alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Kellie S. Pruitt Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.6 
 AMENDMENT 
 to 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is dated as of May 16, 2012, by and between Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the
“Corporation”), and Kellie S. Pruitt (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Executive is
currently employed by the Corporation pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2009 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2012, and the Corporation and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement, as provided herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the Employment Period (as defined therein) shall be extended for one (1) additional year so that the Employment Period, subject to
early termination pursuant to Section 7 of the Agreement, shall conclude on June 30, 2013. 
 2. Section 5 of the
Agreement is hereby amended to delete the section entitled “Participation - Equity Interest” in its entirety. 
 3. Section 8 of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that (a) the “Release” referred to in such section must be executed by the Executive within 45 days after the
Executive’s Date of Termination (as defined therein) and must not be revoked by the Executive within any revocation period provided by applicable law, (b) if the Executive is entitled to receive cash severance pursuant to such section,
such severance shall be paid in a lump sum on the sixtieth (60th) day following the Executive’s Date of Termination, and (c) the fourth paragraph of the “Provisions Regarding Code Section 409A” in Section 10 of the Agreement is
hereby deleted in its entirety. 
 4. Except as expressly modified herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
in accordance with its original terms. 
 5. Capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in the Agreement. 
 6. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 [Remainder of page intentionally left
blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered
on the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	 HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA, INC.

		
	By:	 	  

	[Name]	 	
	[Title]	 	
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	  

	Kellie S. Pruitt



  
 2
**EXHIBIT - 32.1**

MOSSIMO, INC.

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I Mossimo Giannulli, Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

(1)              The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit -32.1, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| /s/    | Mossimo  Giannulli                       |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Mossimo  Giannulli                       |
|   | Chairman and  Co-Chief Executive Officer |
|   | August 14, 2006                          |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEENPROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TOTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STAFF UPON REQUEST.

THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THE FORM10-Q TO WHICH IT RELATES, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO A FILING OF THECOMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934 (WHETHERMADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE FORM 10-Q), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERALINCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING.

----
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.22


                        TANNING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
                               November 1, 1999


To:    Fred Fogel

From:  Larry Tanning

Re:    Five Quarter Compensation Plan


    As we have discussed, Tanning has developed a compensation plan for certain
senior executives for the five-quarter period beginning October 1, 1999 and
ending December 31, 1999.  Your cash compensation for the period will be an
annual rate of $122,500 ($5,104.17 on  a semi-monthly basis).  In addition, you
will be granted stock options to purchase 13,125  shares of Tanning common stock
at a per share exercise price of  $35 under our 1999 Stock Option Plan.  These
options will become exercisable (vest) monthly on a ratable basis (875 shares
per month), beginning on October 31, 1999, in all cases subject to the terms and
conditions of the 1999 Stock Option Plan and the related stock option agreement.

    Your existing employment and related agreements with Tanning (including
provisions relating to non-competition, etc.) will remain in full force and
effect except to the extent related to cash compensation matters.  As to all
matters relating to cash compensation, including cash incentive compensation and
bonus arrangements, the cash compensation described above will govern, effective
October 1, 1999.

    We are extremely excited about our company's future, and look forward to
more success together. Please indicate your agreement with the provisions of
this memorandum by signing below.

                                              Very truly yours,

                                              TANNING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

                                              By:  /s/ Larry G. Tanning



AGREED AND ACCEPTED


By:  /s/ Frederick H. Fogel
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. New York Trust Company, Appellant, against Mark Graves et al., Constituting the State Tax Commission, Respondents.

Submitted June 14, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

Motion by appellant for reargument and to amend the remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 290 N. Y. 785.)
#### Frank EVERSOLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35035

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 25, 2017

Frank Eversole, Pro Se

Paul Andrew Allulis, Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Attorney, Yael Bortnick, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Di*470vision/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Sherra Wong, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Frank Eversole appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that the Internal Revenue Service illegally levied his Social Security disability insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim. *Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc.,*824 F.3d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Eversole’s action because the Internal Revenue Service has the authority to levy Eversole’s Social Security disability insurance benefits. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6334(a) (enumerating property exempt from levy for taxes); *id.*§ 6334(c) (providing that no other property is exempt from levy other than property enumerated in subsection (a)); *see also id.*§ 6331(a) (Secretary has the power to levy property and rights to property if a person is liable for unpaid taxes, and federal payments can be levied).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued at the district court. *See Padgett v. Wright, 587*F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Cite as 2017 Ark. 119

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-17-163

JUSTIN ISIAH BURNS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered April 6, 2017

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

ATTORNEY ON DIRECT APPEAL

MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Appellant Justin Isiah Burns pleaded guilty to rape, admitted he was a habitual offender

with two prior felony convictions, and was sentenced by a Garland County jury to life

imprisonment. Burns is represented by Mark S. Fraiser, who asks to be relieved on the

ground that he is not eligible to be compensated for services as appellate counsel.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Repl. 2016) provides that

persons employed as full-time public defenders who are not provided a state-funded secretary

are eligible to seek compensation for appellate work. Counsel affirms that he is a full-time

public defender with a full-time, state-funded secretary. Under these circumstances, he is not

entitled to be paid for services in this appeal, and his request to be relieved is well-founded.

