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

3

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1948-5 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 3
11/7/23, 4:15 PM Front Row at the BackPage Trial

https://www.backpagetrial.com/signup/ 1/2

Subscribe

FREE

0

✓ Access to some posts

✓ Occassional newslettters

✓ No advertisements

SUBSCRIBE NOW

FULL TRIAL

✓ Full access to all posts

✓ Newsletters EVERY trial day

✓ 100s of case-related court documents

✓ Simple, secure card payment

✓ No advertisements

✓ One-time payment

SUBSCRIBE NOW

FAQ

Why is this case important? +

Front Row at the BackPage Trial

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1948-5 Filed 11/08/23 Page 2 of 3
11/7/23, 4:15 PM Front Row at the BackPage Trial

https://www.backpagetrial.com/signup/ 2/2

What other question? +

Who am I? +

©2023 Front Row at the BackPage Trial. Published with Ghost & Outpost.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1948-5 Filed 11/08/23 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,334
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,280)
<INVENTORY>                                     53,722
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,469
<PP&E>                                          73,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,453)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 395,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,504
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           676
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   395,767
<SALES>                                        301,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               301,696
<CGS>                                          210,607
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (436)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,727)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.51

                               AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                 by and between
                           I.C. ISAACS & COMPANY, INC.
                                       and
                                 THOMAS ORMANDY

         THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2, dated as of February 11, 1999, is made a part of
that certain EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), dated as May 15,
1997, and as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of August 27, 1998, by
and between I. C. Isaacs & Company, Inc. (the "Company"), and Thomas Ormandy
(the "Executive"). It is intended by the parties that the terms of this
Amendment No. 2, to the extent that they are more specific than the terms
contained in the Agreement, or to the extent that they should conflict with the
terms contained in the Agreement, shall supersede the terms of the Agreement.
Section numbers utilized in this Amendment No. 2 correspond, where applicable,
to section numbers used in the Agreement.

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         Accordingly, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
representations contained herein and the mutual benefits derived herefrom, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. Paragraph 3 is hereby restated in its entirety as follows:

         3. BASE SALARY. The Executive's base salary for each Employment Year
         under this Agreement (May 15, 1997 through May 15, 2000) shall be at
         the rate of Two Hundred Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
         ($262,500) per annum. Such base salary shall be increased to Three
         Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) per annum for the remaining term of
         this Agreement after the Company achieves positive net earnings in two
         consequtive fiscal quarters. Such base salary may also be increased
         based on periodic reviews by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
         Directors. The Executive's base salary shall be paid throughout the
         year, in accordance with normal payroll practices of the Company.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this
Amendment No. 2 on the date first above written. 




ATTEST:                                     I.C. ISAACS & COMPANY, INC.



  /s/ Eugene C. Wielepski                   By:    /s/ Robert J. Arnot
-------------------------------                 --------------------------------
Secretary                                       Robert J. Arnot, CEO


<PAGE>


WITNESS:                                             EXECUTIVE


  /s/ Robert J. Arnot                       By:    /s/ Thomas Ormandy
-------------------------------                 --------------------------------
                                                 Thomas Ormandy




                                       -2-
FRANCEKY LAPLANTE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1796

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 22, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Paul S. Bryan , Judge

.

Franceky LaPlante, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C.J., WOLF and ROBERTS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
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,

v. 

Scott Spear,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-003-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Defendant was sentenced to 120 months in the Bureau of Prisons on August 28, 

2024 and ordered to self-surrender to the custody of the United States Marshal on 

September 11, 2024. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED modifying the defendant’s conditions of pretrial release as 

follows:

1. The defendant shall participate in the following location monitoring program 

component(s) and shall abide by all program requirements. The defendant shall 

pay all or part of the cost of the participation in the location monitoring program 

as directed by the court or Pretrial Services.

☒ (Home Detention) The defendant is restricted to his residence at all times

except for; employment, education, religious services, medical, substance abuse 

or mental health treatment, attorney visits, court appearances, court-ordered 

obligations, or other activities as pre-approved by Pretrial Services.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2190 Filed 09/03/24 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

2. The defendant shall submit to the location monitoring technology at the officer’s 

discretion and shall abide by all of the technological requirements and 

instructions provided by Pretrial Services. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming all other conditions of pretrial release.

