alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex1049.htm


     

    Exhibit
10.49

     

    


    May 22,
2008

    


    


    Andrew
Hidalgo

    608
Perimeter Drive

    Downingtown,
PA 19335

    


    Re: Amendment to Employment
Agreement

    


    


    Dear
Andy,

    


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

    ___

    


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

    ___

    


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

    


    


    Respectfully,

     

    
      	/s/ Norm
      Dumbroff	 	 	 
	Norm
    Dumbroff	 	 	 
	Chairman of the
      Executive Committee	 	 	 
	Board of
      Directors	 	 	 
	WPCS International
      Incorporated	 	 	 


    

     

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

    


     

    
      	/s/ Andrew
      Hidalgo	 	 	 
	Andrew
    Hidalgo
Jerry SALAZAR-MENENDEZ, O/B/O, S.S., Appellant, v. Graciela Marina COSTA, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1963

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 19, 2018.

Michael E. Chionopoulos, Fort Myers, for Appellant.

Stacy L. Sherman of Stacy L. Sherman, P.A., Cape Coral, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 10.23



LOGO



MARK A.
BROWN

President, Chief Executive Officer



January 30, 2003



John Burke

[ADDRESS]



|Re: | Employment Agreement dated April 17, 2000 between John Burke and Trump Hotels& Casino Resorts, Inc., Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Holdings, L.P. and TrumpAtlantic City Associates (collectively Trump) (the Agreement)
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Mr. Burke:



This letter will confirm that
the Agreement is hereby amended as set forth below:



|1. | the Agreement is extended as of December 31, 2001 nunc pro tuncwith an Expiration Date of December 31, 2006; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | paragraph 2 is amended to reflect the annual base salary of $220,500.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



Except to the extent modified herein, you and Trump hereby ratify the Agreement and agree that all other terms, conditions and obligations contained therein remain in
full force and effect as stated in the Agreement.



Very truly yours,/s/ MARK A. BROWNMARK A. BROWN Chief Operating Officer




Agreed and Consented to:



|               |  |  |  | 
|-------------- |  |  |  | 
|               |  | 
|/s/ JOHN BURKE |  |  |  | 
|               |  |  |  | 
|John Burke     |  |  |  | 
|               |  |  |  | 
|4/25/03        |  |  |  | 
|Date           |  |  |  | 



|                  |  |                   |  |                   |  |               |  |                         
|----------------- |  | ----------------- |  | ----------------- |  | ------------- |  | ------------------------
|TRUMP TAJ MAHAL   |  | TRUMP MARINA      |  | TRUMP PLAZA       |  | TRUMP INDIANA |  | TRUMP SPOTLIGHT 29 PALMS
|Atlantic City, NJ |  | Atlantic City, NJ |  | Atlantic City, NJ |  | Gary, IN      |  | Coachella, CA           
|                 

1000 BOARDWALK AT VIRGINIA AVENUE
ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY 08401609-449-55501-800-234-5678FAX 609-449-5090
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 24

- 00335

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 324th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 324

- 739255

- 23

Before Walker, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### M.M., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

We have considered appellant T.R. ’ s “ Motion for Dismissal of Appeal .” We

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal of appellant T.R. only

. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f

).

Per Curiam

Delivered : August 1, 2024
Carla J. BURKE, Appellant, v. John BURKE, III, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4076

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7518** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. CHRISTOPHER HANNIGAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. ( 7:09

- cr - 00133

- D

- 1; 7:14

- cv - 00122

- D )

Submitted : February 17, 2016 Decided: March 14, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher Hannigan, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Stephen Aubr e y West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES AT TORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Hannigan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion as untimely
. The orde r is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Sl ack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and tha t the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hannigan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of app ealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - products_publications(19)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - (-)news_news-149246(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - other_basic-37(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - (-)wisconsin(1)

## By Year

Science Snippet        April 13, 2017        Up in the Air to Look Deep Underground
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                      |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Adelene Q. Perkins                           
|                      |  | Adelene Q. Perkins                               
|                      |  | Executive Vice President & Chief Business Officer
|                      |  | (Principal financial officer)                    

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Nesrien AZURIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2861

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 17, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J. and May, J., concur.

