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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.43

                     AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         Amendment No. 3 dated as of January 1, 2004 to Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement dated as of July l, 1999 between Brightpoint, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Employer" or the "Company"), and J. Mark Howell (the
"Employee").

         WHEREAS, the Employer and the Employee have entered into an amended and
restated employment agreement dated as of July 1, 1999, as amended by those
certain amendments dated January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2003 (the "Employment
Agreement");

         WHEREAS, the Employer and Employee wish to amend the section of the
Employment Agreement as provided below to reflect the change in increased base
salary of the Employee that was recently approved by the Compensation & Human
Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company and the Board of
Directors of the Company;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Employer and Employee hereby amend section 3.A of
the Employment Agreement to provide as follows:

         3.       Compensation.

                           "A.      During the term of this Agreement, the
Employer shall pay the Employee a salary (the "Salary") at a rate of $410,000
per annum in respect of each Employment Year, payable in equal monthly
installments on the first day of each month, or at such other times as may
mutually be agreed upon between the Employer and the Employee. Such Salary may
be increased from time to time at the discretion of the Board."

Except as provided above all other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

                                          BRIGHTPOINT, INC.

                                          By: /s/ Robert J. Laikin
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name:  Robert J. Laikin
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                          By: /s/ J. Mark Howell
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name: J. Mark Howell
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1480 

To require that a conversion to contractor performance of an activity or 

function of the Federal Government may not result in the loss of employment of any Federal worker with a severe disability employed in that 

activity or function. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2005 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require that a conversion to contractor performance of 

an activity or function of the Federal Government may 

not result in the loss of employment of any Federal 

worker with a severe disability employed in that activity 

or function. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Employees 

5 with Disabilities Protection Act’’. 
2 

•HR 1480 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TERMINATING EMPLOYMENT OF 

2 FEDERAL WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES EM3 PLOYED IN ACTIVITY OR FUNCTION CON4 VERTED TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—In the case of a conversion to 

6 contractor performance of any activity or function of an 

7 executive agency under Office of Management and Budget 

8 Circular A–76 or any other policy, directive, or regulation, 

9 including any Most Efficient Organization plan, the head 

10 of the executive agency may not terminate the employment 

11 of any employee in that activity or function if— 

12 (1) the employee is an individual with a dis13 ability (as defined in section 7(20)(A) of the Reha14 bilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(20)(A)); and 

15 (2) the employee was hired under a plan or pro16 gram designated for hiring individuals with such dis17 ability. 

18 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

19 an activity or function that is planned to be changed to 

20 performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind 

21 or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other severely handi22 capped persons in accordance with the Javits-Wagner23 O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c), if each employee covered 

24 by subsection (a) is offered another position with the Fed25 eral Government, or with the nonprofit agency that will 

26 perform the activity or function, that is equivalent to the 
3 

•HR 1480 IH 

1 position previously held by the employee before the change 

2 to performance by the nonprofit agency. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1475 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1475

  To require door delivery of mail sent to persons residing in senior 
                              communities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2005

  Mr. Saxton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require door delivery of mail sent to persons residing in senior 
                              communities.

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

SECTION 1. DOOR DELIVERY OF MAIL REQUIRED FOR INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN 
              SENIOR COMMUNITIES.

    (a) In General.--The United States Postal Service shall take such 
measures as may be necessary to ensure that all individuals residing in 
senior communities shall receive their mail through door delivery 
service.
    (b) Senior Community Defined.--As used in this section, the term 
``senior community'' means a housing facility or community which is 
intended and operated for occupancy by individuals 55 years of age or 
older, and at least 80 percent of the occupied units of which are 
occupied by at least one individual who is 55 years of age or older.
    (c) Exception.--Nothing in this section shall be considered to 
require door delivery service for persons residing in a structure that 
consists of or contains 2 or more dwelling units if delivery is made in 
a manner that allows such persons to receive or retrieve their mail 
without having to exit such structure.
    (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to mail 
delivered after the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7810
JAMES HENRY TINSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR HARRIS, Attending Physician, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00730-JBF) Submitted: May 16, 2007 Decided: June 4, 2007 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Henry Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff Wayne Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Henry Tinsley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Tinsley v. Harris , No. 2:05-cv-00730-JBF (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Scott G. McNealy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Sun Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 25, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.



|                       |  |        |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 3, 2005 |  | By:    |  | /s/ SCOTT G. MCNEALY   
|                       |  | Name:  |  | Scott G. McNealy       
|                       |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY 3:17-cv-00939-WHA-JSC 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) 

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA-JSC 

ATTORNEY KAREN L. DUNN’S 

REQUEST TO APPEAR 

TELEPHONICALLY AT THE 

DISCOVERY HEARING ON BEHALF 

OF DEFENDANTS UBER 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

Date: May 11, 2017 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Ctrm: F 

Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 365 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY 3:17-cv-00939-WHA-JSC 

1

Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order, attorney Karen L. Dunn of Boies Schiller Flexner 

LLP respectfully requests the Court’s permission to appear by telephone on behalf of Defendants 

Uber Technologies, Inc. and Ottomotto LLC (collectively “Uber”), at the Discovery Hearing 

scheduled for May 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Co-counsel for Uber from Morrison & Foerster LLP 

will appear in person. 

Dated: May 5, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

By: /s/ Karen L. Dunn 

Karen L. Dunn 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and 

OTTOMOTTO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 365 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY 3:17-cv-00939-WHA-JSC 

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney Karen L. Dunn of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP 

is permitted to appear by telephone at the Discovery Hearing scheduled for May 11, 2017 at 2:00 

p.m. Counsel shall contact CourtCall at 1-888-882-6878 to make the arrangements to appear by 

telephone. 

Dated: 

 HON. JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

May 8, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 365 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11135]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Docket No. AB-440X]


Wisconsin & Michigan Railway Company--Discontinuance of Service 
Exemption--in Ashland and Iron Counties, WI and Gogebic County, MI

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10505, exempts Wisconsin 
& Michigan Railway Company (WIMI) from the prior approval requirements 
of 49 U.S.C. 10903-10904 to discontinue service over 32.38 miles of 
Wisconsin Central, Ltd. rail line known as the Mellen-Bessemer Branch, 
extending between milepost 411.0 near Mellen, WI and milepost 443.38 
near Bessemer, MI, in Ashland and Iron Counties, WI and Gogebic County, 
MI.

DATES: Provided no formal expression of intent to file a financial 
assistance offer has been received, this exemption will be effective on 
June 4, 1995. Formal expressions of intent to file financial assistance 
offers<SUP>1 under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2) must be filed by June 15, 1995. 
Petitions to stay must be filed by May 22, 1995. Petitions to reopen 
must be filed by May 30, 1995.

    \1\See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4 
I.C.C. 2d 164 (1987).

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Docket No. AB-440X to: (1) 
Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce 
Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423; and 
(2) Petitioner's representative: Thomas F. McFarland, Jr., 20 North 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wacker Drive, Suite 3118, Chicago, IL 60606-3101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927-5660. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write 
to, call, or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Room 2229, 
Interstate Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. [Assistance 
for the hearing impaired is available through TDD services (202) 927-
5721.]

    Decided: April 20, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman Morgan, and Commissioners Simmons, 
McDonald, and Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11135 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      10,754,200
<SECURITIES>                                90,046,100
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,650,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,104,100
<PP&E>                                       5,128,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 293,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             267,573,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,973,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,829,100
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,894,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               267,573,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,734,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,172,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               182,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,675,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,701,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,141,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,560,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.87
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                          TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               RULE 13A-14(B) AND
                             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 Textron Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted
R. French, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 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 results of operations
            of the Company.


                                            Textron Financial Corporation

                                            /s/ Ted R. French
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Ted R. French
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 9, 2004
Jeffrey Thomas MAEHR, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 12-6169.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> $
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 .00001
<CASH>                                             697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    20547
<ALLOWANCES>                                       615
<INVENTORY>                                      17642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 41607
<PP&E>                                           36081
<DEPRECIATION>                                   31316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   61192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                       24613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     61192
<SALES>                                          28578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 28578
<CGS>                                            19505
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    19505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  8844
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   673
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  80
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    405
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                401
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
Gary Bernard MOORE, petitioner, v. S. ZAPPA, et al.

No. 12-9889.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6394

CHARLES JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-1502-CCB) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 7, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, AnnNorman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Corcoran , No. CA-97-1502-CCB (D. Md. Feb. 24, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Heather Ann DELORME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-5084

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.