alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT NO.
3
TO
EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT 

This amendment (the
“Amendment”) is made as of and effective this 30th day of
May 2016, between CalAmp Corp. (the “Company”) and Michael
Burdiek (“Executive”). 

RECITALS: 

A. The Company and Executive
are parties to that certain Employment Agreement originally dated as of May 27,
2011 and as previously amended on June 12, 2013 and May 30, 2014 (the
“Employment
Agreement”), pursuant to which
Executive is employed by the Company. 

B. The Company and Executive
desire to amend the terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and of the respective covenants and agreements
set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

	       	1.       	In
      accordance with Section 1(e) and Section 9(f) of the Employment Agreement, the Employment
      Agreement is hereby further amended by this Amendment to extend the term
      for a period of two years, through May 31, 2018.
		  
		2.	Except as
      otherwise amended herein, all terms and conditions of the Employment
      Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
		  
		3.	Original
      signatures transmitted and received via facsimile or other electronic
      transmission of a scanned document, (e.g., .pdf or similar format) are
      true and valid signatures for all purposes hereunder and shall bind the
      parties to the same extent as that of an original signature. This
      Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be
      deemed to constitute an original but all of which together shall
      constitute only one document.


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


		/s/ Michael Burdiek
		Michael
      Burdiek
		  
		  
		CALAMP
      CORP.
		   
		    
		/s/ A.J. Moyer
		By: 	A.J. “Bert” Moyer
			Chairman of the Board
Exhibit 4.6

 

	
To:
    	
THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC as Agent
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
From:
    	
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
    


 

15 December 2015

 

Vodafone Group Plc — U.S.$3,935,000,000 Revolving Credit Agreement

dated 27 February 2015 (the “Credit Agreement”)

 

Terms used herein which are defined in the Credit Agreement shall have the same meaning herein as in the Credit Agreement.

 

We refer to Clause 2.8 (Additional Lenders).

 

We, Royal Bank of Canada, agree to become party to and to be bound by the terms of the Credit Agreement as an Additional Lender in accordance with Clause 2.8 (Additional Lenders) with effect on and from 15 December 2015.

 

Our Revolving Credit Commitment is U.S.$155,000,000. Our Swingline Commitment is U.S.$75,000,000. We will be a Mandated Lead Arranger.

 

We confirm to each Finance Party that we:

 

(a)                                 have made our own independent investigation and assessment of the financial condition and affairs of each Obligor and its related entities in connection with its participation in the Credit Agreement and have not relied exclusively on any information provided to us by a Finance Party in connection with any Finance Document; and

 

(b)                                 will continue to make our own independent appraisal of the creditworthiness of each Obligor and its related entities while any amount is or may be outstanding under the Credit Agreement or any Commitment is in force.

 

The Facility Office and address for notices of the Additional Lender for the purposes of Clause 33.2 (Addresses for notices) is:

 

Royal Bank of Canada

Riverbank House - 2 Swan Lane – 2nd Floor

London, England

EC4R 3BF

 

This Agreement and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it are governed by English law.

 

	
ROYAL BANK OF   CANADA
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ M Rowe
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
THE ROYAL BANK   OF SCOTLAND PLC
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ J Tobin
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
VODAFONE GROUP   PLC
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Nick Read
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


            1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
                Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
                covered by this report on Form 10-K of CWHEQ Revolving Home
                Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-I (the "Exchange Act periodic
                reports");

            2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
                taken as a whole, do 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 report;

            3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
                other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for
                the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange
                Act periodic reports;

            4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
                servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
                periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
                obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
                respects; and

            5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                criteria for asset-backed securities and their related
                attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
                in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
                and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as
                an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
                this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described
                in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
                10-K.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
            information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
            The Bank of New York, as Trustee and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Date:  March 30, 2007


      /s/ Steve Bailey
      -------------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
#### John T. Lind v. Hilma M. Lind.

*Divorce—Temporary A Umony—Practice.*

1. This court will only interfere with orders granting temporary alimony in divorce cases, when the same are clearly shown to have been erroneous.

2. Upon an appeal from an order awarding temporary alimony in such cases, the merits can not be gone into.

*179[Opinion filed June 30, 1890.]

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Egbert Jamieson, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Cameron *&*Hughes, for appellant.

Messrs. Case, Hudd & Hogan, for appellee.

Gary, P. J.

Appeals to this court from orders awarding temporary alimony in divorce suits, especially when the husband is the complainant, generally have the effect only of increasing his expenses, and ought not to be prosecuted unless it is clear that a very serious mistake has been made. Lane v. Lane, 22 Ill. App. 529, has been followed here several times, and there is no good reason to depart from the rule there stated, that this court will only interfere with such an order when it is clearly shown to be erroneous.

The brief on behalf of" the appellant makes the point that the appellee did not deny, in her original answer, the adultery charged upon her. By amendment that denial is explicit, and whether the omission in the original answer, which went into a lengthy explanation of the manner in which, as she alleged, a state of circumstances exciting suspicion was brought about by a conspiracy to which the appellant was a party, was by accident or design, does not appear. The merits can not be gone into at this stage of the case. Burgess v. Burgess, 25 Ill. App. 525. The appellant prosecutes against his wife a suit for a divorce; he must furnish her the means of support and defense while it is pending.

The order is affirmed.

*Order affirmed.*
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3324

___________

Andre Porter, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

St. Louis County, Missouri; St. Louis *

County Health Department; Unknown * 

Rotnick, St. Louis County Health *

Department, Individually and *

Officially; Unknown Todd, Doctor, *

St. Louis County Health Department, *

Individually and Officially; Rita * Appeal from the United States

Hendrick, Nursing Supervisor, St. * District Court for the Eastern

Louis County Health Department, * District of Missouri.

Individually and Officially; Deb *

Kinder, Head Nurse, St. Louis County * [UNPUBLISHED]

Health Department, Individually and *

Officially; R.N. Jane Unknown, *

Nurse, St. Louis County Health *

Department, Individually and *

Officially; Hector Sanchez, Nurse, *

St. Louis County Health Department, *

Individually and Officially; Kate *

Rudisill, Nurse, St. Louis County *

Health Department, Individually and *

Officially; Gary Preston, St. Louis *

County Health Department, *

Individually and Officially; Henry *

Willis, Correctional Officer, St. Louis *

County Justice Center, Individually *
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

and Officially; Tina Hahler, *

Caseworker, St. Louis County *

Justice Center, Individually and *

Officially; Alexis Woods, *

Correctional Officer, St. Louis *

County Justice Center, Individually *

and Officially; Al Breeding, Unit *

Manager, St. Louis County Justice *

Center, Individually; Charles Dooley, *

County Executive, Officially; Roy *

Mueller, Director of Justice Services, *

Individually, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 4, 2011

Filed: January 7, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andre Porter appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment entered by the

District Court1

 in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted de novo review of

the record and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Porter, see Mason

v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884–85 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review),

we cannot say that defendants’ conduct rose to the level of deliberate indifference

within the meaning of applicable case law, see Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445,

459–60 (8th Cir. 2010). We also conclude that the District Court did not improperly
-3-

consider the affidavits that were notarized by defense counsel, and did not abuse its

discretion in declining to appoint counsel. Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R.

47B, and we deny Porter’s motion for counsel. 

______________________________
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MICHAEL C. FALLON, SBN 088313

MICHAEL C. FALLON, JR., SBN 303082

Attorneys at Law

100 E Street, Suite 219

Santa Rosa, California 95404

Telephone: (707) 546-6770

email: mcfallon@fallonlaw.net 

Attorneys for Ahlborn Fence & Steel, Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re Case No. 19-30088

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC Chapter 11

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO ASSERT

Debtor. CLAIM OF MECHANICS LIEN 

____________________________________/

Ahlborn Fence & Steel, Inc, a creditor, gives notice that:

1. Ahlborn Fence & Steel, Inc has a right to assert a mechanic’s lien under applicable

California Law for labor and services provided to the debtor at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco,

California .

2. Ahlborn Fence & Steel, Inc has filed a Claim of Mechanics Lien with the San

Francisco Assessor-Recorder on May 7, 2019, as document number 2019-K763890-00.

3. Ahlborn Fence & Steel, Inc intends to assert and enforce such lien; and 

4. Ahlborn Fence & Steel, Inc is authorized to do so under 11 USC § 362(a)(4).

Dated: June 10, 2019

/s/ Michael C. Fallon _____________________________

Michael C. Fallon

Attorney for Ahlborn Fence & Steel, Inc 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2917 Filed: 07/10/19 Entered: 07/10/19 12:01:14 Page 1 of

1
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 29811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12721]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Program Management Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 10, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for an RTCA Program Management Committee meeting. The 
agenda will include:

<bullet> Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions)
<bullet> Review/Approve Summary of March 17, 2010 PMC meeting, RTCA 
Paper No. 056-10/PMC-787.
<bullet> Publication Consideration/Approval
    <bullet> Final Draft, New Document, Operational Services and 
Environmental Definition (OSED) for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), 
RTCA Paper No. 066-10/PMC-791, prepared by SC-203.
<bullet> Integration and Coordination Committee (ICC)--Report
    <bullet> SC-186/206/214 Coordination--Weather Data Dissemination--
Discussion--Recommendation
    <bullet> Special Committee Interface Matrix--Review
<bullet> Action Item Review
    <bullet> SC-214--Standards for Air Traffic Data Communications 
Services--Discussion--Review/Approve Revised Terms of Reference
    <bullet> SC-186--Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast--
Discussion--Review/Approve Revised Terms of Reference
<bullet> Discussion
    <bullet> Trajectory Operations
    <bullet> RTCA Annual Awards
    <bullet> Special Committees--Chairmen's Reports
<bullet> Closing Plenary (Other Business, Document Production and PMC 
Meeting Schedule Meeting, Adjourned)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2010.
Meredith Gibbs,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-12721 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1924-1    Filed: 05/08/19    Entered: 05/08/19 14:18:06    Page 1of 5

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1924-1    Filed: 05/08/19    Entered: 05/08/19 14:18:06    Page 2of 5

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1924-1    Filed: 05/08/19    Entered: 05/08/19 14:18:06    Page 3of 5

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1924-1    Filed: 05/08/19    Entered: 05/08/19 14:18:06    Page 4of 5

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 1924-1    Filed: 05/08/19    Entered: 05/08/19 14:18:06    Page 5of 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6277

TROY R. SUTTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; RICHARD W.

