alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
lxu-ex1023_316.htm



Exhibit 10.23

 

NOTICE PERIOD EXTENSION

Michael J. Foster (“Executive”) and LSB Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Company”), entered into an employment agreement effective as of January 5, 2016 (“Employment Agreement”), the initial term of which is scheduled to expire on January 4, 2019.

The term of the Employment Agreement automatically would be extended for another year through January 4, 2020 unless either party elects not to extend the Employment Agreement by giving written notice to the other party by July 9, 2018.

Since Executive and the Company are discussing potential changes to the Employment Agreement and such discussions may impact their decision whether to provide notice of an election not to extend the Employment Agreement, both Executive and the Company previously agreed to an extension until December 7, 2018 to provide notice and now agree that Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby further amended such that the deadline for providing notice to the other party of an election not to extend the Employment Agreement for another year commencing January 5, 2019 shall be December 30, 2018.

In all other respects, the Employment Agreement shall continue in effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed and delivered this Notice Period Extension or have caused this Notice Period Extension to be duly executed and delivered on their behalf.     

 


	
EXECUTIVE

	
 

	
/s/ Michael J. Foster

	
Michael J. Foster

	
 

	
 

	
LSB INDUSTRIES, INC.

	
 

	
/s/ Daniel D. Greenwell

	
 

	
By:
	
Daniel D. Greenwell

	
Its:
	
Chief Executive Officer
#### Juan Ramon VENTURA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2232

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 16, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Jordan G. Forsythe, CAULEY FOR-SYTHE LAW GROUP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lynda A. Do, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

*143Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juan Ramon Ventura, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing Ventura’s appeal from the immigration judge’s order finding that he was statutorily ineligible for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”), 8 U.S.C. § 1254a (2012), and ordering him removed to El Salvador. We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part.

In addition to restating in this court the same line of argument that he advanced in his administrative proceedings, Ventura expands his argument to include two new contentions that were not presented to the Board. We lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments that Ventura advances for the first time in this court. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if ... the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”); *Kporlor v. Holder,*597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an alien must raise each argument to the [Board] before we have jurisdiction to consider it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

As for those contentions that were administratively exhausted, and thus over which we have jurisdiction, we have reviewed the parties’ arguments in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We discern no error in the agency’s conclusion that Ventura was statutorily ineligible for TPS because his North Carolina convictions for driving while his license was revoked, *see*N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-28(a) & (a1) (2015), were misdemeanors for immigration purposes, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1244.1 (2017); *see also*N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.23(c) (2015).

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny it in part. 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART*
EXHIBIT
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The
undersigned, Brion D. Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGen Biologics,
Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2008 (the
“Report”). 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 the Company.
  Date:
August 8, 2008
  /s/
      BRION D. UMIDIName:
              Brion
      D. UmidiTitle:
              Senior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
#### Russell F. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS; North Carolina State Board of Elections, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1727

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Russell F. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Collins Fork, Charles Foster Marshall, III, Craig Daniel Schauer, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Raleigh, North Carolina; James Bernier, Jr., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

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

*144Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Russell F. Walker appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Walker v. Hoke Cnty. Bd. Of Elections,*No. 1:17-cv-00078-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C. June 8, 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*
#### Michael Rakosi, Appellant, v Daniel Perla Associates, L.P., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[772 NYS2d 648]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2002, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint as against them and denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint to add a necessary party, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed as against defendants-respondents on the ground that it constitutes a collateral attack upon a prior judgment of foreclosure and sale. Although the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff was named and served in the *432foreclosure action, he defaulted and, rather than moving in that action under CPLR 5015 to vacate the resulting judgment, has impermissibly commenced a new plenary action alleging that the judgment was wrongfully obtained *(see Vinokur v Penny Lane Owners Corp.,*269 AD2d 226 [2000]).

