alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KENNETH E MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00473-MP -WCS

BILL MCCOLLUM, STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 14, Objection to Report and Recommendation

filed by Kenneth E. Mills. The Magistrate Judge recommended the case be dismissed for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff

timely objected, stating that the “Magistrate Judge has overlooked and misapprehended the laws

and facts in plaintiff’s complaint.” This Court reviews objected-to material de novo.

Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of two Florida statutes, concerning the crime of

sexual battery and asserts that application of the two statues by Florida courts has resulted in a

double standard that violates his due process and equal protection rights. Doc. 1. Plaintiff

argues that the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when sexual battery is charged and the offense

tried as a "noncapital felony" but then the crime is sentenced as a “capital felony.” Id. at 7. 

Plaintiff seeks “to be resentenced” or have the Court “declare . . . the judgment of conviction in

this case null and void.” Id. at 7-8.

Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner who challenges "the fact or duration

of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release . . . ." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:10-cv-00473-MP -WCS

477, 481, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2369 (1994). Where a litigant is not challenging the fact or duration

of confinement, but rather the conditions of that confinement, then civil rights is the proper

avenue of relief. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 526, 122 S. Ct. 983, 990 (2002), citing

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 111 S. Ct. 1737 (1991) and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973). A prisoner may not seek to reduce a period of confinement through

a civil rights action. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500, 93 S. Ct. at 1841; Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S.

Ct. at 2372.

This Court finds on de novo review that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted. The Magistrate Judge was correct when he concluded that

“Plaintiff clearly seeks to invalidate his conviction in this civil rights case, or be resentenced.

This claim must be brought in a habeas petition and this § 1983 case must be dismissed.” Doc.

11 at 3. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 11, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein. 

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to

state a claim.

3. All pending motions are DENIED.

4. The Clerk is directed to note on the docket that this case was dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 26, 1997

In The 

## (Uourt ofAppeals JTtf ty Itstrtrt ofGkxas at Ballas No. 05-92-02078-CR STEVEN WRIGHT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F92-39359-R OPINION PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Wright and Moseley 

### Steven Wright appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years old. As part of a plea bargain agreement with the State, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the charge and was placed on five years' deferred adjudication probation 

### and fined$750. Subsequently, the trial court adjudicated appellant and assessed punishment at twenty years in prison. Appellant appealed. 

### In his sole point of error, appellant complains he was denied a statement offacts.

### After appellant filed his brief, this Court abated the appeal to determine whether appellant had been denied a statement of facts for any reason and to determine whether the statement of facts in this cause was available. The trial court made findings, which we adopted, that the statement of facts was available and could be filed with this Court. On November 22, 1996, we received the statement of facts from the adjudication/revocation hearing held on 

### August 20, 1992. On December 6, 1996, we received the statement of facts from the May 18, 1992 voir dire and May 19, 1992 guilty plea hearing. On December 17, 1992, the statement of facts from another May 18, 1992 hearing was filed. 

### On December 30, 1996, we gave appellant thirtydays to file an amended brief based 

### on the complete record. As oftoday's date, appellant's counsel, Ross Teter, has notfiled an amended brief nor has he filed a motion to extend time to file an amended brief. 

### Itappears therecord inthis cause is complete, and appellant has notidentified any 

### portion ofthe record that is missing. Therefore, appellant's point oferrorthathehas been denied a statement offacts is moot. Appellant has brought no other points of error for review.

### Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 90

-2-

## Court ofAppeals iHf itj Itstrtrt ofOkxas at lailas JUDGMENT 

### STEVEN WRIGHT, Appellant No. 05-92-02078-CR V. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 265th Judicial District 

### Court ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F92-39359-R). 

### Opinion deliveredpercuriambefore Chief 

### Justice Thomas, Justices Wright and Moseley. 

### Based on the Court's opinion ofthis date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

### Judgment entered February 26, 1997.

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


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 Otter Tail Ag Enterprises, LLC (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,
Anthony Hicks, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
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 results of operations of the Company.




Date: 
May 21, 2010




/s/
      Anthony HicksAnthony
      HicksChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
# C_2010084EN.01S00201.xml

| 30.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/s2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/s2

---

NOTE TO THE READER

This publication contains the consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, together with the annexes and protocols thereto, incorporating the amendments made by the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 and which entered into force on 1 December 2009.

