alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 1 to Independent Contractor Agreement


     Exhibit 10.3 
 
 Amendment No. 1 
 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
 This Amendment No. 1 to Independent Contractor Agreement (“Agreement”) is effective December 31, 2009 and is between GEOVIC Ltd. (“Company” or
“Geovic”) and Mineral Services, LLC, (“Contractor”) 142 Stratford Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530. The Company and the Contractor are in some places herein referred to individually as a Party and collectively as the Parties.

 
	WHEREAS:




	A.     	 Contractor and Company entered into the Independent Contractor Agreement effective June 15, 2009 (“Original Agreement”), following approval by the
Board of Directors of Geovic Mining Corp.;
 
	 
	B.     	 The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved the material terms of this Amendment No.1 in December 2009;
 
	 
	C.     	 The Parties intend that the Original Agreement shall be amended to change the compensation arrangements for the Contractor commencing October 2009, the
beginning of the third fiscal quarter of the Company as set forth herein, and
 
	 
	D.     	 Except as set forth in this Agreement, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
 
	 

 WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
 1.  Change in Compensation. Section 1.3 of the Original
Agreement shall be revised and amended to provide as follows:

	1.3     	 The Geovic shall pay the Contractor (“Contractor Fees”) against delivery of an invoice by the Contractor containing such details of Services
as the Geovic shall reasonably request, as follows:
 
	 
	 	1.3.1     	 Fixed Fee. Twenty-eight Thousand US dollars ($28,000) per calendar quarter,
payable calendar quarterly in arrears for all Services provided by Contractor during the quarter;
 
	 

 1
 
 
	1.3.2     	 Timeliness of Invoices. Invoices in reasonable detail shall be provided to Geovic
within 20 days of each calendar quarter end shall be payable upon receipt.
 
	 
	1.3.3     	 Unless extended by mutual agreement of the Parties, the quarterly compensation payable to Contractor under this Agreement shall revert to the rate payable under
the Original Agreement for calendar quarters commencing July 1, 2010.
 
	 

 2.   No Other Changes. Except as set forth in this Agreement, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed the Agreement effective as of the date first above written.
  Geovic Ltd.,
  A corporation
organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands
 
	 	/s/ David C. Beling                   
 By:  David C. Beling
 Authorized officer



 
	 	Mineral Services, LLC
 Contractor
 
 /s/ Michael T.
Mason              
 By:  Michael T.  Mason
 Authorized Member



 
	 	Tax I.D.  #11-3389524             
       



 
	 	/s/ Michael
Mason                       
 Michael Mason, Individually



 
 2
#### Juan Espinoza HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70966.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*681Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Elizabeth P. Uribe, Esquire, Law Offices of Enrique Arevalo, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.

Monica Antoun, Esquire, OIL, Shelley Goad, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Espinoza Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Ramos v. INS,*246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Espinoza Herrera provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit, thereby rendering him unable to establish the requisite good moral character required for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(6), 1229b(b)(l)(B); *see also Ramos,*246 F.3d at 1266.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32(b)


 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, James M. Sullivan, Chief Financial Officer of Solutia Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (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.

Dated: April 29, 2005

                                             /s/ James M. Sullivan
                                             ---------------------
                                             James M. Sullivan
                                             Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Solutia Inc.
and will be retained by Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                              43
#### Ronald *v.*Mutual Reserve Life Fund Ass’n.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

L Life Insurance—Conditions of Policy—Acceptance of Overdue Premium.

A policy of life insurance stipulated that, upon a failure to pay any premium when due, the policy should become void. There was such a failure; and, upon a tender of the amount thereafter, the insurer accepted it, and gave a receipt which stated that it was accepted upon condition that the insured was of temperate habits, and in as good health as when the policy was issued, otherwise the payment and receipt and the original policy should be void. Such acceptance and receipt were provided for in the constitution and by-laws of the insurance company, which were made a part of the original contract of insurance. *Meld,*that such payment and receipt constituted a new contract, by which insured was bound, whether he read the receipt or not; and, it appearing that he was not at that time of temperate habits, nor in as good health as when he was originally insured, the receipt was of no effect, and the policy remained void.

8. Same—Waiver.

A life insurance company does not waive a forfeiture of a policy by requesting proofs of the death of the insured, and giving instructions in regard thereto.

Affirming 7 N. Y. Supp. 152.

Appeal from circuit court, New York county.

Action by Agnes Ronald against the Mutual Reserve Life Fund Association. From a judgment entered on dismissal of complaint at close of plaintiff’s case, (7 N. Y. Supp. 152,) plaintiff appeals.

Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Bartlett, J.

*Chas. B. Meyer,*for appellant. *Alfred Taylor,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

It would be unprofitable to add to the reasons given by Mr. Justice Barrett, on the trial of this action, for dismissing the complaint. It is enough to say that those reasons seem to us entirely satisfactory and convincing, and that we fully concur in the conclusion to which they led the learned judge. Judgment affirmed on the opinion of the court below, with costs.
AMOUNT

ALLOWED

e Initial) 3. PICK-UP DATE (YYYYMMDD) LIST OF PROPERTY AND CLAIMS ANALYSIS CHART

(Items 14 through 31 to be filled out by Claims Office)

f applicable)

b. POLICY NO.

