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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33

                      AMENDMENT NO. 6 (THE "AMENDMENT") TO
                          EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
    THE UNIVISION NETWORK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ("UNIVISION") AND RAY RODRIGUEZ
                          (THE "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT")

                                December 31, 2000


Dear Ray:

You and Univision agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

         1. TERM. The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through
December 31, 2003, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions
of the Employment Agreement.

         2. SALARY. Your annual Base Salary rate will be Eight Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($800,000) for the annual period from January 1, 2003 through December
31, 2003.

         3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT. Upon execution by you and Univision,
this Amendment will become effective as of the date first provided above.

         4. OTHER. Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and
conditions in the Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect, and
the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed.

                                         THE UNIVISION NETWORK
                                         LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                                         By: /s/ George W. Blank
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 George W. Blank
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

/s/ Ray Rodriguez
------------------------
Ray Rodriguez
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2129 

To strengthen the disclosure requirements for creditors under the Truth 

in Lending Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To strengthen the disclosure requirements for creditors under 

the Truth in Lending Act. 

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 ‘‘Online Credit Card 

5 Disclosure Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ONLINE PAYMENT TIMING DISCLOSURES. 

7 Section 127(b)(11)(D) of the Truth in Lending Act 

8 (15 U.S.C. 1637(b)(11)(D)) is amended— 

9 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and insert10 ing a semicolon; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2129 IH

1 (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period and in2 serting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by inserting at the end the following new 

4 clause: 

5 ‘‘(iii) if the consumer has an online ac6 count with the creditor under the consumer 

7 credit plan, be disclosed in a conspicuous and 

8 prominent location on a webpage of such cred9 itor.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6983

CHRISTOPHER JAMES FORDHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRANKLIN FREEMAN; GARY T. DIXON; LYNN C.

PHILLIPS; RANDALL LEE; RICHARD T. DUKE, JR.;

R. JONES; GRADY MASSEY; SERGEANT NOWELL;

SERGEANT MILES; SERGEANT MILLS; CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER BIGGS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HINES;

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WILLS; CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER WHITTED; ALTON ANDERSON, Doctor; ANN

EMERY; F. GARDNER; C. BARROW; P. HARDING;

C. CLARKE; S. LYNCH; WILLIAM TURNER; JIMMY

COOPER; R. ROBINSON; W. MCWILLIAMS; KIM

IRELAND; DANIEL MARINGOFF; BERT ROSEFIELD;

DEBORAH ADLES; TASHIMA HARRIS; DANETTE WEBB,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-97-385-5-BO)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher James Fordham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district

court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. 1997). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Fordham v. Freeman, No. CA-97-385-

5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 23, 1997). 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
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. PARRETTE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 1, 1896.)

Proceeding against Michael Parrette.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed. All concur.
**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 Quarter Report of B-Teller, INC., (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the year ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Armando Russo,
      President and J. A. Claydon, Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      That
      to the best of my knowledge:





(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.





B-TELLER,
      INC.




By /s/
      Armando Russo


**President**




By
      /s/ J.
      A.
      Claydon


**Secretary**


June
      6,
      2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              This schedule contains summary financial 
                              information extracted from SEC Form 10-Q and is 
                              qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                              financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001540
<NAME>                        Lexington Global Asset Managers, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        9,243,815
<SECURITIES>                    596,213         
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,618,198
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              12,830,852
<PP&E>                        3,365,176
<DEPRECIATION>                2,248,908
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                17,203,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         3,810,081 
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                         54,879
<OTHER-SE>                    8,998,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  17,203,060         
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,453,627
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 384,895
<INCOME-TAX>                    166,874
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             185,058
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                    185,058
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .04

        



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2163 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2163

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
           deduction of State and local general sales taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2015

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
           deduction of State and local general sales taxes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL GENERAL SALES 
              TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``January 1, 
2015'' and inserting ``January 1, 2016''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 11, 2015

Order 

August 11, 2015

150891(64)

EARL H. ALLARD, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

CHRISTINE A. ALLARD,

Defendant-Appellee.

SC: 150891

COA: 308194

Wayne CC: 10-110358-DM

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

for filing his brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if 

submitted on or before September 16, 2015.
# C_2022132EN.01022101.xml

| 24.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/221 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/221

---

P9_TA(2021)0401

Renewal of the appointment of Julia Laffranque to the panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

European Parliament decision of 5 October 2021 proposing the appointment of Julia Laffranque to the panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2021/2171(INS))

(2022/C 132/23)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the second paragraph of Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the second paragraph of Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to Rule 128 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 128 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs (B9-0478/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs (B9-0478/2021),

| A. | whereas Julia Laffranque meets the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Julia Laffranque meets the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| 1. | Proposes that Julia Laffranque be appointed to the panel; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the President of the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
#### DOHERTY, Respondent, v. LORD et al., Appellants.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

Action by John Doherty against Samuel Lord, Jr., and another.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

Henry Tompkins, for appellants.

