alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                        [LETTERHEAD OF BACOU USA, INC.]

                                                                    Exhibit 4(h)


October 24, 1997


Philip B. Barr
8 Middlebrook Lane
Lincoln, RI 02865


Re: Third Amendment to Employment Agreement

Dear Phil:


Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement between the Corporation
and you dated May 8, 1995, as amended by that certain First Amendment dated
June 30, 1995, and that certain Second Amendment dated December 31, 1995 (as
so amended, the "Employment Agreement"). Once agreed and accepted by you in the
space provided below, the Employment Agreement shall be amended by (i)
increasing the amount of annual Base Salary payable pursuant to Section 5(b)
thereof to $250,000 effective January 1, 1998, and (ii) effective for 1997 and
future years, changing Section 5(c) of the Employment Agreement to read as
follows:

     "In addition to the Base Salary, the Employee shall be entitled to receive
an annual incentive compensation payment ("Incentive Compensation") in an
amount calculated as follows:

     0.40% of Adjusted EBIT up to $10,000,000
     0.45% of Adjusted EBIT over $10,000,000, up to $20,000,000
     0.50% of Adjusted EBIT over $20,000,000, up to $30,000,000
     0.55% of Adjusted EBIT over $30,000,000

     "For purposes of this Agreement, Adjusted EBIT shall mean Bacou's earnings
before interest and taxes, as reported in its consolidated financial statements
for the calendar year for which the computation is made, increased to eliminate
the effects of the following: (i) amortization expense; and (ii) any
non-recurring charges (including but not limited to the non-recurring effects
of purchase accounting treatment of acquisitions such as inventory step-ups and
purchased research and development).

     "Incentive Compensation shall be paid by Bacou for any year by the earlier
of ninety (90) days following the last day of such year or ten (10) days after
the amount of such Incentive Compensation has been calculated."




<PAGE>   2


Philip B. Barr
October 24, 1997
Page 2





All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and, subject
to the amendment contained herein, the Employment Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.




                                  Very truly yours,



                                  /s/ W. Stepan
                                  -------------------
                                  Walter Stepan
                                  President and CEO

Agreed and Accepted:


/s/ Philip B. Barr
------------------
Philip B. Barr
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN C. DEAN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

DORA SCHRIRO; et al.,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 08-16094

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01437-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 10, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Dean appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition for habeas corpus relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 

FILED

MAR 17 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

We review de novo the district court’s denial of the petition, Gonzalez v. Brown,

585 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

We decline to decide whether a failure to exhaust or a procedural bar

precludes Dean from obtaining federal habeas relief on his prosecutorial

vindictiveness claim and instead deny his petition on the merits. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(b)(2); Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 525 (1997); Holley v.

Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2009). Dean has presented no “direct

evidence of actual vindictiveness or facts that warrant an appearance of such,” nor

has he offered any evidence “indicating a realistic or reasonable likelihood of

vindictiveness.” Nunes v. Ramirez-Palmer, 485 F.3d 432, 441–42 (9th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the record shows that the

prosecutor made the plea offer’s expiration date clear over a week before Dean

requested new counsel. This dispels any inference that the prosecution

impermissibly declined to extend the plea deal in order to punish Dean for

exercising his constitutional right to conflict-free counsel. Because Dean’s claim

clearly fails on the merits, we affirm the district court’s denial of his petition for

habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the Company's 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             21
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                       21
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                              4
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                         1,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        391
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,842
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  156
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      28 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   10
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 60
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    57
<INCOME-TAX>                                       20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                37
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       37
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### Markham SPEROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CWALT, INC., Alternative Loan Trust 2005-62 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-62; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Does, 1-10; Defendant.

No. 17-55351

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 31, 2017

Markham Speros, San Diego, CA, pro se.

*575Steven M. Dailey, Esquire, Kutak Rock LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Markham Speros appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims related to foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. *Stewart v. U.S.*Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Speros’ action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Speros’ claims were raised, or could have been raised, in his prior action between the parties or their privies, and that action resulted in a final judgment on the merits. *See id.*(setting forth elements of res judicata under federal law).

Speros’ request to file an oversized reply brief (Docket Entry No. 15) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 14.

AFFIRMED.

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
#### Alvaro Ezequiel Ramirez CASTANEDA, a/k/a Avardo Ramirez, a/k/a Alvaro Castaneda Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1630

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2017

Decided: December 13, 2017

Fernando A. Núñez, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before KING, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alvaro Ezequiel Ramirez Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the petition for review.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)© (2012), entitled “Denials of discretionary relief,” “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b,” which is the section governing cancellation of removal. In this case, the IJ found, and the Board agreed, that Ramirez Castaneda failed to meet his burden of establishing that his United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is returned to Mexico. We conclude that this determination is clearly discretionary in nature, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review challenges to this finding absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. *See Sattani v. Holder,*749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding no jurisdiction to review determination that aliens failed to demonstrate requisite hardship to their U.S. citizen son); *Obioha v. Gonzales,*431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)©] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”); *Okpa v. INS,*266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001) (concluding, under transitional rules, that issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and is not subject to appellate review).

