alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT TO OSI DIRECTORS DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND STOCK PLAN


     

    Exhibit
      10.8


    AMENDMENT
      TO OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE, INC.

     

    DIRECTORS’
      DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND STOCK PLAN

     

    


     

    WHEREAS,
      in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan
      of
      Merger among Kangaroo Holdings, Inc., Kangaroo Acquisition, Inc. and Outback
      Steakhouse, Inc. (the “Company”), dated as of November 5, 2006 (the “Merger
      Agreement”), the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and the Compensation Committee
      of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) have determined as required by the
      Merger Agreement to amend and construe the Outback Steakhouse, Inc. Directors’
Deferred Compensation and Stock Plan (the “Plan”) as permitted by Section 8 of
      the Plan and consistent with the Board’s and the Committee’s authority under
      Section 2 of the Plan. 

     

    NOW
      THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective immediately with respect to
      all
      accounts thereunder, as follows:

     

    Section
      5
      of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following at the end thereof:


    


    Notwithstanding
      anything to the contrary in the Plan or otherwise, at the “Effective Time” (as
      defined in the Agreement
      and Plan of Merger among Kangaroo Holdings, Inc., Kangaroo Acquisition, Inc.
      and
      the Corporation, dated as of November 5, 2006 (the “Merger Agreement”),
each
      Share Unit credited to a Deferral Account shall be converted into the right
      to
      receive the “Merger Consideration” (as defined in the Merger Agreement) and
      payments under the Plan shall be made immediately upon the Effective Time (it
      being understood that the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement
      will
      constitute a “change in the ownership or effective control” of the Corporation
      within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
      amended).

    


    Except
      as
      expressly modified hereby, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain
      in
      full force and effect. In the event the Merger Agreement is terminated in
      accordance with its terms, this Amendment shall be void ab
      initio
      and of
      no force and effect.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Norwood H. (Trip) Davis, III, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of TRX, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: April 25, 2008

/s/ Norwood H. (Trip) Davis,
III

Norwood H. (Trip) Davis, III

Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors

Destination Maternity Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-59309, 333-12321, 333-27611 and 333-90110) and registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos.33-64580, 33-89726, 333-2404, 333-3480, 333-59529, 333-57766, 333-112158 and 333-137136) of Destination Maternity Corporation (formerly Mothers Work, Inc.) of our reports dated December 14, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheetsof Destination Maternity Corporation and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years inthe three-year period ended September 30, 2010, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2010, which reports appear in the September 30, 2010annual report on Form 10-K of Destination Maternity Corporation. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

December 14, 2010
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AvizaTechnology, Inc. (the “Company”), the undersigned Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to his knowledge:

 

(1)           the accompanyingreport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periodspresented therein.

 
| Date: August 10, 2006 |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
|                  |
| By:                   | /s/ Jerauld J. Cutini |   |
|                  | Jerauld J. Cutini |
|                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Phillip DEMAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49986.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 9, 1995.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Demay appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 postconvietion motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to file a Writ of Prohibition on the claim that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, § 217.450 *et seq.,*RSMo 1994.

The denial of the Rule 29.15 motion is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.18 OF THE POOLING AND SERVICING
                       AGREEMENT DATED AS OF JULY 27, 1999


                    BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
                MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1999-8


I, Robert S. O'Neill, Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A. (the
"Servicer"), Subservicer for BA Mortgage, LLC, successor in interest by merger
of NationsBanc Mortgage Corporation (the "Servicer"), the Servicer in connection
with Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 1999-8, do hereby certify that
(i) a review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar
year and of its performance under this Agreement (the "Agreement") has been made
under my supervision, (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
the Servicer has fulfilled in all material aspects its obligations under the
Agreement throughout such year.

Certified on this 4th day of March 2003.

                                    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


                                       By:
                                          ------------------------------
                                            Name:  Robert S. O'Neill
                                            Title: Senior Vice President

Inv M57
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the quarterly Report of Derby Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Frank Pioppi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.  June 10, 2009 /s/Frank Pioppi     Chief Executive Officer
**Certification**I, William J. McGurk, President and Chief Executive Officer of Rockville Financial, Inc.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rockville Financial, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, basedon such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       November 14, 2005   /s/ Mr. William J. McGurk             Mr. William J. McGurk      President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of BlastGard International, Inc. (formerly Opus Resource Group, Inc.), that, to his knowledge, the Annual
Report of the company on Form 10-KSB, as amended, for the period ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the companys financial condition and results of operations.