Ciklin, J., concurs with opinion.

*901I concur in the decision to affirm. I write to draw attention to a problem presented somewhat regularly in the cases that come before this court: trial counsel's failure to preserve error. In this case, the lack of preservation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not always the case.

Non-specific and non-articulated evidentiary objections by any party to a proceeding are categorically unacceptable and the profession should be alarmed at the frequency with which this lack of basic legal acumen takes place.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Bernard N.Schneider, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of GlobalSCAPE, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)             designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly  report is being prepared;

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly  report based on such evaluation; and

c)             disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a)             all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:    August 11, 2006
|   | /s/ Bernard N. Schneider |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Bernard N.  Schneider    |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_science(20)
              - products_data(4)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(30)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - multimedia_video(7)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(5)
              - documents_file(3)
              - documents_file-149220(3)
              - news_news-149245(5)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(4)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_locations(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(9)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(11)
              - arizona(7)
              - california(70)
              - (-)colorado(2)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(12)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - montana(2)
              - new jersey(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south dakota(8)
              - texas(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(11)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        June 28, 2007        PubTalk 6/2007 — Adventures in Southwest Geology

Presentations and Events        March 21, 2017        Monitoring Land-Atmosphere Exchange of Moisture to Understand Drought
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF Ashly Nichol JACKSON, Appellant, v. Danny Etian RIVERA, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5380

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 4, 2018

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Carrie R. McNair, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Child Support Enforcement, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**783*Dep't of Revenue, on behalf of Marquez v. Lopez* , 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1753, 252 So.3d 823, 2018 WL 3638010 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 1, 2018).

Wolf, Lewis, and Ray, JJ., concur.
Michael K. GROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4091

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 12, 2018

Michael K. Gross, Doral, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
----

|                                 | (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. |                               |
|                                 |   |                                                                                                                                                               |                               |
|                                 |   |                                                                                                                                                               |                               |
|                                 |   |                                                                                                                                                               |                               |
| Date:  April      13, 2010 |   | By:                                                                                                                                                                | /s/      Yermek Kudabayev          |
|                                 |   |                                                                                                                                                               | Yermek      Kudabayev              |
|                                 |   |                                                                                                                                                               | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|                                 |   |                                                                                                                                                               | (Principal      Executive Officer) |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7260** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DENNIS LAMAR BRUTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00013

- MR

- 3; 1:12

- cv - 00123

- MR )

Submitted : December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before SHED D, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Dennis Lamar Bruton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Kent, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney Asheville, North Carolina; Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF T HE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dennis Lamar Bruton seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012). A certificate of a ppealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable ju rists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on proced ural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the rec ord and conclude that
Bruton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Independent Accountants' Report
The Board of Directors Wachovia Bank, National Association:
We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management Assertion, that the Retail Credit Operations Division of Wachovia Bank, National Association, (the Bank) complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's (MBA's) Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers(USAP)relating to its servicing of prime equity lines (home equity lines of credit), pursuant to the respective Sales and Servicing Agreements for the Summitt Prime Equity Lines Trust 2002 and the Wachovia Asset Securitization Inc. (WASI) Trust 2002 HE-1, 2002 HE-2, 2003 HE-1, 2003 HE-2, 2003 HE-3, 2004 HE-1, 2004 HEMM-1, 2004 HEMM-2, 2005 HEMM-1, 2007 HE-1, and 2007 HE-2 (collectively the Trusts), except for minimum servicing standards I.2, I.4, III.3, III.4, III.6, V.3, and V.4, which management has interpreted to be inapplicable to the servicing of the Trusts, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008.  Management is responsible for the Bank's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Bank's compliance based on our examination.
Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing standards specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.
In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008 is fairly stated, in all material respects.
/s/ KPMG
March 31, 2009





KPMG LLP
Suite
2300

Three Wachovia Center

401 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202-1911




KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

Exhibit 99.1