alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 00-50159 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

JOEL MATA-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-99-CR-592-1

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In this direct criminal appeal, Joel Mata-Gomez (“Mata”) argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for extension of time to file an untimely notice of appeal based on his “excusable neglect,” pursuant to F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(b)(4). Mata argues that his attorney’s having mistakenly relied on the counting rule of F ED . R. C RIM . P. 45(a), rather than the appropriate rule, F ED . R. A PP . P. 26, amounted to “excusable neglect.”No. 00-50159 -2- Rule 4(b)(1)(A)(i), F ED . R. A PP . P., provides that a notice of appeal must be filed in a criminal case within ten days of entry of judgment. It is not disputed that Mata filed his notice of appeal three days late. “[A] misconstruction of the rules–-especially when their language is plain–-will rarely satisfy the ‘excusable neglect’ standard.” Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc. , 151 F.3d465, 469 (5th Cir. 1998) (applying nearly identical excusableneglect rule of F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(5) in civil appeal). If “the rule at issue is unambiguous, a district court’s determination that the neglect was inexcusable is virtually unassailable.” Id

. at 470. In a case almost identical to this one, this court opined that F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1)(B) and the counting rule of

F ED . R. A PP . P. 26(a) were “unambiguous.” United States v. Clark , 51 F.3d 42, 44 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mata had made no showing of excusable neglect. APPEAL DISMISSED.
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 on Form 10-Q of Deer Consumer Products,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ying
He, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 operations of the
      Company.





Dated:  May
      15, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/ Ying HeYing
      HeChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive
Officer)





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

************** 

ADIL SHAFI, Case No. 2:09-cv-10454 

 

 Counter-Plaintiff, Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

Vs. 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

 

 Counter-Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

T. Michael Doyle (P12931) Ann Bagno Widlak (P35763) 

DOYLE & MALINZAK, P.C. Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

Attorney for Counter-Plaintiff NEMETH BURWELL 

45 Blue Star Highway Attorney for Counter-Defendant 

Douglas, Michigan 49406 200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

(269) 857-3111 Detroit, Michigan 48207-5199 

 (313) 576-5921 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

STIPULATED ORDER GRANTING 

COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ADIL SHAFI’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE HIS RESPONSE 

IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTER-DEFENDANT BRAINTECH, 

INC.’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER 

OF LAW, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR NEW TRIAL 

 IT IS ORDERED that Counter-Plaintiff Adil Shafi’s Motion for Extension of Time to 

File His Response to Counter-Defendant Braintech, Inc.’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a 

Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative, for New Trial is GRANTED. Counter-Plaintiff must file 

his response brief by Tuesday, August 27, 2013. 

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

 Victoria A. Roberts 

 District Court Judge 

APPROVED: 

/s/ Susan D. Koval 

Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

/s/ T. Michael Doyle 

T. Michael Doyle (P12931)

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 164 Filed 08/23/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 3473
FIRST AMENDMENT TO


EXHIBIT 10.36




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

THE PHOENIX COMPANIES, INC. 

EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE ALLOWANCE PLAN 

As Amended and Restated Effective September 1, 2009




The Phoenix Companies, Inc. Executive Severance Allowance Plan (the “Plan”), as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009, is further amended as follows:




1.

Effective November 19, 2013, Section 2.08A is added to read as follows:




2.08A

“Domestic Partner” with respect to any Participant means a person of the same sex who cohabitates or resides with a Participant and meets each of the following:




(a)

is the Participant's sole domestic partner and intends to remain so indefinitely;




(b)

is unmarried, at least eighteen (18) years of age, and mentally competent to consent to contract;




(c)

is unrelated to the Participant by blood or adoption to a degree of closeness that would prohibit legal marriage in the state in which the Participant and such person reside;




(d)

cohabitates or resides with the Participant as domestic partners and intends to do so indefinitely;




(e)

resides with the Participant in a state that prohibits legal marriage between same sex individuals;




(f)

has lived with the Participant as domestic partners for at least 12 consecutive months;




(g)

is jointly responsible, with the Participant, for their common welfare and financial obligations; and




(h)

provided such person attests to the person's domestic partnership with the Participant in an affidavit filed with the Administrator and provides sufficient proof of their interdependence.




3.

