alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.52

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made this 11 day of
September, 2002, but effective as of January 1, 2002, between SED INTERNATIONAL,
Inc., a Georgia corporation (the "Subsidiary") and wholly owned subsidiary of
SED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Georgia corporation (the "Company"), and
GERALD DIAMOND, an individual resident of the State of Georgia (the "Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Subsidiary have entered into an Employment
Agreement (as amended, the "Agreement") setting forth the terms and conditions
of Employee's employment with the Subsidiary; and

         WHEREAS, Employee and the Subsidiary agree that it is in the best
interest of both parties to make certain modifications to the terms and
conditions of Employee's employment with the Subsidiary.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the continued
employment of the Employee, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows:

         1. The provisions of the Agreement which provide the Employee with an
automobile allowance are hereby modified so as to restrict the type of car
Employee may purchase using the allowance to Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and so as to
increase said allowance to enable the Employee to replace the car provided by
the employer once each year rather than once every three years.

         2. Except as otherwise provided for herein, all other provisions of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and Employee's employment
thereunder shall continue on the terms described therein throughout the term of
the Agreement, as amended hereby.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this
Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the day and year first indicated above.

"COMPANY":                               "EMPLOYEE":

SED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.,        By: /s/ Gerald Diamond
a Georgia corporation                      Gerald Diamond
By:  /s/ Mark Diamond                     Chairman of the Board,
Mark Diamond                              Chief Executive Officer and
President and COO                         Director (principal executive officer)


"SUBSIDIARY":

SED INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
a Georgia corporation
By: /s/ Mark Diamond
Name and Title: Mark Diamond, President & COO
Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Michael F. Shea



 Exhibit 10.7 
 

 
 December 30, 2008 
 Michael F. Shea 
 [Address] 
 Re:    Executive Employment Agreement 
 Dear Mike: 
 This letter will constitute an amendment clarifying the terms of your Executive Employment Agreement, amended and restated November 9, 2007
(“Employment Agreement”), which amendment is intended to assure compliance with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. 
 Section 1.10, which defines “Good Reason,” will require you to provide Ceridian a 30-day period for the opportunity to cure any event for which you have provided written notice. 
 Sections 4.03(a) and 7.03(f), concerning the execution of a release, are amended to require that you submit your executed release to Ceridian within 30
days of your termination of employment. In addition, the last sentence of the form of Release attached to your Employment Agreement will be revised to read as follows: “If I do not return to Ceridian an executed duplicate original of this
Release within 30 days following my termination of employment, Ceridian will have no obligation to make the payment described herein.” 
 Please acknowledge your acceptance of the terms of this amendment to your Employment Agreement by executing this letter where indicated below and returning it to the undersigned. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 CERIDIAN CORPORATION

	
	 /s/ Kairus K. Tarapore

	Kairus K. Tarapore, Executive Vice President,
	Human Resources


  

	
	 Accepted:

	
	 /s/ Michael F. Shea

	Michael F. Shea
	Date: December 30, 2008
Ronnie Fay STOOKEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5509

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification

       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  filing  of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter  Ended  April  5, 2007 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned  hereby  certifies  that:

     1.   The Report  containing  the  financial  statements  fully  complies
          with  the  requirements  of  section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  and

     2.   The information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          Pomeroy  IT  Solutions,  Inc.


     May 15, 2007             /s/ Stephen E. Pomeroy
                              ----------------------
                              Stephen E. Pomeroy
                              President and Chief Executive Officer


A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Pomeroy  IT  Solutions,  Inc.  and  will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions,  Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff  upon  request.
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
April 5, 2006 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


          May 15, 2006              /s/ Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                    --------------------------
                                    Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                    Chief Executive Officer and President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### Brooks & Bogy *vs.*Whiting & Slark.

Helh,

that, iu suit by an assignee of a note or bond, it is not neces - sary for the declaration to state that he sues “as assignee.”
Exhibit
      32




**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 Annual Report of Michelex Corporation (the “Registrant”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), we,
      Thomas Gramuglia, President and Sharon Bishop, Secretary of the Registrant,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.




Date: November
              2, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Tom
              GramugliaName:
                Tom Gramuglia
              Title:
                President




Date: November
              2, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Sharon
              BishopName:
                Sharon Bishop
              Title:
                Secretary
Daniel L. ELLIOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2595

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gro ~~J.~ Ov-Q.-f 

12o r 

-- - ~ 

100 

'\ 

80 

~pv.., ~~ I 'I I 

.r-- .f a~ ~ 

vr " , ... ·I 1

1

, 

M ,..; ' I f I I 

60 /~-w.J 

~ 

. 

r 

I ~ 

I . ~"\ ;\ J 

,,hl~\

·w,J~~ 

~. 

r r! \ ~ ( ~ 

40 ,r#f \ ; 1 j · · I 

,. 

t.l 

I 

\ ... • ~ I I 

\", J ... I ~ 

20 ~~ i, 

,; 

' ... ~ ~ 

... 

0 

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 

Transmittance I Wavenumber (cm-1) 

File# 1 = 14-0C-62 

14-0C-FP-062
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Steven MCINTEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30129

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

William Adam Duerk, Attorney, Milo-dragovich, Dale *&*Steinbrenner P.C., Mis-soula, MT, Bryan R. Whittaker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Victoria L. Francis, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Mclntee’s request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is accordingly denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Steven Mclptee appeals from the district court’s order modifying his conditions of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mclntee challenges the district court’s modification of his conditions of supervised release to increase the maximum number of non-treatment drug tests to which Mclntee may be subjected on an annual basis. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See United States v. Bainbridge,*746 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 2014). In light of the nature of Mclntee’s offense and history of substance abuse while not incarcerated, the modified condition is reasonably related to deterrence and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), (e)(2); *see also United States v. Garcia,*522 F.3d 855, 861 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing authority of district court to modify conditions of supervised release to increase number of drug tests to which defendant is subject).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
James LAUGHNER, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF MARTIN COUNTY and Laurie J. Gaylord, Superintendent, Appellees.