We have reviewed Ramirez Castaneda’s claims of error and conclude that he fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). *See Gomis v. Holder,*571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]b-sent a *colorable*constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by § 1252(a)(2)(D).” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*118fore this court and argument would not'aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DISMISSED*
II

Calendar No. 195

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 31

[Report No. 104–148]

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to grant

Congress and the States the power to prohibit the physical desecration

of the flag of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 21 (legislative day, MARCH 16), 1995

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. HEFLIN, Mr. DOLE, Mr. THURMOND, Mr.

GRASSLEY, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. KYL, Mr. EXON, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. FORD,

Mr. LOTT, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BOND, Mr. BREAUX, Mr.

CAMPBELL, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COHEN, Mr. COVERDELL,

Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. GRAMM, Mr.

GRAMS, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr.

INHOFE, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MACK,

Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr.

ROTH, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. BROWN, Mr. FRIST, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. BURNS, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. REID, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. NUNN, and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

SEPTEMBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 25), 1995

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to grant Congress and the States the power to
2

SJ 31 RS

prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United

States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with8 in seven years from the date of its submission by the

9 Congress:

10 ‘‘ARTICLE—

11 ‘‘The Congress and the States shall have power to

12 prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United

13 States.’’.

Calendar No. 195

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 31

[Report No. 104–148]

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the

the flag of the United States.the power to prohibit the physical desecration ofUnited States to grant Congress and the States

SEPTEMBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 25), 1995

Reported without amendment
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6261 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6261

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve the way 
beneficiaries are assigned under the Medicare shared savings program by 
also basing such assignment on primary care services furnished by nurse 
  practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2016

   Mr. Kilmer (for himself and Ms. Jenkins of Kansas) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
 and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 
    to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve the way 
beneficiaries are assigned under the Medicare shared savings program by 
also basing such assignment on primary care services furnished by nurse 
  practitioners, physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``ACO Assignment Improvement Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE 
              MEDICARE SHARED SAVINGS PROGRAM.

    Section 1899(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395jjj(c)) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``utilization of primary'' and inserting 
        ``utilization of--
            ``(1) in the case of performance years beginning on or 
        after April 1, 2012, primary'';
            (2) in paragraph (1), as added by paragraph (1) of this 
        section, by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(2) in the case of performance years beginning on or 
        after January 1, 2018, primary care services provided under 
        this title by an ACO professional described in subsection 
        (h)(1)(B).''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 45 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
S. J. RES. 45

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 
order to ensure that private persons and groups are not denied benefits 
 or otherwise discriminated against by the United States or any of the 
several States on account of religious expression, belief, or identity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 21, 1995

  Mr. Hatch introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 
order to ensure that private persons and groups are not denied benefits 
 or otherwise discriminated against by the United States or any of the 
several States on account of religious expression, belief, or identity.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Neither the United States nor any State shall deny benefits to or 
otherwise discriminate against any private person or group on account 
of religious expression, belief, or identity; nor shall the prohibition 
on laws respecting an establishment of religion be construed to require 
such discrimination.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### IN RE: Raymond Edward CHESTNUT, Petitioner

No. 17-2859

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. September 28, 2017

(Opinion filed: November 15, 2017)

Raymond Edward Chestnut, Pro Se

Kate L. Mershimer, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, 0. Michael Thiel, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Scranton, PA, for Defendant-Respondent

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

Raymond Chestnut filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the District Court to enter judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition filed in Chestnut v. Ebbert, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:16-cv-00097. The District Court has since terminated the case, effectively granting Chestnut’s motion for voluntary dismissal. In light of the District Court’s action, the question Chestnut presented is no longer a live controversy, so we will dismiss his mandamus petition as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974 (3d Cir. 1992).

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent,
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 32 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
S. J. RES. 32

Expressing the concern of the Congress regarding certain recent remarks 
 that unfairly and inaccurately maligned the integrity of the Nation's 
                       law enforcement officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 6 (legislative day, April 5), 1995

 Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. 
  Grassley) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the concern of the Congress regarding certain recent remarks 
 that unfairly and inaccurately maligned the integrity of the Nation's 
                       law enforcement officers.

Whereas police today are in more danger and face greater risks than ever before, 
        with thousands being assaulted and hundreds being killed or injured each 
        year;
Whereas attacks on the Nation's law enforcement officers directly endanger the 
        safety and well-being of all American citizens by incapacitating and 
        wounding those who protect all of us;
Whereas America's law enforcement officers are increasingly being confronted not 
        only with physical attacks, but with malicious, mean-spirited, and 
        misleading character assassinations that unnecessarily malign the 
        overwhelming majority of honest and ethical law enforcement officers 
        while at the same time undermining public confidence in our country's 
        duly established system of criminal justice; and
Whereas persons who hold positions of special social responsibility, such as 
        attorneys, officers of the courts, and instructors of our youth, by 
        virtue of their position bear a heightened responsibility not to mislead 
        the public, and especially not to mislead the public at the expense of 
        those upon whom we all rely for protection: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

    It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) this Nation owes a debt of the greatest magnitude to 
        the men and women who daily serve the people of America as law 
        enforcement officers;
            (2) the integrity, honesty, dedication, and sacrifice of 
        this Nation's law enforcement officers constitute the very 
        bedrock of the rule of law, which distinguishes a free society 
        from a state of tyranny; and
            (3) America's police deserve the thanks and support of the 
        people of the United States, which are hereby tendered by their 
        elected Senators and Representatives.
                                 <all>
```