Dated this 28th day of August, 2024.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2190 Filed 09/03/24 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 19 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 19 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 19 Filed 04/06/18 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.10.2


 


AMENDMENT ONE TO


THE COCA-COLA COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN


 


This Amendment One to The Coca-Cola Company Supplemental Pension Plan
(the “Plan”) is adopted by The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Committee (the “Committee”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.4 of the Plan, the Committee has the
authority to amend the Plan;


 


WHEREAS, the Committee wishes to amend the Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Committee hereby
amends the Plan as follows:


 


Effective
as of January 1, 2008, Section 3.4(b)(1) of the Plan shall be
amended to read as follows:


 


(1)                                  Death on or
after Earliest Retirement Date


 


If
a married Participant dies on or after his Earliest Retirement Date and prior
to Separation from Service, his surviving spouse, if any, shall receive a
survivor benefit as described in this section. 
If an unmarried Participant dies on or after his Earliest Retirement
Date and has made an election described below to name a Beneficiary, such
Beneficiary shall receive a survivor benefit as described in this section.  A monthly 50% survivor annuity shall be
payable on his behalf to his Beneficiary, commencing on the first day of the
month following death.  Such survivor
annuity shall be equal to the monthly benefit that would have been payable to
the Beneficiary if the Participant:


 


(1)                    had a Separation from
Service on the date of death; and


 


(2)                    elected to have his benefits
paid in the form of a Joint and 50% Contingent Annuity


 


At
any time on or after the Participant’s Earliest Retirement Date, a married
Participant may elect an optional form of survivor benefit, consisting of
either a 100% survivor annuity or a 75% survivor annuity.  Such survivor annuity shall be calculated as
described above, except that 100% or 75%, as applicable, shall be substituted
for 50%.


 


At
any time on or after an unmarried Participant’s Earliest Retirement Date, the
unmarried Participant may make an election for a specified Beneficiary to
receive a survivor annuity under this section. 
Such Participant may also elect an optional form of survivor benefit,
consisting of either a 100% survivor annuity or a 75% survivor 


 

















 


annuity.  Such survivor annuity shall be calculated as
described above, except that 100% or 75%, as applicable, shall be substituted
for 50%.


 


Payments
shall cease with the payment due on the first day of the month in which occurs
the Beneficiary’s death.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has adopted this Amendment One on the date
shown below, but effective as of the dates indicated above.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  THE COCA-COLA COMPANY 

  BENEFITS COMMITTEE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date 

  	
  5/5/08

  	
   

  	
  By 

  	
  /s/ Susan M. Fleming
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. 

5. Dan Hyer, Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-005-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

The Court having reviewed the Government’s Motion to Continue Sentencing, there 

being no objection, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Continue Sentencing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing the Sentencing from May 31, 2022, to a 

date to be determined following the conclusion of Defendants’ Appeal to the Ninth Circuit 

(Doc. 1445).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1459-1 Filed 02/28/22 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7068

TERRY T. KEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

T. S. FERRELL, Detective; WILLIAM A. HOGAN,

Rocky Mount Police Chief; TAMMY MALINOWSKI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CA-05-148-BO)

Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 4, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry T. Key, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Terry T. Key appeals the district court’s judgment and

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as

frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

order and affirm for the reasons of the district court. See Key v.

Ferrell, No. CA-05-148-BO (E.D.N.C. May 20, 2005). 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
1 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
2 Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 5/17/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
DEANNA ROSENBUSCH, formerly known as Deanna Swift,

Plaintiff-Appellant, and MICHELLE MADDUX,

Plaintiff,

v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, doing business as Southern Pacific Railroad,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-1204 (D.C. No. 94-M-815) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 1
Before PORFILIO, JONES, 2 and TACHA, Circuit Judges.2

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff-appellant Deanna Rosenbusch appeals the district court’s decision granting defendant summary judgment on her claims asserted under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging defendant failed to promote her because of her race. This court reviews a summary judgment decision de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Carl v. City of Overland Park , 65 F.3d 866, 868 (10th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuinely disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The district court determined that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination in defendant’s refusal to promote her because she was unable to show that she was qualified for the supervisory positions for which she applied. Further, even if plaintiff had established a prima facie case, the district court determined that she failed to present any evidence tending to establish that defendant’s nondiscriminatory reasons for refusing to promote her, her absenteeism and the fact that the other applicants were better qualified, were pretextual. See generallyReynolds v. School Dist. No. 1 , 69 F.3d 1523, 1532, 1533-34 (10th3

