alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This
First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of September 25, 2018 (the “Effective
Date”) by and between Alex Aliksanyan, an individual (the “Employee”)
and Nestbuilder.com Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) for the purpose of memorializing an oral amendment
to that certain Employment Agreement dated August 17, 2018, by and between the Company and the Employee (the “Employment
Agreement”), which oral amendment was entered into on or about August 28, 2018. All capitalized terms used but not defined
herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. In consideration of the continued employment
of Employee by the Company, the agreements and covenants herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree to memorialize
the oral amendment to the Employment Agreement by executing this Amendment, and the parties hereto hereby enter into this Amendment,
so as to agree with each other as follows:


 


1.
Amendment to Section 5 of Exhibit A. Section 5 of Exhibit A of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety
and the following substituted therefor:


 


“Section
5. Remuneration


 


(a)
Terms and conditions will include a base salary of $36,000 per year.”


 


2.
Amendment to Section 6 of Exhibit A. Section 6 of Exhibit A of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety
and the following substituted therefor:


 


“Section
6. Prior to June 30, 2019, the Company shall adopt an employee stock option plan or similar plan for compensating, incentivizing,
retaining and attracting employees (the “Plan”). The Executive shall be entitled to receive equity securities
pursuant to the Plan from time to time in the discretion of the board of directors of the Company.”


 


3.
Effect on Employment Agreement. Expect as amended or modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms, and is hereby ratified and confirmed by the parties hereto.


 


4.
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts each of which shall for all purposes be deemed
an original, and all of such counterparts, taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement. Executed
counterparts may be delivered via facsimile or other means of electronic transmission.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first set forth above.


 


 





	“Employee”	 	“Company”
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Nestbuilder.com Corp.,
	 	 	a Nevada corporation
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Alex Aliksanyan, an individual	 	By:	Thomas M. Grbelja
	 	 	
        Its:

         
	
        Chief Financial Officer, Secretary

        and Director
George C. GRIMSLEY, Appellant, v. MALIBU BAY APARTMENTS, Appellee.

No. 4D18-18

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Robert KEY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2105

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Eric DARBY v. STATE

CR-16-0654

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

Board of Directors 

eOn CommunicationsCorporation 

 

We have issued our report dated August 26, 2004, accompanying theconsolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Eon Communications Corporation on Form 10-K/A for the year ended July 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Company’sRegistration Statement on Form S-8, file number 333-36460. 

 

