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

                                                                                                                                     EXHIBIT 10.17

FIRST AMENDMENT TO CARL BENJAMIN BRINK’S 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
    This FIRST AMENDMENT TO CARL BENJAMIN BRINK’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “First Amendment”) is executed and agreed to by and between Carriage Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Carl Benjamin Brink (“Executive”), effective as of June 1, 2021 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).
WHEREAS, Executive and the Company entered into an Employment Agreement dated November 5, 2019 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, Executive has been promoted to a new position and Executive and the Company desire Executive’s continued employment with the Company under certain amended terms and conditions as set forth herein; and


WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Employment Agreement accordingly.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises above, as well as consideration to be granted by the Company to the Executive in the following form, the parties hereto agree as follows:


1.  Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “Senior Vice President” with “Executive Vice President” where such figure appears in Section 1.


2.  Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00)” with “Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00)” where such figure appears in Section 2(a).


3.  Section 2(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “50%” with “75%” where such figure appears in Section 2(b).


4.  Except as otherwise provided herein, all other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in effect.


5. This First Amendment and the Employment Agreement (other than as amended above) constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject of Executive’s employment with the Company.


6.  This First Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without regard to conflicts of laws principles thereof.


7.  This First Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.























EXHIBIT 10.17

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this First Amendment as of the date set forth above.


                        COMPANY:
                        Carriage Services, Inc.




                        /s/ Melvin C. Payne                                                  
                        By:  Melvin C. Payne
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


                        
EXECUTIVE:
                        


                        /s/ C. Benjamin Brink                                              
Carl Benjamin Brink














Signature page to
First amendment to Carl Benjamin Brink’s Employment Agreement
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5639 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude executive branch 

officers and employees from nonrecognition rules relating to the sale 

of property to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2010 

Mr. STEARNS 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 exclude 

executive branch officers and employees from nonrecognition rules relating to the sale of property to comply 

with conflict-of-interest requirements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICERS 

4 AND EMPLOYEES FROM CONFLICT-OF-INTER5 EST NONRECOGNITION RULES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

7 1043(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘an officer or employee of the execuVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:13 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5639.IH H5639

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5639 IH

1 tive branch, or a judicial officer,’’ and inserting ‘‘a judicial 

2 officer’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

4 (1) Paragraphs (1)(A) and (5)(B) of section 

5 1043(b) of such Code are each amended by striking 

6 ‘‘judicial canon, or executive order’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘or judicial canon’’. 

8 (2)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 1043(b)(2) 

9 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘judicial canon, 

10 or executive order’’ and all that follows through 

11 ‘‘Code)’’ and inserting ‘‘or judicial canon’’. 

12 (B) Subparagraph (B) of section 1043(b)(2) of 

13 such Code is amended to read as follows: 

14 ‘‘(B) that has been issued by the Judicial 

15 Conference of the United States (or its des16 ignee), and’’. 

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

18 this section shall apply to sales after the date of the enact19 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Document

                                                                                                                                     EXHIBIT 10.18

FIRST AMENDMENT TO STEVE METZGER’S 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
    This FIRST AMENDMENT TO STEVE METZGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “First Amendment”) is executed and agreed to by and between Carriage Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Steve Metzger (“Executive”), effective as of June 1, 2021 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).
WHEREAS, Executive and the Company entered into an Employment Agreement dated November 5, 2019 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, Executive has been promoted to a new position and Executive and the Company desire Executive’s continued employment with the Company under certain amended terms and conditions as set forth herein; and


WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Employment Agreement accordingly.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises above, as well as consideration to be granted by the Company to the Executive in the following form, the parties hereto agree as follows:


1.  Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “Senior Vice President and General Counsel” with “Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel and Secretary” where such figure appears in Section 1.


2.  Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00)” with “Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00)” where such figure appears in Section 2(a).


3.  Section 2(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing “50%” with “75%” where such figure appears in Section 2(b).


4.  Except as otherwise provided herein, all other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in effect.


5. This First Amendment and the Employment Agreement (other than as amended above) constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject of Executive’s employment with the Company.


6.  This First Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without regard to conflicts of laws principles thereof.


7.  This First Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.






    











EXHIBIT 10.18

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this First Amendment as of the date set forth above.


                        COMPANY:
                        Carriage Services, Inc.




                        /s/ Melvin C. Payne                                                  
                        By: Melvin C. Payne
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


                        
EXECUTIVE:
                        


/s/ Steven D. Metzger                                                
Steve Metzger




                        
















Signature page to
First amendment to Steve Metzger’s Employment Agreement
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7688

LARRY KEITH GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; NORTH

CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-618-5-BR)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Keith Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Keith Green, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000).

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. See Green v. North

Carolina Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-01-618-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 10,

2001). 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
# C_2008029EN.01000201.xml

| 1.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4779 — Akzo Nobel/ICI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 29/02)

On 13 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32007M4779. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4779. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 4, 2010 ∗

Decided March 5, 2010



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

W ILLIAM J. B AUER

, Circuit Judge

D AVID F. H AMILTON

, Circuit Judge



### No

. 09

- 1999

F RANCISCO J. L ARA

, Petitioner

,

v.

E RIC H. H OLDER

, J R

., Attorney General of the

United States

, Respondent

. Appeal from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A 096

- 487

- 227

Order

Francisco Javier Lara filed a petition for review of a final order of removal to Mexico. One of his arguments was that the Board of Immigration Appeals should have allowed him the privilege of voluntary departure, a procedure that makes it possible to apply for legal admission without the exte nded delay that follows removal. While the petition was pending, the Board agreed with petitioner on this point, vacated its order, and remanded to the Immigration Judge. The Attorney General now asks us to dismiss the petition for review.

∗ After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnece s sary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 09

- 1999 Page 2

The Attorney G eneral ’ s position is that our jurisdiction is limited to final orders

of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and no such order is outstanding. Perhaps the Immigration Judge will enter a new one, and perhaps the BIA will affirm it, but we

cannot “ review ” an order t hat no lon ger exists. Orichitch v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 595, 598
(7th Cir. 2005); Bronisz v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 2004). “ The order sought to be reviewed is no more. Any judicial act while there is no outstanding order of removal

would be ad visory. ” Gao v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 728, 730 (7th Cir. 2006).

Moreover, because voluntary departure is available o nly to an alien who represents that he intends to leave vol untarily, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1)(D); Dada v. Mukasey , 128 S. Ct. 2307 (2008 ) ; A limi v. Ashcroft , 391 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2004), it would be inappropriate fo r us to assume that any new order of removal is bound to be contested

in court.

Petitioner ’ s reply brief does not address the Attorney General ’ s arguments. Nor does petitioner co ntend that the Immigration Judge has completed work on the remand and that the order of removal has been reinstated. Instead petitioner contends that this court has already resolved the issue. Yet the decision of a motions panel on December 16, 2009, denyi ng the motion to dismiss, did not give reasons. A merits panel can review a summary decision by a motions panel on a jurisdictional question. See Bogard v. Wright , 159 F.3d 1060 (7th Cir. 1998); Johnson v. Burken , 930 F.2d 1202 (7th Cir.
1991).

We now gr ant the Attorney General ’ s motion to dismiss the petition, because there is no outstanding final order of removal.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133530 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133530 

 COA: 264367 

Macomb CC: 04-003483-FC 

ROEDERICK MARTIN HUNTER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2007 

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. 

t0618 

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. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic Internet
Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"). I, Abbas Salih, Chief Financial Officer of the company,
certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 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.

|Date: | May
      14, 2010 |  | /s/
      Abbas Salih     
|----- | ------------------ |  | --------------------------
|      |                    |  | Abbas Salih, CFO, Director

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Tampa, FL, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1089

Issued: January 12, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On August 12, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a purported July 27, 2023 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-1089. 

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse OWCP decisions issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.2 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed this appeal.3 Although the case record does contain a letter from OWCP dated 

July 27, 2023, it is purely informational in nature as it discusses the manner of debt collection 

regarding a final overpayment determination. Thus, it does not constitute a final adverse OWCP 

1 Appellant’s appeal from a July 19, 2023merit decision will be adjudicated separately under Docket No. 23-1074.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

decision from which appellant may properly appeal.4 Therefore, the Board concludes that the 

appeal docketed as No. 23-1089 must be dismissed.5 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 23-1089 is 

dismissed.

Issued: January 12, 2024

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

See Order Dismissing Appeal, J.G., Docket No. 22-0657 (issued April19, 2023); Order Dismissing Appeal, K.S., 

Docket No. 20-1401 (issued March 17, 2021); Order Dismissing Appeal, S.U., Docket No. 20-0636 (issued 

December 3, 2020) (correspondence that is purely informational in nature does not constitute a final adverse decision 

of OWCP from which appellant may properly appeal). 

5 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HANOVER
DIRECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND
STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 26, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN IT ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                                          12,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,281
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,544)
<INVENTORY>                                     62,322
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,999
<PP&E>                                          87,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                (37,884)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 218,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,070
<BONDS>                                         37,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,128
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       140,524
<OTHER-SE>                                    (80,182)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   218,870
<SALES>                                        546,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               546,114
<CGS>                                          343,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  562,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,278
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,585)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,585)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,585)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>