Cir. 1995)(describing appropriate analysis for summary judgment motion on Title VII and § 1981 race discrimination claims for failure to promote, based upon circumstantial proof). Upon careful consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we must agree. Finding no reversible legal error, we, therefore, AFFIRM the district court’s decision. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
#### Johns, Jr., *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 23336

Decided February 3, 1932.)

*Messrs. Graham &*Graham, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Charles 8. Leasure,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. P. H. Tannehill,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Allen and Kinkade, JJ., concur.

Day and Robinson, JJ., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32442-32443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15974]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

    Public Meeting of the Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health 
Projects (ICHHP), in association with the meeting of the Citizens 
Advisory Committee on Public Health Service Activities and Research at 
Department of Energy Sites: Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee 
Meeting: Date Change.
    Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement:
    61 FR 17303--dated April 19, 1996.

SUMMARY: Notice is given that one of the meeting dates for the Public 
Meeting of the Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects (ICHHP), 
in association with the meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on 
Public Health Service Activities and Research at Department of Energy 
Sites: Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee of the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), has changed. The meeting 
place, time, status, purpose, and matters to be discussed, announced in 
the original notice remain unchanged.

    Original Date: September 18, 1996.
    New Date: September 11, 1996.

    Contact Person for More Information: Linda A. Carnes, Health 
Council

[[Page 32443]]

Advisor, ATSDR, M/S E-28, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 
30333, telephone 404/639-0730, FAX 404/639-0759.

    Dated: June 18, 1996.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 96-15974 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-70-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Larry L. BRINGUS, Appellant.

No. WD 42285.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 1, 1990.

Timothy D. Ernst, Dist. Public Defender, Fifth Judicial Circuit, St. Joseph, for appellant.

Michael A. Insco, Pros. Atty., Carol C. Barnett, Dwight K. Scroggins, Jr., Asst. Pros. Attys., St. Joseph, for respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and KENNEDY and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from conviction of sexual abuse in the third degree, § 566.120, RSMo 1986, and from sentence of six months' confinement and $500 fine.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
---

EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted, the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), Robert E. Feller, the Chief Financial Officer of Scientific Learning Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:




1.
The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Dated:    March 4, 2011




/s/ Robert E. Feller





Robert E. Feller


Chief Financial Officer




This certification accompanies and is being “furnished” with this Periodic Report, shall not be deemed "filed" by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or otherwise subject to liability under that Section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Periodic Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 26, 2012

t0319 

# Order

March 26, 2012

143258

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143258 COA: 296271 Oakland CC: 2008-223333-FC TURON MAYES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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, ) NO. CR 18-0422-PHX-SPL

)

Plaintiff, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

) MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

vs. ) DEFENDANT JAMES LARKIN’S

) ATTORNEYS

JAMES LARKIN, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

)

Upon the motion of Cristina C. Arguedas, Ted W. Cassman and Julie 

Salamon of Arguedas, Cassman & Headley, LLP, with the consent of Defendant 

James Larkin and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the motion to 

withdraw is granted and that Ms. Arguedas, Mr. Cassman and Ms. Salamon are 

terminated as attorneys of record for Mr. Larkin in this matter. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 115-2 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 1
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D17-3346

_____________________________ 

ANTONIO OWENS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________ 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction. 

August 5, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits. 

RAY, C.J., and KELSEY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 
2 

Antonio Owens, pro se, Petitioner. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

678 

CA 15-01924 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ. 

 

CENTRAL CITY ROOFING COMPANY, INC., 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

ASHLEY MCGRAW ARCHITECTS, D.P.C., 

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

THE WARD FIRM, PLLC, LIVERPOOL (JON COOPER OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, SYRACUSE (MATTHEW D. GUMAER OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (James

W. McCarthy, J.), entered January 16, 2015. The order granted the

motion of defendant for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint and

denied the cross motion of plaintiff for leave to amend the complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court