4. DELIVERY DATE

(YYYYMMDD)

14. ORIGIN CONTRACTOR 17. 2ND CONTRACTOR 21. CLAIM NUMBER 22. NET WT/MAX CAR15. INVENTORY DATE

(YYYYMMDD)

18. EXCEPTION SHEET DATE (YYYYMMDD) 

23. GBL NUMBER 24. LOT NUMBER

uding brand name,

ure and extent of

MISSING.")

8.INVNO.

9. ORIGINAL COST

11. AMOUNT

 CLAIMED a. Repair Cost

10. 

MM/YYYY

PURCHASED

(or)

b. 

Replacement

Cost

16.

EXCEPTIONS

19.INVNO.

20.

EXCEPTIONS

25.

ADJUDICATOR'S

REMARKS

26.

ITEM

WT

27.

HOUSE

LIABILITY

28.

CARRIER

LIABILITY

29.

13. TOTAL $ 30. TOTAL

 AMOUNT ALLOWED

$ 31. THIRD

 PARTY LIABILITY

$ $

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE. Page of Pages
##### 



Exhibit 11.1 COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
(in thousands, except per share amounts) Three Months EndedMarch 312004
    
    2003COMPUTATION OF BASIC NET LOSS PER SHARE:Net loss
    
    $
    (18,409
    )
    
    $
    (24,921
    )Weighted-average shares of common stock outstanding
    
    
    39,060
    
    
    
    32,580Basic net loss per share
    
    $
    (0.47
    )
    
    $
    (.76
    )COMPUTATION OF DILUTED NET LOSS PER SHARE:Net loss
    
    $
    (18,409
    )
    
    $
    (24,921
    )Weighted-average number of shares of common stock and
common stock equivalents outstanding-Weighted-average shares of common stock outstanding
    
    
    39,060
    
    
    
    32,580Weighted-average number of common stock
equivalents applicable to stock options, employee
stock purchase plans and restricted stock
    
    
    1,149
    
    
    
    90Common stock and common stock equivalents
    
    
    40,209
    
    
    
    32,670Diluted net loss per common stock and common stock
equivalents (a)
    
    $
    (0.46
    )
    
    $
    (.76
    )
  (a)
    
    This calculation is submitted in accordance with
Item 601(b)(11) of Regulation S-K although it is not
required by SFAS No. 128 because it is antidilutive.
#### Solomon Mesholam, Respondent, v Isabelle Helene Mesholam, Appellant.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided June 5, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Susan B. Snyder, Respondent, v City of Rochester, Appellant.

Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured in a one-car accident while driving her boyfriend’s car. She claims that the defendant City of Rochester is liable because over two hours earlier one of its police officers gave her the keys to the car and directed her to remove it from the scene or face arrest despite her boyfriend’s protestations that she not be allowed to drive and offers to pay for towing and the officer’s knowledge that she was extremely intoxicated.

Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint contending that, even assuming the truth of plaintiff’s factual allegations, defendant’s police owed no special duty to provide police protection to plaintiff and were not negligent as a matter of law. Special Term denied the motion, concluding that special relationship, foreseeability and proximate cause are factual issues for the jury to resolve.

This is not a police protection case. Plaintiff claims essentially that the police negligently entrusted the vehicle to her control and that this negligence was a proximate cause of her accident and injuries. Liability may be imposed upon a municipality where such voluntary acts are a substantial factor in *1020causing the accident and the occurrence of an accident was reasonably foreseeable *(see, Maloney v Scarfone,*25 AD2d 630; *Benway v City of Watertown,*1 AD2d 465). Special Term correctly determined that factual issues existed as to foreseeability and proximate cause *(see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, *rearg denied*52 NY2d 784; *see also,*Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 45 [5th ed]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Conway, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
EX-10.13





 Exhibit 10.13 

Plan Amendment 

AMENDMENT TO THE 
 GINKGO
BIOWORKS, INC. 
 2014 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

Effective April 8, 2020 

This Amendment to the Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc. 2014 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”) is effective as of the date
first set forth above, such amendment having been approved by the Board of Directors of Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on April 8, 2020 and approved by the holders of a majority of the
Company’s outstanding shares of voting capital stock on April 27, 2020, in each case in accordance with Section 11(d) of the Plan. Capitalized but undefined terms shall have the meanings provided in the Plan. 

As of result of the foregoing approvals, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

1.     Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

“(a) Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment under Section 9, Awards may be made under the Plan (any or all of which Awards may be in
the form of Incentive Stock Options (as defined in Section 5(b)) for up to such number of shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”), as is equal to the sum of: 

(1) 2,664,186; and 

(2) the number of shares of Common Stock subject to awards granted under the Company’s 2008 Stock Incentive Plan
which awards expire, terminate or are otherwise surrendered, canceled, forfeited or repurchased by the Company pursuant to a contractual repurchase right (subject, however, in the case of Incentive Stock Options to any limitations of the Code); and.

 If any Award expires or is terminated, surrendered or canceled without having been fully exercised, is forfeited in whole or in part
(including as the result of shares of Common Stock subject to such Award being repurchased by the Company at the original issuance price pursuant to a contractual repurchase right), or results in any Common Stock not being issued, the unused Common
Stock covered by such Award shall again be available for the grant of Awards under the Plan. Further, shares of Common Stock tendered to the Company by a Participant to exercise an Award shall be added to the number of shares of Common Stock
available for the grant of Awards under the Plan. However, in the case of Incentive Stock Options, the two immediately preceding sentences shall be subject to any limitations under the Code. Shares issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in
part of authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.” 












 The undersigned, being the duly elected and acting Secretary of the Company, hereby
certifies that the foregoing amendment was duly approved and adopted by the Board of Directors and the Stockholders of the Company effective as of the date first referenced above. 

 

			
	By:	 	 /s/  Bartholomew Canton

		 	      Bartholomew Canton, Secretary
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

ALONZO SMITH,

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-0022

Enforcement Activity No. 7516978

ADMISSIONS ORDER

Issued: February 24, 2023

Bv Administrative Larv Judge: Honorable Georse J. Jordan

Appearances:

Mr. Jesse Garrant

USCG Sector Buffalo

For the Coast Guard

Alonzo Smith,pra se

For Respondent

vs
On January 19,2023, the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) initiated this

administrative action seeking three (3) Months' Outright Suspension of Merchant Mariner's

License Number 000657182 issued to Alonzo Smith (Respondent) by issuing a Complaint

alleging Respondent committed Misconduct, pursuant to the legal authority contained in 46

U.S.C. $ 7703(1XB) and defined by 46 CFR S 5.27.

In support of the Complaint, the Coast Guard specifically alleges Respondent:

L On July 20, 2022, Respondent was employed by Norwegian Cruise Lines, Inc. (NCL),

onboard the passenger vessel PRIDE OF AMERICA (ON 1146542), and subject to

NCL's policies.

2. On July 20,2022, NCL, PRIDE OF AMERICA had a drug and alcohol policy in place

prohibiting PRIDE OF AMERICA employees from having a blood alcohol content above

0.04% while aboard.

3. On July 20,2022, Respondent had a blood alcohol level of0.050% while aboard, in

violation of NCL PRIDE OF AMERICA's drug and alcohol policy.

4. Respondent's violation of NCL PRIDE OF AMERICA's drug and alcohol policy is

Misconduct as described by 46 U.S.C. S 7703(lXB) and defined by 46 CFR S 5.27.

After the complaint had been filed, Respondent filed an Answer admitting to all the

jurisdictional and factual allegations and indicating they agreed with the proposed order of3

Months' Outright Suspension, with no additional conditions requested. The Chief Administrative

Law Judge assigned the matter to the undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on January

23,2023.

WHER-E,FORE.
ORDER

IT IS HERf,,BY ORDERED that Respondent's violation of misconduct under 46 U.S C'

S 7703(lXB) and 46 C.F.R. $ 5.27 is PROVED BY ANSWER. I have caretully reviewed the

file and hnd that the proposed sanction is appropriate under the provisions of46 C.F.R. $ 5.569.

IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential is

SUSPENDED OUTRIGHT FOR THREE (3) MONTHS, commencing on the date it is

deposited with the Coast Guard.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, service of this Decision on the parties and/or parties'

representative(s) serves as notice ofappeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. $S 20.1001 - 20.1004.

Attachment A

HON. GEORGE J. JORDAN

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Done and dated F ebruary 24 , 2023 ,

at Seattle, WA

-=2.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

October 28, 2014

s1020 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2014

148839

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148839

COA: 319125

Kent CC: 11

- 006928

- FH

JAMES MICHAEL DEWEESE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of

People v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073) is pending on appeal before this Court and th at

the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in

that case.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our report dated March 31, 2009, withrespect to the financial statements in the Annual Report of Design Within Reach, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of DesignWithin Reach, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-117190, effective July 7, 2004 and File No. 333-143313, effective May 29, 2007). 

/s/:GRANT THORNTON LLP 

San Francisco, CA 

March 31, 2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 22, 2012

t1015 

# Order

October 22, 2012

145459

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v

SC: 145459

COA: 302102

Grand Traverse CC: 10

- 011104

- FC

THURSTON WAYNE KEINONEN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Daniel R. Baty, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emeritus Corporation; 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
 4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 
 (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 
 (b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
 (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 
 5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
 (a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
 (b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 
 /s/ Daniel R. BatyDaniel R. BatyChief Executive OfficerJanuary 27, 2005
# Overview of Agency History

USCIS benefits from a legacy of more than 100 years of federal immigration and naturalization administration.  This section of our website provides basic historical information about USCIS, INS, and their predecessors.

## Overview of Agency History

                - Early American Immigration Policies
                - Origins of the Federal Immigration Service
                - Origins of the Federal Naturalization Service
                - Mass Immigration and WWI
                - Era of Restriction
                - World War II
                - Post-War Years
                - Late Twentieth Century
                - Post-9/11
                - Overview of INS History to 1998

INS History  (PDF, 284.73 KB)

12/21/2022

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.