March 15, 2005



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Gordon                     
|Michael J. Gordon, Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5697 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure veterans may obtain 

a physical copy of a certain form by mail or at medical facilities of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself and Mr. PAPPAS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure veterans may obtain a physical copy of a certain form 

by mail or at medical facilities of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5697 IH

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

2 AFFAIRS TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO VETERANS 

3 PHYSICAL COPIES OF COVERED FORM FOR 

4 REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN TRAVEL EX5 PENSES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 shall prescribe regulations to ensure that— 

8 (1) a veteran may, for the purposes of submit9 ting a claim for the reimbursement of expenses for 

10 travel under section 111 of title 38, United States 

11 Code— 

12 (A) obtain a physical copy of the covered 

13 form— 

14 (i) by mail, upon the request of such 

15 veteran; or 

16 (ii) at any medical facility of the De17 partment; and 

18 (B) submit the covered form at any such 

19 medical facility; and 

20 (2) any such medical facility to which a veteran 

21 submits the covered form— 

22 (A) evaluates such covered form; and 

23 (B) processes such claim associated with 

24 such covered form, if applicable. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5697 IH

1 (b) COVERED FORM DEFINED.—In this section, the 

2 term ‘‘covered form’’ means Department of Veterans Af3 fairs Form 10–3452 (or any successor document). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2005 of Acergy S.A. (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date
hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Stuart Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |                                       
|----------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2006 |  | /S/ STUART JACKSON                    
|                  |  | Stuart Jackson Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Acergy S.A. and will be retained by Acergy S.A. and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6611

Nissan North America, Inc:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50422 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAIME RODRIGUEZ-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-816-ALL-AML

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Jaime Rodriguez-Moreno (Rodriguez) appeals from his guiltyplea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. Rodriguez first argues that his sentence is unconstitutional because it was enhanced for a prior aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Rodriguez correctly acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed; he raises the issue solely to preserve it for further review. See Almendarez-TorresNo. 04-50422 -2- v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998); see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). For the first time on appeal, Rodriguez argues that his enhanced sentence violates United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because it was based upon facts that were neither submitted to a jury nor admitted by Rodriguez. Specifically, Rodriguez contends that the district court committed plain error with respect to the U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) and (e) criminal history determinations that Rodriguez committed the instant offense 1) while on supervised release and 2) within two years after his release from custody on his prior drug-trafficking conviction. He further contends that his sentence is unconstitutional because it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory application of the sentencing guidelines. Because Rodriguez did not raise these issues in the district court, this court reviews the arguments for plain error. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this standard, Rodriguez must show: (1) an error; (2) that is clear or plain; (3) that affected his substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of his judicial proceedings. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993).No. 04-50422 -3- Rodriguez makes no showing that the district court would likely have sentenced him differently under the Booker advisory scheme. Similarly, there is no indication from the district court’s remarks at sentencing that it would have reached a different conclusion. Because Rodriguez has not demonstrated that his substantial rights were affected, his arguments fail to survive plain-error review. See Mares , 402 F.3d at 521-22; Valenzuela-Quevedo 407 F.3d at 733-34.

AFFIRMED.
#### Willie JORDAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 61017.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 25, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 15, 1992.

Frank A. Anzalone, Clayton, for movant, appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robin H. Grissom, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent, respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WARREN C. HAVENS, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

LEONG PARTNERSHIP, 

Appellee.

No. 18-15679 

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02882-WHO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Warren Havens appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the 

bankruptcy court’s award of attorneys’ fees under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) following the 

dismissal of an involuntary Chapter 11 petition Havens filed against Leong 

Partnership. We review the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of bankruptcy 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

statutes de novo, without deference to the district court’s review. Vibe Micro, Inc. 

v. SIG Capital, Inc. (Matter of 8Speed8, Inc.), 921 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 2019), 

cert. denied, 2019 WL 4922757 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2019) (No. 19-137). We “will not 

disturb a bankruptcy court’s award of attorney’s fees unless the court abused its 

discretion or erroneously applied the law.” Orange Blossom Ltd. P’ship v. 

Southern Calif. Sunbelt Developers, Inc. (In re S. Cal. Sunbelt Developers, Inc.),

608 F.3d 456, 461 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly treated Arnold Leong as a debtor for 

purposes of an award of attorneys’ fees under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) because the 

bankruptcy petition alleged that he was a general partner of debtor Leong 

Partnership. See 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) (authorizing an award of “a reasonable 

attorney’s fee” in favor of the debtor); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9001(5)(B) (providing that 

“if the debtor is partnership, ‘debtor’ includes any or all of its general partners”).

Using the lodestar method, the bankruptcy court properly exercised its 

discretion in awarding bankruptcy counsel’s requested fee in full; in concluding 

that litigation counsel’s work was necessary; and in reducing litigation counsels’ 

requested fee by 20% based on duplication of effort and block billing. See In re S. 

Cal. Sunbelt Developers, Inc., 608 F.3d at 461 (standard of review); In re Hunt, 

238 F.3d 1098, 1105 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding, on review of an award of attorneys’ 

fees under 11 U.S.C. § 523(d), that the lodestar method is the primary method used 
3 

to determine a reasonable fee in a bankruptcy case).

Appellant’s motion for a stay (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied.

Appellant’s motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 20-22) are 

denied.

AFFIRMED.