alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (1) TO DAVID MATHEWS
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


 


This amendment is made and entered into effective January 2,
2012, and modifies the referenced employment agreement that was signed December 30, 2011, effective January 1,2012 between Texas
Gulf Energy, Inc., formerly known as Global Nutech, Inc. and David Mathews.


 


The section of the agreement that reads:


 


1.4
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD. On the closing date of the Acquisition (the “Closing Date”), in connection
with the appointment of the Executive as CEO, the Executive will be awarded 15,667,806 shares (the “Restricted Shares”)
of the Employer’s common stock, par value $0.00001 per share. The Restricted Shares shall vest and be issued to Executive
as follows: (i) 5,222,602 of the Restricted Shares on January 15, 2012; (ii) 5,222,602 of the Restricted Shares on January 15,
2013; and (iii) 5,222,602 of the Restricted Shares on January 15, 2014. In the event of a change of control or sale of the Employer,
all of the Restricted Shares shall immediately vest and be issued by Employer immediately prior to such change of control or sale.


 


 


Is amended and adopted as follows:


 


1.4
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD. On the closing date of the Acquisition (the “Closing Date”), in connection
with the appointment of the Executive as CEO, the Executive will be awarded 15,667,806 shares (the “Restricted Shares”)
of the Employer’s common stock, par value $0.00001 per share. The Restricted Shares shall vest and be issued to Executive
as follows: All 15,667,806 shares issued as of January 1, 2012 or as soon as practicable after that date, they shall be subject
to clawback as follows: (i) 5,222,602 of the Restricted Shares are not subject to clawback ; (ii) 10,445,204 of the Restricted
Shares are subject to clawback until January 1, 2013; and (iii) 5,222,602 of the Restricted Shares are subject to clawback until
January 1, 2014. In the event of a change of control or sale of the Employer, all of the Restricted Shares shall immediately vest,
the clawback provisions shall be void and any shares due the Executive will be issued by Employer immediately prior to such change
of control or sale.


 


 


 


 


All other terms and conditions of the agreement are hereby ratified.
This amendment is adopted and substituted in place of the original effective the date first written above.


 


	Signed:	 	Signed:
	 	 	 
	/s/ Craig Crawford	 	/s/ David Mathews
	Texas Gulf Energy, Inc.	 	David Mathews
#### In the Matter of Boaz Ahituv, Respondent, v Aviva Ahituv, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 636]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the wife appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Foskey, J.), dated February 7, 2003, which, after a hearing, found that she violated an order of protection previously issued by the court on June 10, 2002, and directed her incarceration for a period of 15 days. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 24, 2003, enforcement of the order was stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

Ordered that the order is modified by reducing the wife’s sentence to the time she has already spent incarcerated; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, no further incarceration is warranted.

The wife’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Smith and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
454 A.2d 156

#### Commonwealth v. Sparks, Appellant.

Submitted April 28, 1982.

Thomas Albert Bowlen, for appellant; Gerald R. Solomon, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P.J., BECK and MONTEMURO, JJ.

Order affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                           COHR INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS
                                                                ENDED           SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                            SEPTEMBER 30,         SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                          -----------------     -----------------
                                                           1996       1995       1996       1995
                                                          ------     ------     ------     ------
<S>                                                       <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCK.................  $1,064     $  514     $1,995     $  971
                                                          ======     ======     ======     ======
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
  Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding........................................   4,570      2,112      4,566      2,112
  Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants after
     application of treasury stock method...............     262                   266
                                                          ------     ------     ------     ------
  Number of shares used to compute primary earnings per
     share..............................................   4,832      2,112      4,832      2,112
Primary earnings per share..............................  $ 0.22     $ 0.24     $ 0.41     $ 0.46
                                                          ======     ======     ======     ======
</TABLE>
 
                                       11
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2499

JEFFREY COX,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RUST SCAFFORD RENTAL & ERECTION, INCORPORATED;

MIKE FREIMULLER, employee,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Dennis Raymond Knapp,

Senior District Judge. (CA-96-186-2)

Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Albert F. Sebok, JACKSON & KELLY,

Charleston, West Virginia; John E. Lutz, RICCARDI & LUTZ, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment to Appellees in his civil action in which he alleged various claims in relation to termination of his employment. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Cox v. Rust Scaffold Rental & Erection, Inc., No.

CA-96-186-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 1997). Appellant asserts that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel. A litigant in a civil

action, however, has no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel; thus, Cox is not entitled to relief on

this claim. Appellant's contentions regarding the conduct of Appellees' counsel during criminal proceedings are not properly before

this Court because Appellant did not raise them below. Finally, Appellant did not move to remand his complaint once it was removed to

federal court. Accordingly, we will not review Appellant's contention that the removal was against his wishes. 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
492 A.2d 1319

#### STATE of Maryland v. Wardell JACKSON.

No. 58,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 6, 1985.

Submitted to MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Court having considered and granted the petition for writ of certiorari, in the above entitled case, it is this 6th day of June, 1985

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that in light of the opinion of the Court in *State of Maryland v. One 1980 Harley Davidson Motorcycle Vin # 9G3593950 and State of Maryland v. One 1973 Ford Torino Vin # 3B30H169115,*303 Md. 154, 492 A.2d 896 (1985), the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, reversed and case remanded to that Court with instructions to reverse the February 2,1984 order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and to remand the case to that Court for further proceedings consistent with the aforesaid opinion, *279the mandate to issue forthwith with costs to be paid by the appellee.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Inspiration
Products, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I,Jon P. Taffer, Principal Executive and Principal Accounting Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,that:

         (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




By:   /s/ Jon P. Taffer
      ----------------------------------------
Name: Jon P. Taffer,
Principal Executive and Principal Accounting Officer
April 14, 2003




<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 28, 2016

p1212

Order 

Clerk

December 28, 2016

153086(48)

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153086

COA: 328542

Wayne CC: 15-005208-AV

DAMITA C. JOHNSON EL-BEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 6, 

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### TRE AVIATION ADMINISTRATION and Robert C. Mace, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

No. 15-71061

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed April 10, 2017

Edward A. McConwell, Sr., Esquire, McConwell Law Offices, Mission, KS, Michael Anthony Urbano, Esquire, The Law Offices of Michael A. Urbano, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners

Paul A. Bullís, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, Amanda Bruchs Sheridan, Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent

*488Before: CLIFTON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioners TRE Aviation Administration and Robert C. Mace seek review of the National Transportation Safety-Board’s (NTSB) decision affirming the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) order revoking the standard airworthiness certificate of civil aircraft number N61PH. The parties are familiar with the facts, and therefore we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a), 44709(f), and 46110, and we deny the petition for review.

1. The administrative law judge did not err in allowing the testimony of FAA aviation inspector Kenton Fenning. Fenning testified as a fact witness, and to the extent some of Fenning’s testimony was opinion, it was lay opinion testimony rather than expert opinion and therefore was permitted under Fed. R. Evid, 701. Even if some of Fenning’s testimony constituted expert opinion and was erroneously admitted as undisclosed expert testimony, that error did not prejudice Petitioners and does not warrant reversal. *See Calmat Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor,*364 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that to reverse based on an agency’s evidentiary ruling, the court “must conclude both that the [agency] abused its discretion and that the error was prejudicial”).

2. We reject Petitioners’ contention that they did not violate 14 C.F.R. §§ 45.13(e) and 43.3 when they removed N61PH’s data plate and reattached it to a fuselage from a different helicopter during what they refer to as “maintenance” or “repair” of N61PH. It is undisputed that the current N61PH contains only a few parts from the previous N61PH. We agree with the FAA and the NTSB that the work performed on the helicopter cannot be characterized as “maintenance” or “repair” and that the aircraft on which the data plate was reinstalled is not the same aircraft from which it was removed. The NTSB’s conclusion that N61PH lacks qualification to hold a standard airworthiness certificate because the data plate installed on it does not properly identify it is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

PETITION DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
State of Vermont Superior Court — Environmental Division

=================================================== =================== E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N

=================================================== =================== In re Cote Site Plan Approval Docket No. 52-4-10 Vtec (Appeal of DRB Decision on Cote Site Plan) Title: Motion to Quash Subpoena (Filing No. 15) Filed: October 24, 2012 Filed By: Town of St. Albans, Vincent A. Paradis, E sq. Response: November 5, 2012, by Appellant John E. Ma slar,

X Granted __ Denied ___ Other
On or about October 18, 2012, Attorney Vincent Par adis was served with a subpoena requiring his appearance , presumably to serve as a trial witness , at the merits hearing in this matter scheduled for November 27, 2012. The subpoen a was requested by Mr. Leo Bilodeau, one of the Appellants in this matter. The Environm ental Division did not issue the subpoena
and it is otherwise unknown to the Court who issued the subpoena as the signatory line is not legible.
This matter is limited to the issues raised in thi s appeal of site plan approval granted by the Town of St. Albans to Janet Cote on March 16, 2 010. Attorney Paradis represents the Town of St. Albans. In his motion to quash the subpoena , Attorney Paradis states that all information acquired by him relating to this matter has been du ring the course of his representation of the Town. Any testimony of Attorney Paradis relating t o the matter before the Court would be subject to the Attorney/Client privilege or otherwi se protected from disclosure. Thus, pursuant to V.R.C.P. Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iii), Attorney Paradis ’ timely motion to quash is GRANTED

. Attorney Paradis is not required to appear and test ify in this matter. Attorney Paradis’ motion also requests that the To wn’s costs and reasonable attorney fees be awarded. Although V.R.C.P. 45(c) allows a court to enforce a party’s duty of avoiding the imposition of undue burdens or expenses, we dec line to order reimbursement of costs and attorney fees at this time.

___________________________________________ November 7, 2012____ Thomas G. Walsh, Judge Date=================================================== ===================

Date copies sent to: ____________ Clerk's Initials _______ Copies sent to: Appellant Leo Bilodeau Appellant John E. Maslar Appellant Jerome Franklin Attorney Vincent A. Paradis for Interested Pers on Town of St. Albans Attorney Cynthia L. Broadfoot for Appellee Jane t Cote
#### WHITE KNUCKLE GAMING, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee

2016-2286

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 6, 2017

Andrew S. Hansen, HansenIP, Bountiful, UT, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by David Allan Jones, Alpine-IP PLLC, Lehi, UT.

'James Christopher Martin, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by John Bovich, Christine M. Morgan, San Francisco, CA; Gerard M. Donovan, Washington, DC.

(Taranto, Schall, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel MENDOZA-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10702 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 3, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Miguel Mendoza-Diaz, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Miguel Mendoza-Diaz 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). Mendoza-Diaz has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Mendoza-Diaz’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mendoza-Diaz’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.
#### April E. DIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING INC., Its Successors and/or Assigns, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-55709

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 6, 2017

*425April E. Diggs, Pro Se

Hunter Eley, Connie Yuenting Tcheng, Doll Amir & Eley LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *425*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

April E. Diggs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to vacate the judgment in her action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s order denying a motion to vacate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). *Fid. Nat. Fin., Inc. v. Friedman,*803 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Diggs’s motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) because Diggs failed to establish that the judgment was void. *See United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa,*559 U.S. 260, 270-71, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010) (explaining that a judgment is not void “simply because it is or may have been erroneous,” rather, “Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or. the opportunity to be heard” (citations omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 OF CARIBINER
INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS SET FORTH IN THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          28,694
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                       332
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,629
<PP&E>                                          41,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,686
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,001
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   229,412
<SALES>                                         77,436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,436
<CGS>                                           51,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,327
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,607
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,327
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, August J. Moretti, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Depomed, Inc.; and

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| December 18, 2015 |   |                         |
|-------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|              |   |                         |
|              | By:    | /s/ August J.   Moretti |
|              |   | August J. Moretti       |
|              |   | Chief   Financial Officer    |

 

----