The motion court should, however, have granted plaintiff’s cross motion to add a necessary party, Deca LLC, which may be inequitably affected by a judgment rendered in the remainder of this case against the nonmoving defendants. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
EXHIBIT 21.1
  LIST OF
    SUBSIDIARIES
  Name of Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of OrganizationResources Connection LLC

DelawareNames under which ResourcesConnection LLC does business:Resources Global ProfessionalsResources Connection LLCRe:sources Connection LLCRCTC LLCRCTCResources Connection LLC of DelawareResources Connection LLC DBA RCTCResources Connection LLC, a limited liability company of DelawareRC Management Group, LLC

DelawareResources Audit Solutions, LLC

DelawareRC Holdings I, LLC

DelawareRC Holdings II, LLC

DelawareRGP Property LLC

DelawareSitrick Brincko Group LLC

DelawareResources Connection Australia Pty Ltd.

AustraliaNames under which Resources Connection Australia Pty Ltd. does
    business:Resources Global ProfessionalsResources Global Professionals (Belgium) NV

BelgiumResources Global Professionals, Inc. (Canada)

CanadaResources Global Enterprise Consulting (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

Peoples Republic of ChinaResources Global Enterprise Consulting (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
    Shanghai Branch CompanyPeoples Republic of ChinaResources Global Professionals (Hong Kong) Limited

Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of ChinaResources Global Professionals (Denmark) AS

DenmarkResources Global Professionals (France) SAS

FranceResources Global Professionals (Germany) GmbH

GermanyResources Global Professionals (India) Private Ltd.

IndiaResources Global Professionals (Ireland) Ltd.

IrelandResources Global Professionals (Italy) SRL

ItalyResources Global Professionals (Japan) K.K.

JapanResources Global Professionals (Luxembourg) SA

LuxembourgResources Management Mexico S de RL de CV

MexicoResources Connection Mexico S de RL de CV

MexicoDomenica B.V.

NetherlandsLimbus Consulting B.V.

NetherlandsLimbus Holding B.V.

NetherlandsLimbus Interim management B.V.

NetherlandsResources Global Professionals (Europe) BV

NetherlandsResources Global Professionals Holdings BV

NetherlandsResources Management & Finance b.v.

NetherlandsResources Projects b.v.

Netherlands




---



##### 



Name of Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of OrganizationResources Global Professionals (Norway) AS

NorwayResources Global Professionals (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

SingaporeM & D Selection AB

SwedenResources Global Professionals Sweden AB

SwedenResources Global Professionals (Switzerland) GmbH

SwitzerlandResources Connection (Taiwan) Ltd.

TaiwanCompliance Consultants Services Ltd

United KingdomCompliance.co.uk Ltd

United KingdomFinancial Services Training Ltd

United KingdomResources Compliance (UK) Ltd

United KingdomResources Connection (UK) Ltd.

United Kingdom (England and Wales)Names under which Resources Connection (UK) Ltd. does business:Resources Global Professionals (UK)
#### Constantino BASILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-56423

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Constantino Basile, Pro Se

Louis A. Karasik, Esquire, Casondra K. Ruga, Attorney, Alston & Bird LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Constantino Basile appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging that defendants’ movie *Prometheus*infringed upon his copyrighted works “Crisis on Jupiter” and “The World of Jupiter.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.- We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Basile’s copyright infringement claim because there is no substantial similarity, as a matter of law, between protected elements of Basile’s copyrighted works and comparable elements of defendants’ film, and any similarities in the general concepts are unprotected. *See Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P.,*462 F.3d 1072, 1076-78 (9th Cir. 2006) (absent direct copying, a plaintiff must show substantial similarity to prevail on a copyright infringement claim); *Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.,*297 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Scenes-a-faire, or situations and incidents that flow necessarily or naturally from a basic plot premise, cannot sustain a *577finding of infringement.”); *Berkic v. Crichton,*761 F.2d 1289, 1292-94 (9th Cir. 1985) (setting forth factors to determine substantial similarity).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of documents registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, *see*Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2); *see also Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp.,*669 F.3d 1005, 1016 n.9 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review), or in failing to consider evidence irrelevant to the dispositive legal issue of whether there was substantial similarity between the works, *see Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*68 F.3d 1160, 1164-66 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth standard of review and discussing relevance).

Basile waived any challenge to the dismissal of his trademark infringement claim by failing to raise an argument in his opening brief. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ALLIED RECYCLING, INC. and Bridgefield Employers Ins. Co./Claims Center, Appellants, v. Jackson A. ROBERTSON, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2651

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Michael E. McCabe and David H. Roos of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellants.

