alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Employment Agreement between Registrant and John A. Rade



 Exhibit 10.10 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of March 4,
2009, modifies the terms and conditions of the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between I-many, Inc. (the “Company”) and John A. Rade (“Executive”), dated as of January 15, 2007 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but
not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. Any term or condition of the Agreement in conflict with the terms or conditions of this Amendment shall be deemed to be specifically and
expressly superseded by the provisions hereof. 
 A. The second sentence of Section 5.1(ii) of the Agreement (“If Executive’s
employment is terminated pursuant to subsections 5.1(a), 5.1(b), 5.1(c) or 5.1(d) above within one year after a Change in Control ...”) is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall have no further effect. 
 B. The following shall be added to the end of Section 5.1(ii): “Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Executive’s employment is terminated
pursuant to subsections 5.1(a), 5.1(b), 5.1(c) or 5.1(d) above within one year after a Change in Control (defined below) of the Company, then the Company or its successor shall continue to provide the foregoing medical benefits to Executive for six
(6) additional months, for a total of twelve (12) months.”  
 C. Change of Control Bonus. 
 No later than 60 days following a Change in Control of the Company, the Company shall pay Executive a lump-sum amount equal to six
(6) months of Executive’s annualized base salary (excluding bonuses) in effect as of the date of the Change in Control, less applicable deductions and withholdings (the “Change in Control Bonus”). In the event the Company has
terminated Executive’s employment pursuant to subsection 5.1(a), 5.1(b), 5.1(c) or 5.1(d) above within 90 days before the consummation of a Change in Control, Executive shall be entitled to the Change in Control Bonus notwithstanding such
employment termination, provided Executive has signed a general release of claims against the Company substantially in the form of the agreement and general release attached at Exhibit A (except that Executive shall not be required to release the
Company from claims for payment of the Change in Control Bonus before it has been paid). 
 D. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain
unmodified by this Amendment. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has caused this Amendment to be executed in duplicate originals.

  

							
	I-MANY, INC.	 	 	 	EXECUTIVE
				
	By:	 	 /s/    KEVIN M.
HARRIS        
	 		 	 /s/    JOHN A.
RADE        

		 	Kevin M. Harris	 		 	John A. Rade
		 	Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,169
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          41,576
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,245,080
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (75,236)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,417,194
<DEPOSITS>                                     535,832
<SHORT-TERM>                                   557,262
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             73,035
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           273
<OTHER-SE>                                     250,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,417,194
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                181,237
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,762
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    24
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               184,515
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              23,491
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,521
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          126,994
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   86,273
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                217,904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,694
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      26,214
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    57,038
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                88,397
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  116,586
<RECOVERIES>                                    17,152
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               75,236
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            75,236
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated February 21, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Smart Trust 417 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-228800) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report
in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


February 21, 2019
#### Marto FAHARDO, a/k/a Marto Doe, a/k/a Marto Fajardo, a/k/a Marto Aroldo Diaz Fajardo, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1121

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 13, 2017

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA *&*ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, Rosanne M. Perry, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marto Fahardo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* We *200have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Fahardo’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, *see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Fahardo*(B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*

*

 The Board issued this order after this court granted the Attorney General's unopposed motion to remand Fahardo’s case to the Board for further consideration.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacie E. LEIPOLD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-15683 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/15/2016

Michelle Lee Schieber, Danial Edward Bennett, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, GA, Melvin E. Hyde, Jr., Michael J. Moore, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Columbus, txA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tim Saviello, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Columbus, GA, Christina Lee Hunt, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Macon, GA, Stacie E. Leipold, FCI Tallahassee— Inmate Legal Mail, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before ROSENBAUM, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Dodson, appointed counsel for Stacie E. Leipold in this direct criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Leipold’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882973
<NAME> CHESTNUT PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,516,993
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  212,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,712,617
<PP&E>                                         259,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,990,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,183,637
<BONDS>                                     13,655,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,990,044
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,913,007
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,499,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (248,183)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                165,512
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   165,512
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Nashun CHARLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4997

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### MEMORANDUM May 5, 2009

To: R. Frazier

Via: K. Kunaniec

From: T. Underwood

Re: Outside Test NTV-634; Febr uary 4 and 17, 2009 source test
Site No: A4449 Plant No: 4449; Electro-Coatings Emission pt: P-1; Exhaust of A- 9 which abates A-6, A-7 and A-8 Source No: S-2, A-6; Pl ating tank 1; Scrubber 1 Source No: S-4. A-7; Pl ating tank 2; Scrubber 2 Source No: S-8, A-8; Pl ating tank 3; Scrubber 3 Abated by: A-9; Filter
A/C No: 14348 Cond. No. 23126, Reg. 11-8; Cr +6 0.0015 mg/A-hr By: Datalab

I have reviewed the source test r eport cited above and note the following:

1) Source test was properly notified (NST-1616). 2) I did not witness the test. 3) The testing appears to have been conducted by personnel familiar with standard source testing protocols and technique. 4) Quality assurance procedures were adequate to assure data integrity. 5) Results of that testing are that quantified emissions were in compliance with the

emission limits cited above.

These sources were in compliance with District Regulations.
#### Freddie Wayne HUFF, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; Division of State Highway Patrol, a principal sub-unit of an agency of the State of North Carolina; William J. Grey, in his official capacity as Commanding Officer of the Division of State Highway Patrol and individually; Jennifer A. Harris, in her official capacity as the Director of Professional Standards for the Division of State Highway Patrol and individually; Joseph A. Cotton, in his official capacity as the Director of Internal Affairs with the Division of State Highway Patrol and individually, Defendants-Appellees, and Frank L. Perry, Defendant.

