alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.49







May 22,
2008








Andrew
Hidalgo


608
Perimeter Drive


Downingtown,
PA 19335





Re: Amendment to Employment
Agreement








Dear
Andy,





As
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the WPCS International Incorporated Board
of Directors, I wish to inform you that the committee has duly executed a
resolution to increase your compensation. This letter shall serve as an
amendment to the employment agreement effective February 1, 2004 between
Employee and Employer (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined
herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. Section 5 of
the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety with the
following:


___





5. Compensation of Hidalgo. As
compensation for the services provided by Hidalgo under this Paragraph, the
Company shall pay Hidalgo an annual salary of Three Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($325,000) to be paid in accordance with the Company’s usual payroll
procedures. In addition to the above base compensation, Hidalgo shall be
eligible to receive bonuses based on the performance of the
Company.


___





The
foregoing amendment shall be effective as of June 1, 2008. Please confirm your
acceptance by signing below.








Respectfully,




/s/ Norm
      DumbroffNorm
    DumbroffChairman of the
      Executive CommitteeBoard of
      DirectorsWPCS International
      Incorporated




Accepted
and agreed to this the 22nd day of May
2008.







/s/ Andrew
      HidalgoAndrew
    Hidalgo
### Technology shiftto 

### halogenlamp, 30% 

### 3% efficacy increase 1.5% 

### efficacy increase Best Available 

### FEMP

### procurementlevels

Max NPV 

### overASHRAE Std. 90.1-1999 

### REPLACEMENT Max.NPV 

### over ASHRAE Std. 90.1-1999 

### NEW CONSTRUCTION Ovens, Combination Energy SavingOptlons



### usWater HeatersEnergy Rank



### I

2



### 3

4

5 6 

### 7 8 I) 10


### 11
12 

### 13 11 15 I6 17 18 19 20 

### 21 22

23

21 25 26 

### 27 28 29 30 31 

### New Products Momtars
Computers

TVs Ceiling Fans
Settop Boxes Torchlerrs Low-End Seners, Commencal Commercial Clothes Dwers Gas Copiers Gas Unit Hedters
Traffic 

### Signals
C ompdcr Audio Dehum~difiers Kedih in RztrtgetdrorslF.recrers
Laser Pnnters Commrrcial Clothes Washer\ Vending hlaciunes Ezit Signs VCRs Waih in Coolrib hre7rrq and Cornbindtion Coolerlkresrer\ Faxes 5uprmrhet lieirigemtton Svstems

Commerc~al Cook~ng

Component Stereo and RACK Audlo Water Coolers Well Pumps Beverage Merchandisers Ice Machines Pool Pumps (,,is Duct Furnd~e~ Oil tintt Heaten 

### Measure E* LCD, 60%Enablmg E* 

### CRT, 100%Enabl~ng E* 

### CRT, 60%Enablmg, 1W sleep Laptop Lou Pouer Deslgn Transmeta processor Current E*, 100% Enabltng Office Computers Onh. Current E*, 50% Enabllng LCD Best Available, 

### 0.1 W standby FutureE*, 1

### W standby E* p~n-based CFL Ltghrlng Fan Improvement 

### - 260 CFMIW Fan Improtemmt 

### - 170CFMIW Er Fans 1

### W standby 2004 E*, 7 W standby Current E*, 15 W standby CFL 70 W maximum 190 W maximum Low-Power. 1W sleep, 100%Power Management enabled E* and 100% Power Management enabled Modulattng Humidlt\ Sensor hh~et Copler ot the Future, 10% EE* Enabl~ng Condensing Pulse Combustion Power Vent All Stganls (~nclud~ng Pedestrian) toLED Red and Green S~gnals of LED Red Signals to LED Best A\dilablr 0 25 W scdndb~ 2003 

### E" 1 W standb~ Cunent Ex 2 M standbi Best A\~a~lable, 1 85 UkWhfor 

### a 25 to 

### 35 Uday utut CmentE*, 1

### 5 UkWh Refrigerator On11 Combination Energy Sa\tng Opt~ons Freezer Dn1) Combinatton Energ\ Sa\~ng Options Refrigerator Onl) E* lnk~et Cop~er of the Future Cnterea, 10W 

### mrur sleep Farmi>-S~zed Horizontal Axis Familj-Sized Energ) Star Industrial-Sized Ozone Combination Energy Sarmg Opttons 1 W maximum 

### 3 5 W maximum Current 

### E* 5 W nuximum 1W standby Future E*, 2 % standby Coolers Comhinduon tnergl Sa\in_cOprions Fr~ers & Combo CoolcrlFrzers combination Options Current E*, Inkjet, 1008Enabltng Brushlecs 13C E\apord~or Fan Motor\ Options uith 5 ledrpa~bdch Ovens, Best Atalable Fryers, Best Ava~lable Ranges, Best Atailable Griddles, Best Available Steamers, Best Avalable Bro~lers, Best Atailable Best Available 0 26 W standby 2003 E* 1W standb~ Current 

### F* 2 W standb) 

### Combination Energy Sav~ngs Opt~ons Optimum Technolog) High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless 

### DC Fan Motor Best Abailable FEMP Recommended Optlmum Technology Condensing Condensine 0 26 

### 0.45 0.41 0 

### 35 0 31 

### 038 0.25 

### 0.37 0 

### 33 

### 0.31 0.31 0 28 

### 0.28 0 

### 27 0 18 0 14 0 11 004 

### 0.27 0 20 0 10 

### 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.21 0 11 

### 0.21 0.13 0.01
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2017

No. 04-16-00149-CR

Jose Roberto OBREGON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CRO000781 D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant has filed a pro se motion requesting a copy of his trial transcripts for purposes 

of filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. This court has no jurisdiction over postconviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07; In re 

Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Postconviction writs of habeas corpus are to be filed in the trial court in which the conviction was 

obtained, and made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 

art. 11.07. In order to obtain a free copy of the record, appellant would need to file a motion in 

the trial court in which the conviction was obtained and demonstrate that his claim is not 

frivolous and that the record is needed to decide the issues presented. See United States v. 

MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 326 (1976); Escobar v. State, 880 S.W.2d 782, 783 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.). Appellant’s motion is denied without prejudice to seeking 

relief in the proper court.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of October, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit
32.1





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 Annual Report of
RFG Acquisition I Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard F. Beston, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:





(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.





/s/ Richard F. Beston, Jr.Richard
      F. Beston, Jr.
                      Principal
      Executive Officer
                      March
      18, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

The undersigned, Evan Williams, Chief Executive Officer of Border Management,
Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Border Management, Inc. for the
twelve month period ended December 31, 2008 (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 Border
Management, Inc.

Dated: March 26, 2009

/s/ Evan Williams
------------------
Evan Williams
Chief Executive Officer,
Border Management, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Border Management,
Inc. and will be retained by Border Management, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Mary Bradley, Adm’rx, App’lt, v. Nestor De Goicouria, Resp’t.

No papers.

Motion for judgment of reversal under § 1298 of Code Civil Procedure granted.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted
Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, Gerald L. Storch, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2008 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

June 10, 2008



|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|/s/ Gerald L. Storch                                                               
|Gerald L. Storch Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 01-10341

Summary Calendar

MARCY MERNIK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CLASSIC CARS, INC., doing business as Classic BMW,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:99-CV-1327-P)

September 6, 2001

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Marcy Mernik, Appellant, filed this suit in the District Court

for the Northern District of Texas against her former employer,

Classic Cars, Inc., alleging claims for sex discrimination, sexual

harassment, and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. Classic Cars, Inc. answered and moved forsummary judgment on the grounds that Mernik was terminated because

of a history of insubordi nation and repeated tardiness. The

District Court in a Memorandum Opinion and Order filed June 28,

2000, granted Classic Cars, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and

Mernik appealed.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the recor d excerpts,

and relevant portions of the record. For the reasons stated by the

District Court in its Memorandum and Order, we affirm the grant of

summary judgment in favor of Classic Cars, Inc.

AFFIRMED

.
#### Ivory Ronzell WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Justin ANDREWS, Warden—FCI Butner II, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6594

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 8, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

Ivory Ronzell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ivory Ronzell Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief oh his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Williams v. Andrews,*No. 5:15-hc-02164-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 11, *6572016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the**

**Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Matthew D. Peiffer, Chief FinancialOfficer, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date: September 8, 2005 | /s/ Matthew D. Peiffer                             |   |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Matthew D. Peiffer                                 |
|                    | Chief Financial  Officer, Secretary and  Treasurer |

 

----
ENCLOSURE 2

CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

As required by 40 CFR 51.102(a), a public comment period to provide the opportunity to submit oral and written comments concerning a proposed revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State I mplementation Plan was held from October 7 to November 6, 2013

. As required by 40 CFR Part 51.102(a) and (d)(1) and (2), the public was given notice of the comment period and hearing in the Virginia Register of Regulations, along with the location of the proposal for public inspection, on October 7 , 2013 . The attached copy of the notice provides the evidence required by Section 2.1(f) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51.

The Regional Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was notified of the public comment period . Th is notification follow s the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51.102(d).

The complete record of the public comment period , along with any comment received and responses thereto, is located at the Air Division of the Department of En vironmental Quality. The d epartment contact to access this information is the Director, Air Division . A summary of the comment received and responses thereto is attached.

TEMPLATES \ SIP

- PLAN \ PLN02 SIP \ STAGE II \ RIC

- MP \ RMP

- SIP

- 2.DOC
#### Horace Mann WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15938

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Horace Mann Williams, Pro Se

Tracy S. Hendrickson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Horace Mann Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging failure-to-protect and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, finding that Williams’s grievance dated February 22, 2010, did not provide sufficient notice to prison officials of Williams’s failure-to-protect and retaliation claims arising from defendant Valdi-via’s statements about Williams and defendants’ subsequent conduct. However, Williams alleged that in December 2009 prison officials obstructed his attempts to submit a grievance regarding defendant Valdivia’s statements. Moreover, the district court did not expressly consider Williams’s evidence that he also submitted an emergency grievance in early February 2010 that described a retaliatory move to a cell block where a known enemy resided, an attack by another inmate, and threats to Williams’s physical safety. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are unavailable); *Reyes v. Smith,*810 F.3d 654, 658-59 (9th Cir. 2016) (under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a grievance need not include legal terminology, legal theories, or provide personal notice to a particular official that he may be sued). We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

*496We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Cate’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 13) is granted in part. We do not consider Exhibit A to Williams’s opening brief because it was not filed with the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“pocu-ments or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          50,238
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,130
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               112,460
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    242,564
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,836,355
<ALLOWANCE>                                     27,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,493,425
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,188,470
<SHORT-TERM>                                    78,718
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             29,039
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,750
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                        20,950
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,998
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,493,425
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 43,081
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,598
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                46,679
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              23,114
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,142
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           22,423
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,522
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (135)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,997
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,267
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,267
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,855
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.07
<LOANS-NON>                                     34,377
<LOANS-PAST>                                       289
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    901
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                28,077
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,518
<RECOVERIES>                                       361
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               27,442
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            27,442
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         27,442
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 13.1




CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Maurice Tagami, Chief Executive Officer of Keegan Resources Inc. (the “Company”), 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 the best of my knowledge:




(i)
the Annual Report on Form 20-F, of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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







By:
“Maurice Tagami”Name:
Maurice TagamiTitle:
Chief Executive OfficerDate:
June 29, 2011




This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### The State v. Thompson.

1. Intoxicating Liquors: unlawful sale by person holding permit: no criminal liability. *(State v. Douglass, ante,*p. 279, followed.)

*Apggeal from Benton District Court*— Hon. L. G. Kinne, J udge.

Thursday, October 27.

Reed, J.

This case presents the same question which is decided in *State v. Douglass,*ante, 279. Following that case, the order appealed from will be Affirmed.