alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.7




 


SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT (the “Sixth Amendment” or this “Amendment”) is made as of December 5, 2022 (the “Effective
Date”), by and between First Foundation Inc., a Delaware corporation and First Foundation Advisors (“FFA”), a California
corporation (collectively the “Employer”), and Ulrich E. Keller, Jr. (“Executive”), with reference to the
following:


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Employer and Executive
are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of December 31, 2009, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Employment
Agreement dated as of December 31, 2012, that certain Second Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of August 31, 2013,
that certain Third Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of January 26, 2016, that certain Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement
dated as of February 7, 2018, and that certain Fifth Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of March 11, 2020 (as amended,
the “Employment Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS, FFA is engaged in
the business of providing investment management, wealth management and advisory services primarily to high net worth individuals as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of First Foundation Inc., which, through its subsidiaries (collectively “Affiliates”), provides commercial
banking, investment management, wealth management, advisory services, trust services and other financial services to the public.


 


WHEREAS, Employer and Executive
desire to amend the Employment Agreement in the manner and to the extent set forth hereinafter.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good
and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound hereby,
Employer and Executive agree as follows:


 


1.            Amendment
to Section 4.  The second sentence of Section 4 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety
as follows:


 


“The expiration date of the Term of the
Agreement is hereby extended to December 31, 2025.”


 


2.            Except
as otherwise provided herein, capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the definitions set forth in the Employment Agreement.


 


3.            Except
as expressly modified hereby, all terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.


 


Signature page follows


 






    -1-


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Agreement has been executed by Employer and by Executive as of the Effective Date.


 


EMPLOYER:


 


	FIRST
    FOUNDATION ADVISORS	 	FIRST
    FOUNDATION INC.
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ John
    Hakopian	 	By:	/s/ Scott
    Kavanaugh
	Name:
    	John
    Hakopian	 	Name:	Scott
    Kavanaugh
	Title:
    	President	 	Title:
    	Chief
    Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	EXECUTIVE:	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Ulrich
    E. Keller, Jr. 	 	 
	Name:
    	Ulrich
    E. Keller, Jr.	 	 




 






    -2-
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31128]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ES96-15-000]


Aroostook Valley Electric Company; Notice of Application

December 18, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 7, 1995, Aroostook Valley Electric 
Company, filed an application, under 204 of the Federal Power Act, 
seeking authorization to issue and renew on or before December 31, 1997 
short-term notes, pursuant to bank lines of credit and individual 
negotiated bank offers of short-term funds, in each case maturing one 
year or less after the date of issuance, in an aggregate principal 
amount not to exceed $5 million outstanding at any one time.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426 in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before January 5, 1996. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31128 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2743

___________

Sara Esther Ramos Vasquez, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: March 3, 2011 

Filed: March 9, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Sara Esther Ramos Vasquez petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s denial

of her application for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the

discretionary determination that Ramos Vasquez failed to show her removal would

result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her children who were United

States citizens. See Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.

2007). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Ramos Vasquez’s assertion that the

impact of her health problems was ignored, because she did not exhaust this issue

before the BIA. See Sultani v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 878, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition. 

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5520 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5520

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity 
                           immigrant program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2014

  Mr. Posey (for himself and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity 
                           immigrant program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as--
            (1) the ``Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act 
        of 2014''; or
            (2) the ``SAFE for America Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Worldwide Level of Diversity Immigrants.--Section 201 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
                (1);
                    (B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph 
                (2) and inserting a period; and
                    (C) by striking paragraph (3); and
            (2) by striking subsection (e).
    (b) Allocation of Diversity Immigrant Visas.--Section 203 of such 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (c);
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``(a), (b), or (c),'' 
        and inserting ``(a) or (b),'';
            (3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and 
        redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
            (4) in subsection (f), by striking ``(a), (b), or (c)'' and 
        inserting ``(a) or (b)''; and
            (5) in subsection (g), by striking ``(a), (b), and (c)'' 
        and inserting ``(a) and (b)''.
    (c) Procedure for Granting Immigrant Status.--Section 204 of such 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (a)(1)(I); and
            (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``(a), (b), or (c)'' and 
        inserting ``(a) or (b)''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on October 1, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.

