alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.08

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


        This First Amendment, dated as of July 1, 1999 (the "Amendment"), to the
Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of June 26, 1998 (the "Agreement"),
between PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Richard E.
Badger, an individual ("Executive"), hereby amends the Agreement as follows:

        1. AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 3.2(d)(1) AND 4.1(a). Sections 3.2(d)(1) and
4.1(a) are hereby amended such that the period for which Executive is to receive
his annual base salary under such sections is hereby changed from 12 to 24
months.

        2. AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 3.2(b)(4), 3.2(d)(4), 4.1(c) AND 4.1(e).
Sections 3.2(b)(4), 3.2(d)(4), 4.1(c) and 4.1(e) are hereby amended such that
the period for which Executive is to receive the benefit specified in such
sections is hereby changed from 12 to 24 months.

        3. LIMITATION OF AMENDMENTS. Except as expressly provided herein, no
terms or provision of any agreement or instrument are modified or changed by
this Amendment and the terms and provisions of the Agreement, as amended by this
Amendment, shall continue in full force and effect.

        4. GOVERNING LAW. This Amendment shall be construed, interpreted and
enforced in accordance with, and governed by California law.

        5. CAPITALIZED TERMS. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

        6. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS; EXECUTION IN COUNTERPART. Two or more duplicate
originals of this Amendment may be signed by the parties, each of which shall be
an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.

        7. WAIVERS AND AMENDMENTS. Neither this Amendment nor any term hereof
may be changed, waived, discharged or terminated orally, or by any action or
inaction, but only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against which
enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge or termination is sought.



<PAGE>   2

        8. SECTION HEADINGS. The titles of the sections hereof appear as a
matter of convenience only, do not constitute a part of this Amendment and shall
not affect the construction hereof.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the date first written above.



                                            PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
                                            a Delaware corporation

                                            /s/ Alan R. Hoops
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            By:     Alan R. Hoops
                                            Title:  Chairman of the Board and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer




                                            /s/ Richard E. Badger
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Richard E. Badger
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 on Form 10-KSB/A of Bioenvision, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher B. Wood,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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




                                /s/ Christopher B. Wood
                                ------------------------------------
                                Christopher B. Wood
                                Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                April 1, 2004
# DLA DORRA Employee Spotlight: Sharon Parham

/ Published Oct. 5, 2016
RIchmond, Va. , 
**Name:** Sharon Parham

**Organization:**  DLA Office of Operations Research and Resource Analysis (DORRA)

**Years of Service:**  18 years 

**What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically?**Management and Program Analyst. I serve as a contract manager. 

**What do you like most about your job**?  The aspect I like most about my job is the****interaction I have with my teammates, customers, and vendors in the procurement field.

**What would you say has been your major contributions to your organization this year in your job?**Working the DLA Strategic Evolution contract requirement and meeting the very short timeline.

**If you could speak directly to the warfighters you support, what would you tell them?**I would tell them I greatly appreciate and honor their service to our country and will continue to support them to the best of my ability as a civilian employee.

**Do you have an unfulfilled wish?**Yes. Winning the Powerball jackpot!! LOL

**What are some of your passions outside of work?**I’m passionate about sports.  I spend most of my time, outside of work, attending my children’s soccer, basketball, football, and softball games. Very satisfying and keeps me very busy.

**If you had a theme song, what would it be and why?**Without a doubt, my theme song would be “Respect” by Aretha Franklin because everyone desires respect despite our differences.

**Who is the most influential person in your life...past or present?**My mom has been the most influential person in my life. She’s not only my mother, but my best friend.  She’s the strongest person I know. Overcoming cancer and always making a way out of no way.  Because of her, I am a strong woman and I’m grateful for her.

**Who is your favorite actor or actress and why?**My favorite actress is****Angelina Jolie Pitt because she seems to connect very well with the characters she plays.

**What is your favorite military aircraft and why?**F-22 Raptor.  I love the design and speed of the aircraft. It’s awesome. 

**If you could start your life over again, what would you do differently?**If I could start my life over again, I wouldn’t change a thing. Everything happens for a reason.

**What is your proudest accomplishment?**I take great pride in raising my three wonderful children. As any parent know, it’s a full time job and a challenge, but very rewarding.

**What five things could you absolutely not live without?**The five things I couldn’t live without are****God, family, a job, vacations, and pizza.

**What is/are your favorite book(s), television show(s) or movie(s)?**I would say my favorite movie is “Captain America: Civil War.” I love action flicks and this one definitely falls in that category. My favorite TV show is “Greenleaf,” which airs on the Oprah Winfrey Network.

**What type of music do you most enjoy?**I am a huge fan of Gospel music. I find it very uplifting and joyful.
No. 10-5043.

#### Noah Small, Petitioner v. Dale Artus, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 900, 131 S. Ct. 232,

178 L. Ed. 2d 154,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6324.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Opinion filed August 11, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-11-00153-CV

__________

FRANCISCO MORALES, Appellant

V.

JOHN KENNMUR D/B/A KENN CONSTRUCTION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court

Howard County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 47018

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Francisco Morales is the appellant in this appeal. He has filed an unopposed motion to 

dismiss the appeal pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). In the motion, appellant states that

“[t]he parties have now entered into a Settlement Agreement.” Therefore, in accordance with 

appellant’s request, we dismiss the appeal.

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

August 11, 2011

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Roy Roberts, the ChiefExecutive Officer of Ckrush, Inc.. (the‘‘Company’’), certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to thebest of my knowledge:

|           |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter endedMarch  31,  2006 (the ‘‘Report’’)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                    |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Ckrush, Inc. and will be retained by Ckrush, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

|        |  |                                                                  |  |  |  |  |
|--------|--|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
|   |  | /s/ Roy Roberts                                                  |
|   |  | Roy Roberts Chief Executive Officer (PrincipalExecutive Officer) |
|   |  | May 12,2006                                                      |
|        |

----
No. 10-5912.

#### Prince Kennedy, Petitioner v. Washington, et al.

562 U.S. 941, 131 S. Ct. 358,

178 L. Ed. 2d 232,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7221.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         1638374
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   192190
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    3114526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5519618
<PP&E>                                         6563270
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3142092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                10458090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1966895
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        825649
<OTHER-SE>                                     4382125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  10458090
<SALES>                                       10022590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              10022590
<CGS>                                          7527560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9154522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  9578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               41474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 817016
<INCOME-TAX>                                    318636
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    498380
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60


</TABLE>
No. 10-5154.

#### In re Warren Arsad, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 251,

178 L. Ed. 2d 261,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7746.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of prohibition denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129195(29) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, DENNIS PERKINS, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129195 

 COA: 263280 
 Wayne CC: 05-507295-AV

KIRK LEAPHART, 36th DC: 05-305013-LT 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of 

August 30, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the 

order was entered erroneously. 

d0221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
Order entered November 19 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00227
- CR CASME ALFONSO VELAZQ UEZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. F14
- 56517
- J



### O RDER
The Court DENIES appellant’s November 18, 2015 pro se motion for appointment of
new counsel.
We GRANT the motion to extend time to file a response to the Anders brief. Appellant’s pro se response is due by JANUARY 4, 2016 . No further extensions will be granted. If the pro se response is not filed by the date specified, the appeal will be submitted on the Anders brief alone.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Casme Alfonso Velazquez, No. 14039534, Dallas County Jail, P.O. Box 660334, Dallas, Texas 75226

- 0334, and to all counsel.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2527

To amend section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 to modify the treatment of losses from asset sales.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 6 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mr. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees

on the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one

committee reports, the other committee has thirty days to report or be

discharged

A BILL

To amend section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to modify the treatment of losses from asset sales.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. OFFSETTING LOSSES FROM ASSET SALES.

4 Section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emer5 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking

6 the semicolon at the end thereof and inserting the follow7 ing: ‘‘. Effective beginning fiscal year 1995, the proceeds
2

•S 2527 RIS

1 from the sale of an asset may be applied to offset the loss

2 of any revenue or receipts resulting from such sale.’’.

Æ
# DLA Aviation naval representative named NAE award winner

/ Published Oct. 31, 2016
Naval Aviation Enterprise leadership named Navy Capt. Mark Harris a winner of the Outstanding Performance Award during a NAE Air Board video teleconference Oct. 17.Harris was recognized for his work as the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Navy Customer Facing Division chief. In his role, he supervised three DLA aviation industrial support activity commands that support depot maintenance, aviation supply and logistics customer support to ten aircraft carriers, as well as aviation supply and support to the type wing commands for 15 type/model/series aircraft and engines.Harris' efforts directly impacted readiness across the fleet and contributed to mission success within the NAE, according to a letter of appreciation signed by Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, commander, Naval Air Forces."Spearheading improved processes and analysis within the DLA Aviation Team, the net effect was a 36 percent reduction in aircraft components awaiting parts -- leading all Navy Industrial Support Activities!" Shoemaker said. "By virtue of your position and your unrivaled focus on teamwork, you supported every Navy and Marine Corps TMS Program Office. The collaboration proactively resolved readiness degraders and contributed to seamless cooperation within every TMS Team."Harris said he was both honored and surprised to receive the award."It is a great feeling to be recognized for doing what I feel is so important to supporting our military commitments and strategy," Harris said. "I really enjoy what I do as part of the NAE, and do my best in improving readiness for our warfighters."Reflecting on the contributions he and his team have made to the NAE mission, Harris said he is proud of DLA and DLA Aviation's growing roles within the enterprise."I'm most proud of how we positioned DLA and DLA Aviation as a solution provider over the last year," Harris said. "We are the largest integrator of supply support for the flight line and depots, and my teams are embedded at all levels across the Naval Aviation Enterprise. We have made strides in reducing backorders at the flight line and depots, and we will continue to drive improvements to ensure our parts are there when needed."The NAE Air Board, composed of leaders partnering to pursue the best interests of naval aviation, recognizes typically one Sailor, Marine, or civilian employee each month for his or her outstanding enterprise-centric contributions to naval aviation. Award winners serve as positive examples of the enterprise approach at work. They routinely illustrate a commitment to the NAE principles of process improvement, a willingness to challenge assumptions, a focus on effectiveness and efficiency, and a commitment to the greater good of naval aviation.Naval aviation leaders have distributed the monthly NAE Outstanding Performance Award since 2008 to promote a culture of readiness at best possible cost.*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Navy's website.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Peguro, Appellant.

[67 NYS3d 204]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered December 8, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for *590disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence supports the inference that when defendant stabbed the victim in the chest he did so with intent to cause serious physical injury.

Defendant has not preserved any of his challenges to the court’s charge, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that each of the instructions at issue, when viewed as a whole, conveyed the proper standards *(see generally People v Umali,*10 NY3d 417, 427 [2008]). The court correctly instructed the jury on prior inconsistent statements, reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence, and there was nothing in the charge that was constitutionally deficient.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are likewise unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

To the extent the record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Defendant has not shown that counsel’s failure to object to portions of the People’s summation and the court’s charge fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that defendant was prejudiced by the lack of these objections *(compare People v Cass,*18 NY3d 553, 564 [2012], *with People v Fisher,*18 NY3d 964 [2012]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber, Oing, JJ.
# C_2016059EN.01001601.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Spain v Commission

(Joined Cases T-515/13 and T-719/13) (1)

1

((State aid - Shipbuilding - Tax provisions applicable to certain agreements for the financing and acquisition of vessels - Decision declaring the aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery in part - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Advantage - Selective nature - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 059/16)

Language of the cases: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially, N. Díaz Abad and, subsequently, M. Sampol Pucurull, abogados del Estado) (Case T-515/13); Lico Leasing, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, SA (Madrid) (represented by: M. Merola and A. Sánchez, lawyers) (Case T-719/13)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, M. Afonso, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/200/EU of 17 July 2013 on the aid scheme SA.21233 C/11 (ex NN/11, ex CP 137/06) implemented by Spain — Tax scheme applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (OJ 2014 L 114, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2014/200/EU of 17 July 2013, on the aid scheme SA.21233 C/11 (ex NN/11, ex CP 137/06) implemented by Spain — Tax scheme applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2014/200/EU of 17 July 2013, on the aid scheme SA.21233 C/11 (ex NN/11, ex CP 137/06) implemented by Spain — Tax scheme applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing, SA and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, SA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing, SA and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

1

---