
<COMMISSIONS>                                  145,925
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   54,492
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   52,181
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,887
<COMPENSATION>                                 252,413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 71,890
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      71,890
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,890
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.53


</TABLE>
JOSEPH L. RIVERS,

Appellant,

v.

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5761

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 27, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Joseph L. Rivers, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jamie M. Braun, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Dedge v. Crosby, 914 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) 

(dismissing appeal from an amended order granting amended motion to dismiss 

“despite the lower tribunal’s apparent intent” to enter an appealable order). This 

dismissal is without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a timely appeal when a 

final order has been rendered.

BENTON, CLARK, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
>3 

U.S. Department 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

January 15,2010 

Michael C Lehane, Esq. 

Brandon H. Moss, Esq. 

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP 

300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410 ^ J 

Quincy, MA 02169 o 

and by facsimile to (617) 479-6469 

iP Re: Heliops, LLC v. Norwood Memorial Airport, et. al.; Docket No. \6-Q9-pl^ 

Dear Messrs. Lehane and Moss: _S^ 

The Complainant, Heliops, LLC, through Coimsel, has moved for an extension of time until 

December 4,2009, to file its Reply that was due on October 29,2009. No opposition to the 

motion was received from the Respondent. The FAA has considered the good cause shown by 

the Complainant, the lack of prejudice to the Respondent, and the interest to develop a full and 

complete record, and concludes that the requested extension is warranted and, it is therefore, 

granted. The Complainant's Reply Brief filed on December 4,2009, is accepted into the docket. 

The Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings at § 16.23(f) allow 

you ten (10) days to file a Rebuttal to the Reply. Because the above ruling is being issued today, 

you will be afforded the opportunity to have ten days from today in which to file a Rebuttal. The 

Rebuttal, then, is due by January 25, 2010. 

[ Veatch 

'Attorney, Airports Law Branch (AGC-610) 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 900-E 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(202) 267-9676 

(202) 267-5769 (fax) 

cc: Kevin C. Cain, Esq. 

Timothy M. Pomarole, Esq. , . 

Peabody & Arnold LLP ^. [\ \ ' - '^., 

Federal Reserve Plaza 

600 Atlantic Ave. 

Boston, MA 02110 

and by facsimile to 617-951-2125
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

National Business Aircraft Association, Krueger Aviation, Inc., Harrison Ford, Justice Aviation, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Youri Bujko, James Ross, Paramount Citrus LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Complainants 

## V.
City of Santa Monica, California Respondent

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME Docket No. 16-14-04

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administ ration (FAA) based on the above

referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA 

### Rules of 

### Practice fo r 

### Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B , the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to August 21 , 2015. An 

### extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis 

# /ko. (,

**~11** 

# Is--- Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 

# J -h.- , 2015, I caused to be placed 

### in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid and with a courtesy copy by electronic mail) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime to August 21,20 15 , for FAA Docket 16-14-04 addressed to: 

### Counsel for Complainant Richard 

### K. Simon, Esq. 1700 Decker School lane Malibu, CA 90265 rsimo n3@ve r izon.net 

### Counsel for Respondent Rod Gould City Manager City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Str eet, Room 209 Santa Monica, CA 9040 I rod.gould@smgov.nct Marsha Moutrie , C ity Attorney Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney Lance Gams , Deputy C ity Attorney Ivan Campbe ll , Deputy City Attorney City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 310 Santa Monica, CA 9040 I marsha.moutriela'smgov .net joscph. lawr ence a)smgov.net lance.gams@smgov .net ivan.campbe ll @smgov. net

**~** Stelios Makrides, Airport Manager City of Santa Monica Airport Administration Building 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, CA 90405 ste I ios. makridcs 

### cl.sm gov.net

ClaudiaR()l)[rt; 0 ) Office of Airport Compliance

and Managemen t Analysis
Order entered May 7, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01049-CV

LESKEL NICHOLS, Appellant

V.

PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-00690

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s May 5, 2021 unopposed first motion for 

extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief 

be filed no later than June 4, 2021.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
Order entered April 20, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01457-CV

ODUS OGLESBY, Appellant

V.

RICHLAND TRACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. TEXAS A/K/A 

RICHLAND TRACE CONDOMINIUMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-06925

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 16, 2020 opposed second motion to 

extend time to file his opening brief. Appellant seeks a sixty-day extension.

We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s opening brief be filed no 

later than June 28, 2020. Because the brief was first due February 28, 2020, we 

caution that further extension requests will be disfavored. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23



                   GLEIBERMAN SPEARS SHEPHERD & MENAKER, P.A.

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-70511 and No. 333-70513) of McRae Industries,
Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated October 16, 2001 on the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of McRae Industries, Inc.
and subsidiaries included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
July 28, 2001.



/s/Gleiberman Spears Shepherd & Menaker, P. A.

Charlotte, North Carolina
October 16, 2001
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 135)**

 

 

                Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Eschelon Telecom, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),Geoffrey M. Boyd, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that tohis knowledge:

 

(1)          The reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 
| Sign:                   | /S/ Geoffrey M. Boyd |   |
|-------------------------|----------------------|--------|
| Geoffrey M. Boyd        |                 |
| Chief Financial Officer |                 |
| August 15, 2005         |                 |

 

----
#### Benjamin John CAKA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29066.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 5, 1957.