The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge for the District of **

Columbia Circuit, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SERGIO RODRIGUEZ-MEPFORDS

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50263

D.C. No. 3:07-cr-02089-WQH-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2011

Pasadena, California

Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges. ** 

At his supervised-release hearing, Sergio Rodriguez-Mepfords admitted that

he had violated two conditions of his supervised release – a prohibition on illegally

FILED

MAY 16 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

reentering the United States after being deported and a prohibition on committing a

crime in the United States. The government had apparently told RodriguezMepfords before the hearing that it would recommend a six-month sentence for

those violations. 

The district court accepted Rodriguez-Mepfords’s admissions without

warning him that the maximum possible sentence for revocation of his supervised

release was two years. After accepting the admissions and then hearing the

government’s sentencing recommendation of six months’ imprisonment, the

district court indicated that it would likely impose a sentence longer than the six

months recommended by the government. Rodriguez-Mepfords then attempted to

withdraw his admissions of violations.

 The district court denied Rodriguez-Mepfords’s motion to withdraw his

admissions, revoked his supervised release, and sentenced him to 12 months in

prison. 

When the district court denied the withdrawal motion, it did not state the

legal standard it was applying. When a district court fails to state the legal

standard it is applying, “we must conclude it abused its discretion.” United States

v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009). 
3

We therefore must vacate and remand the district court’s decision revoking

Rodriguez-Mepfords’s supervised release. On remand, the district court should

state and apply the “fair and just reason” standard, cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d), the

legal standard which both Rodriguez-Mepfords and the government agree is proper

in this context.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
## Actuarial Studies

- Office of the Chief Actuary
- Actuarial Notes

Studies are historical documents and are generally not subject to revision. PDF files may not be accessible to people with visual impairments.

If you have a question regarding a particular Study, send your question and the name of the Study to actuary@ssa.gov.

| Number | Date        | Title                                                                                  | Author(s)                                                            |
|--------|-------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 128    | March 2024  | A Stochastic Model of the Long-Range Financial Status of the OASDI Program  (PDF) | K. Mark Bye, Michael L. Miller, Michael Morris, and Sven H. Sinclair |
| 127    | March 2023  | Employment Projections in the 2022 Social Security Trustees Report  (PDF)         | Polina Vlasenko and Judith Aboagye                                   |
| 126    | April 2022  | Employment Projections in the 2021 Social Security Trustees Report  (PDF)         | Polina Vlasenko                                                      |
| 125    | August 2020 | Social Security Disability Insurance Program Disabled Worker Experience  (PDF)    | Nettie J. Barrick-Funk                                               |
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 I, James M. Vanderhider, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 10-K/A of Belden & Blake Corporation; 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. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented
in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 30, 2006

/s/ James M. VanderhiderJames M. Vanderhider,  Presidentand Chief Financial Officer
## Fertility and Mortality Assumptions —            2023 OASDI Trustees Report

| Single-Year Tables | Historical data | Intermediate Assumptions | Low-Cost Assumptions | High-Cost Assumptions |
|--------------------|-----------------|--------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|

----

| a            This table contains basic assumptions along with key summary            values that are derived from basic assumptions.b            The total fertility rate for any year is the average number of            children that would be born to a woman if she were to experience,            at each age of her life, the birth rate observed in, or assumed            for, the selected year, and if she were to survive the entire            childbearing period.c            Based on the enumerated total population as of April 1, 2010, if            that population were to experience the death rates by age and sex            observed in, or assumed for, the selected year.d            Estimated using final data for ages below 65 and preliminary data            for ages 65 and older.e            Estimated using the intermediate assumptions for ages below 65			and preliminary data for ages 65 and older.f            Estimated, intermediate alternative. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Footer menu
EXHIBIT B

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5110-2 Filed: 12/13/19 Entered: 12/13/19 16:49:23 Page 1

of 2
EXHIBIT B

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE 

FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2019 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2019

Task Total Total

Code Hours Fees

3 Financial Analysis (Requested by Counsel, or Otherwise) 315.3 $ 205,403.50

6 Due Diligence of Wildfire Safety Plan and Related Analysis 113.9 94,860.50

7 Debtor Professionals - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 3.0 2,585.00

9 Other Professionals / Interested Parties - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 27.4 30,913.00

10 Tort Claimants (Counsel/FA) - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 58.3 64,888.50

11 Assist Counsel in Responses / Objections to Bankruptcy Court Motions 27.7 23,631.50

12 Committee Related Matters - Diligence / Meetings / Calls 50.4 51,988.00

13 Bankruptcy Filings, Motions and Other Document Review 127.3 87,343.50

14 Review of Executory Contracts and Related Analysis 10.3 6,818.50

15 Review of Employee-Related Matters, Including Retention Plans 6.2 3,009.00

16 Review of Claims and Related Analysis 56.3 45,968.50

17 Asset Sale(s), Strategic Alternatives, and Related Analysis 11.6 8,752.00

18 Analysis of New Debt or Equity Capital 461.7 311,401.50

19 Analysis of Pro-Forma Capital Structure, and Related Analysis 87.5 57,252.50

20 Benchmarking and Related Analysis 173.7 97,471.50

21 Term Sheets, Plan, and Disclosure Statement Analysis 134.0 123,220.00

22 Review of Discovery Documents and Deposition Preparation (Witnesses) 179.9 133,960.50

23 Deposition(s), Testimony, Court Hearing(s), and Related Preparation / Attendance 133.8 124,621.00

24 Business Plan 83.7 63,281.50

25 Regulatory and Legislative Matters, and Related Financial Analysis 75.3 49,203.50

26 Travel Time - Non Working Travel (Capped at 2 Hours Per Trip) 24.0 26,680.00

27 Project Administration 38.0 29,070.00

29 Time and Expenses Tracking - -

31 Fee Application Preparation 124.5 69,727.50

Grand Total 2,323.8 1,712,051.00

Task Description

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5110-2 Filed: 12/13/19 Entered: 12/13/19 16:49:23 Page 2

of 2
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
RO BERT MURDOCH AND AMY LEIGH MURDOCH , A ppellant s, v. Case No. 5D 15

- 460
BAN K OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL. , A ppellee s. ________________________________/
O pinion filed October 25, 2016 Appeal f rom t he Circuit C ourt for O range County , J ohn H. A dams, S enior J udge. Mark P. Stopa, of Stopa Law Firm, Tampa, for Appellant s. W. A. Daniel, William D. Mueller and Elliot B. Kula, of Kula & Associates, P.A. , for Appellee , Bank of America, N.A.

. No Appearance for Other Appellees.

P ER CURIAM.
S ee Bank of America, N.A . v. Siefker , No. 4D14

- 1923, (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 13, 2016); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co . v. Hagstrom , 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1671, ( Fla. 2d
DCA Jul. 20, 2016)

. AFFIRMED.

T ORPY, COHEN and BERGER , JJ., concur.
### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O ct obe r 28, 200 9 S es sio n CASSANDRA LYNN RU DD v. HO WARD THO MAS RUDD Direc t Appeal from the Gener al Session s Court for Hardin Cou nty No. 6677 Daniel L. Smith, Ju dge

No. W2009-00251-C OA-R3-C V - Filed Dec ember 9, 2009

HOL L Y M. KI RBY, J., CONCURR I NG SEPARATEL Y: Ic on c ur in t he Court ’s de c isi on

bu t wri te se pa

rate ly to cl a ri fy my

vie w o f t he e vid e nc e a s it relates to S.R. I believe that the evidenc e would support a fi n d i ng by the trial cour

t, by clea r and c on vin c inge vid e nc e , th a t any vis itatio n w ithF a the r w ou ld r e su lt i n h a rm to S .R. Ho we ve r, be c a

us e the tr ia l c ourt

did no t make the re qu ir e d fi nd ing of ha rm , I a g re e wi th t

he de c isi on

to r e mand

the c a se on the issue of visitation. L ikewise, I

believe that there is evidence in the record to support limit ing F ather ’s statutory pare ntal rig hts as to S.R. to the ex tent that they involve contac t with S.R ., such as the sta tutory rig ht to participate in S.R .’s school ac tiviti es, athletic a ctivities, church a ctivities, telephone c alls with her, and unopene d mail. Howeve r, I ag ree with the Court’s decision to vac ate the tr ial court’s de cision a nd re mand on thi s is su e , b e c a

us e the tr ia l c ourt

ma de no fi nd ing s o n S. R.’ s b e st i nte re sts
. I n all other re spect, I

fully concur .

__________________________________________

H O L L Y M
. K I R B Y , J.