alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.2**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

November 12,2008

 

BruceN. Warner, the Chief Financial Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.certifies:

 

c.               thatthis quarterly report  on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

d.              thatinformation contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Bruce N. Warner           |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Bruce N. Warner               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  and  |
|   | Principal  Accounting Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.4

                                 AMENDMENT TO
                              SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT, dated as of March 1, 2000, is made by and between
Einstein/Noah Bagel Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Paul
Strasen (the "Executive").

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to a severance agreement
dated May 8, 1998, restated effective as of August 26, 1999 (the "Severance
Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS the Company has recently adopted an Amended and Restated Employee
Retention Program (the "Retention Program"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to confirm that the benefits
provided for under the Retention Program are in addition to those provided for
in the Severance Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

     1.   Amendment.  The third sentence of Section 11 of the Severance
          ---------
Agreement is amended by changing the period at the end of the sentence to a
semicolon and adding to the sentence the following clause: "and provided
further, that, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the
Executive shall be entitled to receive any benefits provided for in the
Company's Amended and Restated Employee Retention Program on the terms and
subject to the conditions provided for therein."

     2.   Continuing Effect of Severance Agreement.  The Severance Agreement
          ----------------------------------------
shall remain in full force and effect, except as amended hereby.


                                        EINSTEIN/NOAH BAGEL CORP.



                                        By /s/ Robert M. Hartnett
                                           ---------------------------


                                           /s/ Paul A. Strasen
                                           ---------------------------
                                                  Paul Strasen
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 29, 2016

p1228 

# Order

Clerk December 29, 2016

154733

In re T L FOWLER, Minor. SC: 154733

COA: 332259

Oakland CC Family Division:

2014

- 825871

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the que stion presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40349 Conference Calendar

__________________
DAVID C. LITTLE HAWK, a/k/a Wendell Lee, Plaintiff-Appellant, and RUDY FRIAS, Plaintiff,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; JERRY GROOM; JIMMY E. ALFORD, Warden; ROBERT B. PARKER; PAMELA K. DAVIS; BENNY EARL ROBERTS; JIMMY FOLSOM, Defendants-Appellees, NOAH S. MARTINEZ, Movant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 0540-6 : 6:95-cv-217

- - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * On motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), David C. Little Hawk makes no argument that challenges theNo. 95-40349 -2- district court's enforcement of a previously-imposed sanction barring him from filing suits without judicial permission. He has identified no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Because the instant appeal is frivolous and because it stems from Little Hawk's violation of a district court sanction, we impose a monetary sanction. Accordingly, Little Hawk shall pay to the clerk of this court the amount of $100. Until he pays that amount in full, Little Hawk shall be barred from filing any civil appeal or other initial pleading in this court.
IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION IMPOSED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Yecid Castro HURTADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10886 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(December 13, 2017)

Karin Bethany Hoppmann, Daniel Michael Baeza, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Suzanne C. Nebesky, Lisa Thelwell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Che Lopardo, Law Offices of Che Lo-pardo, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *See United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence *651appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); *United States v. Bascomb,*451 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir, 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered by comments the court makes during sentencing”); *United States v. Grinard-Henry,*399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).
alog-ex101_155.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

Analogic Corporation

Annual Incentive Plan for Fiscal Year 2018

 

 


				
	
Employee:
	
 
	
Company
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Title:
	
 
	
Target Level:
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Plan Year:
	
8/1/2017 – 7/31/2018
	
Supervisor:
	
 




 

 

Congratulations!  Analogic Corporation (the “Company”) has selected you to participate in its Annual Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for fiscal year 2018.  A summary of the terms of the Plan, as it applies to you, is shown below1:

 

1.Eligibility to Earn an Award

You will be eligible to earn an award under the Plan if:  you are an employee of the Company on July 31, 2018,2 or your employment is terminated involuntarily on or after January 31, 2018 and you are eligible for Severance Benefits.

 

2.Performance Factors (see attachment)

Your actual award may be greater or less than the Target Level, depending on the Company’s results, your performance relative to Individual Objectives for the Plan year.  If you are eligible to receive an award, your final award amount will be determined based upon the following performance factors: 

 


	
 
	
(a)
	
Analogic Non-GAAP-EBITDA - 70% of your award shall be determined by Analogic’s year-end results for Non-GAAP EBITDA relative to budget for fiscal year 2018.




 


	
 
	
(b)
	
Analogic’s Revenue – 30% of your award shall be determined by Analogic’s year-end results for Revenue relative to budget for fiscal year 2018.




 

3.Determining Your Award


	
 
	
(a)
	
Your award will be equal to your Target Level multiplied by your Eligible Base Earnings, adjusted for the actual performance measures relative to budget attained for 2018.  “Eligible Base Earnings” means total base salary payments (including vacation, sick, and holiday pay) made through Company payroll for the Plan year.  Payments made to employees during approved medical leaves of absence are excluded.




 


	
 
	
(b)
	
Actual awards will range from 0 to two 2 times the Target Level for the performance factors.  




 


	
 
	
(c)
	
If you are not eligible for an award for the entire 2018 fiscal year or if your Target Level changes during the Plan year, your award will be prorated based on the number of months that you were eligible to receive the award.  




	
	 





	
1 
	
 For more information concerning the Plan, please contact the Human Resources Department.





	
2 
	
 Because payment of an award under the Plan is determined in part upon the Company’s performance during the 2018 Fiscal Year, the payment date of any award will be after the completion of fiscal year 2018, as determined in the sole discretion of the Company’s Compensation Committee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jody Ron SOLOMON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60445 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 19, 2018

Gregory Layne Kennedy, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael L. Scott, Esq., Thomas Creagher Turner, Jr., Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jody Ron Solomon appeals the 11-month within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court following its revocation of his prior three-year term of supervised release. Solomon challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the probation officer “failed to perform his obligations in this case.” He asserts that “[rjather than fulfilling his responsibility to help rehabilitate [him],” the probation officer “prematurely moved to revoke his supervised release.” Solomon also takes issue with the district court’s reliance on a letter from the probation officer stating that he was “‘essentially unmanageable,’ even though he had been on supervised release for only about a month.”

The record reflects that the district court was aware of the factors Solomon believed merited a non-revocation sentence. However, after “carefully considering]” the advisory policy statement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), p.s. and the “appropriate factors to be considered in imposing a sentence” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e)(3), the district court concluded that an 11-month term of *308imprisonment was appropriate. Solomon’s arguments are nothing more than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the applicable § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his within-guidelines revocation sentence. *See United States v. Alvarado,*691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012); *United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*526 F.3d 804, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
| (logo) Rialto 

CAPITAL |  

  |
|-------------------------|----------------|

 

 

 

2014 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of November 1, 2014 by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as Senior Trust Advisor relating to the JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C25, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C25   **(JPMBB 2014-C25)**

                

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.        All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.        A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of November 24, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

 

 

Certified by:  /s/ Adam Singer                                                                 Date:  March 5, 2015

     Adam Singer, Managing Director
#### John Oscar KALU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7472

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

*229John Oscar Kalu, Appellant Pro Se. William Joseph Powell, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Oscar Kalu seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring his case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*387 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Kalu seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Ellicott Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co.,*502 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1974). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                            GATEWAY BANCSHARES, INC.

                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

The following tabulation presents the calculation of basic and diluted earnings
per common share for the three month period ended September 30, 1999 and 1998.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED         NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                ------------------         -----------------
                                                   SEPTEMBER 30               SEPTEMBER 30
                                                   ------------               ------------
                                                1999          1998          1999          1998
                                                ----          ----          ----          ----

<S>                                          <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Basic net income                             $  187,875    $   66,763    $  295,313    $  162,865
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Basic earnings on common shares              $  187,875    $   66,763    $  295,313    $  162,865
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Weighted average common shares
         outstanding - basic                    679,048       679,048       679,048       679,048
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Basic earnings per common share              $      .28    $      .10    $      .43    $      .24
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Basic net income per common share            $      .28    $      .10    $      .43    $      .24
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========


Diluted net income                           $  187,875    $   66,763    $  295,313    $  162,865
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Diluted earnings on common shares            $  187,875    $   66,763    $  295,313    $  162,865
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Weighted average common shares
         outstanding - diluted                  679,377       679,048       679,377       679,048
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Diluted earnings per common share            $      .28    $      .10    $      .44    $      .24
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Diluted net income per common share          $      .28    $      .10    $      .44    $      .24
                                             ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
</TABLE>


                                      20
Exhibit 10.14


  





	 



 





RE:
LA/CL/16041


 


25th
October 2017


 


Private
& Confidential


Mr
S Baker


 





 


Dear
Stewart


 


Further
to recent discussions, I am writing to confirm that with effect from the 1st October 2017, your salary will increase
to £230,000 per annum.


 


From
1st October 2017, your pension contributions and bonus calculations will be based on an annual salary of £230,000.


 


All
other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Please sign both copies of this letter to accept the above changes and return one
copy to the HR Department for inclusion on your personnel file.


 


I
would like to take this opportunity of thanking you for all your hard work and commitment and wish you continued success in your
career with Inspired.


 


Yours
sincerely,


 


/s/
Luke
Alvarez 


 


Luke
Alvarez


President
and Chief Executive Officer


 


I
accept the above changes to my terms and conditions of employment.


 





	Signed 	Date
	 	 
	/s/ Stewart Baker	October 25, 2017
	 	 



 





 





Inspired
Gaming (UK) Limited, Registered in England Number: 03565640


Registered
Office: 3, The Maltings, Wetmore Road, Burton-On-Trent


Staffordshire


DE14
1SE


Inspired
Gaming (UK) Limited is part of Inspired Gaming Group Limited
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Heather Bresch, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
Form 10-K/A of Mylan N.V.; 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.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Heather Bresch           
|Heather Bresch               
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)
|Date: May 1, 2017
#### Ruth Graciela CAMACHO-GRANDA and Ruth Cristina Cueva-Camacho, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-72268

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Anya McLean, McLean Law Firm PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William Clark Min-ick, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, 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 **

Ruth Graciela Camacho-Granda and Ruth Cristina Cueva-Camacho, natives and citizens of Ecuador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order *301dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Sembiring v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen based on lack of notice, where the notice of hearing was mailed to the last address provided but returned as undeliverable. *See*8 U.S.C. §3⁄8 1229(a)(1)(F)(i), (2)(B) (requiring alien to provide address at which she may be contacted), 1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice sent to the last address provided by the alien is sufficient notice for purposes of conducting in absentia proceedings); *Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS,*353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (statements by counsel are not evidence).

Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that they did not demonstrate changed conditions in Ecuador that would permit the filing of an otherwise untimely motion to reopen. *See Rizk v. Holder,*629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-10555.

#### Jones *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.