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

Exhibit 4.191


SECONDAMENDMENT TOEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATEDAPRIL16, 2007 –WALENCIAK THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of June 9, 2011 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Nevada Geothermal Power Company, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and Max Walenciak (“Employee”), with reference to the following: THE ABOVE REFERENCED AGREEMENT IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1.

   Clause 4.1(b) is restated with regards to accrued vacation per annum, i.e. the Employee may accrue up, but not exceeding, eight (8) weeks of paid vacation.2.

   Clause 4.1(c) which is amended as follows:For the additional period up to December 31, 2011, the Company will pay $1,100.00 per month towards the cost of interim Reno rental accommodation. This interim Reno rental supplement shall be reviewed on an annual basis on the anniversary date of December 31.3.

   Clause 4.1(d) is amended by extending the period of time for reimbursement of moving expenses should the Employee find permanent accommodation in Reno, as contemplated in Clause 4.1(c).4.

   Clause 5.6(b) is amended in sub-paragraph (i) by replacing the words “six (6) months” by “twelve (12) months”; in sub-paragraph (ii) by replacing the words “six (6) equal payments” to “twelve (12) equal payments”; and in sub-paragraph (iii) by replacing “six (6) equal monthly payments” by “twelve (12) equal monthly payments”.5.

   Clause 5.6(f) is amended by replacing the words “twelve (12) months by “eighteen (18) months” and the words “twelve (12) equal monthly payments” to “eighteen (18) equal monthly payments”.


---

In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. **NEVADA GEOTHERMAL POWER CO.**Per:Brian Fairbank, President and CEOSIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED by

   )MAX WALENCIAK in the presence of:

   ))))))

   

   Max Walenciak)))))


---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JESUS ESCOBOZA-SOTO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50265 

D.C. No. 3:18-cr-01099-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Escoboza-Soto appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-50265 

Escoboza-Soto contends that the district court erred by granting only a onelevel fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, rather than the four-level 

departure requested by the parties, and imposing a sentence at the low end of the 

resulting Guidelines calculation. “In analyzing challenges to a court’s upward and 

downward departures to a specific offense characteristic or other adjustment under 

Section 5K, we do not evaluate them for procedural correctness, but rather, as part 

of a sentence’s substantive reasonableness.” United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 

421 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing 

Escoboza-Soto’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The

33-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances articulated by the district 

court, including Escoboza-Soto’s serious criminal history, numerous prior 

deportations, and failure to be deterred despite receiving a fast-track departure for a 

previous illegal reentry offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
“ A n or der or decr ee r ender ed on t he f i nal s et t l eme nt of

a per s onal r epre s ent at i ve i s not s ubj ect t o col l at er al 1 at t ac k , e x ce pt w h er e t h er e i s f r au d, mi s r epr es en t at i on , a cc i den t , or mi s t ak e, or wh er e t h e cou r t a ct ed wi t h ou t j u r i s di ct i on or t h e or der or de cr ee w as w h ol l y v oi d. ” 3 4 C

. J. S. E xecut o rs and A d m i ni st rat o rs § 8 6 8 (19 9 8 ) ( fo o t no t es om i t t ed ).



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON O ct obe r 25, 200 6 S es sio n LI NDA RIGGAN W OOD, ET AL 

### . v. TE RRY RIGGAN LO WERY, ET AL 

### .

A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty Nos. CH-03-1197- 1, CH-04-0254- 3 The Hon orable Walter Evans, Ch ancellor

No. W2006-00901-C OA-R3-C V - F iled March 6, 2007

Holly M. Kirby , J ., Separate Concurr ence : I concur fully in the majority o p i n i o n in this case, with the exception of the ma jority ’s discussion of one issue. The majori t y n o t es that the executrix, Ms . Wood, was bound “to the exercise of

that deg reeof dilige nce, pr udence , and caution which a r easona bly prudent, dilig ent, and conscie ntious business [person] would employ in the manag ement of [their] own affairs of a similar nature .” In re Estat e of Inm an , 588 S.W .2d 763, 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). The ma jority finds that the trial court impli citly determined that Ms. Wood acted in ac co rd an ce with this standard, insofar a s she was attempting to r ecoup the orig inal investments ma de by her f ather in Revelation and L owery

Rigg an Company

. I t i s u n clea r whe ther the ma

jority holds that the evidenc e prep on de rate s infavo r o f this imp lic it f ind ing , b e c aus e thema

jority the n g oe s o n to no te that, i n order to co l l at er ally

attack an estate that has bee n closed without appe al, Ms. L owery would be require d to make a lleg ations in the nature of fraud, mistake, or the like, and no such alleg ations were made. 1
To thee xten t th a t th e ma jority ’s op ini onc a n b e re a d to fi ndthat th e tr ial court c or re c tly fo un d th a t Ms . Wo oda c te d ina re a so na bly pr ud e nt m a nn e r, I

mus t di sa g re e . Ce rt a inl y sh e a c te d in g ood faith, and it appe ars that he r investment dec isions were similar to t hose m ade by her f ather prior to his death. But her investment decisions wer e nevertheless unwise and imprudent. The f act that the Dec edent investe d heavily in Revelation and L owery Rigg an Company

does not autho rize the executrix to continue such unwise inve stments with the estate asse ts entrusted to her c are .-2-

Ne v er th el es s , I

co n cu r b ec au s e, as n o t ed b y th e m aj o ri t y , L ower

y ’s alleg ations areinsufficient to collatera lly

attack an estate that has bee n closed.

__________________________________________ HOLL Y M. KIRBY, JUDGE
#### In the Matter of the Estate of David Kass, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

September 9, 1957.

*Henry H. Sternberg*for Doris H. Kass, petitioner.

*Joseph Fuchs*for Yvette K. Schwartz, respondent.

*Jules Aronson*for David Danger, respondent.

Joseph A. Cox, S.

The application of the objectant for a bill of particulars as to the matters set forth in the administratrix’ account of her proceedings is granted to the extent that the administratrix will be required to furnish a bill stating: (1) The amount of each item advanced to or on behalf of the deceased from June 15, 1950 to May 14, 1956 by the administratrix, the approximate dates on which such payments were made, and to whom such payments were made; (2) whether the advances were made pursuant to an oral, written or implied agreement; (3) the amount claimed deceased paid for the real estate located at Kirk Dake in Putnam County, the approximate date of the purchase, and the amount advanced to decedent by the administratrix for the purchase; (4) whether there was an oral or written agreement to take title to the property in the name of the claimant or deceased or in both jointly or whether there was an oral or written agreement on the part of the deceased to repay the amount advanced for the purchase.

Many of the items requested by the objectant’s demand concern matters of an evidentiary nature. Such matters are not the proper subject of a bill of particulars. While it is at times difficult to separate evidentiary matter, the objectant in the present demand asks for such detailed facts that the court finds it necessary to make the separation. In addition, as Surrogate *47Di Falco said in *Matter of Berenson*(8 Misc 2d 903): “It has not been the practice of this court to grant bills of particulars with respect to an account itself, since an examination may be had under section 263 of the Surrogate’s Court Act as to all transactions of the fiduciary with respect to the items in the account.” (See, also, *Matter of Seymour,*112 Misc. 216.) Submit order on notice accordingly.
EXHIBIT 10.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent
to the use in this Annual Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the year ended November 26, 2005
of Novamerican Steel Inc. on Form 20-F of our reports dated December 16,
2005, accompanying the Consolidated Financial Statements and Schedule II of the
Company appearing in this Annual Report.


We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading “Item 3 Key Information—Selected
Financial Data” in such Annual Report.


We also
consent to the incorporation of our reports by reference to Novamerican Steel
Inc.’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-7688)





Chartered
Accountants


Montréal,
Canada

February 22, 2006
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 I, James M. Papada, III, Chief Executive Officer of Technitrol,
Inc.,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)
the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June
27,
 2008 (the Periodic Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies
 with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and(2)
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
 Technitrol, Inc.  Dated:
August 4, 2008

/s/ James M.
 Papada, IIIJames M.
 Papada, III A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will
be retained by Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates,
is
not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
<PAGE>

Tambrands Inc.
FORM 10-Q
PART II, Item 6., Exhibit 12
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Unaudited)

The following table sets forth the Company's ratio of earnings to fixed
charges for the periods indicated.

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

(in thousands, except ratios)                     Nine months ended September 30,           Three months ended September 30,
                                                  -------------------------------           -------------------------------
                                                        1996             1995                    1996             1995
                                                       ------          -------                  ------           ------
<S>                                                    <C>             <C>                     <C>              <C> 
Earnings:
  Income before income taxes                           $45,916         $103,153                ($11,611)         $42,934
  Fixed charges                                        $ 7,869         $  8,581                 $ 2,856          $ 3,107
                                                       -------         --------                --------          -------
    Earnings                                           $53,785         $111,734                ( $8,755)         $46,041
                                                       =======         ========                ========          =======
Fixed charges:                  
  Interest portion of operating  
    lease expense:               
    Operating lease expense                            $ 3,378         $  4,549                  $ 1,189         $ 1,730
    Assumed interest factor                               0.33             0.33                     0.33            0.33
                                                       -------         --------                 --------         -------
                            
     Interest portion of operating 
      lease expense                                      1,115            1,501                      392             571
Interest expense                                         6,754         $  7,080                    2,464           2,536
                                                       -------         --------                 --------         ------- 
    Fixed charges                                      $ 7,869          $ 8,581                  $ 2,856         $ 3,107
                                                       =======         ========                 ========         =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                         6.8             13.0                     (3.1)           14.8
                                                       =======         ========                 ========         =======
</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO

______________________________________

MELODY JOY CANTU AND DR. RODRIGO 

CANTU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and DIGITAL 

FORENSICS CORPORATION, LLC,

Defendants.

5:20-CV-0746 JKP – HJB

______________________________________

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

DEFENDANT DR. SANDRA GUERRA’S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

On this date came on to be considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Dr. 

Sandra Guerra’s Amended Counterclaims (Doc. No. 38) (the “Motion”). Upon due consideration 

of the Motion and Reply in Support thereto (Doc. No. 40), the Court finds that the Motion should 

be GRANTED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Dr. 

Sandra Guerra’s Amended Counterclaims is GRANTED in all respects. 

It is so ORDERED.

Dated: _________________ _____________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 40-1 Filed 01/13/21 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, James E. Laurent, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sunair Electronics,
Inc.;

1. 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;

2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the 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 quarterly report;

3. The registrant's other certifying officer 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; and

     (c) 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 matterially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

4. 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 functions):

     (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.


DATE: February 17, 2004

/s/ James E. Laurent
-------------------------------------
James E. Laurent
President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
32.A




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2008, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the “Company”) as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, James C. Yardley, Chairman of the Board and President, certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
   
 /s/ James
      C. YardleyJames
      C. YardleyChairman
      of the Board and President(Principal
      Executive Officer)Tennessee
      Gas Pipeline CompanyMay
      9, 2008
        A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
I, Tor Ekeland, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:

1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the United States and am admitted to 

this practice in this court, Pro Hac Vice. I am the managing partner of Tor Ekeland Law, 

PLLC.

2. I write these statements on behalf of my clients Melody Joy Cantu and Dr. Rodrigo David 

Cantu (“Cantus”), the Plaintiffs in this matter, alongside Michael Hassard, an associate at 

Tor Ekeland Law, and attorney Rain Minns of Rain Minns Law Firm in the abovecaptioned action. I submit this declaration in support of the Motion to Compel Discovery 

in this case.

3. On January 14, 2022, Plaintiffs served Co-Defendants Dr. Sandra Guerra and Digital 

Forensics, LLC (“DFC”) discovery requests.

4. To date, Co-Defendants have not provided a single document following our requests for 

production.

5. Plaintiffs have requested the contract between Dr. Guerra and DFC, which is at the heart 

of this case.

6. Counsel for Co-Defendant Dr. Guerra offered to enter into an Agreed Confidentiality and 

Protective Order in place even to consider providing Plaintiffs with the documents.

______________________________________

MELODY JOY CANTU AND DR. RODRIGO 

CANTU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and DIGITAL 

FORENSICS CORPORATION, LLC,

Defendants.

______________________________________

Case No. 20-cv-0746-JKP-HJB

DECLARATION OF TOR 

EKELAND IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION TO COMPEL AS 

COUNSEL FOR MELODY CANTU 

AND DR. RODRIGO CANTU

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 78-2 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 2
7. We do not agree that an Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order for the discovery is 

necessary to provide the discovery in this matter.

8. Parties in this matter plan to move forward with depositions and require discovery 

documents to fully prepare their questions for Co-Defendants.

9. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my 

knowledge and recollection.

Dated: June 9, 2022 /s/ Tor Ekeland

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 78-2 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[Docket No. AMS-DA-10-0070; DA-10-06]

Notice of Request for an Extension and Revision of a Currently 
Approved Information Collection

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service published a document in the 
Federal Register of October 1, 2010, concerning a request for approval 
from the Office of Management and Budget for an extension of and 
revision to a currently approved information collection for the 
National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Programs. The 
document contained incorrect dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Whitney A. Rick, 202-720-6909.
    Correction:
    In the Federal Register of October 1, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010-24627, 
on page 60712, in the second column, correct the ``Title'' caption in 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to read:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title: National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information 
Programs.
    OMB Number: 0581-0093.
    Expiration Date, as approved by OMB: 3/31/2011.

    Dated: November 2, 2010.
David R. Shipman,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-28047 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
```