alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT


 


This Second Amendment to
Offer of Employment (“Amendment”) is effective as of March 1, 2019 (“Effective Date”), by
and between Pershing Gold Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Timothy M. Janke (the “Employee”),
and amends that certain Offer of Employment between the Company and Employee dated January 10, 2018, as previously amended on September
28, 2018 (the “Original Agreement”). Capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition have the meanings
given in the Original Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, the severance
and change in control protections set forth in the Original Agreement expire on March 31, 2019.


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire
to modify the Original Agreement to extend the severance and change in control protections set forth in the Original Agreement
through June 1, 2019.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
covenants and promises contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Amendment. The term set forth in the first sentence of the Severance and Change in Control
section of the Original Agreement is hereby extended to June 1, 2019.



 


		2.	General. Except as otherwise modified herein, all other terms and provisions of the Original
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The performance and construction of this Amendment shall be governed by the internal
laws of the State of Nevada. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, with each such counterpart constituting
an original and all such counterparts constituting but one and the same instrument. Signatures may be exchanged by facsimile or
by an email scanned .PDF signature page, with original signatures to follow. Each party agrees that it will be bound by its own
facsimiled or .pdf-scanned signature and that it accepts the facsimiled or PDF-scanned signature of the other party.



 




    	 	1	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this Amendment as of the Effective Date.


 


	 	PERSHING GOLD CORPORATION


 


	 	By:	/s/ Stephen D. Alfers





	 	Its: Chief Executive Officer and President
	 	Name: Stephen D. Alfers
	 	 
	 	/s/ Timothy M. Janke
	 	Timothy M. Janke


 








    	 	2
Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

We have issued our report  dated  February 1, 2001  accompanying  the  financial
statements included in the Annual Report of ePHONE Telecom Inc., on Form 10-KSB,
for the year ended December 31, 2000. We hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration  Statement of ePHONE Telecom,  Inc.
on Form SB-2 (File No.  333-43368)  filed with the  Commission  on September 25,
2000.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Vienna, Virginia
February 28, 2001
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the
Issuer). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009.

I, Nicholas J. Tomashot, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

This certification is executed as of November 16, 2009.



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Nicholas J. Tomashot                                 
|Name: Nicholas J. Tomashot Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Omar LOBO-LOPEZ, a/k/a Joker, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6668

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Oscar Omar Lobo-Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia T. Giles, Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Oscar Omar Lobo-Lopez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to place his 28 U.S.C. § '2255 (2012) motion in abeyance. 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 certifí-cate 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.

*248We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lobo-Lopez 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Isidro CRUZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Cindy, also known as Chimuelo, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41583 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Isidro Cruz-Sanchez, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Isidro Cruz-Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cruz-Sanchez has notfiled a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions, of the record reflected therein. We’ concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no- nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00383-CR

RUDOLF HILBURN, JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1352567D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from a plea-bargained conviction 

for felony driving while intoxicated. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial 

court’s certification of the right of appeal states that this “is a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

We notified appellant that unless he filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it. Although appellant filed a response, 

it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 

675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 29, 2014
(LOGO) ARTHUR ANDERSEN


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Stockholder of First Tennessee Mortgage Services, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion about First Tennessee Mortgage Services,
Inc.'s  (the  "Company")   compliance  with  the  minimum  servicing   standards
identified  in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of America's  Uniform  Single
Attestation  Program  for  Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP) and that the Company had in
effect a fidelity  bond  policy in the amount of  $70,000,000  and an errors and
omissions  policy in the  amount  of  $50,000,000  as of and for the year  ended
December 31, 1999,  included in the accompanying  management  assertion  letter.
Management  is  responsible  for the  Company's  compliance  with those  minimum
servicing standards and for maintaining a fidelity bond and errors and omissions
policy.  Our  responsibility is to express an opinion on management's  assertion
about  the  Company's  compliance  with  the  minimum  servicing  standards  and
maintenance  of a fidelity  bond and errors and  omissions  policy  based on our
examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our opinion, except for the matters disclosed therein, management's assertion
that the Company complied with the  aforementioned  minimum servicing  standards
and that the  Company  had in effect a  fidelity  bond  policy in the  amount of
$70,000,000  and an errors and omissions  policy in the amount of $50,000,000 as
of and for the year ended December 31, 1999, is fairly  stated,  in all material
respects.


Arthur Andersen LLP
Memphis, Tennessee,
February 28, 2000.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 3320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1262]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7771]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Print/Out''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Print/Out,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Modern Art, New 
York, New York, from on or about February 19, 2012, until on or about 
May 14, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-1262 Filed 1-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Maurice JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3499

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A1 77 1 . RODERI CK J ACKSON v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 2

, Ro d eri ck J ack s o n p l ed g u i l ty t o t wo co u n t s o f cru el ty t o ch i l d ren i n

t h e f i r s t d eg ree an d o n e co u nt o f cru el t y t o ch i l d ren i n t h e s eco n d d eg ree. H e

s u b s eq u en t l y fi l ed a m o t i o n t o wi t h d raw hi s g u i lt y p l ea, an d, fo l l o wi n g a heari n g

, t h e

t ri al ju d g e o ral l y den i ed J ack s o n ’ s m o ti o n i n N o v em b er 2 0 1 2

. On M arch 22

, 2 0 1 9,

J ack s o n fi led a p ro s e No t ice o f Ap p eal

, ap p eal i n g “ t h e d eci s i o n m ad e du ri n g an

o p en -en ded g u i l t y

p lea” i n J an u ary 2 0 1 2 . W e l ack ju ri s d i ct io n

.

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a) req u i res t h at a n o t i ce o f ap p eal b e fi led wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f

t h e ord er s ou gh t t o be ap p eal ed

. Th e p ro p er an d t im el y fi l i ng o f a n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s

an ab so l u t e req u i rem en t t o co nfer ju ri s d i ct i o n o n t h i s Co u rt

. Hen d er s o n v. S t a t e

, 2 6 5

Ga. 3 1 7

, 3 1 7 (1 ) (4 5 4 SE2 d 45 8 ) (1 9 9 5 ). Here, Jack s o n ap p aren tl y s eek s t o ap p eal t h e

2 0 1 2 s en t en ce en t ered fo ll o wi ng h i s g u i l t y p l ea. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n to

co n si d er a d irect ap p eal fro m t h at d i s p o s i t i o n o rd er. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). We

l i kewi s e lack ju ri s d i ct i on t o co n s i d er an y ap peal fro m t h e d en i al o f J ack s o n ’ s m o t i o n

t o wi t h draw h i s g u i l t y p l ea. In h i s n o t i ce o f ap p eal

, J ack so n sp eci fi es t h at cert ai n

reco rd s be t ran s m i t t ed t o t h i s Co u rt

. Th es e reco rd s do n ot in cl ud e t h e s t am p ed “ fi l ed ”

co u rt o rd er d en y i n g t h e m ot io n t o wi th d raw h i s p lea o r an y do cu m en t fi l ed aft er 2 0 1 2.

Gi v en t h e ab s en ce o f a t ri al co u rt o rd er en t ered wi t h i n 30 d ay s o f J ack s o n’ s No t i ce

o f A p peal

, w e h av e n o th in g t o rev i ew. See Ami ca v. S t a t e

, 3 0 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 7 6

, 2 8 2 (2 )

(7 0 4 SE2 d 8 3 1 ) (2 0 1 0 ). July 03, 2019Bas ed on t h e d es ig nat ed reco rd t ran s m i t t ed t o t h i s Co u rt

, J ack s on ’ s ap p eal i s

u n t i m el y an d i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/03/2019
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2002 As filed with Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, Thomas T. Hawker , ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| August 13,  2002 |                     |
|------------------|--------------------------|
|             |                     |
|             | /s/ Thomas  T. Hawker    |
|             | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Appellants, v. Mary Faricy PARDUE, as personal representative of the Estate of John N. Faricy, Appellee.

No. 1D17-959

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6317

JERRY J. ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEVEN GAL, Warden of FCI - Estill; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-3895-2-12) Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry J. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry J. Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). As the district court recognized, the fact that Anderson’s petition could not proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) does not necessarily render that section inadequate so as to permit Anderson to proceed under § 2241. SeeIn re Vial , 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), upon which Anderson’s claim is based, is not retroactively applicable in § 2241 petitions. See San-Miguel v. Dove , 291 F.3d 257, 260-61 & n.2 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 938 (2002). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision. 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.

AFFIRMED
Sharon SALLIE v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-00801-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 8, 2018 Closed: June 7, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
### P.O. Box 450 Kake, Alaska 99830 (907) 785-3741
May 29, 2014

Michael Gormas United States Department of Transportation Washington D.C. RE: Kake Essential Air Service Contract Mr. Gormas:
. The KakeCity School Board believes that selection of acarrier for the EAScontract isvitally important to the City of Kake,and the students of KakeCity Schools. The School Board has reviewed the three proposals for the EssentialAir Service Contracts. While Alaska Seaplanes isour current EASprovider, we are very fortunate to currently also beserviced by Harris Air. The School district and the School Board feel that both companies provide outstanding service to our students. Besidessafety for our students, the board's top priority for this contract isto have reliable service. Due to the weather conditions of fog and rain in SEAlaska, we feel that IFRshould bea requirement of whoever receives this bid. With the goal of having IFRflights, the board had narrowed its choices down to Harris Air and Alaska Seaplanes. In our discussions with Alaska Seaplanes, it isour understanding that they will have the availability to provide this service on all flights to Kakethat go through Sitka, prior to the contract being awarded. Harris Air currently hasthis capability on all their flights. The board hasdetermined that they would like to support the application of Alaska Seaplanesgiven they will be able to fulfill the IFRrequirements prior to August 1 S\ This selection was made, due to the size of the fleet and the addition of the larger planes make this option more appealing. However, if the DOTdetermines that the IFRrequirements cannot be met byAugust 1 St, then Harris Air would be our recommendation, asthey currently fly IFRon their flights to Kake. We thank you and we would be happy to answer any questions that you and your committee may have.

Kake City School board Kevin Shipley Superintendent of Schools 

### Kake City School District Is an £quaJ Opportunity £mployer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6257 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide Medicare coverage 

of ambulance services that do not include transportation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2023 

Ms. BALINT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

Medicare coverage of ambulance services that do not 

include transportation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Medical 

5 Services Reimbursement for On-Scene and Support Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6257 IH

1 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF AMBULANCE SERVICES THAT DO 

2 NOT INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION. 

3 Section 1861(s)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(7)) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(7);’’ 

6 (2) in subparagraph (A), as added by para7 graph (1), by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

8 and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(B) notwithstanding subparagraph (A), ambu12 lance service includes such services described in such 

13 subparagraph that are furnished on or after January 

14 1, 2025, to an individual by a provider or supplier 

15 of ambulance services regardless of whether the pro16 vider or supplier provides the transport for the indi17 vidual at a reimbursement comparable to the trans18 port reimbursement;’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB