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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is made and
entered into at Santa Barbara, California, on the date hereinafter set forth by
and between JOHN M. PHILPOTT (hereinafter referred to as the "Employee") and
PDT, INC., a Delaware Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Employer").

WHEREAS:

    A.   The Employer and the Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement
effective as of MARCH 20, 1995 (the "Employment Agreement").

    B.   The parties hereto wish to amend the Employment Agreement in certain
respects.

    NOW, THEREFORE,  in consideration of the premises, promises and
representations hereinafter contained, it is agreed as follows:

    1.   Effective as of DECEMBER 25, 1995, the Employee Compensation stated in
Exhibit A to the Agreement shall be Ninety Thousand and One Hundred Dollars
($90,100) per annum.

    2.   In all other respects, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified,
confirmed and approved in its entirety.

    3.   The Effective Date of this Amendment is DECEMBER 25, 1995.

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

                        EMPLOYER:
                        PDT, INC.
                        a Delaware Corporation

                        By: /s/ Gary S. Kledzik
                            -------------------------------
                             Gary S. Kledzik, Ph.D.
                             C.E.O. and Chairman

                        EMPLOYEE:

                        /s/ John M. Philpott
                        -----------------------------------
                             John M. Philpott


                                         Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7130

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICHARD SMALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-93-70045, CA-96-917-R)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Small, Appellant Pro Se. Jennie M. Waering, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Small, No. CR-93-70045, CA-96-917-R (W.D.

Va. July 15, 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
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Soriano Angel Dominguez, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00164

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F12

- 11228

- Y ). Memorandum Opi nion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect appellant ’ s plea of “ not true ” to the enhancement allegations and to show the jury ’ s finding of

“ true ” on the enhancement issue

. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We note that the appellant, Soriano Angel Dominguez, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 8, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Charles Bernard PARKE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6038.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10.28

                              AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                       1996 INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN

        WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Sirrom Capital Corporation has
approved certain amendments to the 1996 Incentive Stock Option Plan ("Plan"),
pursuant to resolutions of the Board of Directors approved as of February 28,
1997; and 

        WHEREAS, this Amendment No. 1 shall serve to evidence such amendments.

        1.  The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan shall be modified to
read in its entirety as follows:

            "(a)  Shares of Common Stock Reserved Under the Plan. The aggregate
        number of shares reserved and available for distribution under the Plan
        shall be 1,140,000 shares."

        2.  Section 5(b)(vi) of the Plan shall be amended to include the
following sentence at the end thereof:

            "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee shall have the
        authority to permit transfer of options to family members or trusts
        established for the benefit of family members in accordance with
        federal income tax laws."
Exhibit 31.1

**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, P. Douglas Richard, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community Financial Corporation (the "Registrant");

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 consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the consolidated 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; and

c) disclosed in this report any changes 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 of evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
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.

Date: August 11, 2006

---
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: HARRY SCHLECTER, ALSO KNOWN AS HARRY KAY AND AARON D. SCHLECTER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 194 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 194 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Harry Schlecter, also known 

as Harry Kay and Aaron D. 

Schlecter 

(North Miami, Florida) 

The complaint charges that the respondent, during a period when he was denied 

trading privileges by order of the Secretary of Agriculture for violations of 

the Act involving cheating and fraud, caused two futures commission merchants to 

accept orders from him and caused one of such futures commission merchants to 

employ him in handling customers' orders. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

The date, time, and place for a public hearing on the complaint will be 

specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,Dennis Campbellcertify that:





Date:
April 30, 2003

|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/DENNIS CAMPBELLPresident and Chief Executive Officer



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to Ballard Power Systems Inc. and will be retained by Ballard Power Systems Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,David Smithcertify that:





Date:
April 30, 2003

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/DAVID SMITHChief Financial Officer



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to Ballard Power Systems Inc. and will be retained by Ballard Power Systems Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PAUL EDWARD JOHNSON

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 156

- C R

Appeal from the

41 st D istrict C ourt

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 5 0 D0 5061 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to file

the brief until December 15

, 201 8

. NO FURT HER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE STATE ’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza

, the State ’s attorney, prepare the

State ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or b efore December 15 , 2018.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 3 1 st day of October , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
```

[Federal Register: May 20, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 27519]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20my99-34]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 7, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

mATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-12865 Filed 5-28-99; 1:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1746/2004

of 6 October 2004         

repealing Regulation (EC) No 1502/2004 prohibiting fishing for plaice by vessels flying the flag of Belgium

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1502/2004 is hereby repealed.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 October 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 October 2004.

For the Commission

Jörgen HOLMQUIST            

Director-General for Fisheries

----

(1)OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 275, 25.8.2004, p. 13.

----
---

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                

I, Vanleo Y.W. Fung, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Swav Enterprises
      Ltd. for the period ended June 30, 2008 (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 Swav Enterprises Ltd..                                                               

Date: August 14, 2008

| | /s/ Vanleo Y.W. Fung       
| | ---------------------------
| | Vanleo Y.W. Fung           
| | Chief Financial Officer    
| | Principal 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 Swav Enterprises
Ltd. and will be retained by Swav Enterprises Ltd. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-387-000]

                    In the Commission's order issued on May 25, 2001,[1]                                          the Commission directed                           ( print page 32344)                        that a technical conference be held to address issues raised by the filing.                

Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Thursday, July 12, 2001, at 9 a.m., in a room to be designated, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 95 FERC ¶ 61,267 (2001).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 01-14995  Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 6 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LUIS SANCHEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. JOE SPRUNK, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Respondents-Appellees. No. 97-2116 (D.C. No. CIV-96-37-MV) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , BARRETT , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner Luis Sanchez petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court dismissed the petition and denied Mr. Sanchez a certificate of appealabili ty. See id. § 2253(c). Since Mr. Sanchez filed his petition in the district court prior to April 24, 1996, we construe his application for a certificate of appea lability in this court as an application for a certificate of probable cause. S ee United States v. Kunzman , 125 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.2 (10th Cir. 1997). Mr. Sanchez makes the following arguments: (1) his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to secure the services of an interpreter until the state’s only witness finished testifying on direct examination; (2) his counsel was ineffective by failing to present a defense, by fai ling to call witnesses and to present evidence; (3) he was entitled to an evident iary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (4) the cumulative ef fect of counsel’s errors denied him a fair trial; (5) the state trial court denied him his due process rights and right to confront witnesses by admitting the officer’s he arsay statement concerning an alleged arrangement for Mr. Sanchez to make a secon d cocaine sale; and (6) the state trial court denied him his due process and co nfrontation rights by admitting the officer’s hearsay testimony concerning the chai n of custody of the cocaine allegedly purchased from Mr. Sanchez on two differe nt occasions.-3-

For substantially the reasons stated in the well-re asoned order by the magistrate judge dated February 11, 1997, adopted b y the district court in its order of March 11, 1997, we deny a certificate of p robable cause. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Circuit Judge
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Clemente HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40245

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Clemente Hernandez presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Bishop,*603 F.3d 279, 281-82 (5th Cir.), cert. *denied,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 272, 178 L.Ed.2d 180 (2010), which held that the imposition of a condition of supervised release ordering Hernandez “to participate in a mental health program as deemed necessary and approved by the probation officer” did not constitute plain error. The appellant’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.