alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 

AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN 

ROBERT C. BARRY, JR., 

FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK AND FEDFIRST FINANCIAL CORPORATION 

WHEREAS, Robert C. Barry, Jr. (the “Executive”) entered into an employment agreement with First Federal Savings Bank (the
“Bank”) and FedFirst Financial Corporation (the “Company”) effective March 31, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Bank has resolved to amend the Employment Agreement effective April 1, 2010, to reflect an adjustment in
the Executive’s annual base salary; and 
 WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement was further amended to provide that modifications to
Executive’s base salary in the future will not require an amendment to the Employment Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Bank, the
Company and the Executive hereby consent to the following: 
 Effective April 1, 2010, Section 4(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted
in its entirety and replaced with the following new Section 4(a): 
 “The Bank agrees to pay the executive an annual salary
of $167,500, payable in accordance with the customary payroll practices of the Bank. The Executive’s annual salary, as the same may be modified from time to time, is referred to in this Agreement as the “base salary.””

  

					
	ATTEST:	    		  	FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
			
	 /s/ DaCosta Smith, III
	    		  	 /s/ John J. LaCarte

			
	ATTEST:	    		  	FEDFIRST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
			
	 /s/ DaCosta Smith, III
	    		  	 /s/ John J. LaCarte

			
	ATTEST:	    		  	
			
	 /s/ DaCosta Smith, III
	    		  	 /s/ Robert C. Barry, Jr.

		    		  	Robert C. Barry, Jr.
#### Christopher PRUSINOWSKI, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 67839.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 17, 1995.

*173Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Movant plead guilty to the charge of assault first degree. On October 12, 1993, the court sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment. This is an appeal from an order denying Rule 24.035 relief on the conviction without an evidentiary hearing.

Movant contends the plea was involuntary because the court “induced” the plea by a statement which “strongly suggested it would allow [movant] to withdraw his plea of guilty” if he did not grant probation. The claim is not supported by the facts.

At the plea hearing, the prosecuting attorney recited the plea agreement. He recommended fifteen years, “open on the issue of probation.” The court ascertained from movant, under oath, that: (1) he understood the agreement; (2) the agreement was not “guaranteed”; (3) if the court rejected the plea it was obligated to allow movant to withdraw the plea; and, (4) there were no threats or promises other than the plea agreement to cause the guilty plea.

The court told movant the purpose of a pre-sentence investigation and advised him that an unfavorable recommendation was not a reason to withdraw the plea. Movant mistakenly believed the court would grant probation or allow withdrawal of the plea is rebutted by the further statement of the court: “[The pre-sentence report] may come back favorable to probation and I might disagree with it.... In other words, you are stuck with you[r] plea here today once we complete it.” Here, the court could have rejected the recommendation of probation and impose the agreed fifteen year sentence on a plea which movant was “stuck with.”

The proceedings affirmatively refute any contention the statements of the court misled movant or his trial counsel. Thus, movant’s claim of a mistaken belief fails. *See McCall v. State,*771 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Mo.App.1989).

We affirm.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

10/1/2015 COA No. 02-11-00087-CR

GARD, RICHARL ALLAN Tr. Ct. No. 1184098D PD-1300-15

The appellant’s pro se petition for discretionary review has this day been received

and filed.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

RICHARD ALLAN GARD

TDC# 1712695

DUNCAN UNIT

1502 S. FIRST ST.

DIBOLL, TX 75941OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

10/1/2015 COA No. 02-11-00087-CR

GARD, RICHARL ALLAN Tr. Ct. No. 1184098D PD-1300-15

The appellant’s pro se petition for discretionary review has this day been received

and filed.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

DISTRICT ATTORNEY TARRANT COUNTY

SHAREN WILSON

401 WEST BELKNAP

FORT WORTH, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

10/1/2015 COA No. 02-11-00087-CR

GARD, RICHARL ALLAN Tr. Ct. No. 1184098D PD-1300-15

The appellant’s pro se petition for discretionary review has this day been received

and filed.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

LISA MCMINN

STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

P.O. BOX 13046

AUSTIN, TX 78711

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

10/1/2015 COA No. 02-11-00087-CR

GARD, RICHARL ALLAN Tr. Ct. No. 1184098D PD-1300-15

The appellant’s pro se petition for discretionary review has this day been received

and filed.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

2ND COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

DEBRA SPISAK

401 W. BELKNAP, STE 9000

FORT WORTH, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SIMIONE CENTRAL HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,532,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,957,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,114,937
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               583,636
<PP&E>                                       1,787,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,532,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,756,920
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,972
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,357,401
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,532,507
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,427,921
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,478,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,257,355
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                643,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            643,134
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   643,134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
ri ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN RE THE PETITION OF 

ALIZABETH A. BRONSDON 

PR 24-0004 FLED 

SEP 2 7 2024 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Alizabeth A. Bronsdon has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the 

State Bar of Montana after having been on inactive status since September 2023. 

IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of 

Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in the state of Montana. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner has shown that Petitioner's occupation 

during inactive status is sufficient to warrant admission to active status without being 

required to make up continuing legal education requirements for the time Petitioner was 

on inactive status. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this 27th day of September 2024. 

For the Court, 

09/27/2024

Case Number: PR 24-0004
PUBLIC VERSION Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

CASE IMMOBILIZER is a molded plastic switch housing, and is used only for automotive purposes, of

which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for further assembly of components which go into

domestic automobile production, which is specified by auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the CASE

IMMOBILIZER in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP

exclusion instructions:

"CASE IMMOBILIZER circular housing with a raised surface encircling the circumference, a plastic

five-sided clip at the 3 o'clock position on the diameter of the circular housing extending appx back 90

degrees from the surface orientation; and a plastic rectangular connector housing extending appx back

90degrees from the surface orientation of the circular housing Plastic Case; Made of resin 58.00 mm X

45.00 mm X 48.50 mm"

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.

PUBLIC VERSION
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6064

Aisin World Corp. of America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4369

ECM Industries LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE

PETITION OF JERMAINE

CARTER FOR A WRIT OF

MANDAMUS §

§ No. 174, 2022

§

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§

§ Cr. ID No. 0810013184 (N)

§

§

Submitted: July 12, 2022

Decided: July 18 , 2022

ORDER

O n June 29, 2022 , the Chief Deputy Court Clerk issued a notice, sent by

certified mail, directing the appellant, Jermaine Carter , to show cause why his appeal

should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the Supreme Court filing fee or fil e a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis

. Carter received the notice on July 1, 2022 . A

timely response to the notice to show cause was due on or before July 11, 2022 . To

date, Carter has not paid the Sup reme Court filing fee, filed a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis , or responded to the notice to show cause. Dismissal of this action

is therefore deemed to be unopposed.2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court

Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 524 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 524

 To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an exemption for 
                    certain shoreline borrow sites.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2023

  Mr. Rouzer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an exemption for 
                    certain shoreline borrow sites.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION TO COASTAL BARRIER RESTRICTIONS FOR SHORELINE 
              BORROW SITES.

    Section 6 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3505) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Borrow Site.--Section 5 shall not apply to expenditures or 
financial assistance relating to the use of funds to use a borrow site 
located within the System if such site has been in use as a borrow site 
by a coastal storm risk management project for a period of more than 15 
years.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (Nos. 333-03781, 333-32933 and 333-51349) and Form S-8 (No. 333-09869),
of our report dated February 26, 2003, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Southern Energy Homes, Inc. included in
this Annual Report (Form 10K) for the year ended January 3, 2003.



                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Birmingham, Alabama
March 31, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. AMADO ANTONIO CARTAGENA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00153-FDW-DCK-1)

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 23, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished by per curiam opinion.

Amado Antonio Cartagena, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Amado Antonio Cartagena seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered judgment on September 14, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on January 4, 2009. * Because Cartagena failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
February 21, 2024

No. 04

- 23

- 00318

- CR

IN RE Isaias PAZ

- ESTRADA , et al

. Original Proceeding 1

ORDER On April 4, 2023, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. On June 6, 2023, we received notice that relator Alberto Garcia Galvan ’s request for relief is now moot. Accordingly,
we DISMISS relator Galvan’s request for relief as moot.
As for the rema ining seventeen relators, after considering the petition, real party in interest’s response, relators’ reply, amicus briefing, and this record, this court concludes relators are not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of manda mus is DENIED

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a)

. It is so ORDERED on February 21, 2024

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of February, 2024

.

_____________________________ Tommy Stolhandske , Clerk of Court

1 Th is proceeding arises out of eighteen civil bond forfeiture cases involving the State of Texas and the following defendants and their trial cause numbers: Isaias Paz

- Estrada, Cause No. 1096; Jorge Luis de la Cruz

- Cordova, Cause No. 1110 ; Marcelo Hernandez

- P ablo, Cause No. 1111 ; Diego Villarreal Castellanos, Cause No. 1112 ; Jose Domingo Palacio Lazarin , Cause No. 1113 ; Oribel Martinez Leon, Cause No. 1220 ; Roque Alvarez Arias, Cause No. 1242 ; Pedro Marcos Ruiz, Cause No. 1246 ; Romario Lopez Jimenez, Cause No. 1249 ; Alberto Garcia Galvan, Cause No. 1254 ; Walter Gonzalez Rueda, Cause No. 1256 ; Jorge Luis Olalde

- Gustavo; Cause No. 1275 ; Luis Adrian Medina

Gonzalez, Cause No. 1277 ; Joel Santiago Zamora, Cause No. 1278 ; Juan Ignasi o Gonzalez Abundis, Cause No. 1279 ; Carlos Oviedo Oviedo, Cause No. 1280 ;Oscar Gerado Posadas

- Garcias, Cause No. 1283; and Abenmar Cordova Cacho, Cause No. 1311 all pending in the County Court , Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable David E. Garcia presiding.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5716

A.W. Chesterton Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel