alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1

**PERINI CORPORATION**

 

**Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement**

**Ronald N. Tutor**

DATED:MARCH 20, 2009

**WHEREAS,** Perini Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), and Ronald N. Tutor (the “Executive”), entered into an employment agreement on April 2, 2008, which was subsequently amended on December 23, 2008 (collectively, the employment agreement and the amendment thereto are referred to herein as the “Agreement”); and

**WHEREAS,**pursuant to Section 20 of the Agreement, the Company and Executive now wish to amend the Agreement to reflect a change in the manner certain benefits are to be provided to Executive.

**NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the foregoing, of the mutual promises contained herein and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.

FIRST:          The Agreement is hereby amended by removing the second to last sentence in Section 6(f), which currently reads “In addition, the Employer shall, as promptly as reasonably practicable after the Effective Date and with the Executive’s full cooperation, obtain on behalf of Executive life insurance coverage under term or ordinary life insurance policies (at Executive’s choice) with an aggregate annual premium cost not to exceed $175,000.” and replacing it with the following sentence:

“During the Employment Period, the Employer may, with Executive’s full cooperation, obtain on behalf of Executive life insurance coverage under term or ordinary life insurance policies and/or provide the Executive with personal financial services; provided that the aggregate annual premium cost and/or the fair market value of such services provided shall in no event collectively exceed $175,000 per calendar year, with such amount reduced proportionately for any partial calendar years of service.”

SECOND:       Except as specifically modified herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with all of the terms and conditions thereof.

 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the parties hereto have executed this second amendment to the Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

|   | **Perini Corporation**

 

 

By:/s/William B. SparksName:  William B. Sparks

 

Title: Executive Vice President & Treasurer

 

  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **Ronald N. Tutor**

 

 

/s/Ronald N. Tutor

                                                                                                   |

 

 

 

|   | 2 |   |
|--------|---|--------|
#### SMITH v. BROOKS.

No. 7372.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 23, 1949.

Anders & Anders, Winnsboro, for appellant.

S. E. Lee, Jr., Winnsboro, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit in which plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $150 as the balance due on the purchase price of a Chevrolet truck, which sum was represented by a postdated check given by the defendant to the order of plaintiff, payment on which was refused by the drawee bank and by defendant, on whom demand for payment was later made.

The facts show that on or about September 4, 1948, defendant purchased the truck in question from plaintiff for the sum of $1,000, of which amount $850 was paid in cash and the balance of $150 was represented by a check dated January 1, 1949. Plaintiff presented the check to the Winnsboro State Bank & Trust Company, on which the same was drawn, on or about January 3, 1949, when payment was refused. The plaintiff later presented the check to the defendant who refused payment, although he offered the sum of $100 in settlement. The offer was refused by plaintiff and no part of the claimed sum of $150 has been paid by defendant.

The basis of the defense is predicated upon the claim of the failure of plaintiff’s alleged guaranty with respect to the perfect condition of the tires on the truck at the time sold and the further representation which defendant alleged was made by plaintiff as to the existence in effect of a policy of insurance on the vehicle. Defendant sets up in the nature of a counter *77claim the sum of $61 representing the replacement of a worthless tire, and the further sum of $53 paid out for the renewal of policy of insurance.

After trial there was judgment as prayed for in favor of plaintiff, from which judgment defendant has appealed.

There is no question as to the amount of the agreed consideration for the sale of the truck nor as to the giving of the post-dated check in the sum of $150, nor as to the fact that said amount is entirely unpaid, all of which facts were conclusively established.

There is considerable conflict with respect- to the warranties or representations which defendant asserts were given and made by plaintiff. However, examination of the record convinces us that defendant has signally failed to establish his contentions by the requisite preponderance of evidence. This evidently was the conclusion reached by the District Judge, in which we find not the slightest error.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6454 

AN ACT 

To clarify the primary functions and duties of the Office 

of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6454 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Advo3 cacy Improvements Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PRIMARY FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES 

5 OF THE OFFICE OF ADVOCACY OF THE SMALL 

6 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. 

7 (a) PRIMARY FUNCTIONS.—Section 202 of Public 

8 Law 94–305 (15 U.S.C. 634b) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and the 

10 international economy’’ after ‘‘economy’’; 

11 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘complete’’ 

12 and inserting ‘‘compete’’; and 

13 (3) in paragraph (12), by striking ‘‘serviced-dis14 abled’’ and inserting ‘‘service-disabled’’. 

15 (b) DUTIES.—Section 203(a) of Public Law 94–305 

16 (15 U.S.C. 634c) is amended— 

17 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

18 end; 

19 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at 

20 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

21 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

22 ‘‘(7) represent the views and interests of small 

23 businesses before foreign governments and inter24 national entities for the purpose of contributing to 
3 

•HR 6454 EH

1 regulatory and trade initiatives which may affect 

2 small businesses.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6454 

AN ACT 

To clarify the primary functions and duties of the 

istration, and for other purposes. Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Admin-
Brief Stricken and Order filed April 9 , 2020
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 19
- 00229
- CR

____________ SHANNON BERNARD JACKSON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17
- CR
- 3031



### ORDER
A ppellant’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief . The brief discloses the name of a child victim of sexual assault under the age of 17. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. a rt. 57.02(h) ; Tex. R. App. P. 9.10(b) . Accordingly, the brief is STRICKEN

. Appellant ’s counsel is ordered to file a brief that complies with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 57.02 and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.10 on or before April 20, 2020

. PER CURIAM Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain

.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6522 

To prohibit Federal funds from being used to transport certain aliens into 

the interior, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2022 

Mrs. HINSON (for herself, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. MAST, Mr. WEBER of 

Texas, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, 

Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. RICE of South Carolina, and Mr. 

MCKINLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funds from being used to transport 

certain aliens into the interior, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop the Betrayal Act 

5 of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL FUNDS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds may be used 

8 by the Department of Homeland Security or any other 

9 Federal agency or contractor to transport aliens unlawVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:49 Jan 29, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6522.IH H6522

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6522 IH

1 fully present in the United States into the interior of the 

2 United States for purposes other than enforcement of the 

3 immigration laws. 

4 (b) EXEMPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with 

5 respect to Federal funds used to transport unaccompanied 

6 alien children to Department of Health and Human Serv7 ices facilities. 

8 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act— 

9 (1) the term ‘‘immigration laws’’ has the mean10 ing given such term in section 101 of the Immigra11 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101); 

12 (2) the term ‘‘interior’’ means the region within 

13 the United States that is not within the border juris14 diction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and 

15 (3) the term ‘‘unaccompanied alien child’’ has 

16 the meaning given such term in section 462 of the 

17 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.3

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

August 3, 2006

/S/  Edwin A. Guiles
Edwin A. Guiles
Chief Executive Officer
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 45TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on February 11, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Richard Lares, Appellant

V.

Martha Flores, Appellee

No. 04-13-00792-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2006-CI-15663

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order

is AFFIRMED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Richard Lares

because he is indigent.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on April 28, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-13-00792-CV

Richard Lares

v.

Martha Flores

(NO. 2006-CI-15663 IN 45TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING

$10.00

$55.00

$180.00

$200.00

$195.00

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

INDIGENT

JAMIE GRAHAM

CINDY DEES AS PETITIONER IS INDIGENT

CINDY DEES AS PETITIONER IS INDIGENT

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this April 28, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
II 

Calendar No. 476 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6386 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 4, 2022 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 450 West Schaumburg Road in Schaumburg, 

Illinois, as the ‘‘Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. VETERANS OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN MEMO4 RIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 450 West Schaumburg Road in 

7 Schaumburg, Illinois, shall be known and designated as 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6386 RS

1 the ‘‘Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial Post Of2 fice Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Veterans of Iraq and 

7 Afghanistan Memorial Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 476 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6386 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postand Afghanistan Memorial Post Office Building’’. in Schaumburg, Illinois, as the ‘‘Veterans of Iraq al Service located at 450 West Schaumburg Road 

AUGUST 4, 2022 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 13

- 00310

- CV

JACKIE RUSSELL KEETE R

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Hamilton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR06978/CR06361

O R D E R O N R E H E A R I N G

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. The Court’s memorandum o pinion

and judgment, dated October 10 , 20 13

, are withdrawn , and th is appeal is reinstated.

Appellant’s motion to am end appeal is dismissed as moot because Appellant’s

Affidavit/Declaration of Previous Filings, accompanied by a certified copy of his

inmate account statement , was file d on October 28, 2013.Keeter v. State Page 2 PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Order issued and filed March 13, 2014

Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Note: This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the Quarter  Ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001027574
<NAME>                        Outsourcing Solutions Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              41,671
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       42,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,231
<INVENTORY>                                         43,611
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   132,669
<PP&E>                                              80,244
<DEPRECIATION>                                      35,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     656,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              121,383
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         12,167
<COMMON>                                                53
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       656,253
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   114,826
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      105,867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (2,265)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (2,265)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                            (572)
<NET-INCOME>                                       (2,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
                                               









</TABLE>
#### Joseph G. Switzer, Respondent, v. The Commissioners for Loaning Certain Moneys of the United States for the County of New York, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to amend on payment of costs, and appeal from decision dismissed. No opinion.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00212-CR

JENNA ELISE WALTON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-2304-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jenna Elise Walton entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated 

perjury. The trial court placed Walton on four years’ deferred adjudication probation

and assessed a fine of $750.00. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate Walton’s guilt 

after she violated the terms of her probation. Walton entered a plea of true to allegations 

two through thirteen in the State’s first amended motion to adjudicate guilt, and the trial 

court sentenced Walton to two years’ incarceration. The written judgment adjudicating 

guilt reflects that the trial court additionally imposed a $750.00 fine. Although, as noted, 
Walton v. State Page 2

the trial court included a $750.00 fine in the order of deferred adjudication, the 

subsequent judgment adjudicating Walton’s guilt set aside that order. See Taylor v. State, 

131 S.W.3d 497, 499-500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

In one point of error, Walton asserts that the trial court erred by assessing a fine in 

the written judgment because the trial court did not orally pronounce a fine as part of 

Walton’s sentence after adjudicating her guilt.

1 The State concedes that there was no oral 

pronouncement of a fine, which our review of the record confirms.

When there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the 

sentence in the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Taylor, 131 S.W.3d

at 500; Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Freeman v. State, 554 

S.W.3d 816, 817 (Tex. App.—Waco 2018, no pet.). Because the trial court did not orally 

pronounce the imposition of a fine when Walton was adjudicated guilty, the trial court 

erred in including a fine in the judgment.

Accordingly, we modify the judgment adjudicating guilt to delete the $750.00 fine. 

We affirm the judgment as modified.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

 

1 Walton’s attorney filed an Anders brief and a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record on January 2, 

2019. On March 6, 2019, Walton’s attorney filed a “Notice that Counsel Wishes to Withdraw His Previously 

Filed Anders Brief and Motion to Withdraw and That Counsel Intends to File a Brief on the Merits Later 

Today.” As Walton’s Amended Brief was also filed on March 6, 2019, the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney 

of Record is dismissed.
Walton v. State Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Affirmed as modified

Opinion delivered and filed April 17, 2019

Do not publish

[CR25]
EXHIBIT 33.6

           Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria
                         for Year End December 31, 2006
                    of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian


                                                                      Appendix I

           ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the
'Company") is responsible for assessing  compliance with the servicing  criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB  promulgated  by the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission.  The Company has determined that the servicing criteria are
applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as follows:

Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended)  residential  mortgage-backed
securities and commercial  mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006, for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any
publicly  issued  transactions  issued by any government  sponsored  entity (the
"Platform").

Applicable  Servicing  Criteria:  The  servicing  criteria  set  forth  in  Item
1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii),  in regard to the activities  performed by the
Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria").  The
Company  has  determined  that all other  servicing  criteria  set forth in Item
1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.

Period:  Twelve months ended  December 31, 2006 (the "Period").

With respect to the Platform, the Company provides the following assessment of
compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

1. The Company is responsible for assessing the Company's compliance with the
   Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.

2. The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
   In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth by the
   Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of
   Regulation AB.

3. Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has complied,
   in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the Period.


                                       WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

                                       By:  /s/ Shari L. Gillund
                                            ----------------------
                                            Shari L. Gillund
                                      Its:  Senior Vice President

                                       Dated:  March 1, 2007