No. 16-2378

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 23, 2017

Decided: September 8, 2017

Randolph M. James, RANDOLPH M. JAMES P.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Josh Stein, North Carolina Attorney General, Tammera S. Hill, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and • HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Wayne Huff, II, appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants *182summary judgment on Huffs equal protection, due process, and North Carolina wrongful discharge claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and judgment. *See Huff v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,*No. 1:15-cv-00599-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Nov. 2, 2016); *see also Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric.,*553 U.S. 591, 605, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008) (holding that “the class-of-one theory of equal protection— which presupposes' that like individuals should be treated alike, and that to treat them differently is to classify them in a way that must survive at least rationality review—is simply a poor fit in the public context”); *Muchira v. Al-Rawaf*850 F.3d 605, 616 (4th Cir. 2017), *pet. for cert. filed,*No. 17-154 (U.S. Jul. 28, 2017) (recognizing that “[cjonclusory allegations and speculation will not suffice” to defeat summary judgment); *Huff v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,*782 S.E.2d 926 (N.C. Ct. App.) (holding that Huffs “State employment with the State Highway Patrol did not meet the statutory minimum for qualification as a career State employee”), *rev. denied, Huff v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,*369 N.C. 67, 793 S.E.2d 222 (2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2.20


RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT




THIS RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the date indicated on the signature page under “Date of Agreement” by and between MGIC Investment Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation (the “Company”), and the employee of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (“MGIC”), or one of its subsidiaries, whose signature is set forth on the signature page hereto (the “Employee”).


INTRODUCTION


The Company is awarding restricted stock units to the Employee under the MGIC Investment Corporation 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan (such plan as it appears as Appendix A to the Company’s Proxy Statement dated March 24, 2015 is referred to as the “Plan”) and this Agreement.  The Company may also make cash incentive awards to the Employee under the Plan, which along with such Restricted Stock Units may be recovered in certain circumstances.


This Agreement consists of this instrument and the Incorporated Terms dated as of January 22, 2018 to Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (the “Incorporated Terms”), which although not attached to this instrument, are part of this Agreement and were provided to the Employee as indicated in Section 1(b) below.


The parties mutually agree as follows:


1.    Award of RSUs; Incorporated Terms. 


(a)    Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the Company is confirming the award to the Employee of the number of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) set forth in the document entitled “Executive Compensation” that was delivered to the Employee by the Company in January or February 2018 to notify the Employee of the award of RSUs. The Employee agrees if there is any difference between the number of RSUs determined by (i) such document, as delivered to the Employee, and (ii) the number of RSUs awarded by the Committee, as reflected in the records of the Committee, the number of RSUs reflected in the records of the Committee shall control.  


(b)    The Incorporated Terms are incorporated in this instrument with the same effect as if they were physically set forth in this instrument.  The Incorporated Terms and this instrument constitute a single agreement which is referred to as “this Agreement.”  The terms “herein,” “hereof,” “above” and similar terms used in this Agreement refer to this Agreement as a whole.  The Incorporated Terms were made available to the Employee with this Restricted Stock Unit Agreement. 


        











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized signer, and the Employee has executed this Agreement, all as of the day and year set forth below.






	
		
	Date of Agreement:
	As of January 22, 2018

	 
	 

	 
	MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION


By: 
Title:       Authorized Signer

	 
	 

	 
	Name:

	 
	 

	 
	* * * *

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	Certain Terms of the RSUs:

	 
	RSUs Release Date:     February 28, 2021

	 
	RSUs Vesting Metric: 

	 
	Dividend Start Date:     January 22, 2018
John GELDI, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Thomas MACCABE, III, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2744

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon DOCK, Jr., a/k/a Damon Dock, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6722

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Damon L. Dock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Zachery T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorneys, Abing-don, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Damon Dock, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Dock,*No. 1:11-cr-00026-JPJ-4 (W.D. Va.May 19, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 31.2

 

CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

 

I, C. Steven Guenthner, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Almost Family, Inc.;

 

2. 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;

 

 

|                 |   |                                      |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
| Date: April 27, 2018 | By     | /s/ C. Steven Guenthner                   |
|                 |   | C. Steven Guenthner                       |
|                 |   | President and Principal Financial Officer |

 

1

----
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1433 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center for Youths 

and Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1433 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Helen Keller National 

3 Center Reauthorization Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. HELEN KELLER NATIONAL CENTER REAUTHOR5 IZED. 

6 The first sentence of section 205(a) of the Helen Kel7 ler National Center Act (29 U.S.C. 1904(a)) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘1999 through 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2023 

9 through 2027’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 20, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1433 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Helen Keller National Center 

for Youths and Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
  /s/ Jack H. BrownJack H. BrownChairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)August 11, 2009 /s/ Phillip J. SmithPhillip J. SmithExecutive Vice President, and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)August 11, 2009
addendumemploybozora.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    Addendum

    to
the

    Employment
Agreement

    between

    CS
Financing Corporation

    and

    Michael
Bozora

    dated:
January 16, 2008

    


    


    


    The
Company and Executive agree that commencing with any payments of compensation
hereunder that become due in calendar year 2009 after March 1, 2009, Executive
hereby waives any and all of his rights to such compensation, and such
compensation shall not be paid by the Company, except that Executive shall be
entitled to receive One United States Dollar ($1.00) from the Company during the
remainder of calendar year 2009.  In addition, Executive hereby waives
any and all of his rights to any compensation for calendar year 2009 that was
deferred, and such deferred compensation shall not be paid by the
Company.

    


    The
parties have duly executed this Addendum on March 28, 2009.

    


    CS
Financing Corporation

    


    By:
__/s/ Timothy
Redpath_____

    Timothy Redpath, CEO 

    


    


    Michael
Bozora

    


    ____/s/ Michael
Bozora_________