alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPPLEMENTARY EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT



This Contract is made on the 31st day of March 1996



Parties to the Contract:

A.   Hang  Fung  Jewellery  Co.  Ltd.,  of  302-303A,  3/F,  Fu Hang  Industrial
     Building, Hok Yuen Street East, Hunghom, Hong Kong ("Company"),

B.   Mr. Lam Sai Wing H.K.I.D. No. D526157(1) ("Mr. Lam"),

C.   Mrs. Lam Chan Yam Fai, H.K.I.D. No. G293329(1) ("Ms. Chan").


Whereas  pursuant  to the  Employment  Contract  between the Company and Mr. Lam
("Contract  A") and the  Employment  Contract  between  the Company and Ms. Chan
("Contract B") both dated the 1st day of January 1994.

1.   Salary of Mr. Lam for the twelve  months  period  ended 31 March 1996 being
     HK$586,950.00  subject to an increment  rate of 30% per annum  effective on
     the 1st day of January of each calendar year.

2.   Salary of Ms. Chan for the twelve  months  period ended 31 March 1996 being
     HK$391,300.00  subject to an increment  rate of 30% per annum  effective on
     the 1st day of January of each calendar year.

Whereas the Company  agrees to continue to pay a total annual  salary to Mr. Lam
and Ms. Chan which shall not exceed the total amount the Company have to pay per
Contract A and Contract B.

Whereas Mr. Lam and Ms. Chan agree to continue to receive a total annual  salary
from the Company which shall not be less than the total amount they are entitled
per Contract A and Contract B.

Now that in consideration of the respective  responsibilities  and duties of Mr.
Lam and Ms.  Chan has been  varying  from time to time,  it is  hereby  mutually
agreed amongst the Company, Mr. Lam and Ms. Chan that:

1.   Commencing  on 1st of April 1996,  Mr. Lam and Ms. Chan shall be allowed to
     share the total  amount of the annual  alary  which shall be payable by the
     Company  and  receivable  by Mr.  Lam and Ms.  Chan per the  Contract A and
     Contract B on the  portion  which is subject to review and revise from time
     to time to be mutually agreed between Mr. Lam and Ms. Chan.

<PAGE>
     The amount of salary as agreed between and entitled by Mr. Lam and Ms. Chan
     is to be  HK$1,121,725.00  and  HK$150,000.00  respectively  for the twelve
     months period ended 31 March, 1997.

2.   Mr. Lam and Ms. Chan agree that they shall perform  duties for the Company,
     its associated  companies,  related  companies or its assigns in Hong Kong,
     and at such other place as is required.

This contract is  supplementary  to the Contract A and Contract B and signed and
agreed by:




-----------------------------------
Hang Fung Jewellery Co. Ltd.




-----------------------------------
Mr. Lam Sai Wing




-----------------------------------
Mrs. Lam Chan Yam Fai





keane/lam10-K




                                        2
v150341_10-37 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
10.37
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
                           SUCCESS BANCSHARES, INC. 
                            1995 STOCK OPTION PLAN


     Article IV of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

"IV. ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION

     Each Participant receiving an Incentive Option must be a Key Employee of
the Company or of an Affiliate at the time an Incentive Option is granted.

     The Board or if such authority be delegated, the Committee, may at any
time and from time to time grant one or more Options to one or more Key
Employees or Key Non-Employees and may designate the number of Shares to be
subject to each Option so granted, provided, however, that no Incentive Options
shall be granted after the expiration of ten (10) years from the earlier of the
date of the adoption of the Plan by the Company or the approval of the Plan by
the stockholders of the Company, and provided, further, that the fair market
value of the Shares (determined at the time the Option is granted) as to which
Incentive Options are exercisable for the first time by any Key Employee during
any single calendar year (under the Plan and under any other Incentive Option
plan of the Company or an Affiliate) shall not exceed $100,000.

     Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions, the Board (or the
Committee if applicable) may authorize the grant of an Incentive Option to a
person not then in the employ of the Company or of an Affiliate, conditioned
upon such person becoming eligible to become a Participant at or prior to the
execution of the Option Agreement evidencing the actual grant of such Option."<PAGE>
# Senator Ellsworth's Judiciary Act

**

----

July 17, 1789

When the Senate first convened in 1789, many expected it to be a fairly passive body, similar to the state senates on which it was partly modeled. Aside from acting on nominations and treaties, the Senate’s principal job was seen as reviewing legislation crafted in the House of Representatives. Although this anticipation proved fairly accurate for the first several decades, there are notable exceptions. The Judiciary Act of 1789, almost exclusively the Senate’s handiwork, profoundly influenced the nation’s judicial and constitutional development to the present day.

On April 7, 1789, the day after achieving its first quorum, the Senate appointed a committee, composed of one senator from each of the 10 states then represented in that body, to draft legislation to shape the national judiciary. As Connecticut’s Oliver Ellsworth received the most votes for that assignment, he became the panel’s chairman.

The Constitution barely mentions the judiciary’s structure beyond providing for a supreme court and any lower courts that Congress might wish to establish. It is silent on the Supreme Court’s size and frequency of sessions as well as judges’ qualifications and compensation.

Oliver Ellsworth was ideally suited to serve as principal author of the Judiciary Act. He had shaped the Constitution’s first draft and its crucial “Connecticut Compromise,” which produced a bicameral Congress with the states equally represented in the Senate. His Senate colleagues had also selected him to chair a committee to draft the chamber’s rules of procedure. Ellsworth quickly won wide respect for his diligence, or, as one biographer has put it, “his recognition of the fact that in the senatorial office drudging spadework was even more important than speeches and votes.” 

On July 17, 1789, the Senate enacted its version of this landmark statute. With House revisions, it became law two months later. Oliver Ellsworth remained a highly effective senator until 1796, when he moved to the Supreme Court as chief justice of the United States. Although Ellsworth, more than any other, shaped the federal judicial system, his strengths as a legislative craftsman failed to translate to success as a jurist. Deteriorating health forced his resignation within four years.

Today, constitutional scholars remember Oliver Ellsworth’s Judiciary Act as “the keystone of American federalism” and they note John Adams's assessment that, in the federal government’s earliest years, he was its “firmest pillar.”

### Senate Historical Office 

Information provided by the Senate Historical Office.

Questions about Senate History?Email a Senate historian.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,793
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    13,566
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (23,359)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

FREDRICK EUGENE HUGHES, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cr-00359-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02353-RBH) 

Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Fredrick Eugene Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Fredrick Eugene Hughes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hughes has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
##### 



BOWATER INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Exhibit 12.1
 Bowater Incorporated
Statement of Computation of Unaudited Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions, except ratio information)
 Three Months Ended March 31,2006
    
    
    2005Earnings:Loss before income taxes, minority interests and
cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    (3.1
    )
    
    $
    (8.1
    )Add: Fixed charges from below
    
    
    52.7
    
    
    
    52.2Less: Capitalized interest
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    0.1$
    48.3
    
    
    $
    44.0Fixed Charges:Interest expense, net of interest capitalized
    
    
    49.4
    
    
    
    50.2Capitalized interest
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    0.1Estimate of interest within rental expense
    
    
    0.8
    
    
    
    0.4Amortized premium and discounts related to indebtedness
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    1.5$
    52.7
    
    
    $
    52.2Deficiency of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    4.4
    
    
    
    8.2
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2360

To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide for a limitation on sharing

of behavioral profiling information, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 5, 2000

Mr. SHELBY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide for a

limitation on sharing of behavioral profiling information,

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 ‘‘Freedom From Behav5 ioral Profiling Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON BEHAVIORAL PROFILING INFORMA7 TION.

8 Section 502 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15

9 U.S.C. 6802) is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing:
2

•S 2360 IS

1 ‘‘(f) LIMITATION ON BEHAVIORAL PROFILING IN2 FORMATION.—

3 ‘‘(1) LIMITATION.—Except as provided in para4 graph (2), a financial institution may not disclose to

5 any person the identity of any person or entity—

6 ‘‘(A) to whom that consumer has made a

7 payment by check or similar instrument;

8 ‘‘(B) with whom that consumer has en9 gaged in a credit transaction; or

10 ‘‘(C) from whom that consumer has re11 ceived any payment or transfer of funds.

