alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


SECOND
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Second
Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”), is made and entered into as of
the 30 day of May, 2006, by and between CORPORATE OFFICE PROPERTIES, L. P. (the
“Employer”), CORPORATE OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST (“COPT”) and ROGER A. WAESCHE,
JR. (the “Executive”).


RECITALS


A.   Executive and Employer executed an Employment
Agreement dated September 12, 2002, as amended by that certain Amendment
to Employment Agreement dated March 4, 2005, providing for the employment
of the Executive by the Employer upon the terms and conditions therein stated,
of which the Basic Term is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008.


B.   Employer has requested and Executive has
agreed to extend the Basic Term for an additional five (5) years and the
parties desire to enter into this Agreement on the terms and conditions set
forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of Executive’s continued employment under the Employment
Agreement, and pursuant to paragraph 11(b) of the Employment Agreement, it
is covenanted and agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:


1.    AMENDMENT TO PARAGRAPH 4(a).  The first sentence of Section 4(a) of
the Employment Agreement is deleted and the following is inserted in lieu
thereof:


The Executive’s employment hereunder shall be for a term commencing on July 1,
2002 and expiring on June 30, 2013 (the “Basic Term”).


2.    NO OTHER
AMENDMENTS. With the exception of paragraph 4(a) of the Employment
Agreement, this Amendment does not affect or otherwise supersede any other
provisions of the Employment Agreement or otherwise limit its enforceability in
any way.


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


	
  “Employer”

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  “Executive”

  
	
  CORPORATE OFFICE PROPERTIES L. P.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Maryland limited liability company

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  Corporate Office Properties Trust,

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  General Partner

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Randall M. Griffin

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Roger A. Waesche, Jr.

  
	
   

  	
  Randall M. Griffin,

  	
   

  	
  Roger A. Waesche, Jr.

  
	
   

  	
  President and CEO

  	
   

  	
  Date: 5/30/06

  
	
   

  	
  Date: 5/30/06

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CORPORATE OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST

  	
   

  
	
  a Maryland estate investment trust

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Randall M. Griffin

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Randall M. Griffin,

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  President and CEO

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Date: 5/30/06
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Solivan, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 879]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. *555McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 3, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The record supports the court’s finding that a photo array was not unduly suggestive. Defendant and the other participants were reasonably similar in appearance *(see People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]), and the differences between defendant’s photo and the other photos were not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification *(id.*at 336; *see also People v Foster,*272 AD2d 410, 410-411 [2d Dept 2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 889 [2000]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Sweeny, Gische, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
#### Segal Company (Eastern States), Inc., Appellant, v 333W34 SLG Owner LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[66 NYS3d 433]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissed the first cause of action of the second amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In May 2016, the court dismissed the causes of action asserted in the complaint and first amended complaint regarding tax escalation, but gave plaintiff leave to replead a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, with specific instructions *(cf. Sheppard v Coopers,*Inc., 13 Misc 2d 862, 865 [Sup Ct, NY County 1956], *affd*3 AD2d 909 [1st Dept 1957]). Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the 2016 order but failed to perfect its appeal.

The second amended complaint fails to comply with the directions in the 2016 order; therefore, the court properly dismissed the cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing *(see Sheppard v Coopers’, Inc.,*14 Misc 2d 180, 181 [Sup Ct, NY County 1957], *appeal dismissed*7 AD2d 971 [1st Dept 1959], *and*14 Misc 2d 211, 213 [Sup Ct, NY County 1958]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Kapnick, Webber and Oing, JJ.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10349 Summary Calendar

**In the Matter of William Paul Burch,** 

Debtor **,**
**Juanita Burch,**

Appellant **,**

versus

**Rushmore Loan Management Services, L.L.C.,**

Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CV

- 503

Before **Smith, Dennis,** and **Southwick, C**  ircuit J udges

. **Per Curiam :**  *

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 25, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10349 Document: 00516520097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2022No. 22

- 10349

2 Juanita Burch appeals from an order of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Texas that affirmed a bankruptcy court’s summary judgment dispos ing of all of Burch’s claims. Burch’s claims were brought in an adversary proceeding against Rushmore Loan Management
Services , LLC , in the bankruptcy of her husband, W illiam Paul Burch.