/s/ Grant ThorntonLLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

July 18, 2005
December 9. 2015

Dear Mr. Jernigan:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 0600). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Your petition references the material lis ted below, however the material was not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 12/23/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely, /S/ Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Jamie  B.  Coulter,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of Lone  Star
Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 3, 2002 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                             /s/ Jamie B. Coulter
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Jamie B. Coulter
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             October 18, 2002
```
#### Doris CHIDOZIE-SAPP, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73731

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

*576Sylvia L. Esparza, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Sylvia L. Esparza, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

Lisa Damiano, Trial Attorney, 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: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *576*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Doris Chidozie-Sapp, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Chidozie-Sapp’s fraudulent marriage to a United States citizen for the sole purpose of obtaining immigration benefits. *See id.*at 1048; *Singh v. Holder,*643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”); *Singh v. Holder,*638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[L]ies and fraudulent documents when they are no longer necessary for the immediate escape from persecution do support an adverse inference.”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Chidozie-Sapp’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Chidozie-Sapp’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements that the agency found not credible, and Chidozie-Sapp does not point to any evidence that compels the finding it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Nigeria. *See Shrestha,*590 F.3d at 1048-49. We reject her contentions that the IJ ignored evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Andrey SOLONENKO, Appellant, v. GEORGIA NOTES 18, LLC, Felice Cellini, Edward B. Cellini, Nina Solonenko, Valeriy Solonenko, Lucky Nation, LLC, Riviera Isles Master Association, Inc., unknown spouse of Felice Cellini a/k/a Felice E. Cellini, unknown spouse of Nina Solonenko, unknown spouse of Valeriy Solonenko, any and all unknown parties claiming by, through, under and against the herein named individual Defendant(s) who are not known to be Dead or Alive, whether said unknown parties may claim an Interest as Spouses, Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, or Other Claimants, Tenant #1, Tenant #2, Tenant #3 and Tenant #4, The Names Being Fictitious to Account for Parties in Possession , Appellees.

No. 4D17-3744

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 10, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Mushtaq MOHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2334

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 9, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Richard W. Chen, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lisa M. Damiano, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mushtaq Mohammad, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the transcript of Mohammad’s merits hearing, and Mohammad’s supporting affidavit and evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Mohammad*(B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2016). We 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
Henry J. KUHLMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HARDEE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0662

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 8, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for a writ prohibiting Judge Marcus Ezelle from presiding further in circuit court case number 2015-CA-183 is granted. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(f) ; Bundvv. Rudd. 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978) ; Consulate Health Care v. Ho, 210 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). A successor judge shall be immediately appointed pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.215(b)(4). Respondent Caresync's motion for judicial notice is also granted.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Keith M. BUTCHER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GOLF CART MART, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3917

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1


                    STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-Q") of Grayson  Bankshares,  Inc. (the  "Company"),
we, Jacky K.  Anderson,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  and Blake M.
Edwards,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to our knowledge:

     (a)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (b)  the  information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



         By:      /s/ Jacky K. Anderson                Date: May 14, 2007
                  Jacky K. Anderson
                  Chief Executive Officer



         By:      /s/ Blake M. Edwards                 Date: May 14, 2007
                  Blake M. Edwards
                  Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claude Wendell BELLAMY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7292

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Claude Wendell Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Assistant United States Attorney, John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*838PER CURIAM:

Claude Wendell Bellamy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 demonstrating 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 Bellamy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Bellamy’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

> (1) newly discovered evidence that ... would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

> (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Bellamy’s claims do not satisfy either.of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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
STATE IN the INTEREST OF G.M.A. & K.K.A.

18-153

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 6, 2018

Bethany Blackson, Calcasieu Parish District Attorney's Office, 901 Lakeshore Drive, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 437-3400, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana

Nicholas Pizzolatto, Jr., Department of Children & Family Services, 1919 Kirkman Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 491-2470, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana, Department of Children & Family Services

Richard D. Moreno, Richard D. Moreno, LLC, 125 W. School Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 433-9535, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: T.A.

Mike K. Stratton, Public Defender's Office, 1032 Ryan Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 436-1718, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: K.D.

Ann McSpadden, Child Advocacy Program, One Lakeshore Drive, Suite 1110, Lake Charles, LA 70629, (337) 491-2461, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES: G.M.A. K.K.A.

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, and Elizabeth A. Pickett, Judges.

AMY, Judge.

*1213As noted in the companion matter of *Tracy Alexander v. State of Louisiana, Dep't of Children and Family Services* , 18-154 (La.App. 3 Cir. -/-/18), --- So.3d ----, the appellant's motion for appeal, as well as the corresponding order of appeal, included the captions and the trial court docket numbers of both the petition for nullity as well as the underlying termination of parental rights proceedings. The appellate record of each matter was lodged with this court. While the instant docket number is the appeal filed from the petition for termination of parental rights, we note that the appellant does not brief issues relating to the merits of the termination matter. Those issues are, therefore, not addressed further herein. *See* Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4(B)(4) (providing that "[a]ll assignments of error and issues for review must be briefed. The court may consider as abandoned any assignment of error or issue for review which has not been briefed.") Therefore, we leave the underlying judgment undisturbed. *See also**State in the Interest of G.M.A. & K.K.A.* , 16-405 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/28/16), 201 So.3d 1014, *writ denied* , 16-1945 (La. 11/18/16), 210 So.3d 290. All costs of this appeal are assessed against Tracy Alexander.

**AFFIRMED.**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan SUAREZ-ROCHA, a.k.a. Juan Suarez Rocha, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10474

16-10475

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 2, 2017

Arturo Andres Aguilar, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew J. Mcguire, Patagonia, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

' Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Juan Suarez-Rocha appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 18-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

For the first time on appeal, Suarez-Rocha contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his arguments, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explain the sentence, We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Suarez-Rocha’s arguments, and the section 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the within Guidelines sentence. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Suarez-Rocha also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Suarez-Rocha’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The aggregate sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the applicable section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Suarez-Rocha’s criminal history, his multiple prior removals, and his failure to be deterred by prior sentences. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Elbert SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sue BUNCH, Mailroom Clerk; Teresa Pease, Mailroom Associate; Randall C. Mathena, Warden of Red Onion State Prison; George M. Hinkle, Re*878gional Administrator for the Western Region of Virginia; Harold W. Clarke, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7124

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 15, 2016

Decided: December 21, 2016

Elbert Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elbert Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint, as amended, after conducting review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, wé affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Bunch, No. 7:15-cv-00491-JPJ-RSB, 2016 WL 3963240 (W.D. Va. July 21, 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Raymond, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 655]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.), rendered April 24, 2002, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the court *(see People v Granton,*236 AD2d 624 [1997]; *People v McGriff,*216 AD2d 330 [1995]). In this case, the record clearly established that the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.

The defendant’s assertion that the defense counsel coerced his plea is without merit. The defendant knowingly and voluntarily admitted his guilt in a thorough and complete allocution, during which he stated that no one, including the defense counsel, had coerced his plea *(see People v Harris,*222 AD2d 522 [1995]; *People v Richardson,*214 AD2d 624 [1995]; *People v Hall,*195 AD2d 521 [1993]). Further, “[t]he defendant expressed no dissatisfaction with his counsel at the time of the plea, after the court had fully apprised him of the consequences of pleading guilty” *(People v Hall, supra*at 522).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.