This text has been produced for documentary purposes and does not involve the responsibility of the institutions of the European Union.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
v. (For a Petty Offense)-- Short Form
CASE NUMBER: 3:09mj264/EMT
JAMES A. PRICE

AEPD Thamas Keith

Defendant's Attorney

© THE DEFENDANT pled guilty to count(s) One and Two of the Information

Date Count
Title & Section Nature of Offense Concluded Number(s)
F.S.S. § 322.34(1) and 18 Driving While License Suspended 5/5/09 One
U.S.C. §§ 7 & 13 Without Knowledge
F.S.S. § 322.03(5) and 18 Drivers License Expired for More Than 5/5/09 Two
U.S.C. §§ 7 & 13 4 Months

CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES

All criminal monetary penalty payments are to be made as directed by the court, the probation officer, or the
United States attorney. The fines/SMAs shall be paid no later than February 17, 2010.

Assessment Fine Restitution
$ 15.00 (Count 1 - $5; Count2-$10) $160.00 (Count 1 - $60; Count 2 - $ 0.00
$100)

Date of Imposition of Sentence - 12/2/09

Woops A, (m7

Elizabeth M. Timothy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE suoce \)

pate: 12 * 2% 7 4

Recrdl 203° 09USDEF In 3AH0B0L
Case 4:10-cv-00039-MP-WCS Document 17 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:10-cv-00039-MP-WCS Document 17 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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, Richard Henry, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge, the Annual Report of AP Henderson Group on Form 10-K/A for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of AP Henderson
Group.



                                   By:/S/ RICHARD HENRY
                                      ---------------------------------------
                                      Richard Henry, Chief Executive Officer


         I, Richard Henry, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge, the Annual Report of AP Henderson Group on Form 10-K/A for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of AP Henderson
Group.



                                   By:/S/ RICHARD HENRY
                                      ---------------------------------------
                                      Richard Henry, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.13


 





eFleets Corporation


7660 Pebble Drive


Fort Worth, Texas 76118


 





August 15, 2014


 


John Maguire


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to
the following Promissory Note issued by Good Energy Conservation, Inc. (the “Company”) to John Maguire (“Holder”):


 


	Date of Promissory Note	Original Principal Amount of Promissory Note
	 	 
	May 8, 2013	$25,000
	 	 
	 	 


 


For good and valuable
consideration the receipt of which is hereby received, the Company and the Holder hereby agree that the maturity date of the May
8, 2013 Note shall be extended from May 8, 2013, (on May 19, 2014 extension granted to July 31, 2014) to September 30, 2014 and
notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the respective Note all interest and principal due on the Note shall be deferred and
payable on the new maturity date of the Note. It is agreed this agreement is effective on and as of July 31, 2014.


 


Except as set forth
herein, all other terms set forth in the Note shall remain unchanged. This extension agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Texas, excluding its conflict of laws rules. The exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the any legal action instituted
by any party to this extension shall be the Circuit Court of Tarrant County, Texas.


 





	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 	 
	 	GOOD EARTH ENERGY CONSERVATION, INC. 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 	 
	 	 	James R. Emmons	 
	 	 	President	 


 








	Agreed and Accepted
	 	 	 
	John Maguire
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CLINTON LEON MOORMAN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv353-RH/WCS

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 7. No objections have been filed. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED without

prejudice.” The clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on October 26, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 10

- 00359

- CV

GK GROUP, LLC, NOW K NOWN

AS DOWNTOWN M&M PROP ERTIES, LLC

, Appellant

v.

MITCHELL RUDDER PROP ERTIES,

LP SUCCESSOR IN INTE REST TO

KARB R OOKE, INC., AND CITI BANK TEXAS N.A.

, Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09

- 001441

- CV

- 85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant s have filed a n “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). It states that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and

that Appellants seek dismissal of this appeal with costs to be assessed aga inst the party

incurring them.

Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which itGK Group, LLC v. Mitchell Rudder Properties, LP Page 2

would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed with

each party to pay the costs in this behalf expended as they have been incurred

.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis , and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 30 , 2012

[CV06 ]
# C_2010225EN.01001101.xml

| 20.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/11

---

Call for proposals under the 7th Euratom Framework Programme for Nuclear Research and Training Activities

2010/C 225/08

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for Nuclear Research and Training Activities (2007 to 2011).

Proposals are invited for the following call. The call deadline and budget are given in the call text, which is published on the CORDIS website.

