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

                                                                    Exhibit 10.4

                              AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                             EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 2 (the "Amendment") to that certain Employment Agreement
(the "Agreement") between Notify Technology Corporation (the "Company") and
Gerald Rice (the "Employee") dated as of August 1, 1997 and as amended on
February 23, 2000 is made as of June 29, 2001.

     In consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Employee agree as follows:

1.  Section 4(a) of the Agreement shall be amended so that it reads in its
entirety as follows:

     "(a) Termination Following A Change of Control. If the Employee's
          -----------------------------------------
employment with the Company terminates at any time within twenty-four (24)
months after a Change of Control, then, subject to Section 5, the Employee shall
be entitled to receive severance benefits as follows:

          (i)   Involuntary Termination. If the Employee's employment terminates
                -----------------------
as a result of an Involuntary Termination (as defined in Section 8) other than
for Cause (as defined in Section 8), then the Employee shall be entitled to
receive a continuation of the Employee's Base Compensation for a period equal to
six (6) months.

          (ii)  Voluntary Resignation; Termination for Cause. If the - Employee
                --------------------------------------------
voluntarily terminates employment with the Company, other than as a result of an
Involuntary Termination, or if the Employee is terminated for Cause, then the
Employee shall not be entitled to receive severance or other benefits.

          (iii) Disability; Death. If the Company terminates the Employee's
                -----------------
employment as a result of the Employee's Disability, or such Employee's
employment is terminated due to the death of the Employee, then the Employee
shall not be entitled to receive severance or other benefits except those (if
any) as may then be established under the Company's then existing severance and
benefits plans and policies at the time of such Disability or death."

     This Amendment has been executed effective as of the first date set forth
above.

NOTIFY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION                 EMPLOYEE



/s/ Paul DePond                           /s/ Gerald Rice
------------------------------------      -------------------------------------
Paul DePond, Chief Executive Officer      Gerald Rice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-KSB/A.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          59,846
<SECURITIES>                                   200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,812
<PP&E>                                         663,295
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,660,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,141,559
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    107,546
<COMMON>                                       140,453
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,018,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,660,168
<SALES>                                        642,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               642,399
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,470,573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               603,995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             204,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,432,169)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,477)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,443,646)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,443,646)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
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 Northwest Pipe Company (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, Stephanie J. Welty, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/    STEPHANIE J.
WELTY                     
|Stephanie J. Welty                            
|Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

March 17, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ARBOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         102,307
<SECURITIES>                                    35,479
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,392)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,177
<PP&E>                                          21,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,325)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,149
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,233
<SALES>                                         82,237
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,237
<CGS>                                            1,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (312)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,740
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,824)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,916
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,916
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        

</TABLE>
Case: 1:02-cv-02619 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/12/04 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:207

Case: 1:02-cv-02619 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/12/04 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:208

Case: 1:02-cv-02619 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/12/04 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:209

Case: 1:02-cv-02619 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/12/04 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:210
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jimel Porter, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 913] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered November 29, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the County Court did not specifically inform him of the availability of an affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see *People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; *People v McCallum,*84 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2011]; *People v Payton,*53 AD3d 590 [2008]; *People v Wallace,*247 AD2d 257, 259 [1998]; *People v Feichtl,*134 AD2d 364 [1987]). In any event, the record demonstrates that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see *People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]).

The defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a “ ‘mixed claim’ ” of ineffective assistance *(People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011], quoting *People v Evans,*16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2 [2011], *cert denied*565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel *(cf. People v Crump,*53 NY2d 824 [1981]; *People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852 [1978]). The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record. Accordingly, a CPL 440.10 application is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety *(see People v Freeman,*93 AD3d 805 [2012]; *People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d at 1109; *People v Rohlehr,*87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.
#### SQUIRE, Appellant, v. ORDEMANN, Respondent, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Benjamin Squire against Ernst Ordemann, impleaded. L. A. Gould, for appellant. H. H. Glass, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
**Exhibit 15.1**

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-144672) pertaining to the offering from time to time of up to $42,841,260 of common stock by Gulf Island Fabrication,Inc. and 1,589,067 shares of common stock by the selling shareholder named therein, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-46155) pertaining to the Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88466)pertaining to the 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, of our reports dated April 27, 2007, July 26, 2007, and October 25, 2007 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. thatare included in its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2007, June 30, 2007, and September 30, 2007. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

