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



 Exhibit 10.2.7.2











CLARIFYING AMENDMENT TO
THE
CONSOLIDATED EDISON
COMPANY OF
NEW YORK, INC.
DEFERRED INCOME PLAN
Amending the Deferred Income Plan to Update 
the Definition of Retirement for 
Requirement for Death Benefit 
Effective as of January 1, 2018














Page 1 of 3


 Exhibit 10.2.7.2





Whereas, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Plan Administrator, as set forth in Section 6.02 of the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Deferred Income Plan (the "DIP" or the "Plan"), to modify or amend the Plan, in whole or in part, at any time; provided, however, that no modification or amendment shall adversely affect the right of any Participant to receive the benefits credited under the Plan as of the date of such modification or amendment and no modification or amendment by action of the Plan Administrator shall have a material effect on the benefits payable under the Plan.
Whereas, certain officers are eligible for a death benefit, over and above any other payments, in an amount equal to such officer's annual base salary (at the date of death or Retirement, as applicable), in a lump sum, if such officer dies prior to a Separation from Service, or terminates employment due to Retirement from the Company;
Now, therefore, the DIP is amended as set forth below: 
Article I, Definitions, definition for Retirement, is amended, effective as of 


January 1, 2018, by revising the entire definition to read as follows:
Retirement means a Separation from Service either: (i) under circumstances in which the Participant is eligible to receive an early retirement or normal retirement pension benefit under a defined benefit plan maintained by the Company or an Affiliated Company; or (ii) in the case of any Participant who is employed after age 60 and who is not eligible to receive an early retirement or normal retirement pension benefit under any defined benefit plan, on or after 
















Page 1 of 3


 Exhibit 10.2.7.2







the Participant's 65th birthday; or (iii) in the case of any Officer who incurs a Separation from Service at age 65 due to the Company's mandatory retirement policy for Officers, provided that he or she has completed at least one year of service with the Company or a Participating Affiliated Company; or (iv) in the case of any Officer who  has a Separation from Service on or after attaining age 55 and completing at least five years of service with the Company or a Participating Affiliated Company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed effective as of January 1, 2018


/s/ Nancy Shannon
Nancy Shannon
Vice President of Human Resources
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
And the Plan Administrator of the DIP


Page 1 of 3


 Exhibit 10.2.7.2















Page 1 of 3
#### Jaime Noe GARCIA-VARELA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71652

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Mary Elizabeth Hawkins, Attorney, Hawkins Law Group PLLC, Shoreline, WA, for Petitioner

Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Noe Garcia-Varela, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order *765dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo constitutional claims. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Garcia-Varela’s motion to reopen as untimely, where Garcia-Varela filed the motion more than fourteen years after his final order of removal, and has not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(i); *Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, where Garcia-Varela fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law about the sua sponte determination that would invoke our jurisdiction. *See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,*633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); *cf. Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[Tjhis court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Gareia-Varela’s remaining contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, his 1999 proceedings, and the applicability of the departure bar,

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*765ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Indel S. MONTFLEURY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1092

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's March 21, 2018 fee order and March 21, 2018 order to show cause.

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6946

HAYWOOD L. PEELE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MACK JARVIS; DANIEL L. STIENEKE; RANDALL LEE, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-108-5-F) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: November 3, 1999 Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haywood L. Peele, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Haywood L. Peele seeks to appeal the district court’s judgmentdenying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orderaccepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Peele v. Jarvis , No. CA-98-108-5-F (E.D.N.C. June 25, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit  99.13

                            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 of Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 5, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec. 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)  The  information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company.




/s/  Michael  E.  Rohrkemper

Michael  Rohrkemper
Chief  Financial  Officer
November  13,  2002


<PAGE>
Mark Eric OSTERBACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3218

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Steven T. HUMPHREY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0496

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 18, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed on account of appellant's failure to comply with this court's order dated February 12, 2018, requiring appellant to submit a copy of the circuit court order or orders being appealed.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ, Concur.
**Officer Certification** Exhibit 31.1
I, L. Dick Buell, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Catalina MarketingCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on suchevaluation; and c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: September 15, 2004   By:       /s/ L. Dick Buell       Chief Executive Officer and Director
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:See attached file(s)

Related Information
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL HOTEL FINANCING, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1997,AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  $183
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  $6,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             $183
<BONDS>                                         $6,794<F1>
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    $6,977
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              $3,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NET OF UNAMORTIZED PREMIUMS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10-10


SCHEDULE OF MORTGAGES OR DEEDS OF TRUST GRANTED BY GANNETT SUBSIDIARIES


The following Schedule identifies the material details in which the applicable mortgage or deed of trust granted by a Gannett subsidiary to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, pursuant to the Credit Agreement, dated as of June 29, 2015, as amended, among Gannett Co., Inc., as Borrower, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, PNC Bank, N.A. and U.S. Bank National Association, as Co-Syndication Agents, and the other lenders party thereto, differ from the Form of Mortgage (Exhibit 10.24 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2015) or Form of Deed of Trust (Exhibit 10.25 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2015) previously filed:




