alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1.1

                        FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AND
                            NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT

         This First Amendment is made as of the 4th day of February 2004, by and
between ADELE HEPBURN  ("Hepburn"),  and USA TECHNOLOGIES,  INC., a Pennsylvania
corporation ("USA").

                                   Background

         USA  and  Hepburn  entered  into  an  Employment  And   Non-Competition
Agreement dated as of January 1, 1993 (the "Agreement"). As more fully set forth
herein, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects.

                                    Agreement

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants set forth herein, and
intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Amendment.  Paragraph A of Section 2.  Compensation  and Benefits of
the  Agreement is hereby  deleted and the  following  new  paragraph A is hereby
substituted  in  its  place:

                        A.   In   consideration   of  her   services
               rendered,  commencing  July 1, 2003, USA shall pay to
               Hepburn a base salary of $130,000 per year during the
               Employment   Period,   subject  to  any   withholding
               required  by  law.   Hepburn's  base  salary  may  be
               increased  from time to time in the discretion of the
               Board of Directors.

<PAGE>

         2.  Modification.   Except  as  otherwise  specifically  set  forth  in
Paragraph  1, the  Agreement  shall not be amended or  modified  in any  respect
whatsoever and shall continue in full force and effect.

         3. Capitalized Terms. Except as specifically provided otherwise herein,
all  capitalized  terms used herein shall have the meanings  ascribed to them in
the Agreement.

         4. Original  Part.  The amendments to the Agreement made in Paragraph 1
hereof shall be effective from and after July 1, 2003.

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  hereto  have  executed  this First
Amendment on the day and year first above written. USA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                                                  By: /s/ Stephen P. Herbert
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Stephen P. Herbert,
                                                      President


                                                      /s/ Adele Hepburn
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      ADELE HEPBURN
Exhibit 99.2



                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, James R. McGonigle, Chief Financial Officer of Longport, Inc., certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 that:

(3)  the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual period
     ending December 31, 2002 (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 78d); and

(4)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: March 31, 2003



                                                /s/ James R. McGonigle
                                                ----------------------
                                                James R. McGonigle
                                                Chief Financial Officer
IN RE Ramsey RANDALL, Petitioner.

No. 19-7058

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Miles Sterling BENCH, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA

No. 18-8723

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.
#### UNITED STATES ex rel. William H. DRAPER, Relator-Appellant, v. Wilfred L. DENNO, Warden, Sing Sing Prison, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 293, Docket 22774.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued July 9, 1953.

Decided July 9, 1953.

Lacy and Katzen, Herbert W. Lacy, Rochester, N. Y., and Nancy Carley, Jackson Heights, of counsel, for appellant.

Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Atty. Gen. for State of New York, Clarence J. Henry, Dist. Atty., Monroe County, Harry L. Ros-enthal, Asst. Dist. Atty., Monroe County, Rochester, N. Y., of counsel, for appellee.

Before CHASE, Chief Judge, and CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order 113 F.Supp. 290, affirmed in open court.
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**RULE
      13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of etrials Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      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 results of operation of the Company.




Date:
                November 14, 2006
            
            /s/
                John K. ClineName:
            John
                K. ClineTitle:
            President
                and Chief Executive
              Officer




Date:
                November 14, 2006
            
            /s/
                James W. Clark, Jr.Name:
            James
                W. Clark, Jr.Title:
            Chief
                Financial Officer,
              Secretary
                and Treasurer
Davaus L. MCCOWN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9422

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 07, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Sulaiman TAALIBDIN, Petitioner v. Lawrence MAHALLY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.

No. 19-6925

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
239 F.2d 179

#### Grace LOWE, Appellant, v. Glenn A. WILLACY, Appellee.

No. 15170.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1956.

*501Grace Lowe, Fairbanks, in pro. per.

William V. Boggess, Fairbanks, Alaska,, for appellee.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, POPE, Circuit Judge, and HAMLIN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a frivolous appeal. The complaint sought damages against appellee, the surety of a duly qualified commissioner for Alaska, having jurisdiction over the administration of the estate of a deceased person. 3 A.C.L.A. 1949, §§ 61-1-1, 61-1-5. The damages claimed were for time consumed by appellant in attending hearings before the commissioner upon a subpoena she claimed was issued without statutory authority.

It is obvious that since the commissioner is charged with mere error in administering a matter under her jurisdiction no liability exists against her. Bradley v. Fisher, 1871, 13 Wall. 335, 351, 80 U.S. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646.

Since appellant by her own act has forced appellee to consider her brief and thereby necessarily to write his opposing brief, in affirming we adjudge to appellee just damages for his delay, 28 U.S.C. § 1912, of double his costs and an amount equal to the fee paid his attorney for his services in the appeal and the amount paid for the printing of his brief, the two latter amounts to be shown by appellee’s affidavit filed with the Clerk of this court.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed and the Clerk ordered to enter our judgment for the delay upon showing of appellee’s affidavit.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)
  (1)
    
    the 10-Q 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 10-Q
Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 14, 2009
    /s/ Carl KukkonenCarl KukkonenChief Executive OfficerDate: August 14, 2009
    /s/ Stephen J. MuziStephen J. MuziChief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     I, Richard P. Brown, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic Coast Entertainment Holdings,Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”);2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisReport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe Registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is beingprepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         By:  /s/ Richard P.  Brown           Richard P. Brown  Date: November 9, 2007        *Chief Executive Officer of Atlantic Coast*
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1350 

To withdraw the Tusayan Ranger District and Federal land managed by 

the Bureau of Land Management in the vicinity of Kanab Creek and 

in House Rock Valley from location, entry, and patent under the mining 

laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2013 

Mr. GRIJALVA (for himself, Mr. POLIS, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New 

York, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. SLAUGHTER, 

Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. NADLER, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. 

FARR, Ms. CHU, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, and Mr. PASTOR of Arizona) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw the Tusayan Ranger District and Federal land 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the 

vicinity of Kanab Creek and in House Rock Valley from 

location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Grand Canyon Water5 sheds Protection Act of 2013’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1350 IH

1 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL LAND FROM MINING 

2 LAWS. 

3 (a) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to subsection (b), the 

4 approximately 982,550 acres of Federal land generally de5 picted on the map titled ‘‘Grand Canyon Watersheds Pro6 tection Act’’ and dated February 22, 2013, are hereby 

7 withdrawn from— 

8 (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and dis9 posal under the public land laws; 

10 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 

11 laws; and 

12 (3) operation of the mineral leasing and geo13 thermal leasing laws and mineral materials laws. 

14 (b) TREATMENT OF EXISTING RIGHTS.—The with15 drawal under subsection (a) is subject to valid, existing 

16 rights. If such rights are relinquished or otherwise ac17 quired by the United States after the date of the enact18 ment of this Act, the land that was subject to the rights 

19 shall be immediately withdrawn in accordance with sub20 section (a). 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 36502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13176]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Hybrid meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12TH 
floor) and virtual.
    Note: For those attending the meeting in person, current COVID-19 
safety protocols for visitors, which are based on the CDC COVID-19 
community level in Washington, DC, will be updated on the commission's 
contact page by the Monday before the meeting. See the contact page at 
https://www.fec.gov/contact/. If you would like to virtually access the 
meeting, see the instructions below.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-
referenced guidance regarding the COVID-19 community level and 
corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting 
virtually, go to the commission's website www.fec.gov and click on the 
banner to be taken to the meeting page.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2022-05: DSCC
Draft Advisory Opinion 2022-03: Democracy Engine, LLC
Draft Advisory Opinion 2022-06: Hispanic Leadership Trust
Proposed Final Audit Report on UtePAC (A19-07)
Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer. 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
    Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
    Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Acting Secretary and 
Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

Laura E. Sinram,
Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-13176 Filed 6-15-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
# C_2018305EN.01000101.xml

| 30.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8970 — Sumitomo/Parkwind/Northwester2)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 305/01)

On 30 July 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8970. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8970. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of K.L.E.C., * From the 161st District

a child, Court of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. B-3145-PC.

No. 11-13-00159-CV * November 14, 2013

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Melvin Bernard THOMPSON, Petitioner v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 19-5723

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Zsolt PETKO, et al., Petitioners, v. CARELTON COURTYARD.

No. 18-1573.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE McDERMOTT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PATRICK R. DONAHUE, Postmaster

General; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-35771

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00311-MJP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Marsha J. Pechman, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Lance McDermott appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging that defendants violated various federal laws in

connection with the investigation and discharge of a United States Postal Service

FILED

APR 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-35771

(“USPS”) co-worker he represented as a union steward. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504

F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We may affirm on any basis supported by the

record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.

2008). We affirm. 

Dismissal of McDermott’s claims against the USPS was proper because

McDermott failed to identify any source of substantive law providing an avenue

for relief against the USPS. See Currier v. Potter, 379 F.3d 716, 724 (9th Cir.

2004) (USPS is only amenable to suit if there has been a waiver of sovereign

immunity and the source of substantive law on which the claimant relies provides

an avenue for relief). 

The district court properly dismissed McDermott’s claims against Inspector

Vanicek on the basis of qualified immunity because McDermott failed to allege

facts demonstrating that Vanicek violated his constitutional rights. See Pearson v.

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified

immunity where there is no violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McDermott’s

motion for reconsideration because McDermott failed to establish a basis

warranting reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v.
3 11-35771

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of

review and grounds for reconsideration).

We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
ChiefJustice ^^tZt7*^^ Clerk 

### JamesT. Worthen ^s&ms**^ CathyS. Lusk 

## Twelfth Court ofAppeals Justices Chief StaffAttorney Sam Griffith Margaret Hussey Diane DeVasto 

### May 12, 2004


### Ms. Julia F. Pendery Mr. Douglas J. McCarver Godwin Gruber, LLP 3548 NE Stallings Dr. 1201 Elm Street Nacogdoches, TX 75961 Suite 1700

RE: Case Number: 12-04-00084-CV Trial Court Case Number: CI9,776-2003 

### Style: Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company

v. 

### Drewery Construction, Company, Inc. 

### Enclosed is a copy of the Memorandum Opinion issued this date in the above styled and numbered cause. Also enclosed is a copy ofthe court'sjudgment. Very truly yours, CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK 

# (^im^Mi3mSac± CC: Hon. Campbell Cox II Hon. John Ovard 

### Ms. Donna Phillips

1517 West FrontStreet • Suite 354 • Tyler, TX 75702 • Tel: 903-593-8471 • Fax: 903-593-2193 ServingAnderson, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Hopkins, Houston, Kaufman, Nacogdoches, Panola, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, SanAugustine, Shelby, Smith Upshur, Van Zandt and Wood Counties www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us