FLEENOR, Postmaster,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-125-2)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy R. Sutton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his Bivens* action under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 1915A (West Supp. 1997). 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. Sutton v. United States Postal Serv., No. CA-97-125-2 (E.D.

Va. Feb. 18, 1997). 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
Exhibit 10.19


 





  


January 13, 2016


 


Robert J. Mears


12 High Meadow Circle


Wellesley, MA 02482


 


Dear Robert:


 


Reference
is hereby made to that certain Secured Promissory Note dated January 14, 2005 (as amended to date, the “Promissory Note”),
in the aggregate principal amount of $187,500.00 between you as “Maker” and RJ Mears, LLC as “Payee”.


 


By
signing below, (a) MEARS Technology, Inc., as successor in interest to the Payee (the “Company”), hereby agrees to
forgive, as of the date hereof, the entire principal amount owed by you to the Company pursuant to the Promissory Note (but not
the accrued interest thereon) and (b) in exchange therefor, you agree that (i) simultaneously with the execution of this agreement,
you will execute an Employment Agreement with the Company, substantially in the form set forth as Exhibit A hereto, together with
such other documents or agreements in connection therewith that the company may reasonably request, including without limitation,
non-disclosure and inventions assignment agreements substantially in the same forms
that the Company has executed with its other executive officers and (ii) you will not directly or indirectly, form, work
or perform services for, own equity of, or otherwise be involved in any business or enterprise that uses the name “Mears”
in the field of materials developed for the enhancement of semiconductor devices other than the Company.


 


By
signing below, you also acknowledge and agree that (i) the Company is not forgiving the accrued but unpaid interest in the amount
of $7,050.00 on the Promissory Note through the date hereof (the “Unpaid Interest”), and (ii) the forgiveness of the
principal amount of the Promissory Note will constitute compensation income to you and will be subject to federal, state and local
withholding taxes in the amount of $13,998.25 (the “Withholding Taxes”). Simultaneously with the execution of this
agreement you will (i) pay the Company the Unpaid Interest and (ii) provide the Company with cash equal to the Withholding Taxes,
or other make provisions satisfactory to the Company for the payment of the Withholding Taxes.


 


By
signing below, each party hereby acknowledges and agrees that upon effectiveness of forgiveness, the Pledge and Security Agreement
dated as of January 14, 2005 (the “Pledge Agreement”) and the other Financing Agreements (as defined in the Pledge
Agreement) shall terminate and be of no further force or effect.


 


20
Walnut Street, Suite 8 • Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 • Phone:617-219-0600 • Fax:617-219-0660 •


www.mearstechnologies.com


 




    	 	 



     


    







 


  


 


	By;	/s/ Scott A. Bibaud	 
	Name:	Scott A. Bibaud	 
	Title:	President and CEO	 
	 	 	 
	Agreed and acknowledged as of the date first written above.	 
	 	 
	/s/ Robert J. Mears	 
	Robert J. Mears	 


 


20 Walnut
Street, Suite 8 • Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 • Phone:617-219-0600 • Fax:617-219-0660 •


www.mearstechnologies.com
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50566

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOSE MANUEL FELIX-FELIX,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-1200-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Manuel Felix-Felix was indicted on one charge of illegal reentry 

following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court granted 

his motion to dismiss the indictment after concluding that his removal order 

was invalid because his notice to appear did not include a specific time and 

date for his removal hearing. The Government appeals and moves for 

summary disposition, arguing that the district court’s dismissal of the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 3, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50566 Document: 00515221571 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2019
No. 19-50566

2

indictment was erroneous under United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 

(5th Cir. 2019). Alternately, the Government moves for an extension of time 

in which to file a brief.

Summary disposition is appropriate if “the position of one of the parties 

is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question 

as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 

1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Pedroza-Rocha concluded that the notice to appear was 

not deficient because it did not specify a date for the hearing, that any such 

alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction, and 

that Pedroza-Rocha could not collaterally attack his notice to appear without 

first exhausting his administrative remedies. 933 F.3d at 496-98. These 

conclusions are contrary to those of the district court in this case and show that 

the district court erred by granting Felix-Felix’s motion to dismiss. See id. 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, 

the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED AS MOOT, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and this 

case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.

 Case: 19-50566 Document: 00515221571 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2019