No. 4D17-2016

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 3, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99
                                Selected Information
                       Relating to Series 1994-1 Certificates, 
                      Series 1995-1 Certificates, Series 1996-1
                    Certificates, Series 1996-2 Certificates, and
                           Series 1997-1 Certificates from 
                      January 1, 1997 through September 30, 1997
                      -------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                Series 1994-1    Series 1995-1    Series 1996-1    Series 1996-2     Series 1997-1 
                Floating Rate    6.50% Auto       5.50% Auto       Floating Rate     Floating Rate
                Loan Asset       Loan Asset       Loan Asset       Loan Asset        Loan Asset
                Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed            Backed
                Certificates     Certificates     Certificates     Certificates      Certificates
                ------------     ------------     ------------     -------------     -------------



<S>          <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>                <C>


Interest
Paid         $ 44,621,966.91  $ 51,269,097.25  $ 33,122,222.26  $ 41,950,766.69    $ 17,716,749.17

Servicing  
Fee Paid     $  7,499,999.97  $  7,499,999.97  $  6,000,000.03  $  7,200,000.00    $  2,979,166.67








</TABLE>

                                             -14-
STATE of Louisiana v. Curtis WILLIAMS

No. 2017-KP-0965

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

Hughes, J., would grant the writ in part.

I would grant the writ in part to order an evidentiary hearing on two issues, the failure to allow an alibi instruction and improper back-strikes limited to each panel rather than the entire venire.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arturo Whyte, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 853]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J), rendered January 30, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, and judgment, same court (Edward McLaughlin, J), rendered May 3, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 41⁄2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

At defendant’s second trial (which followed rendition of a partial verdict at the first trial), the court properly admitted evidence of contemporaneous uncharged sales to complete the narrative of the officers’ testimony, especially in light of the defense claim that defendant was merely one of the purchasers, and to establish the officers’ opportunity to observe defendant and make a reliable identification *(see People v Carter,*77 NY2d 95, 107 [1990], *cert denied*499 US 967 [1991]). Moreover, these contemporaneous sales carried little suggestion of criminal propensity *(see People v Pressley,*216 AD2d 202 [1995], *lv denied*86 NY2d 800 [1995]).

We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the noninclusory concurrent count *(see People v Spence,*290 AD2d 223 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 641 [2002]; *People v Kulakov,*278 AD2d 519 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 785 [2001]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
Ron J. CHALMERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2806

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Richard Howard BEALL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Governor Lawrence HOGAN; 2 East Staff; Paul Vince; Tom Lewis; Director Robinson; Adam Hockner, Witness Defendant; Jenavive; Peter Ike; Peter, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6626

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Richard Howard Beall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*175PER CURIAM:

Richard Howard Beall, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s prior order directing him to file an amended complaint particularizing his claims. *See*Fed. R. Civ, P. 41(b), We have reviewed the record and find no reversible eiTor. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Beall v. Hogan,*No. 8:17-cv-00340-GJH (D. Md. filed May 2, 2017 & entered May 3, 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnell Edward CALLAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6496

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Decided: September 21, 2017

Donnell Edward Callaham, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Boekhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*230Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donnell Edward Callaham appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h) (2012) motion to modify the restitution order imposed after his criminal conviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Callaham,*No. 1:08-cr-00052-JPJ-RSB-1 (W.D. Va. May 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.

*AFFIRMED*
JAN WATCHES, LLC, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. GSD GLOBAL, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0766

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofRentrak Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Paul A. Rosenbaum, Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| By:                       | /s/ Paul A. Rosenbaum |   |
|---------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| Paul A. Rosenbaum         |
| Chairman of the Board and |
| Chief Executive Officer   |
| Rentrak Corporation       |
| June 13, 2005        |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-05-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-04-1998
<CASH>                                             545
<SECURITIES>                                    35,052
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,507
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,952
<PP&E>                                          84,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,261)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,531
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,290
<SALES>                                         44,163
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,163
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (147)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (584)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (584)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (Dollars in Thousands, except per share data)


                                                     Three Months Ended
                                                          March 31,
                                                ----------------------------
                                                    1998            1997
                                                ------------    ------------
   Basic Earnings Per Share Computation:

   Net income                                   $     39,077    $     31,658
                                                ============    ============

   Weighted average shares outstanding            56,414,000      54,288,000
   Contingently issued shares                       (276,000)       (326,000)
                                                ------------    ------------
   Adjusted weighted average shares               56,138,000      53,962,000
                                                ============    ============

   Net income per share                         $       0.70    $       0.59
                                                ============    ============

   Diluted Earnings Per Share Computation:

   Net income                                   $     39,077    $     31,658
   Preferred dividends, net of tax                       946           1,155
                                                ------------    ------------
   Net income available to common shareowners
                                                $     40,023    $     32,813
                                                ============    ============

   Weighted average shares outstanding            56,414,000      54,288,000

   Contingently issued shares                       (135,000)       (172,000)
   Incremental shares from assumed
     conversions:
      Stock options                                1,862,000       1,561,000
      Convertible preferred securities             2,938,000       2,938,000
                                                ------------    ------------
   Total potential dilutive common shares          4,800,000       4,499,000
                                                ------------    ------------

   Adjusted weighted average shares               61,079,000      58,615,000
                                                ============    ============

   Earnings per share                           $       0.66    $       0.56
                                                ============    ============
                                       12