alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First Amendment to Letter Agreement between NCR Corporation and Anthony Massetti



 EXHIBIT 10.33.1 
 December 18, 2008 
 Mr. Anthony Massetti 
 NCR Corporation 
 1700 South Patterson Boulevard 
 Dayton, Ohio 45479 
 Dear Mr. Massetti: 
 This letter agreement documents the changes that constitute the first amendment (the “First Amendment”) to the letter agreement between us dated November 19, 2007. This First Amendment amends the letter
agreement as described below. All provisions of the letter agreement not modified herein shall remain in full force and effect, except as the Compensation and Human Resource Committee of the NCR Corporation Board of Directors (the
“Committee”) has otherwise modified as documented in the minutes of the Committee. 
 1. The following shall be added at the end of
the sixth sentence in the section captioned “Arbitration”: 
 “at any time from the Start Date through your
remaining lifetime (or, if longer, through the twentieth (20th) anniversary of the Start Date). To the extent that reimbursement for reasonable attorneys fees and expenses and arbitration expenses is considered “deferred compensation”
within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), then any such reimbursement must be made no later than the end of the calendar year in which you are declared the prevailing
party.” 
 2. The following section shall be added following the section captioned “Arbitration”: 
 Section 409A of the Code – While the tax treatment of the payments and benefits provided under this letter is not warranted
or guaranteed, it is intended that such payments and benefits shall either be exempt from, or comply with, the requirements of Section 409A of the Code. This Agreement shall be construed, administered and governed in a manner that effects such
intent. In particular, and without limiting the foregoing, any reimbursements or in-kind benefits provided under this letter that are taxable benefits (and are not disability pay or death benefit plans within the meaning of Section 409A of the
Code) shall be subject to the following rules: (i) any such reimbursements shall be paid no later than the end of the calendar year next following the calendar year in which you incur the reimbursable expenses, (ii) the amount of
reimbursable expenses or in-kind benefits that NCR is obligated to pay or provide during any given calendar year shall not affect the amount of reimbursable expenses or in-kind benefits that NCR is obligated to pay or provide during any other
calendar year, and (iii) your right 








 
to have NCR reimburse expenses or provide in-kind benefits may not be liquidated or exchanged for any other benefit. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	NCR Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Andrea Ledford

	Name:	 	Andrea Ledford
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President, Human Resources

 Agreed and Accepted 
 This 31 day of December, 2008 
  

	
	 /s/ Anthony Massetti

	Anthony Massetti
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 12, 2019

N o. 04

- 19

- 00269

- CR

Manuel HUIZAR

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR8912

Honorable Laura Parker

, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal is DISMISSED.

It is so ORDERED on June 12, 2019

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of June, 2019

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL ANTHONY JONES, a/k/a Spunk , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00099

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : June 29, 2022 Decided: July 20, 2022

Before KING and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael Anthony Jones , Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7009 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Jones appeals the district court’s order s d ismissing without prejudice his motion s for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L.
No. 115

- 391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 , and denying his motions for compassionate
release and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we a ffirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jones , No. 5:11

- cr - 00099

- FL

- 1 (E.D.N.C. June 17, 2021) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7009 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-51009 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT EDWARD BEATON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-98-CR-255-2

October 27, 2000

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Edward Beaton appeals his jury conviction for illegal

reentry into the United States after deportation. He argues that

the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had been

previously deported because the Government did not introduce into

e vidence a copy of the order of deportation. Beaton does not

dispute that the evidence established that he was an alien and that2

he reentered the United States without the Attorney General’s

c onsent to reenter. A review of the record indicates that the

evidence, including the testimony of Border Patrol Agent Patrick

Hernandez and the documents contained in the A-file No. A 36709542

such as the record of deportable alien and related warrant, INS

Form 294, and the Warrant of Deportation (Govt. Exhibits 2, 3, 4,

and 5), was sufficient to establish that Beaton had been previously

deported. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1326; United States v. Ramirez-Gamez

, 171

F.3d 236, 238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 120 S.Ct. 195 (1999);

United States v. Flores-Peraza , 58 F.3d 164, 166 (5th Cir. 1995).

If it were necessary to prove that the deportation was pursuant to

an order of deportation, that was adequately shown by the

reference d documents and testimony, even though the order of

deportation itself was not put in evidence. See United States v.

Quezada , 754 F.2d 1190, 1193-95 (5th Cir. 1985).

AFFIRMED.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTT BEHNKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HIDDEN OAKS GROUP INC.,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 08-14035

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO ADJOURN FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

Pursuant to a Scheduling Order dated October 14, 2008, a final pretrial conference

is scheduled in this matter for April 22, 2009. Defendant filed a motion on April 14,

2009, asking the Court to adjourn the conference to a later date because defense counsel

now is scheduled to undergo orthopaedic surgery on April 22 to treat a recent injury. 

Defendant indicates that numerous requests for Plaintiff’s concurrence have been sent to

Plaintiff’s counsel, but Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded. Defendant also asks the

Court to impose costs pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) for

unreasonable withholding of consent. Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion,

objecting to the continuance because, Plaintiff argues, another attorney could stand in for

Defendant’s attorney.

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 40.2 provides the following with respect

2:08-cv-14035-PJD-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 04/15/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 42
2

to continuances of matters set for pretrial:

Counsel or any party without counsel shall be prepared and

present themselves as ready in all cases set for trial or for

pretrial on the date set unless, on timely application and good

cause shown, the cases are continued. 

E.D. Mich. LR 40.2. This Court finds Defendant’s motion timely and that the asserted

reason for the request establishes good cause for the continuance. Accordingly, the Court

grants Defendant’s Motion to Adjourn Final Pretrial Conference and reschedules the

final pretrial conference for April 29, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. The Court will address

Defendant’s request for costs pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) at the final pretrial

conference.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: April 15, 2009

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to:

Brian P. Parker, Esq.

