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


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  


 


This Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into this 24th day of March, 2009, by and between RAM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and LARRY E. LEE, an individual (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated May 8, 2006 as amended by that First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated October 18, 2006, by that certain Second Amendment to Employment Agreement dated February 25, 2008, and by that certain Third Amendment to Employment Agreement dated December 30, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company and the Executive have agreed that the Agreement should be amended in a manner set out in this Amendment; and


 


WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed that the Agreement should be and is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.         Section 1 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following Section 1 substituted therefor:


 


 “1.        Employment Period.  The Company hereby agrees to continue the Executive in its employ, and the Executive hereby agrees to remain in the employ of the Company, for the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on April 30, 2011 (the “Employment Period”).”


 





	
             
 	
            2.
 	
            In all other respects, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.
 





 


EXECUTED this 24th day of March, 2009. 


 


“COMPANY”


 


RAM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC., a Delaware corporation


 


By  /s/ G. Les Austin


G. Les Austin 





	
             
 	
            Senior Vice President
 





 










“EXECUTIVE”


 


/s/ Larry E. Lee


Larry E. Lee


 


 






2
#### Joann Brewer WILEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kurt KNICKREHM, individually and in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services, Defendants—Appellees, David Fray, in his individual capacity, Defendant, Bob Clark, individually and in his official capacity as Conway Human Development Center Superintendent; Calvin Price, individually and in his official capacity as Conway Human Development Center Assistant; Beverly Peterson, individually and in her official capacity as Conway Human Development Center Total Care Team Leader; Marilyn Junyor, individually and in her official capacity as Nurse Service Administrator at Conway Human Development Center; Charles Green, in his official capacity as Director of Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Human Developmental Disabilities Services, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-2236.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 18, 2003.

Decided May 13, 2004.

Luther Oneal Sutter, Harrill *&*Sutter, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lori L. Freno, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MELLOY, MCMILLIAN, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The District Court1 granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on Joann Brewer Wiley’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act for speech retaliation, as well as on her claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Wiley appeals only the speech-retaliation portion of the District Court’s decision.

Having carefully reviewed de novo the issues raised in this appeal, we hold that the District Court correctly held that no reasonable juror could conclude that Wiley’s speech played a substantial role in any adverse employment action taken against her. We also hold that the District Court properly analyzed Wiley’s speech-retaliation claim under the test set forth in *Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle,*429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). Inas*64much as we agree entirely with the District Court’s resolution of the case, we need not, and do not, reach the argument of defendants that they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit in this case.

Finding no error of law, we affirm on the basis of the District Court’s thorough and well-reasoned order. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                    NABORS INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                      (In thousands, except ratio amounts)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                            Three
                                                                                         Months Ended     Year Ended
                                                          Year Ended December 31,         December 31,   September 30,

                                                           1999             1998             1997            1997
                                                        -----------      -----------      -----------     -----------
<S>                                                       <C>             <C>               <C>            <C>
Pretax income                                             $ 45,629        $ 199,981         $ 62,616       $ 182,410

Add fixed charges as adjusted (from below)                  31,165           16,040            4,107          16,980
                                                        -----------      -----------       ----------     -----------
        Earnings                                          $ 76,794        $ 216,021         $ 66,723       $ 199,390
                                                        -----------      -----------       ----------     -----------

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense:
        Interest on indebtedness                          $ 30,088         $ 14,974          $ 3,858        $ 15,993
        Capitalized                                            154            2,648              297           1,191
    Amortization of debt costs                                 307              489              121             527
    Interest portion of rental expense                         770              577              128             460
                                                        -----------      -----------       ----------     -----------
    Fixed charges before adjustments                        31,319           18,688            4,404          18,171
    Less capitalized interest                                 (154)          (2,648)            (297)         (1,191)
                                                        -----------      -----------       ----------     -----------

    Fixed charges as adjusted                             $ 31,165         $ 16,040          $ 4,107        $ 16,980
                                                        -----------      -----------       ----------     -----------

Ratio (earnings divided by fixed charges
     before adjustments)                                      2.45            11.56            15.15           10.97
                                                        -----------      -----------       ----------     -----------
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2**

March 1, 2007 

CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (File Nos. 333-83551, 333-99979, 333-104165 and 333-128213) on Form S-3, and theRegistration Statements (File Nos. 33-19652, 33-44103, 33-49724, 33-64323, 33-53542, 333-38166, 333-39584, 333-135194, 333-137857 and 333-137857) on Form S-8 of Unit Corporation of the reference to our reports for Unit Corporation, which appears inthe December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Unit Corporation. 

/s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P. 

RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. 

Houston, Texas

March 1, 2007
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 101 Filed 12/11/2003 Page 1 of 1
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Gabos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ PAUL G. GABOSPaul G. Gabos Chief Financial Officer




November 8, 2005
Asa CULVER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3132

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 1:00-cr-00093-SAS Document 56 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01725]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the 
agreements to the Secretary by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3063555342554451424970565d531e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ce9dabadbcabbaafbcb78ea8a3ade0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, 
Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Comments will be 
most helpful to the Commission if received within 12 days of the date 
this notice appears in the Federal Register, and the Commission 
requests that comments be submitted within 7 days on agreements that 
request expedited review. Copies of agreements are available through 
the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of 
Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2c6c0d3d6d7d3dcd3decbc1dbc1f2d4dfd19cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="433731222726222d222f3a302a3003252e206d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 201143-021.
    Agreement Name: West Coast MTO Agreement.
    Parties: APM Terminals Pacific LLC; Fenix Marine Services, Ltd.; 
Everport Terminal Services, Inc.; International Transportation Service, 
LLC; LBCT LLC dba Long Beath Container Terminal LLC; Total Terminals 
International, LLC; West Basin Container Terminal LLC; Pacific Maritime 
Services, L.L.C.; SSAT (Pier A), LLC; TRAPAC LLC, Yusen Terminals LLC; 
and SSA Terminals, LLC.
    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde; Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The amendment revises Article XII of the Agreement to 
remove the January 31, 2022 expiration date for the temporary 
adjustment to the Traffic Mitigation Fee, and to provide for reversion 
from the temporary fee assessed under Article XII to the pre-existing 
fee upon not less than forty-five (45) days' notice to the Commission. 
The parties request expedited review.
    Proposed Effective Date: 3/10/2022.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/2090.

    Dated: January 25, 2022.
William Cody,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01725 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 15


January 25, 2001

Enhance Financial Services Group Inc.
335 Madison Avenue
New York, New York

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Enhance Financial Services Group Inc. and subsidiaries for the
periods ended September 30, 2000 and 1999, as indicated in our report dated
November 17, 2000; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2000, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-93275 on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-47895 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 23 (ii)

To the Board of Directors
General Electric Capital Services, Inc.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statement  (No.
33-7348) on Form S-3 of General Electric Capital  Services,  Inc., of our report
dated  February 4, 2000,  relating to the  statement  of  financial  position of
General  Electric  Capital  Services,  Inc. and  consolidated  affiliates  as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related  statements of earnings,  changes in
share  owners'  equity  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 1999, and related  schedules,  which report appears in
the December  31, 1999 annual  report on Form 10-K of General  Electric  Capital
Services, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
March 14, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Michael E. Boxer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) of Mariner Health Care, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

(2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Date:  November 14, 2003

/s/ Michael E. Boxer
----------------------------------
Michael E. Boxer
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)
#### Knight *v.*Wilson.

4-2772

Opinion delivered December 12, 1932.

*H. B. Means*and *D. M. Halbert,*for appellant.

*John L. McClellan,*for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

Appellee instituted action in re-plevin against appellant, W. L. Knight, in the circuit *663court of Hot Spring County to recover possession of a brown Jersey heifer, alleging that he was the rightful owner of the heifer and that appellant was wrongfully detaining her under a false claim of ownership.

Appellant filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint.

The 'cause was submitted upon the pleadings and testimony adduced by the respective parties and instructions of the court, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee, from which is this appeal.

During the progress of the trial, the court made T. C. White a party defendant after he appeared voluntarily and testified that he and his wife owned an undivided interest with W. L. Knight in the heifer, to which action neither appellant objected and excepted at the time.

The action of the court in making T. C. White a party is urged here as a ground for the reversal of the verdict and judgment. No proper exception having been saved to the action of the court at the time in making him a party, that question cannot be raised on appeal. It was too late to raise the question the first time in appellant’s motion for a new trial.