Effective March 7, 2013, Section 3.03A is added to read as follows:




3.03A

Compensation Recovery Policy (“Clawback Policy”):  If the Executive is covered under the Sponsor’s Compensation Recovery Policy, as currently in effect and as amended from time to time (“Clawback Policy”), under certain circumstances, the Sponsor is allowed to recover incentive compensation paid to certain executives.  The benefits provided under Section 3.03 of this Plan that are 








EXHIBIT 10.36




incentive compensation/profit sharing plan amounts/any other payments classified as incentive type even though not called incentive are subject to the Clawback Policy, a copy of the currently effective version of which has been provided to the covered Executive, and such benefits shall be repaid to the Sponsor if and to the extent that the Sponsor’s board of directors determines that repayment must be pursuant to the Clawback Policy.




4.

Effective November 19, 2013, Section 3.05 is amended to read in its entirety as follows:




3.05

Death:  If an Executive terminates employment and dies before having received the entire amount of benefits to which the Executive is entitled under this Plan, the balance of such benefits will be paid to (a) the Executive’s surviving spouse or Domestic Partner, (b) if there is no surviving spouse or Domestic Partner, the Executive’s children   (including stepchildren and adopted children) per stirpes, or (c) if there is no surviving spouse or Domestic Partner and/or children per stirpes, the Executive’s estate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         183,337
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,741
<INVENTORY>                                      2,428
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,068
<PP&E>                                         273,960
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 598,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,441
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,970
<OTHER-SE>                                     318,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   598,679
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,854
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,327
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (45,253)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,907)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,065)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,210)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,275)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15(d) -14(a), AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ShoreTel, Inc.;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants first
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: February 12, 2008
    
    /s/ Michael E. HealyMichael E. HealyChief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
**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 on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June
      30, 2007 (the “Report”) of Sentra Consulting Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Philip
      Septimus, the President and Director of the Registrant, and Bonnie Septimus,
      the
      Treasurer, Secretary and Director of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the
      best
      of each of our knowledge, 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 Registrant.





Date:
      August 14, 2007


Signature:
              /s/
                  Philip SeptimusName:
              Philip
                SeptimusTitle:
              President
                and Director(Principal
                Executive Officer)




Signature:
              /s
                  / Bonnie SeptimusName:
              Bonnie
                SeptimusTitle:
              Treasurer,
                Secretary and Director(Principal
                Financial and Accounting 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.
#### Maurice YATES, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 66965.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 25, 1995.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, after an eviden-tiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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 this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 10.6 Q2 FY2014






THIRTY-THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Thirty-Third Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2014, 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 Price Enterprises, Inc.




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been assigned to Employer and amended on thirty-two prior occasions;




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




Agreement


		
	1.
	Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides:




		
	2.1 
	Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $349,860 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


 
is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2014, to provide as follows:


		
	1.
	Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $356,857 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.






		
	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.


Robert M. Gans                    By:                 


______________________                Name:     Jose Luis Laparte    


Its:     CEO and President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6643

FORTUNATO J. MENDES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES PEGUESE, Warden; JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN,

JR., Attorney General of the State of

Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(8:02-cv-04030-DKC)

Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fortunato J. Mendes, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Fortunato J. Mendes seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mendes has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3688 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3688

   To require that 401(k)-type pension plans be subject to the same 
prohibited transaction rules that apply to traditional defined benefit 
                             pension plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 1996

  Mr. Condit introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
          Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require that 401(k)-type pension plans be subject to the same 
prohibited transaction rules that apply to traditional defined benefit 
                             pension plans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``401(k) Pension Protection Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS APPLIED TO 401(k) PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 407(d) of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1107(d)) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Such term also 
excludes an individual account plan that includes a qualified cash or 
deferred arrangement described in section 401(k) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, if such plan, together with all other individual 
account plans maintained by the employer, owns more than 10 percent of 
the assets owned by all pension plans maintained by the employer. For 
purposes of the preceding sentence, the assets of such plan subject to 
participant control (within the meaning of section 404(c)) shall not be 
taken into account.''.
    (b) Effective Date; Transition Rule.--
            (1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        the amendment made by this section shall apply to plans on and 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Transition rule for plans holding excess securities or 
        property.--In the case of a plan which on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act has holdings of employer securities and 
        employer real property (as defined in section 407(d) of the 
        Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
        1107(d)) in excess of the amount specified in such section 407, 
        the amendment made by this section shall apply to any 
        acquisition of such securities and property on or after such 
        date of enactment, but shall not apply to the specific holdings 
        which constitute such excess during the period of such excess.
                                 <all>
```