Euratom Work Programme

Euratom Work Programme

Call Title: Nuclear Fission and Radiation Protection

Call Identifier: FP7-Fission-2011

This call for proposals relates to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2010) 5704 of 20 August 2010.

This call for proposals relates to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2010) 5704 of 20 August 2010.

Information on the modalities of the call, the work programme, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the CORDIS website: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls/ & Participant Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/

---
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0183

_______________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LESLIE PAUL JONES

Defendant and Appellant

_______________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_______________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellant is granted an extension of time to and 

include July 8, 2021, within which to prepare, file and serve, Appellant’s opening brief 

on appeal. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 2 2021

06/02/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0183
# C_2010250EN.01001201.xml

| 17.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/12

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 September 2010

2010/C 250/09

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3078 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 111,93 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4463 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83720 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2180 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3225 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9555 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,616 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 281,62 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7086 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9403 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2458 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9549 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3958 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3423 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1585 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8057 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7474 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 520,06 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3082 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,7947 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2829 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 719,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0630 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,870 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,5875 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,274 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2513 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7258 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 60,3030 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3078

JPY

Japanese yen

111,93

DKK

Danish krone

7,4463

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83720

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2180

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3225

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9555

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,616

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

281,62

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7086

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9403

RON

Romanian leu

4,2458

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9549

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3958

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3423

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1585

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8057

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7474

KRW

South Korean won

1 520,06

ZAR

South African rand

9,3082

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,7947

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2829

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 719,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0630

PHP

Philippine peso

57,870

RUB

Russian rouble

40,5875

THB

Thai baht

40,274

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2513

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7258

INR

Indian rupee

60,3030

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BILLY D. TURNER,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:10cv439/LAC/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL,

Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on December 22, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the

Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This § 2254 petition (doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as an

unauthorized second or successive habeas corpus application.

3. The clerk is directed to close this file and send petitioner the Eleventh

Circuit’s form application for leave to file a second or successive petition.

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25 day of January, 2011. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DEAN DELLINGER,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv323/RS-EMT

INTERNATIONAL RARITIES

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 79). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and 

incorporated into this Order. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Doc. 71) is denied as to Plaintiff’s 

request to strike Defendant’s defenses and enter a default judgment.

3. The Court will consider imposing sanctions against Defendant in the 

form of the attorneys fees and other expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a 

result of Defendant’s violation of the Court’s scheduling orders (Doc. 

11, Doc. 26, Doc. 65).

Case 3:10-cv-00323-MCR-EMT Document 87 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 2
2

4. Not later than July 20, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an itemization of 

attorneys fees and costs incurred as a result of Defendant’s violations, 

following the requirements for the documentation of expenses set 

forth in N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 54.1(B) and 54.2(A).

ORDERED on July 6, 2011.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00323-MCR-EMT Document 87 Filed 07/06/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2010196EN.01000101.xml

| 20.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5895 — Keolis Nordic/Busslink Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 196/01

On 14 July 2010, 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(1)(b) 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:

| — | 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5895. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5895. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Document

Exhibit 10.5
























April 18, 2020


Jonathan Olefson 
[personal address]


Re:  Waiver of Compensation


Dear Jon:


        This letter serves to memorialize your agreement to reduce your annual base salary from $465,000 (the “Original Base Salary”) to $399,000 from May 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020 (the “Waiver Period”), subject to extension of the Waiver Period by mutual written agreement of you and Syneos Health, Inc. (the “Company”). 


        Although your annual base salary will be reduced during the Waiver Period, your Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) target bonus opportunity for 2020 will continue to be calculated based on your Original Base Salary.  In addition, if you experience a severance-qualifying termination of employment during the Waiver Period, the MIP and salary portion of your cash severance payment will be calculated based on your Original Base Salary.  


        However, you agree that none of the foregoing will constitute an event giving rise to a Good Reason for purposes of the Syneos Health Inc. Executive Severance Plan, any outstanding Company equity award held by you or any other agreement between you and the Company.  


        Other than as described in this letter, all other terms and conditions of your service remain unchanged. 
        
        Please indicate your acceptance and acknowledgement of, and agreement to, the foregoing by signing below.  


Sincerely,
Syneos Health, Inc.
By:  /s/ Alistair Macdonald      
Name:  Alistair Macdonald      
Title:  Chief Executive Officer


Agreed and Acknowledged:


  /s/ Jonathan Olefson           
Name: Jonathan Olefson
© 2020 All rights reserved | Confidential | For Syneos HealthTM use only syneoshealth.com | 1