Lawrence L. Bruhl, Llano, L. Hamilton Lowe, Austin, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.

In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be necessary other than to observe that the State’s principal witnesses were the two arresting officers, while the appellant and his witnesses testified that he was not intoxicated on the occasion in question.

Bill of exception No. 5 relates to the closing argument of the prosecutor. We quote therefrom:

> “Now, who are you going to believe? A man who is infrested in getting out of this case, or an officer of the law who is impartial, and arrests people' only when he thinks they are guilty of an offense against the laws of this State.”

Counsel’s objection to this argument was overruled.

The State concedes that this bill 1⁄8 '“the most difficult part of the case” but relies upon Vasek v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W. 2d 810. Therein, we held it not reversible error for the prosecutor to refer to an officer witness as “honest” because 1⁄8 appeared from the argument that the prosecutor was not going outside the record but was drawing his conclusions that the officer was honest from the testimony the officer had given before the jury. But can as muda be said for the argument here before us? We think not. The bill recites that there was no evidence in the record to support such" statement, and we are a>t a loss to determine how the jury could have gathered such information from observing .the witness testify.

More nearly to the case at bar are the cases of Clay v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 276 S.W.2d 843, and Womack v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 237, 268 S.W.2d 140.

*940In the Clay case, we held it reversible error for the prosecutor to bolster the officer witness by asking him whether he ever filed a complaint against anyone unless he thought them to be guilty and receiving the answer that “never in my life have I filed on any man I thought was not guilty.” [161 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 276 S.W.2d 845.]

In the Womack case, we held reversible error to be reflected by the prosecutor’s argument in which he told the jury that the officer witnesses were “not only two examples of fine officers, but two examples of fine citizens and fine men.” [160 Tex. Cr.R. 237, 268 S.W.2d 141.]

See also, Moynahan v. State, 140 Tex. Cr.R. 540, 146 S.W.2d 376, and McCool v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 432, 264 S.W.2d 734.

For the error in the argument, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
* 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 August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40825 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PABLO MEZA BALLEZA, also known as Cipriano Acosta-Avalos, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-52-ALL

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pablo Meza Balleza appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. He was sentenced to 77 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He argues that, in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), his sentence is invalid because the district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines as if they were mandatory. We review for plain error. United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511,No. 04-40825 -2- 513, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732-34 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556)
. Balleza is unable to establish plain error with regard to his Booker claim because he cannot establish that being sentenced under a mandatory Guidelines scheme affected his substantial rights. The record does not indicate that the district court “would have reached a significantly different result” under a sentencing scheme in which the Guidelines were advisory only.
See Mares , 402 F.3d at 520-22; Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d at 733-34; United States v. Malveaux , 411 F.3d 558, 561 n.9 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05- 5297). Balleza also asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are unconstitutional. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed, but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). This issue is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998); United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06808

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06808\06808_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06808\06808_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06808\06808_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06808\06808_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06808\06808_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06808\06808_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

06808\Certification Statement Plant ID 06808.pdf Plant certification statement

x 06808\Supplemental Documents\06808_LCSES PROPERTY Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06808\Supplemental Documents\06808_LCSES PROPERTY Map-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06808\Supplemental Documents\06808_LCSES Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Billie Jane WILLIAMS (now Billie Jane Roberts) Eminence, Kentucky, Appellant, v. Lawson WILLIAMS, Eminence, Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 4, 1956.

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1956.

*789Thomas & Thomas, New Castle, for appellant.

Berry & Floyd, New Castle, for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

Billie Jane Williams and Lawson Williams were divorced in 1951: By agreement, the judgment awarded custody of their two-year-old son to, the father, with the customary provision thát the custody might be changed itpon motion in the future “as the circumstances of the parties may change.” In January 1952 the mother moved for custody, which the court denied. Another motion by the mother in March 1954 also was denied. In November 1955 she again moved for custody, and again an order was entered denying the relief sought. - On each motion evidence ’was heard. The present appeal is from the order entered upon the November 1955 motion.

It is the established rule that a decree of divorce fixing the custody of a child may be modified only upon a showing of a change of conditions. Cole v. Cole, 299 Ky. 319, 185 S.W.2d 382; *17*Am.Jur., Divorce and Separation, sec. 684, pp. 518, 519. The order overruling the motion of March 1954 must be considered as conclusive as concerns the conditions then existing, with the result that the mother could prevail upon her present motion only by showing a change of conditions since March 1954.

The chief complaint of the mother is that her former husband and his present wife have permitted the boy to spend most of his time-'with his paternal grandmother, who operates a beauty shop and had living quarters in a building in which a close male friend of the grandmother operates a barber shop and also has living quarters. The evidence shows that this condition has existed ever since the divorce and if there has been any change since March 1954 it has been for the better, in that the second wife of the boy’s father has quit work and now is able to devote more time and attention to the boy, and the grandmother no longer lives in the barber shop building. There has been no material change in the mother’s circumstances.

We cannot say that the chancellor erred-in determining that there had not been a sufficient showing of a change of conditions to warrant a change of custody of the child.

The judgment is affirmed..