W. T. B. Millican, for respondent.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 25 N. Y. Supp. 752; 28 N. Y. Supp. 720.
Motion Granted; Memorandum Opinion filed September 26 , 2023
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00036

- CV

2016 BAYTOWN WARD ROAD, LLC AND EUREKA MULTIFAMILY GROUP, LP , Appellant s
V.
APRIL LAWSON , Appellee
On Appeal f rom t h e 127th District Cou rt Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 83979

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 17, 202 2 . On September 14, 2023, the parties filed a n agreed motion indicating , “ The Parties have agreed to

r esolve this case and hereby jointly request that the Court of Appeals dispose of this appeal in accordance with Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B). See Tex. R. Ap p. P. 42.1 (a)(2)( B) . The motion is g ranted. Accordingly, we set aside the tria l court ’ s judgment against appe l lant s , 20162 Baytown Ward Road, LLC and Eureka Multifamily Group L.P ., signed October 17, 2022, and we remand th e cause to t he trial court for ren dition of judgment in accordance with the part ies ’ agreement.
PER CURIA M
Panel c onsists of Justice s Wise, Zimm erer, and Poissant.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7011

RONNIE CLEARACE HEADEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-222-2) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Clearace Headen, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000). 2 Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 10, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 11, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie Clearace Headen seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s 1 order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Headen v. Angelone , No. CA-00-2222-2 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2000). 2 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arnold Raimondo, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (De Lury, J.), rendered January 10, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, following a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The People established the defendant’s guilt of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Matters of credibility and the weight to be given to the witnesses’ testimony are for the jury to determine.

In addition, we find, as did the hearing court, that the procedures with respect to a lineup were not suggestive, that the main prosecution eyewitness’s identifications were not coerced and that, in any event, there was an independent source for their in-court identification testimony. In view of the hearing court’s opportunity to evaluate the credibility of *507the witnesses, its findings are to be accorded great weight and, because those findings are supported by the record, they are upheld *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 795). We also find that there was probable cause for the defendant’s arrest *(see, People v White,*117 AD2d 127, 131).

Furthermore, the defendant was entitled to and did receive "meaningful representation” in support of his defense *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). Finally, we have considered the defendant’s other contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*supplemental brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 17, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-13430

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 91-00010-CR-CAR-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TROY LEE BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(February 17, 2010)

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

D. Nicole Williams, appointed counsel for Troy Lee Brown, has filed a
motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the

district court’s denial of Brown’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion is AFFIRMED.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           19077
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   143179
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3023
<INVENTORY>                                      85549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                269177
<PP&E>                                          308860
<DEPRECIATION>                                  175212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  534165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           113592
<BONDS>                                          85107
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           195
<OTHER-SE>                                      289469
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    534165
<SALES>                                         170063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                170063
<CGS>                                           113794
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   113794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  21452
<INCOME-TAX>                                      7860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              13592
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     13592
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        

</TABLE>
#### E. S. HIGGINS CARPET CO. v. CHARLES URBAN MANUF’G CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by the E. S. Higgins Carpet Company against the Charles Urban Manufacturing Company.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs.
EXHIBIT 28


SMITH, GOOLSBY,
ARTIS & REAMS, P.S.C.

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
P.O. BOX 551      1330 CARTER AVE.
ASHLAND, KENTUCKY 41105-0551
(606) 329-1171   FAX (606) 325-0590

Board of Directors
Classic Bancshares, Inc.

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated statement of condition as of
September 30, 2002 and the related consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income for the three and six month periods ended September 30,
2002 and 2001, and the consolidated statements of stockholders equity for the
six months ended September 30, 2002, and the consolidated statements of cash
flow for the six month periods ended September 30, 2003 and 2001, in accordance
with Statement of Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The financial statements are
the responsibility of the corporation's management.

A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying
analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons
responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in
scope than an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated statement of
financial condition as of March 31, 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and cash flows
for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our report dated June 11,
2002, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial
statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying
consolidated statement of financial condition as of March 31, 2002, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated statement of
financial condition from which it has been derived.





/s/ Smith, Goolsby, Artis & Reams, P.S.C.
----------------------------------------
SMITH, GOOLSBY, ARTIS & REAMS, P.S.C.
Ashland, Kentucky
November 8, 2002