Craigg v. State, 2012 Ark. 95 (per curiam).

Therefore, we grant Fraiser’s motion to be relieved. We appoint attorney Timothy

Penhallegon to represent Burns on appeal. Our clerk is directed to set a briefing schedule for

the appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 10779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-564-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: AVC Storage Loss Retainage 
Factor Update--2022 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-565-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Flow Through of Cash-Out Penalty 
Revenues filed on 2-18-22 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-566-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Empire Fuel Tracker Per GT&C 
23.3 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-567-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker Filing (GTC 41) 
2022 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 18, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04049 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September. 30, 2009 of Kat Racing, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Kenny ThatcherKenny ThatcherChief Executive Officer/s/ Kenny ThatcherKenny ThatcherChief Financial OfficerDated: January, 19, 2009   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Kat Racing, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 627 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to prohibit an individual from registering to vote in elections for Federal office held in 

the State unless the individual provides documentary proof that the 

individual is a citizen of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2023 

Mr. FALLON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to 

prohibit an individual from registering to vote in elections for Federal office held in the State unless the 

individual provides documentary proof that the individual 

is a citizen of the United States. 

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 ‘‘Verification Of The 

5 Electorate Act’’ or the ‘‘VOTE Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 627 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING REGISTRATION TO VOTE OF INDIVID2 UALS WHO FAIL TO PROVIDE PROOF OF 

3 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8 of the National Voter 

5 Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20507) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (j) as sub7 section (k); and 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (i) the fol9 lowing new subsection: 

10 ‘‘(j) PROHIBITING REGISTRATION OF INDIVIDUALS

11 NOT PROVIDING PROOF OF UNITED STATES CITIZEN12 SHIP.— 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

14 provision of this Act, an individual may not register 

15 to vote in elections for Federal office held in the 

16 State unless, at the time the individual applies to 

17 register to vote, the individual provides documentary 

18 proof that the individual is a citizen of the United 

19 States. The chief State election official of a State 

20 shall, in consultation with the Election Assistance 

21 Commission, determine which documents an indi22 vidual must provide to prove that the individual is 

23 a citizen of the United States for purposes of this 

24 paragraph. 

25 ‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY.—Paragraph (1) applies 

26 with respect to an individual who applies to register 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 627 IH

1 to vote under section 5, 6, or 7 (including an indi2 vidual who submits the mail voter registration appli3 cation form prescribed by the Election Assistance 

4 Commission pursuant to section 9), or who applies 

5 under any other method of voter registration avail6 able in the State. 

7 ‘‘(3) APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL PENALTY.—An 

8 individual who violates this subsection shall be sub9 ject to the criminal penalty described in section 

10 12(2).’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to applications for 

13 voter registration which are submitted on or after the date 

14 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Bertoldo Escobar REYNA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70826

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 5, 2017

Douglas D. Nelson, Esquire, Attorney, Douglas D. Nelson, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner

Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorney, OIL, Tim Ramnitz, Trial Attorney, 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: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bertoldo Escobar Reyna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“LJ”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, and-ordering him removed. We haye jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, and claims of constitutional violations., *Martinez-Medina v. Holder,*673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying Reyna’s motion to suppress evidence and terminate proceedings, because *Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder,*558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009), forecloses his contention that his statements to immigration officials at the border were obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c). Réyna urges us to reconsider our holding in *Samayoa-Mar-tinez,*but a three-judge panel cannot overrule circuit precedent in the absence of an intervening decision from a higher court or en banc decision of this court. *See Avar*
      *571
      *gyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011). We also reject Reyna’s contention that *de Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey,*534 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) controls the result of his case.

The agency also did not err by admitting the government’s evidence, where the documents submitted were probative, their admission was fundamentally fair, and Reyna failed to establish that they were inaccurate or obtained by coercion. *See Espinoza v. INS,*45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) ((“The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it.”) (internal citations omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8234

RICHARD JOSEPH RAMSEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-hc-02088-D)

Submitted: March 19, 2009 Decided: April 13, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Joseph Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Richard Joseph Ramsey appeals the district court’s
order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Ramsey v. Secretary of the Army , No. 5:08-hc-02088-D (E.D.N.C.
Sept. 23, 2008). 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
#### Marcus P. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John HAWKINS, Administrator, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6243

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Marcus P. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*689Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus P. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*