October 25, 2007
#### Brodie L. Etheridge, Respondent, v Marion A. Daniels & Sons, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[945 NYS2d 551]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered December 22, 2011, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendants established prima facie that they had no notice of the alleged slippery condition of the painted ramp or driveway on which plaintiff slipped while helping to move a casket into a garage *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 *437NY2d 836 [1986]). They also established, via their expert engineer’s affidavit, that the ramp did not violate any applicable building codes or industry standards.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. She presented no evidence that defendants had notice of the allegedly slippery condition of the ramp. As to building code violations, plaintiffs expert cited code provisions that were inapplicable to the ramp, which was not an “exit” from the combined buildings *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-377 [ramps], 27-375 [interior stairs], 27-376 [exterior stairs]; *Remes v 513 W. 26th*Realty, *LLC,*73 AD3d 665 [2010]). Her expert also failed to support his opinion “by nonconclusory reference to specific, currently applicable safety standards or practices” *(see Contreras v Zabar’s,*293 AD2d 362 [2002]; *Hotaling v City of New York,*55 AD3d 396, 398 [2008], *affd*12 NY3d 862 [2009]; *Jones v City of New York,*32 AD3d 706 [2006]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act)
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Richard S. Gilbert, Chief Executive Officer of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. (the Company), and Michael O. Staiger, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:



1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 10th day of May, 2005.



/s/ Richard S. GilbertRichard S. GilbertChairman and Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Michael O. StaigerMichael O. StaigerExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary




This certification accompanies
the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1016

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:1017

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:1018

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:1019

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:1020

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:1021

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:1022

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:1023

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:1024

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:1025

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:1026

Case: 1:02-cr-00310 Document #: 201 Filed: 03/13/03 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:1027
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randy Colucci, Sr., Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 395]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), rendered April 14, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]). We conclude that defendant’s contentions regarding his waiver of the right to challenge the judgment of conviction by motion pursuant to CPL articles 330 and 440 or by writ of coram nobis are premature *(see People v Hill,*93 AD3d 1237, 1237 [2012]). It is settled that the courts of this *1420State may decide only controversies that are presently justiciable. To be justiciable, a controversy must “involve present, rather than hypothetical, contingent or remote, prejudice” to a party *(American Ins. Assn, v Chu,*64 NY2d 379, 383 [1985], *appeal dismissed and cert denied*474 US 803 [1985]). Here, defendant’s contentions with respect to such postjudgment relief “seek[ ] merely an advisory opinion” *(Hill,*93 AD3d at 1237).

We reject defendant’s further contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Defendant signed a written waiver of the right to appeal, and the plea colloquy demonstrates that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal (s*ee People v James,*71 AD3d 1465, 1465 [2010]). Further, the record establishes that he “ ‘understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” *(People v Dunham,*83 AD3d 1423, 1424 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 794 [2011], quoting *Lopez,*6 NY3d at 256). Present — Smith, J.P., Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
NUMBER 13-20-00352-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

LESSLIE TRENELLE LAMAR 

A/K/A LESSLIE LAMAR, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant Lesslie Trenelle Lamar a/k/a Lesslie Lamar filed a notice of appeal from 

an order issued in trial court cause number 19-05-31530A in the 24th District Court of 

Victoria County, Texas. The June 18, 2020 order subject to appeal denies appellant’s 

motion to recuse the Honorable Eli Garza. On August 11, 2020, and again on November 
2

25, 2020, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that, based upon our review of the 

filings, there was no final, appealable order. We requested appellant to correct this defect, 

if possible, and notified appellant that the appeal would be subject to dismissal if the 

defect was not corrected. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1. Appellant did not correct the defect 

or otherwise respond to the Court’s directives.

Generally, a state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a 

criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. 

State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); Skillern v. State, 355 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d); Saliba v. State, 45 S.W.3d 329, 329 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2001, no pet.); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

1996, no pet.). Exceptions to this general rule include: (1) certain appeals while on 

deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX. R. APP. P.

31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas 

corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); 

McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. See generally Saliba, 45 S.W.3d at 329; Bridle v. State, 16 

S.W.3d 906, 908 n.1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). As applicable to this case, 

an order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only on appeal from the final 

judgment. See Green v. State, 374 S.W.3d 434, 445 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); see also De 

Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“The procedures for recusal of 

judges set out in Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply in criminal cases.”).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal, the record, 

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
3

Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief and we 

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

4th day of February, 2021.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1063

To suspend temporarily the duty on KN001 (a hydrochloride).

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 24, 1997

Mr. ROCKEFELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on KN001 (a

hydrochloride).

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of Chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.30.41 2-4-dichlon-5-

hydrozyhydrazine hydrochloride (CAS

No. 189573-

21-5) (provided

for in subheading

2928.00.25) .... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/98 ’’.
2

•S 1063 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

4 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(formerly Atlantic Technology Ventures, Inc.):

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-34379, 333-35079, 333-65393, 333-40916, 333-49036 and 333-57550) on
Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-15807 and 333-48531) on Form S-8 of Manhattan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly Atlantic Technology Ventures, Inc. (a
development stage company)) of our report dated March 22, 2002, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheet of Atlantic Technology Ventures, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity (deficiency), and cash flows for years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000, and for the period from July 13, 1993 (inception) to
December 31, 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, Annual Report
on Form 10-KSB of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Our report dated March 22, 2002 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has limited
liquid resources that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a
going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
April 11, 2003