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Alex Daneial DIMARZIO

CR-16-0680

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Marion Cir. Ct.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Allan HAWLEY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 14-51309 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 24, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mark Randolph Stelmach, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Allan Hawley, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Allan Hawley, federal prisoner # 60662-080, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which alleged that the district court erred in sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). On October 27, 2016, the district court found that the application of the ACCA to Hawley was invalidated by *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). The district court vacated the 240-month sentence under the ACCA and resentenced Hawley to 120 months in prison. Because the district court vacated the sentence from which Hawley seeks relief under § 2255, this appeal does not present a live controversy and is moot. *See Rocky v. King,*900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as MOOT.

*

 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.
**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 of INCA Designs, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Stacy
      Josloff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/
                Stacy
                JosloffStacy Josloff
                Chief Financial Officer
                October 18, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
Sharon SIMON and Jennifer Haggard, Appellants, v. Dana WILSON and o/b/o A.W., a Minor, Appellees.

Case Nos. 5D17-1950 & 5D17-1951

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

Sharon Simon and Jennifer Haggard, Homosassa, pro se.

Dana Wilson, Homosassa, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6180 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6180

 To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorganization Act to the 
         Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 2, 2023

Mr. Carl (for himself, Mr. LaMalfa, Ms. Davids of Kansas, Ms. Moore of 
 Wisconsin, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Cole, Mr. Rogers of 
   Alabama, and Mr. Strong) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorganization Act to the 
         Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Poarch Band of Creek Indians Lands 
Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT.

    (a) In General.--For the purposes of the Act of June 18, 1934 
(commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization Act''; 25 U.S.C. 5101 et 
seq.), the Poarch Band of Creek Indians is deemed to be a recognized 
Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction.
    (b) Lands Taken Into Trust.--All lands taken into trust by the 
United States for the benefit of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians prior 
to the date of enactment of this section are reaffirmed as trust land, 
and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking such lands 
into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act are ratified and 
confirmed.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect as if enacted 
on June 18, 1934, and shall apply to all claims, including claims 
challenging the validity of title or the effectiveness of any action of 
the Secretary acquiring and taking land described in subsection (a) 
into trust, that are pending on the date of enactment of this section, 
or that are filed on or after that date.
                                 <all>
```
Andre I. DUNBAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-420

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

Andre I. Dunbar, Milton, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Andre Dunbar appeals the summary denial of Ground Five of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the record does not conclusively refute Dunbar's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call alibi witness, Aubrey Lyman, to testify at trial, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Five and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting this claim or for an evidentiary hearing. *See**Freeman v. State*, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing *Maharaj v. State*, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ) ).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

PALMER, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 28**

 

**Consent of Dorota El-Rassi**

** **

Iconsent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securitiesand Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technicalreport entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report FeasibilityStudy of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada dated February 14, 2014”, included in the Annual Information Form of NewGold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2014, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such informationin the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333- 160500) of New Gold Inc.

  

Datedthis 27th day of March, 2015

 

 

*/s/Dorota El-Rassi*

Name:Dorota El-Rassi

Title:	ResourceGeologist
Exhibit








Exhibit 10(h)


CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
Summary of Certain Compensation Arrangements
of the Executive Chairman of the Board




The following is a summary of certain compensation arrangements payable to Milton Carroll, the Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (the “Company”):
		
	•
	Mr. Carroll’s annual base salary is increased from $710,000 to $760,000 effective as of April 1, 2019 and continuing thereafter until the termination of Mr. Carroll’s service as Executive Chairman of the Board or as otherwise modified by the Board; and




		
	•
	Mr. Carroll’s long-term incentive compensation target is increased from a target equal to 300% of base salary to a target equal to 325% of base salary.




Mr. Carroll was not granted any additional awards of restricted stock units in 2019, other than in connection with his long-term incentive award noted above.
Michael J. CARR, Appellant, v. Rebecca FIERLE, as Guardian FOR Annie R. CARR and Pinnacle Bank, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2413

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

Michael J. Carr, Altamonte Springs, pro se.

Stephanie L. Cook, of Shuffield, Lowman & Wilson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Rebecca Fierle.

No Appearance for Other Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.