alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8


                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement is made as of this 1st day
of April, 2002, by and between Stewart Enterprises, Inc., a Louisiana
corporation (the "Company"), and Michael K. Crane (the "Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Company has entered into an Employment Agreement with the
Employee dated as of November 1, 2001 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have agreed to eliminate certain
benefits payable to Employee upon termination of employment in consideration of
the inclusion of Employee as an initial participant in a Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (the "SERP").

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the continued employment of
Employee by the Company, the payment of wages, salary and other compensation to
Employee by the Company and the benefits potentially payable to Employee under
the SERP, the parties hereto agree as follows, effective as of April 1, 2002:

         SECTION 1. Except as expressly amended herein, all of the terms and
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         SECTION 2. Article IV, Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is hereby
deleted in its entirety.

         SECTION 3. Article IV, Section 6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby
renumbered as Article IV, Section 5.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed and signed as of the date indicated above.

                                STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.


                                By:
                                   -----------------------------------------
                                         James W. McFarland
                                         Compensation Committee Chairman

                                EMPLOYEE:


                                --------------------------------------------
                                             Michael K. Crane
#### Petition of Ebenezer Trowbridge, 1748

At a Court of Vice Admiralty held at Newport In the Colony of Rhode Island on Thursday the Thirtieth Day of June A. D. 1748.

Present the HonbIe Wm Strengthfield Esqr Dep: Judge

The Court being opened

The Petition of Captn Ebenr Trobridge was read in Court etc

And his Honr the Dep. Judge gave his Decree. And the Court was adjourned untill further notice.

comes into Court and acknowledge themselves to be Indebted to our Sovereign Lord the King, In the Penal sum of Four Hundred Pounds Current Money of the Colony of Rhode Island Old Tenor, with Conditions that if they or either of them, shall pay or cause to be paid unto Joseph Wanton Esqr Dep. Collector of the Customs for the Port of Newport The One Third part of the Duty of Five Shillings Sterling for every Hundred of Sugar brought into this Port by Ebenezer Trobridge and since condemned as Prize, provided always the said Sugar shall be sold and consumed in this Colony. Test

John Channing, and Moses Lopez comes into Court and acknowledge themselves to be Indebted to our Sovereign Lord the King, In the Penal sum of Eight Hundred Pounds, Current money of the Colony of Rhode Island Old Tenor with conditions that if they or either of them shall pay or cause to be paid unto Joseph Wanton Dep. Collector of the Customs for the Port of Newport, Two Thirds part of the Duty of Five Shillings Sterling, for every Hundred of Sugar brought into this Port by Capt“ Trobridge and since *474Condemned as Prize provided always the sa Sugars shall be sold and consumed in this Colony.

Test John Channing (L.S.)

Thos Vernon Moses Lopez (L.S.)

Whereas Captain Ebenezer Trowbridge by his Petition sets forth in behalf of himself his Owners and Company that a part of the Cargo taken on board the Sloop Victorious Condemned in this Court as Prize consisting of Sugars are detained by the Collector of his Majesty’s Customs on account of certain Duties, and as it is the practise of the neighboring Governments that the Captors give sufficient security to pay the sa Duty on all such sugars so Imported that is consumed in the said Government, I therefore order that the sa Ebener Trowbridge Enact with Two good and sufficient sureties to pay the said Duty of Five Shillings Sterling per Hundred on all Sugars Condemned as Prize mentioned in said Petition, which shall be sold and consumed in this Colony, or so much thereof, as shall not be consumed to be exported within nine months which being accomplished, I do order and adjudge that the same be delivered to the Petitioner in order to be divided pursuant to my former Decree the Petitioner paying Cost.

Wm Strengthfield D. Judge
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4635-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Washington (FEMA-4635-DR), dated January 5, 2022, and related determinations.

# DATES:

The amendment was issued January 27, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident for this declared disaster has been changed to severe storms, straight-line winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides. 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2022-04589 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Ball & Co. v. Van Riper *et al.*

Appeal: LESS THAN one hundred dollars : CONTENTS of certificate. Where an. appeal involves less than one hundred dollars, it is necessary, in order to give this court jurisdiction, for the trial judge to state that the questions of law certified by him are involved in the cause. (Compare *Van Sickle v. Downs,*72 Iowa, 624.)

*Appeal from Franldin Circuit Court.*— Hon. D. D. Miracle, Judge.

Filed, March 10, 1888.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*D. W.*Henley, for appellant.

*Taylor &*Evans, for appellee.

Seevers, 0. J.

The amount in controversy is less than one hundred dollars, and the certificate of the trial judge is as follows: “At the request of the defendants, the court certified the following questions of law, on which it is desirable to have the opinion of the supreme court.” It will be observed that the certificate fails to state that the questions certified are involved in the cause, and it is, therefore, insufficient. *Van Sickle v. Downs,*72 Iowa, 624. The appeal must be

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             35 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,477 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       30 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0       
<PP&E>                                              4      
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,669      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0    
<BONDS>                                           455  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                            0 
<OTHER-SE>                                        281       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,669         
<SALES>                                             0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   66          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      12          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 22       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    32       
<INCOME-TAX>                                       10      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                22      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                       22 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
<FN>
THE BALANCE SHEET PRESENTED BY CASE CREDIT CORPORATION IS UNCLASSIFIED.
</FN> 
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sean SHARER, also known as Cowboy Sean, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10788 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

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

Sean Sharer, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Sean Sharer 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). Sharer has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Sharer’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 Sharer’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 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. Sharer’s request to proceed pro se on appeal is untimely, and, therefore, it is DENIED. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

*

 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,
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gensym Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, John M. Belchers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements 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 resultsof operations of the Company. 

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gensym Corporation and will be retained by Gensym Corporation as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Albert Laham et al., Respondents, *v.*Domestic Finance Corporation, Appellant.

Argued October 4, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*714
      *George R. Fear on, Jackson R. Collins, Richard 0. Wiesner*and *M. Harold Dwyer*for appellant.

*Irwin Slater*for respondent.

Orders reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts, and question certified answered in the negative, on the authority of *Di Nome*v. *Personal Finance Company of New York*(291 N. Y. 250) decided herewith. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of two persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for effective date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *https://www.treasury.gov/​ofac*).                

## Notice of OFAC Actions

On February 25, 2022, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
      ( print page 12216)    

Dated: February 25, 2022.

Andrea M. Gacki,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 2022-04461 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
#### Luther Page, Appellant, *v.*Francis Clough, Respondent.

(Submitted April 17, 1872;

decided April 23, 1872.)

*McDowell & Edwards*for the appellant.

*Chapman <& Martin*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm. No opinion. Peckham, J., not voting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Solomon Nordine, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Border Management,
Inc;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the Small Business Issuer ("registrant") as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;

4.The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

A)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
Such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

B)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(a)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5.The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 29, 2007

/s/ Solomon Nordine
-------------------------------
Solomon Nordine
Chief Financial Officer
#### Stanley J. DALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16927

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

*618Stanley J. Dale, Pro Se

Robert W. Shely, I, Litigation Counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Rodney Wayne Ott, Esquire, Counsel, Quarles & Brady LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

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 **

Stanley J. Dale appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims related to the modification of his mortgage loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dale’s action because Dale failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for fraud, misrepresentation, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). *See id.*at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *see also Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,*567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s particularity requirement applies to RICO claims and state law claims that allege fraudulent conduct).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dale leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. *See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., Inc.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[Wjhen a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly broad” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,*232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

AFFIRMED.

**

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