The only other question raised for a reversal of the verdict and judgment is that the court erred in admitting the testimony of witnesses, Benson Wheat and Porter Harper, relative to what was said and done in the presence of W. L. Knight and appellee in an effort to show which of the two owned the heifer in question. At the time appellee found and claimed the heifer, he was informed by W. L. Knight that he had purchased her from J. M. Greer and Mr.Mays over at Okolona. Appellee then went after Greer and Mays, who came .back with him for the purpose of identifying the yearling they let Knight have. Knight was present, and they identified a red yearling with white spots on its flanks and not the yearling in question as the one Knight got from them. The objection made to the introduction of *664the testimony was that it was hearsay. We do not think so. The parties had agreed, without assistance from either, for G-reer and Mays to select from the yearling’s in the pasture the one they had let Knight have. They selected a different yearling from the one in controversy as the one they had let Knight have, and this circumstance tended to throw light on the issue being-litigated as to the ownership of the heifer. The testimony was properly admitted.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50531

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISMAEL VEGA-ALVARADO,

also known as Jose Luis Medina-Perez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-2208-ALL-DB

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ismael Vega-Alvarado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into

the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326. He appeals the district court’s interpretation of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) at his sentencing. Vega-Alvarado 

argues for the first time on appeal that his prior felony

conviction for possession of a controlled substance did not merit

the eight-level adjustment provided in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)

for an aggravated felony. He argues that he should have
No. 02-50531

-2-

received only the four-level adjustment provided in

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) for “any other felony.” VegaAlvarado’s arguments regarding the definitions of “drug

trafficking offense” and “aggravated felony” are foreclosed by

United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir.

2002). The district court did not err in assessing an eightlevel adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), to 

Vega-Alvarado’s sentencing guideline calculation.

Vega-Alvarado also argues for the first time on appeal that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because it treats a

prior conviction for an aggravated felony as a mere sentencing

factor and not an element of the offense. Vega-Alvarado concedes

that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, this argument lacks merit. 

AFFIRMED.
United States District Court

Southern District ofOhio

Related Case Memorandum

Civil Cases

Judge Smith,Judge Watson, ChiefMagistrate Judge Deaversand

TO: Magistrate Judge Vascura

FROM: Michelle Rahwan , Deputy Clerk

DATE: 10/21/2019

SUBJECT: Case Caption: Beaudin et al v. The Ohio State University

CASE: Case Number: 2:19-cv-4634

DISTRICT JUDGE: Judge Smith/Magistrate Judge Vascura

File Date: 10/18/201?

Thismemorandum is to notify you that the civil cover sheet on the abovereferenced case reflects

the following alleged related case(s):

Related Case(s):

CaseCaption: Garrett et al. v. The Ohio State University

CaseNumber: 2;18-cv-0692 DistrictJudge: Watson

File Date: 07/16/2018 Magistrate Judge: Deavers

2:18-cv-712, -736,2:19-cv1911,-2237,-2429,-2462,-

3165, -4397,-4433,4441 and

Related Case(s): 2;19-mc-00038

Case Caption:

Case Number: District Judge: Watson

File Date: Magistrate Judge: Deavers

Case: 2:18-cv-00712-MHW-EPD Doc #: 31 Filed: 10/31/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 117
Memo Re: Related Civil Cases

Page 2

The DistrictJudges having conferred, we respond to Case Administrator Michelle Rahwan as follows:

Judges' Response:

• We agree that the cases are not related and that the subject case should remain

with the Judge towhom it is assigned.

^ We agree that the cases are related and that the subject case should be

transferred to the docket ofJudge (a

• We a^ee that although the cases are related, the subject case nevertheless should

remain with theJudge towhom it was assigned.

• We are unable to agree and will accept any decision made by the ChiefJudge.

D Iam the Judge on both/all ofthe listed cases and have determined that the cases are not related.

n I am the Judge on both/all ofthe listed cases and have determined that the cases

are related andthey shall both/all remain onmy docket.

D Other Direction ofJudge:

Cc: Courtroom Deputies

Jlevlsed 7/I9/20I2

v»- United/States ^tric^tJudge'

A

StatesDistrictJudge

United States District Judge

Case: 2:18-cv-00712-MHW-EPD Doc #: 31 Filed: 10/31/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 118
#### People v Andrew Jones,

No. 90221.

*Summary Dispositions September 20, 1991:*

In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *People v Milbourn,*435 Mich 630 (1990). MCR 7.302(F)(1). In all other respects leave to appeal is denied. Court of Appeals No. 112377.