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

Exhibit 10.02

AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO CHANGE IN CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AND SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 ("AMENDMENT")to the Change in Control Employment and Severance Agreement dated March
10, 1998 (the"AGREEMENT"), betweenPAUL D. EDELHERTZ(the "EXECUTIVE") andZAMBA
CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION(the "COMPANY"), is entered into this 5th day of May, 2000. This Amendment expressly modifies the Agreement in the manner stated
below. Except
as stated below, the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

The
Company and Executive hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1.
Section 7.4 shall be amended by deleting the last sentence, which states the following:



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Amendment on the day and year written above.

|ZAMBA CORPORATION,     |  | PAUL D. EDELHERTZ 
|---------------------- |  | ------------------
|a Delaware corporation |  | Executive         
|By:  /s/ Mike Carrel   |  | /s/ Paul Edelhertz
|Name: Michael Carrel   |  |                   
|Title: CFO             |  |                   



## QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 10.9**

**Information Regarding Named Executive Officer Salary and Bonus Arrangements**

The Compensation andBenefits Committee of the Board of Directors of First Data Corporation (the “Company”) approved: (i) an increase in the base salary for Kimberly S. Patmore, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, from$575,000 to $600,000 effective October 1, 2007; and (ii) 2008 bonus targets for Edward A. Labry III, Senior Executive Vice President of the Company, in the amount of $937,500, and for Kimberly S. Patmore, Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, in the amount of $600,000.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LISETTE NICOLE MCGUIRE,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00208-CR

Appeal from the

394th Judicial District Court

of Brewster County, Texas

(TC# CR04751)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We 

further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ANTHONY T. MORRISON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00080-RLW-2) 

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Amy Leigh Austin, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony T. Morrison appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United 

States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 244-46 (4th Cir. 2009); United

States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 232-33 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Morrison, No. 3:05-cr-00080-RLW-2 (E.D. 

Va. Oct. 10, 2008). We deny Morrison’s motion for appointment 

of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
1 Filed 2/19/15 P. v. Caseres CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
JOSEPH CASERES,
Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B254288 (Super. Ct. No. NA094572-01) (Los Angeles County)

Joseph Caseres appeals judgment after c onviction by jury of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) 1 The jury found true allega tions that Caseres used and discharged a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c).) Ca seres admitted prior convictions for making criminal threats and being a felon in possession of a firearm. (§ 422, former § 12021, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sent enced him to 36 years in state prison. On December 31, 2012, Ca seres took a chain necklace, watch, and earrings from Ramiro Suarez. He fired a gun near Suarez ’s ankle, grazing it. Suarez’s sister saw
the incident. She and Suarez r ecognized and identified Caseres. Before trial, Suarez told a detective he did not want to cooperate because he had been threatened. At trial, Suarez said he could not iden tify the robber because he was
intoxicated and he focused on the gun. He testified that he was not threatened. After the prosecution rested, the trial court denied Caseres’s motion for ju dgment of acquittal.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.2 We appointed counsel to represent Case res in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, she filed an opening brief raising no issues. On October 6, 2014, we advised Casere s that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record an d are satisfied that Caseres’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. ( People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.3 Tomson T. Ong, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles

________________ ______________

Heather E. Shallenberger, under appo intment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6017 

To revoke the waiver determination submitted to Congress on September 

11, 2023, with respect to certain sanctions imposed with respect to Iran. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 20, 2023 

Mrs. STEEL (for herself, Mr. OWENS, Mr. GIMENEZ, Mr. LAMALFA, and Mr. 

WEBER of Texas) introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services, Ways and Means, and Oversight and Accountability, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To revoke the waiver determination submitted to Congress 

on September 11, 2023, with respect to certain sanctions 

imposed with respect to Iran. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6017 IH

1 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF WAIVER DETERMINATION 

2 WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN IRAN SANC3 TIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—On and after the date of the en5 actment of this Act, the waiver determination issued by 

6 the Secretary of State pursuant to the provisions of law 

7 specified in subsection (b) and submitted to Congress on 

8 September 11, 2023, shall have no force or effect. 

9 (b) PROVISIONS OF LAW SPECIFIED.—The provisions 

10 of law specified in this subsection are— 

11 (1) section 1245(d)(5) of the National Defense 

12 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 

13 8513a(d)(5)); or 

14 (2) section 1244(i) or 1247(f) of the Iran Free15 dom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 

16 U.S.C. 8803(i) and 8806(f)). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
March ___, 1998



          Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
          1020 Petersburg Road
          Hebron, Kentucky 41048

          Gentlemen:

               Reference is made to  that certain Asset Purchase  Agreement
          dated March __, 1998, and an Assignment and Assumption  Agreement
          of  even  date  herewith  pursuant  to  which  the   undersigned,
          COMMERCIAL BUSINESS  SYSTEMS,  INC.  (_Seller_)  sold,  assigned,
          transferred and  conveyed  to POMEROY  COMPUTER  RESOURCES,  INC.
          (_Pomeroy_) to  the extent  permitted,  its interest  in  certain
          contracts as set forth on Exhibit _A_ attached to said Assignment
          and Assumption  Agreement.    Pursuant  to  such  Assignment  and
          Assumption Agreement, Seller agreed to take additional action  to
          carry out the  terms of the  Asset Purchase  Agreement to  enable
          Pomeroy  to  perform  the  obligations  of  Seller  under   these
          contracts and to allow Pomeroy  to enforce Seller's rights  under
          these contracts.

               In order to fulfill this obligation, the undersigned  hereby
          agrees that  until  such  time  as  a  new  contract  with  these
          customers is  obtained, or  an assignment  is approved  by  them,
          Pomeroy  is  hereby  engaged   by  Seller  to  perform   Seller's
          obligations  under  the  contracts   in  consideration  for   all
          remaining amounts  to  be paid  to  Seller under  such  contracts
          and/or any other consideration to be provided to Seller under the
          contracts.    Seller  agrees  to  cooperate  with  Purchaser   in
          performing these  contracts and  in dealing  with the  customers,
          including  such   billing   procedures,   invoicing   procedures,
          collection procedures and  other bookkeeping  issues or  customer
          relations issues as Pomeroy may deem necessary and appropriate to
          fulfill its  duties under  the contracts.   To  acknowledge  your
          agreement and  acceptance to  the foregoing,  please execute  the
          duplicate  original  enclosed  herewith  and  return  it  to  the
          undersigned.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        COMMERCIAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC.


                                        By:
          ___________________________________
                                        Thomas M. Clayton, President

          Agreed and Accepted this ____ day of March, 1998. 

                                        POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES, INC.


                                        By:
          ___________________________________
                                        Stephen E. Pomeroy, Chief Financial
          Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 19, 2018

No. 04-17-00046-CV

XTO ENERGY INC. and Mobil Producing Texas and New Mexico, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

EOG RESOURCES, INC., et al.,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-08-0645-CVA

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Request for Leave to File Letter Brief is GRANTED.

Entered this 19th day of January, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
#### METRO PUBLISHING GROUP, INC. Plaintiff Michael C. Williams Plaintiff-Appellant v. James W. MURPHY; I B Property, LLC; Michael Ernest Boyd Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-2780

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 18, 2017

Filed: April 18, 2017

Michael C. Williams, Pro Se

Abby Duncan, Assistant City Counselor, Nancy Ellen Emmel, City Counselor’s Of*541fice, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Ap-pellee James W. Murphy

James V. Noonan, Noonan & Lieberman, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee I B Property, LLC

Michael Ernest Boyd, Attorney, The Boyd Law Group, L.C., Saint Peters, MO, for Defendant-Appellee Michael Ernest Boyd

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this removed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Michael Williams seeks to appeal after the district court1 dismissed his complaint and denied his motions for reconsideration. After careful review, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because Williams’s notice of appeal did not designate the order, judgment, or part thereof that he was appealing. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (notice of appeal must designate judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed); *Smith v. Barry,*502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) (Rule 3 requirements are jurisdictional). We also deny as moot Williams’s pending motions.2

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. We note that to the extent that Williams attempted to assert a state-law claim, that claim was dismissed without prejudice. *See Hassett v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co:,*851 F.2d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 1988).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6083 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6083

   To amend the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 to extend waiver of 
 duplicate benefits limitation for certain payments to individuals in 
         the event of a major disaster, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 2023

   Mr. Graves of Louisiana (for himself and Mr. Carter of Louisiana) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 to extend waiver of 
 duplicate benefits limitation for certain payments to individuals in 
         the event of a major disaster, 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 ``Duplications of Benefits Victims 
Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF DUPLICATE BENEFITS.

    Section 1210(a) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Public Law 
115-254) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``between January 1, 2016, 
        and December 31, 2021'' and inserting ``during the period 
        beginning on January 1, 2016, and ending on the date on which 
        the provision contained in such amendment is struck pursuant to 
        paragraph (4)'';
            (2) in paragraph (4) by striking ``5'' and inserting 
        ``10'';
            (3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
            (4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
            ``(5) Prohibition on income threshold.--In carrying out the 
        amendment made by paragraph (1), no income threshold may be 
        applied to limit the eligibility of a recipient from qualifying 
        for a waiver under the amendment made by such paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zeb Anthony HENSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6095

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Zeb Anthony Henson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Zeb Anthony Henson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon-*117strafing that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT AUGUST 31, 1996, THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31, 1996
AND THE UNAUDITED NOTES THERETO FOR PLATINUM ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         5109938
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6258849
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1057844
<INVENTORY>                                    2458127
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15196077<F1>
<PP&E>                                         1021837
<DEPRECIATION>                                  296405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                19541671<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4959381
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5063
<OTHER-SE>                                    14577227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  19541671
<SALES>                                        4130645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6524113
<CGS>                                          2416671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3645393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2374664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (630794)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (630794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (630794)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes gross artist advances of $1,841,279
<F2>Includes gross artist advances of $10,032,710, less an allowance for
unrecoupable artist advances of $5,280,223
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Michael D. Capellas, the Chief
Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 15, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael D. Capellas
|                   |  |  |  | Michael D. Capellas    
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
1 No affidavit of indigence has ever been filed.



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00495-CV

Maria A. Miccoli, Appellant

v.

Jeffrey Copenhaver, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 495386, HONORABLE SUSAN D. SHEPPARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record and reporter’s reco rd in this cause were due on August 8, 2003.

In response to a notification from the Clerk of this Court concerning the overdue records, the district

clerk’s office of Travis County and the court reporter for the cause notified this Court that appellant

had not made payment arrangements. No affidavit of indigence was filed with or before the notice

of appeal. 1 Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(c)(1) (affidavit of indigence must be filed in trial court with or

before notice of appeal). By letter of November 21, 2003, this Court notified appellant that the

record problem had to be cured by December 5, 2003, or the appeal would be dismissed for want of

prosecution. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b) (if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s failure to pay

for record or make payment arrangements, court may dismiss appeal for want of prosecution). To2

date, appellant has not made payment arrangements. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b) (dismissal for want of prosecution).

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: January 23, 2004
Arlando Raeshun NICHOLS v. STATE

CR-15-0515

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied February 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert L. HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0302

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

Robert L. Henderson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Jay, and Winsor, JJ., concur.