Rushmore had foreclosed on a property owned by the Burches in Arlington, Texas. The bankruptcy court rejected arguments that it had no jurisdiction and concluded that the property and claims were the same as
those already considered i n prior proceedings. Thus, judgment was granted
for Rushmore based on preclusion. The bankruptcy court also declared Burch a vexatious litigant.
After review of the briefs and record, we conclude the district court was correct to affirm the bankruptcy court ’s judgment. We **AFFIRM**

. Appellant ’ s motion to strike i s **DENIED**

. Case: 22-10349 Document: 00516520097 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2022
**Exhibit 23.5**

**CONSENT OF BAVANANTHAN REDDY**

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form40-F of Anooraq Resources Corporation (the “Company”), which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name and references to my involvement in the Mineral Resource Estimate for Ga-PhashaProject as at December 31, 2010 and the Mineral Reserve and Resource Estimate for the Bokoni Mine as at December 31, 2010, included in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2010 andManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

Datedthis 23rd day of March, 2011.
No. 10-6496.

#### Lamont Gist, Petitioner v. David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.

562 U.S. 1015, 131 S. Ct. 533,

178 L. Ed. 2d 392,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8529.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Jack C. BridgesJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-PresidentMarch 31, 2008Date
No. 10-5467.

#### Jorge Olivera, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 954, 131 S. Ct. 304,

178 L. Ed. 2d 253,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7839.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 174.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10007

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

James Lewis, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-177-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

James Lewis, federal prisoner # 46457-177, has appealed the district 

court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court determined that Lewis had not shown 

that there were extraordinary or compelling reasons for compassionate 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 12, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10007 Document: 00516050623 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2021
No. 21-10007

2

release. Moreover, release was inappropriate considering that Lewis had 

more than ten years remaining on his sentence and reducing the sentence to 

time-served would not account for the seriousness of the offense, promote 

respect for the law, or provide just punishment. 

Lewis asserts that his medical conditions put him at risk of serious 

illness because of COVID-19, and he contends that the Bureau of Prisons 

cannot protect him and has failed to prevent transmission of the disease. He 

also asserts that the district court failed to consider that he would not be 

sentenced as a career offender under current law. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that 

Lewis had not shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for

compassionate release. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433-35

(5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 2021 WL 2044647 (U.S. May 24, 2021) (No. 20-

7832). Nor did it abuse its discretion in balancing the statutory sentencing 

factors. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Lewis’s contentions with respect to the career-offender enhancement were 

before the court and were implicitly rejected. The district court’s order is 

AFFIRMED. 

Lewis’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED. See 

Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Case: 21-10007 Document: 00516050623 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2021
No. 09-11402.

#### Louis Anthony Manna, Petitioner v. Paul Schultz, Warden.

562 U.S. 951, 131 S. Ct. 192,

178 L. Ed. 2d 249,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7673.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 591 F.3d 664.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33932-33933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16541]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than July 7, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Deutsche Bank AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; to acquire German 
American Capital Corporation, New York, New York, and thereby engage in 
acquiring debt that is in default at the time of acquisition, pursuant 
to Sec.  225.28(b)(2)(vii) of Regulation Y.


[[Page 33933]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 17, 1998.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-16541 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Exhibit 32.1

 

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") onForm 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31,2009, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the datehereof(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the dateindicatedbelow, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuanttoSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The MonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnishedto the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  May 11, 2009

|   |   |  /s/ Walter H. Wulf, Jr.                 Walter H. Wulf, Jr.    President and     Chairman of the Board 
                                                   

 

 

  |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,602
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,330
<INVENTORY>                                     16,991
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,138
<PP&E>                                          38,803
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,427
<BONDS>                                        170,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (110,112)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,563
<SALES>                                         50,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,701
<CGS>                                           33,926
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,926
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                       813
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                862
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       862
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# Susquehanna duo wins Commander’s Mission Impact award

/ Published Sept. 17, 2015
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
Jodi Marshall, management services specialist, and Linda Cover, supervisory supply technician, at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Susquehanna, Pa., have won the Commander’s Mission Impact award for third quarter, fiscal year 2015, for their work in establishing a computer lab at the Eastern Distribution Center.