MORTGAGES


	
				
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	PROPERTY ADDRESS
	MORTGAGOR NAME
	OWNERSHIP INTEREST
	AMOUNT SECURED

	525 W. Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky
	The Courier-Journal, Inc.
	Fee
	$15,000,000

	6200 Metropolitan Parkway, Sterling Heights, Michigan
	Detroit Newspaper Partnership, L.P.
	Fee
	$14,000,000

	8278 Georgetown Road, Indianapolis, Indiana
	Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC
	Fee
	$8,000,000

	950 W. Basin Road, Newcastle, Delaware
	Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC
	Fee
	$7,500,000

	1100 Immokalee Road and 9790 Bentgrass Bend, Naples Florida
	Scripps NP Operating, LLC
	Fee
	$20,034,053*

	4101 W. Burnham Street, 332 and 333 W. State Street and 330-340 W. Kilbourn Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
	Journal Sentinel, Inc.
	Fee
	$28,105,600*






*Contain changes to current security instrument form for state specific provisions required by local law and to conform release/termination provision to language in form of Deed of Trust.




DEEDS OF TRUST


	
				
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	PROPERTY ADDRESS
	GRANTOR NAME
	OWNERSHIP INTEREST
	AMOUNT SECURED

	22600 N. 19th Avenue, Deer Valley, Arizona
	Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
	Fee
	$8,700,000

	2332 New Sentinel Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee
	Scripps NP Operating, LLC
	Fee
	$11,400,000*






1









*Contain changes to current security instrument form for state specific provisions required by local law.


2
Carrol Y. Cherry EATON, Appellant, v. Jacob Schiele EATON, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2236

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 15, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NFRONT, INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         128,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,047,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,265,406
<PP&E>                                       2,043,235
<DEPRECIATION>                                 198,218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,095,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,363,199
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,648,442
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       642,761
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,866,742)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,095,226
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,965,592
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,396,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,451
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,392,486)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,392,486)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,392,486)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.43)


</TABLE>
TAPS NAPLES, LLC, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. James DEVITO, individually, and Elizabeth DeVito, individually, Appellees, and The Mercato, LLP, a Florida limited liability partnership; Mercato Naples I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and managing partner; Collier Lutgert Commercial Properties, LLP, a Florida limited liability partnership and former managing partner; Madison Lutgert, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and managing partner; and PR Mercato, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Case No. 2D17-1266

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018.

Duane A. Daiker, C. Philip Campbell, Jr., and Timothy C. Garding of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, Tampa, for Appellant/ Cross-Appellee Taps Naples, LLC.

Scott Stevenson of Wong Fleming, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant PR Mercato, LLC.

Robert G. Menzies of Fisherbroyles, LLP, Naples, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants The Mercato, LLP; Mercato Naples I, LLC; Collier Lutgert Commercial Properties, LLP; and Madison Lutgert, LLC.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Roosevelt KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-526

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
<PAGE>




                             AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

    THAT CERTAIN Promissory Note ("NOTE") dated October 17, 1997, in the
principal sum of ELEVEN MILLION and NO/100 DOLLARS ($11,000,000), made by EAGLE
HARDWARE & GARDEN, INC., a Washington corporation, ("BORROWER") and payable to
KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ("LENDER"), is amended as follows:

    1.   The definition of Adjustment Date in Section 1.1(a) of the Note is
replaced with the following:

              ADJUSTMENT DATE means the date of this Note and the fifteenth
              (15th) day of each calendar month hereafter.

    2.   Section 2 of the Note is replaced with the following:

              2.   PAYMENTS.  On the 15th day of November, 1997, and on the
              same day of each month thereafter, Borrower shall make monthly
              payments of principal and interest consisting of the sum of:  (a)
              all interest accrued through the last payment date, and (b) a
              payment of principal in the amount of NINETY-ONE THOUSAND SIX
              HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX and 67/100 DOLLARS ($91,666.67).

    The Note, as amended hereby, is affirmed and ratified.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Lender have signed this Amendment
effective as of this 1st day of November, 1997.


                                       "LENDER"

                                       KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national
                                       banking association

                                       By:    /s/ Shelly L. Schwab
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Name:  Shelly L. Schwab
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Title: Senior Loan Closing Officer
                                             -----------------------------

                                       "BORROWER"

                                       EAGLE HARDWARE & GARDEN, INC., a
                                       Washington corporation

                                       By:    /s/ Ronald P. Maccarone
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Name:  Ronald P. Maccarone
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Title: EVP/CFO
                                             -----------------------------
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 0 2 3

- 3 244

_____________________________
M ICHAEL V. M ONTIJO ,
Petitioner
,

v.

R ICKY D. D IXON , Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
, Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

.

August 27, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. The Court denies the petition for writ of certiorari on the merits.

R OWE , K ELSE Y , and L ONG , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Michael V. Montijo , pro se , Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.