12 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—A financial institution may

13 disclose the information listed in paragraph (1) only

14 if—

15 ‘‘(A) the financial institution clearly and

16 conspicuously discloses to the consumer to

17 whom the information pertains, in writing (or

18 other form, including electronic form, permitted

19 by the regulations prescribed under section

20 504), that such information may be disclosed;

21 and

22 ‘‘(B) the consumer—

23 ‘‘(i) has affirmatively consented in

24 writing to the transfer of such information;

25 and
3

•S 2360 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) has not withdrawn the consent.’’.

2 SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

3 Section 502 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15

4 U.S.C. 6802) is amended—

5 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the pe6 riod ‘‘, or, in the case of information described in

7 subsection (f)(1), the requirements of subsection

8 (f)(2) have been met’’;

9 (2) in subsection (b), by striking the subsection

10 heading and inserting ‘‘CONSUMER OPTIONS.—’’;

11 and

12 (3) in subsection (b)(1)—

13 (A) by striking ‘‘party unless—’’ and in14 serting ‘‘party—

15 ‘‘(A) unless—’’;

16 (B) by striking ‘‘(A) such’’ and inserting

17 ‘‘(i) such’’ and indenting appropriately;

18 (C) by striking ‘‘(B) the consumer’’ and

19 inserting ‘‘(ii) the consumer’’ and indenting ap20 propriately;

21 (D) by striking ‘‘(C) the consumer’’ and

22 inserting ‘‘(iii) the consumer’’ and indenting ap23 propriately;

24 (E) by striking ‘‘option.’’ and inserting

25 ‘‘option; or’’; and
4

•S 2360 IS

1 (F) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(B) unless, in the case of information de3 scribed in subsection (f)(1), the requirements of

4 subsection (f)(2) have been met.’’.

Æ
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

KEITI SALIM KAYYAL; OUSAMEH

SALIM KAYYAL,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-75068

Agency Nos. A070-546-366

 A070-546-367

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2011** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Keiti Salim Kayyal and Ousameh Salim Kayyal, citizens of Jordan, petition

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their

motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

FILED

APR 12 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-75068

reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Kayyals’ motion to

reopen as untimely because it was filed more than eight years after the BIA’s final

order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and the Kayyals did not

establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d

at 897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a

petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as

the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or

error”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael M. Earley, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Metropolitan Health Networks, Inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | [Intentionally omitted.]
| | -- | ------------------------



| | 4. | [Intentionally omitted.]
| | -- | ------------------------



| | 5. | [Intentionally omitted.]
| | -- | ------------------------



|                     |  |                                          
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|DATE: March 21, 2012 |  |                                          
|                     |  | /s/    Michael M.
Earley                 
|                     |  | Michael M. Earley Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27784-27785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition 
to the Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the decision 
to designate a class of employees at the Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory in Berkeley, California, as an addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act of 2000. On April 5, 2010,

[[Page 27785]]

as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS 
designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 
agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, from 
August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1961, for a number of work days 
aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under 
this employment or in combination with work days within the 
parameters established for one or more other classes of employees 
included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on May 5, 2010, as provided for 
under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on May 5, 2010, members 
of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became 
members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia 
Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. 
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3377707260737077701d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98dcdbd9cbd8dbdcdbb6dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-11874 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NO. 12-13-00229-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

VALTON P. BUNDY, MICHELLE 

BUNDY AND ALL OTHER 

OCCUPANTS OF 15497 WAGON 

WHEEL CIRCLE, CHANDLER, 

TEXAS, 

APPELLANTS

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE 

HOLDERS CWABS, INC. ASSET 

BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 

2004-13, APPELLEES

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellants have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. In their motion, Appellants state 

that the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Therefore, 

Appellants no longer wish to pursue the appeal. Appellants have complied with Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). Accordingly, Appellants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the 

appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered August 20, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 20, 2014

NO. 12-13-00229-CV

VALTON P. BUNDY, MICHELLE BUNDY AND ALL OTHER

OCCUPANTS OF 15497 WAGON WHEEL CIRCLE, CHANDLER, TEXAS,

Appellants

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE

BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS

CWABS, INC. ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-13,

Appellees

Appeal from the County Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 7175)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellants to 

dismiss the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

and DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, 

and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.