“These two nominees ‘DID’ it,” said Ronda Urey, deputy of the EDC division.  “Ms. Marshall and Ms. Cover clearly demonstrated determination, innovation, and dedication (DID), along with a little elbow grease!”  Marshall and Cover were challenged to establish an additional computer lab for a workforce in excess of 715 people in the EDC, who operate on a six-day working schedule on four different shifts.

With approximately 68 percent of the EDC’s workforce not having computer access readily at their fingertips, some tasks can be challenging in terms of resources and availability.  “With training requirements including classes in the Learning Management System, audit readiness, and Individual Development Plans, scheduling can be very difficult for supervisors and managers,” said Urey.  

Marshall and Cover creatively and resourcefully transformed a vacated office area into a state-of-the-art computer lab for employees, centrally located in a very accessible section of the EDC.  “Ms. Marshall and Ms. Cover, through sheer determination, made a better work area for our employees and leadership alike,” said Urey.

The duo started with a thorough housecleaning effort of the area.  They then submitted multiple work orders to test and upgrade the computer systems in the room and the security swipe access for first-line supervisors and managers to have access to take their teams to the lab for training.  A total of 16 workstations are now available for use.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

QROVER SLLLLRS 

ATTORWCY QLNCRAL 

Uon. 0. I!. ml&by 

cauntr AU.11 tor 

Lotr froa .rali rrqueit 

whioh acin ba 

1 Cermw, the 

I rolls wm 

ctatbd Clti 1 ctstuttr 

tlar hatin& the follting raeerrcd rduarely, 66 rhown by the tot&l aaseaeed 

11 >ropartlrr ocrtitlrd by the co.mty 

approved by the Co-:aisrlontrr Cwrt, for 

county purpxte, for the previous Jlt*.r, rroo t1l.e to 

tlae, the County Coafcleslonera or nuoh ,oountlcs tihell 

e&oh rtocltt cnnuul oel.mirtr not to l r08od the 8c2Unt6 

kereln apeoificd, raid rslrrles to be id ln equal 

uonthly lnetallaentr, rt ltart 0114~hrl r , an4 not aoredia~ three-row-the, out or tbs ;loaS~and Frldge Fund 
lioa; 0. EC; Rigsby, ‘hl,. 2 

. . 

. . ,.-.. 

md the n.euldrr ocit’o? 3ho Genrral Tund ot the 

ooullty~ 8r16~8880888ll rduatlonq md raluier 

applloablo theroto being am followrr 

mA88088ed Valuationa 8al.ul.r to bm 

pala rroh Copll&88lonor 

' . #6,0~0,001 and l.,re than 

~10,000,000 not to eroeed 4*.* ~lkOO.00" 

,.-.-.- . .._____. ,,- 

You d3l~~~notr...Wat.&~e l boto 8trtute provides that 

rhem the total l aaeaeed ralimf~6K8-til rlL.pm&ortios outli 

ck 

sd by the Count7 Assessor and approved by the O&Mli~mnrsLn 

'mm 

urt, io? ooun$y purpome8, tar the prsrlour year', 18 88 muoh 

$6,000,001 rod lsrr than $lO,OOO,OOO, thr Couatr Conmlaaloners 

of surh oounty rhall eaoh rmoedve annual salarloo not to booed 

the 8ua oi #lWO. Thorelore, shoe suoh valuations la Utalde 

County ror 194.4 are within the minimum and maximum amount.6 named, 

thm ralarior to be paid ruoh Oomml88lonern ror thl#.p8ar should 

no t l xoood the 8ua or $l4OG;OO. 

Trurtlrrg that thir ratlrfaotoril~ anqorr your 

inquiry, we uo 

Vary truly youra, 

ATToRuxYfJz3mmL OT ITlAB 

Jms. ‘U. Baeaett 

Aaei8tMt. 

JlB:rt:l8 

Attorney General 

Approved 

Oplaion 

Committer