Steven A. Siman, Esq.

2:08-cv-14035-PJD-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 04/15/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 43
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2686

BARRINGTON F. WATKIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL P. W. STONE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

THE ARMY; RICHARD CHENEY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CHARLES M. WIKER, Defense

Commissary Agency European Region; A. NEAL

NEWMAN, DA, Hq; LAWRENCE N. SELF, DA, Hq;

MR. CURTIS, DOD, Manager, Defense Commissary

Agency; MICHAEL LUDD, DOD, Product Manager,

Defense Commissary Agency; JAMES BECKER,

Colonel; WILLIAM H. OTT, Colonel,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-95-91-A)

Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barrington F. Watkis, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Rehnquist, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order (1) denying his

motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying his motion for

appointment of counsel and (2) denying his motion for recusal. Our

review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Watkis v. Stone, No. CA-95-91-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 7,

1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
99.2








CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Siga
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended October 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arun
Kumar, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





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





2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.








Date:
December 5, 2008








ARUN
KUMAR


Arun
Kumar


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director











-1-
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16536]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER96-1818-000]

Alliance Power Marketing, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 24, 1996.
    Alliance Power Marketing, Inc. (Alliance Power) submitted for 
filing a rate schedule under which Alliance Power will engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. 
Alliance Power also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. 
In particular, Alliance Power requested that the Commission grant 
blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of 
securities and assumptions of liability by Alliance Power.
    On June 17, 1996, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Alliance Power 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).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Alliance Power is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Alliance Power's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 17, 1996.
    Copies of the full text of the order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16536 Filed 6-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1019-1 Filed 06/12/20 Page 22 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-14164

Plaintiff, District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

NETINA MACK,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

This is a student loan case. Defendant Netina Mack has filed a Motion for Request

for a Correct Balance [Docket #18], which the Court construes as an objection to a writ of

garnishment. At the hearing on this motion held on September 23, 2010, Ms. Mack and

counsel for Plaintiff advised the Court that the matter has been resolved, that the

remaining balance subject to garnishment is $224.48, and that Ms. Mack’s employer has

been so informed.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion [Docket #18] is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

S/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: September 23, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on September 23, 2010.

S/G. Wilson 

Judicial Assistant
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 34424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16753]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Logistics Agency


Privacy Act of 1974; Notice To Amend Records Systems.

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DOD.

ACTION: Notice to amend records systems; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 25, 1996 (61 FR 32779) the Defense Logistics Agency 
proposed to amend five systems of records notices. This notice is being 
published to correct the identification of the System Names. The System 
Names were identified using the section symbol instead of the letter S. 
Correct ``Sec. 322.11 DMDC'' to read ``S322.11 DMDC,'' ``Sec. 322.20 
DMDC'' to read ``S322.20 DMDC,'' ``Sec. 322.35 DMDC'' to read ``S322.35 
DMDC,'' ``Sec. 322.50 DMDC'' to read ``S322.50 DMDC,'' and 
``Sec. 322.53 DMDC'' to read ``S322.53 DMDC.''

    Dated: June 25, 1996.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 96-16753 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
ex10_t-1.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10-T-1

    


    

    
 

    World
Headquarters, Room 538

    One
American Road

    Dearborn,
MI  48126-2798

     

     

    [Date]

    


    
      	
              To:

            	
              [Name]

            


    

    


    
      	
              Subject:

            	
              Enhanced
      Grant Opportunity – [2007/2008/2009] Performance-Based RSU Final
      Award

            


    

    


    On
February 27, 2007, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved
a new incentive opportunity to be delivered as an enhanced stock-based award
within the framework of the Long-Term Incentive program.  You were
selected to participate in this program because of your role in leading efforts
toward achieving the Company's critical priorities.

    


    The
Enhanced Grant Opportunity was delivered in 50% stock options (vesting ratably
over three years) and 50% performance-based Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)
(granted in three equal installments beginning on March 5, 2007 and then in
March 2008, and March 2009 based on the FMV on March 5, 2007).

    


    Enhanced Grant Opportunity –
[Year] Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Final Award

    


    Your
[Year] performance-based RSU enhanced grant was a maximum opportunity having a
one-year performance period ending on December 31, [Year].  The
performance metrics and respective weightings for the [Year] grant
were:

    


    [Describe
applicable metrics]

    


    Based on
performance against these metrics, the Compensation Committee has approved the
following:

    


    
      	
              [Year]
      PB-RSU Enhanced Grant Opportunity:

            	
              [     ]

            


    

    
      	
              [Year]
      PB-RSU Enhanced Grant Payout:

            	
              [     ]

            


    

    
      	
              [Year]
      RSU Final Award:

            	
              [     ]           XXX
      of the original grant

            


    

    


    The final
RSU award will be restricted for [one/two/three-] years.  As soon as
practicable after the restriction lapses, you will be issued shares of Ford
Motor Company Common Stock, less shares withheld to cover any tax liability on
the value of the grant.

    


    All
stock-based awards are subject to the terms of the 1998 Long-Term Incentive
Plan.  Additional information regarding all of your stock-based awards
is available on HR ONLINE.  If you have further questions regarding
your awards, please contact [Name] at [Phone Number].

    


    Your
continued leadership is greatly appreciated and is essential to the success of
achieving critical Company priorities.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**     I, Charles A. Lingenfelter, Chief Executive Officer of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350 as adopted by sec. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2007(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.Dated:March 11, 2008         /s/ Charles A. Lingenfelter Charles A. Lingenfelter      President and Chief Executive Officer