alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.3(f)


                    SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Seventh Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of
July 18, 2000, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
("Employer") and Robert M. Gans ("Executive").


                                    RECITALS

     A)   On September 20, 1994 an Employment Agreement was made and entered
          into by and between Executive and Employer's Assignor, Price
          Enterprises, Inc.

     B)   On April 11, 1996, Section 2.3 of the Employment Agreement was
          amended, such that Executive became entitled to three weeks paid
          vacation each year.

     C)   On July 23 1996, Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement was amended,
          such that Executive's annual base salary was increased to $175,000.

     D)   On April 28, 1997, Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement was
          amended, such that Executive's employment term was extended to October
          16, 1998.

     E)   On August 29, 1997, the Employment Agreement and amendments thereto
          were assigned by Price Enterprises, Inc. to Employer.

     F)   On September 2, 1997, Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement was
          amended, such that Executive's employment term was extended to October
          16, 2000.

     G)   Effective October 1, 1999, Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement was
          amended, such that Executive's annual base salary was increased to
          $180,000.

     H)   Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment
          Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:


                                    AGREEMENT

          1)   Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement, which currently
               provides:

               3.1  TERM. The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall
               commence on October 17, 1994 and shall continue until October 16,
               2000 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided
               (the "Employment Term").

is hereby amended, effective as of July 18, 2000, to provide as follows:

               3.1  TERM. The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall
                    commence on October 17, 1994 and shall continue until
                    October 16, 2001 unless sooner terminated or extended as
                    hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").

<PAGE>

          2)   All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall
               remain unaltered and fully effective.



Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.




EXECUTIVE                                                EMPLOYER
                                                PRICESMART, INC.

/s/ Robert M. Gans                              By:  /s/ Allan C. Youngberg
----------------------
                                                Name: Allan C. Youngberg

                                                Its: Executive Vice President
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13280]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1112-DR]


Illinois; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Illinois, (FEMA-1112-DR), dated May 6, 1996, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pauline C. Campbell, Response and 
Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 
DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Illinois, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 6, 1996:

Adams, Brown, Hamilton, Hancock, Menard, Schuyler and Vermilion 
Counties for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation.
Cass, Douglas, Jackson, Sangamon, White and Williamson Counties for 
Individual Assistance, Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
Dennis H. Kwiatkowski,
Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-13280 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 614 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 614

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit earmarks 
                        to for-profit entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 7, 2009

   Mr. Quigley (for himself, Mr. Flake, and Mr. Kirk) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit earmarks 
                        to for-profit entities.

    Resolved, That (a) clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives is amended by adding the following new paragraph:
    ``(h) It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, or conference report if that measure or any 
accompanying report or joint explanatory statement of managers contains 
a congressional earmark for an organization other than an organization 
which is exempt from the tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 or a governmental entity.''.
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall only be applicable 
if the underlying bill or joint resolution is reported after the date 
of adoption of this resolution or considered pursuant to a special 
order of business agreed to after the date of adoption of this 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Scott Daniel Warren,

Defendant. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. M 18-01455-N/A(BPV)

ORDER

On motion of the Government,

IT IS ORDERED that a Status Conference is scheduled before Magistrate Judge

Velasco on February 7, 2018, at 9:20 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if a Change of Plea Hearing is going to be

conducted at that time, the Government must file an Information, and defense counsel must

file a Notice of Hearing, no later than noon on February 6, 2018. If the parties have entered

into a Stipulation for Release of Material Witnesses, such Stipulation shall be provided to the

Court at the hearing.

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2018.

Case 4:18-mj-01455-N/A-BPV Document 15 Filed 01/24/18 Page 1 of 1
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
      Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware, March 31, 1997
No.                                                                     SHARES

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

                              PRIME COMPANIES, INC.

 Authorized Capital Stock, 50,000,000 Common Shares, Par Value $0.0001 Per Share


   THIS CERTIFIES THAT _________________________________  is the owner of

            ____________________________________ Shares of the Capital Stock of

                              PRIME COMPANIES, INC.

     transferable  only on the books of the  Corporation by the holder hereof in
     person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

          IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the said Corporation has caused this Certificate
     to be signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal
     of      the       Corporation       this       ________________day       of
     _______________________A.D.19____________

__________________________________            _______________________________
  Secretary                                   President
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09

- 23

- 000 05

- CR



### ________________

JOAQUIN GARCIA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 21

- 38293

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found A ppellant Joaquin Garcia guilty of murder and sentenced him to

life in prison within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 19.02

.

Garcia’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that present s counsel ’ s

professional evaluation of the record and conclude s the appeal is frivolous ; he

simultaneously filed a motion to withdraw as counsel

. See Anders v. California , 3862 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On May

15

, 2023, we granted an extension of time for Garcia to file a pro se brief and notified

h im o f the deadline for doing so . We received no response from Garcia

.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel ’ s

conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counse l to re

- brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford

v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court ’ s

judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT

Justice

Submitted on August 17, 2023

Opinion Delivered September 13, 2023

Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1 Garcia may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fernando Gastelum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Midtown Hotel Group LLC, 

Defendant. 

NO. CV-17-04542-PHX-DJH

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

 Pursuant to Plaintiff having accepted Defendant's offer of judgment, judgment is 

hereby entered against Defendant as follows: 

1. Defendant will (within 60 days) identify and describe on its website accessible 

features found in each of the following areas of the hotel: (1) Parking and Loading 

Zone; (2) Exterior Routes; (3) Building Entrances and Lobby; (4) Interior Routes; 

(5) Public/Common Use Restrooms; (6) Accessible Guestrooms and Suites; (7) 

Accessible Guestroom Bathrooms; and (8) Pool/Spa area. 

2. Defendant will (within 60 days) communicate the above referenced accessible 

features to all third party booking agents who facilitate online or telephonic 

reservations for Defendant's hotel. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of 

this communication. 

 3. Defendant will (within 60 days) modify its policies, practices and procedures to 

ensure that individuals who require mobility and/or ambulatory assistance can make 

reservations for accessible guest rooms during the same hours and in the same 

Case 2:17-cv-04542-DJH Document 22 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

manner as individuals who do not require mobility and/or ambulatory assistance. 

Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of the modified policies, practices and 

procedures referenced herein. 

4. Defendant shall (within 90 days) identify mobility accessibility features at its hotel 

that do not comply with the 2010 Standards of Accessibility Design and shall, 

within 12 months, remove barriers to mobility accessibility to the extent that such 

removal is readily achievable. 

 This matter is hereby terminated.

 Brian D. Karth

 District Court Executive/Clerk of Court

March 1, 2018 

s/ Leann Dixon

 By Deputy Clerk

 

Case 2:17-cv-04542-DJH Document 22 Filed 03/01/18 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Marcus Segal, Chief
Financial Officer of Star Energy Corporation (the Company), certifies, under
the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                    |                              
|------------------- | -----------------------------
|Date: June 18, 2007 | Marcus Segal                 
|                    | Marcus Segal                 
|                    | Chief Financial Officer      
|                    | (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### CARLSON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Respondent, v. HANRAHAN ASPHALT PAVING CO., INC., Appellant.

No. WD 40368.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 25, 1988.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 29, 1988.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 17, 1989.

Richard W. Miller, Peter R. Healy and Steven R. Miller of Miller & Bash, P.C., Kansas City, for appellant.

Gordon R. Gaebler, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, P.J., and MANFORD and COVINGTON, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Direct appeal from a judgment for damages for breach of contract.

Respondent’s Motion for Damages for Frivolous Appeal is overruled. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss appeal is overruled.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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 Sagamore Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      1. The Report fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.


Date:    May 12, 2006                           By:      /s/ Daniel Shea
                                                         -----------------------
                                                Name:    Daniel Shea
                                                Title:   Chief Executive Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sagamore
Holdings, Inc. and will be retained Sagamore Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                   SIGNATURES

      In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized.

Date:    May 12, 2006                SAGAMORE HOLDINGS, INC.


                                      By:    /s/ Daniel Shea
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Daniel Shea
                                             Chief Executive Officer,
                                             Acting Chief Financial Officer and
                                             Acting Principal Accounting Officer


                                       31
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tracy JONES, Appellant, Tracy JONES, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 67920, 69579.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

May 21, 1996.

Ellen H. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Tracy L. Jones, appeals from his judgments of conviction, following a jury trial, for murder in the first degree and armed criminal action. He was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole and a consecutive term of life imprisonment, respectively. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

As to defendant’s direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The judgment of the trial court denying defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Oliver T. Carr, III, certify that:1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 ofColumbia Equity Trust, Inc.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (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 disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986, Section III.E.];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) 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 controlover financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: August 14, 2006 /s/ Oliver T. Carr, III   Oliver T. Carr, III   President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Millard L. SWENSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 41018, WD 41065.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 11, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 1, 1989.

*674Sean D. O’Brien, Public Defender, John L. Vohs, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, P.J., and SHANGLER and BERREY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal Millard L. Swenson challenges the dismissal of his second and third motions for post-conviction relief. We affirmed his underlying multiple jury convictions of kidnapping and sodomy and his sentences totaling 620 years’ imprisonment in *State v. Swenson,*551 S.W.2d 917 (Mo.App.1977). In his three attempts to vacate his kidnapping and sodomy convictions, appellant alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel.

Appellant filed his first motion pursuant to Rule 27.26 in 1979. The trial court denied post-conviction relief in 1981 after an evidentiary hearing and we affirmed in *Swenson v. State,*637 S.W.2d 275 (Mo.App.1982).

On January 4, 1988, appellant again sought post-conviction relief in a motion treated as filed under Rule 29.15 because of the repeal of Rule 27.26. The trial court summarily dismissed appellant’s second motion on July 25, 1988.

Appellant’s third motion for post-conviction relief was filed pursuant to Rule 29.15 on June 28, 1988, and dismissed as a successive motion in violation of Rule 29.15(k) on August 5, 1988.

We affirm.

In both appeals appellant presents identical legal arguments. Arguing the applicability of the provisions of repealed Rule 27.26(d), appellant asserts that his motions were improperly dismissed because he presented claims of ineffective assistance of counsel not raised in prior motions and not known to him earlier.

Appellant’s argument lacks merit. Effective January 1, 1988, Rule 27.26 was repealed and replaced by Rules 24.035 and 29.15. The new rules expressly prohibit all successive motions. Rules 24.035(k) and 29.15(k). Further, Rules 24.035(Z) and 29.-15(m) implicitly bar motions from persons, such as appellant, who were sentenced before 1988 and have completed one Rule 27.26 motion. *See, Hutchins v. State,*761 S.W.2d 761, 762 (Mo.App.1988); *accord Byrd v. Armontrout,*686 F.Supp. 743, 753 (E.D.Mo.1988).

Sentenced in 1975 and denied Rule 27.26 relief in 1981, appellant could not avail himself of Rule 29.15. The trial court appropriately dismissed both motions. We accordingly affirm.
Case 2:17-cr-01435-JAT Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01435-JAT Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01435-JAT Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01435-JAT Document 1 Filed 09/14/17 Page 4 of 4