alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Employment  Agreement dater May 8, 2012 with G.Eric Davis



 Exhibit 10.5 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) made as of May 8, 2012 (“Effective
Date”) by and between BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and G. Eric Davis (“Employee”). 
  

	1.	This Amendment No. 1 is intended to amend and modify that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between the Company and Employee dated
January 1, 2009 (the “Agreement”). The Agreement, together with this Amendment, shall constitute a single agreement. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the
Agreement. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remaining full force and effect according to its terms. 

  

	2.	The defined term “Termination Compensation,” as provided in Section 7(c) of the Agreement, is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the
following definition: 

 Termination Compensation. For purposes of this Agreement, the term
“Termination Compensation” shall mean: (i) one hundred forty percent (140%) of the Employee’s then current annual base salary which shall be payable in a lump sum within two weeks after separation of employment, conditioned
on Employee executing the Company’s standard form severance and release agreement, and shall be subject to customary withholding and other applicable payroll processes. Employee shall execute the Company’s standard form severance and
release agreement within sixty (60) days after the Employee’s termination. 
  

	3.	This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument. 

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

							
	BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC.	 	EMPLOYEE
				
	By:	 	 /s/ Jean-Jacques Bienaimé
	 	By:	 	 /s/ G. Eric Davis

	Name:	 	Jean-Jacques Bienaimé	 		 	G. Eric Davis
	Its:	 	Chief Executive Officer
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 18, 2014.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 1 3
- 00 955
- CR No. 05
- 13
- 00956
- CR
MIGUEL ARNOLDO PERAL TA , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Crimina l Distri ct Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 0 6
- 15900
- H , F13
- 12202
- H


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis Opinion b y Justice Lewis Miguel Arnoldo Peralta was convict ed of felony assault resulting in bodily injury and
invol ving family violence and burglary of a habitation. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § § 22.01(a) , 30.02(a) (West 2011 ) ; T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § § 71.0021, 71.005 (West 2008 & Supp. 2013). The trial court assessed punishment , following the revocation of appellant’s c ommunity supervision, at ten years’ imprisonment on the assault case. The trial court assessed punishment

at twelve years’ imprisonment on the burglary case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief
in which s he concludes the appeals are wholly fr ivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional- 2

- evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.
We have reviewed the record s and counsel’s brief

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases)

. We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record s that might arguably support the appeal s
. We aff irm the trial court’s judgment s
.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47
130955F.U05 /David Lewis/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE- 3

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

MIGUEL ARNOLDO PERAL TA , Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00955

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F06

- 15900

- H). Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis, Justices Fillmore and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered June 18, 2014.

/David Lewis/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE- 4

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

MIGUEL ARNOLDO PERAL TA , Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00956

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13

- 12202

- H). Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis, Justices Fillmore and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this d ate, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered June 18, 2014.

/David Lewis/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

BELL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS 

INCORPORATED

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-609-ALM

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PROPOSED ORDER RE: MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DEADLINES

Having reviewed the joint motion to modify the scheduling order for claim construction 

deadlines, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS that the motion be GRANTED. 

The current deadlines for claim construction are now as follows: 

FORMER Date CURRENT Date Event

Aug. 8, 2024 No Change Completion date for discovery on claim 

construction (P.R. 4-4). 

Aug. 16, 2024 Aug. 26, 2024 Opening claim construction brief (P.R.4-5(a)). 

Sept. 17, 2024 Sept. 27, 2024 Submit technology synopsis (both hard copy and 

disk). 

Aug. 30, 2024 Sept. 9, 2024 Responsive claim construction brief (P.R. 4-5(b)). 

Sept. 6, 2024 Sept. 16, 2024 Reply claim construction brief (P.R. 4-5(c)). 

Oct. 4, 2024 No Change Parties to file joint claim construction and chart 

(P.R. 4-5(d)). Parties shall work together to agree 

on as many claim terms as possible. 

Oct. 15, 2024 No Change Claim construction hearing at 9:00 am at the 

Paul Brown United States Courthouse, 101 E. 

Pecan Street, Sherman, Texas. 

Case 4:23-cv-00609-ALM Document 37-1 Filed 08/08/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 349
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 14 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States waiving 

the application of the first article of amendment to the political speech 

of corporations and other business organizations with respect to the 

disbursement of funds in connection with public elections and granting 

Congress and the States the power to establish limits on contributions 

and expenditures in elections for public office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Ms. KAPTUR introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States waiving the application of the first article of 

amendment to the political speech of corporations and 

other business organizations with respect to the disbursement of funds in connection with public elections and 

granting Congress and the States the power to establish 

limits on contributions and expenditures in elections for 

public office. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:00 Jan 05, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ14.IH HJ14

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HJ 14 IH 

1 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

2 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

3 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

4 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

5 for ratification: 

6 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

7 ‘‘SECTION 1. The first article of amendment does not 

8 apply to the political speech of any corporation, partner9 ship, business trust, association, or other business organi10 zation with respect to the making of contributions, ex11 penditures, or other disbursements of funds in connection 

12 with public elections. 

13 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to set limits 

14 on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, 

15 and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 

16 support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination 

17 for election to, or for election to, Federal office. 

18 ‘‘SECTION 3. A State shall have power to set limits 

19 on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, 

20 and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 

21 support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination 

22 for election to, or for election to, State or local office. 

23 ‘‘SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement 

24 and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., 

Defendant.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-43

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

CAME ON THIS DAY for consideration of the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal With 

Prejudice of all claims asserted by Display Technologies, LLC against Defendant Activision 

Publishing, Inc. in this case, and the Court being of the opinion that said motion should be 

GRANTED, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all claims that were or could have been 

asserted in this suit are hereby dismissed with prejudice, subject to the terms of the Agreement 

between the parties.

It is further ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs are to be borne by the 

party that incurred them.

Case 2:24-cv-00043-JRG-RSP Document 11-1 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 191
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00093-JRG

(LEAD CASE)

v. 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

MACHINES CORP.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00094-JRG

(MEMBER CASE)

ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC

The Court issues this Order Nunc Pro Tunc sua sponte. On May 17, 2024, this Court issued 

an Order (Dkt. No. 42) granting the Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines to Serve Infringement and 

Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. No. 41) filed by the parties. In the May 17, 2024 Order, the Court 

inadvertently switched the dates for the extended deadlines. Accordingly, the Court issues this 

Order Nunc Pro Tunc to correct only this typographical error and to restate in full substance the 

Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 42); to-wit:

Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines to Serve Infringement and 

Invalidity Contentions (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff VirtaMove, Corp. (“VirtaMove”) and 

Defendant International Business Machines Corp. and Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise 

Company (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 41.) In the Motion, the parties request that the deadline to serve 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 358
2

infringement contentions be extended from May 15, 2024 to June 5, 2024, and that the deadline to 

serve invalidity contentions be extended from July 10, 2024, to August 21, 2024. 

Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that the Motion 

should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the deadline to comply 

with P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 in the above-captioned consolidated cases is extended up to and including 

June 5, 2024. It is further ORDERED that the deadline to comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 in the 

above-captioned consolidated cases is extended up to and including August 21, 2024. 

So Ordered this

May 22, 2024

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 359
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

IMPLICIT, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00770-SDJ

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE

Defendant Capital One, National Association hereby notifies the Court that it has served 

its Proposed Terms for Construction on counsel for Plaintiff via electronic mail on May 20, 

2024.

Case 4:23-cv-00770-SDJ Document 26 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 211
2

Dated: May 20, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

(Texas State Bar No. 24001351)

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

Email: Melissa@Gillamsmithlaw.Com

Devon C. Beane (admitted phv)

Jonah B. Heemstra (phv forthcoming)

K&L GATES LLP 

70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100 

Chicago, Il 60602

Tel: +1 312 807 4436

Fax: +1 312 827 8000

devon.beane@klgates.com

jonah.heemstra@klgates.com

Erik J. Halverson (admitted in this district)

K&L GATES LLP

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200

San Francisco, Ca 94111

Tel: +1 415 882 8238

erik.halverson@klgates.com

Caroline M. Vermillion (phv forthcoming)

K&L GATES LLP

599 Lexington Avenue

New York, Ny 10022

Tel: +1 212 536 3987

Fax: +1 212 536 3901

Caroline.vermillion@klgates.com

Attorneys For Defendant And

Counterclaimant Capital One, National

Association

Case 4:23-cv-00770-SDJ Document 26 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 212
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 20, 2024, all counsel of record who have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system 

pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

Case 4:23-cv-00770-SDJ Document 26 Filed 05/20/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 213
Lakshmi ARUNACHALAM, Petitioner, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION.

No. 19-7905.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
# C_2021155EN.01007901.xml

| 30.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/79

---

Corrigendum to Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the “Pericles IV programme”)’ (COM(2018) 369 final – 2018/0194 (CNS))

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 440 of 6 December 2018
  )

(2021/C 155/13)

On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 199, in the title:

| for: | ‘Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the “Pericles IV programme”)”(COM(2018) 369 final — 2018/0194 (CNS))’, |
| --- | --- |

for:

‘Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the “Pericles IV programme”)”(COM(2018) 369 final — 2018/0194 (CNS))’,

| read: | ‘Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the “Pericles IV programme”)” (COM(2018) 369 final — 2018/0194 (COD))’. |
| --- | --- |

read:

‘Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting for the period 2021-2027 (the “Pericles IV programme”)” (COM(2018) 369 final — 2018/0194 (COD))’.

---
**EXHIBIT 99.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**
     I, Hopson B. Nance,  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Vesta Insurance Group,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
(1)        the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly  period ended March 31,  2003 (the "Report") fully complies         with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  */s/    May 14* , 2003                                                                                                                                 */s/   Hopson B. Nance*                                                                                                                                    Hopson B. Nance                                                                                                                             *Vice President, Controller and Interim Chief Financial Officer*                                                                                                                            *Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.*
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

               In connection with the Quarterly Reportof G & L Realty Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel M. Gottlieb, Chief Executive Officer ofthe 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 resultof operations of the Company.

|   | /s/ DANIEL M. GOTTLIEB                                          |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                 |   |
|   | **Daniel M. Gottlieb  Chief Executive Officer****May 15, 2003** |   |
Dontae SMALL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-1102.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Whitney ATKINSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-8034.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 109 

Providing for the approval of the Congress of the proposed agreement for 

cooperation between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei 

Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy pursuant to the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2014 

Mr. ROYCE (for himself and Mr. ENGEL) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the approval of the Congress of the proposed 

agreement for cooperation between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural 

Representative Office in the United States concerning 

peaceful uses of nuclear energy pursuant to the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Congress does favor the proposed agreement for 

4 cooperation transmitted to the Congress by the President 

5 on January 7, 2014. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Hiram I. PEREZ SOTO, petitioner, v. SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO.

No. 18M70.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Pooroushasb PARINEH, Petitioner, v. Michael MARTEL, Warden.

No. 19-7913.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Michael DEUSCHEL, Petitioner, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA.

No. 19-7793.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.