alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.5










	Exhibit 10.5 -  	  	Amendment
to Employment Agreement Between The First of Long Island Corporation
                              and Donald L. Manfredonia Dated January 1, 2005 






[THE FIRST OF LONG
ISLAND CORPORATION LETTERHEAD] 



January 1, 2005 



Mr. Donald L. Manfredonia
The First
National Bank of Long Island
10 Glen Head Road
Glen Head, New York 11545 




	 	           Re: 	Letter
Employment Agreement dated January 1, 2002                      (the “Agreement”)






Dear Mr. Manfredonia: 



        This
will serve to confirm that we have agreed to the amendment of the captioned Agreement by
the addition of the following Section 11 thereto: 



        “11.
NON-SOLICITATION; CONFIDENTIALITY.  




        11.1
In consideration of the agreement by FLIC to make a Termination Payment to you under the
circumstances described in Section “4” hereof, and regardless of whether you
shall actually become entitled to receive a Termination Payment, you agree that, for a
period of two (2) years after the termination of your employment by FLIC, you will not (i)
on behalf of any banking organization or lender doing business in New York City or in the
Counties of Nassau or Suffolk, directly or indirectly solicit the business of any person
or entity which shall be a customer of the Bank on the date of such termination or
facilitate or assist in the development of any business relationship between any such
banking organization or lender and any such customer or (ii) either directly or on behalf
of any such banking organization or lender, employ, retain, or solicit the employment or
retention of, any person who shall be an employee of the Bank on the date of such
termination. 



        11.2
You agree, without limitation as to time, to keep secret and retain in confidence all
confidential matters of FLIC and the Bank, whether developed by FLIC, the Bank or you,
including, without limitation, “know-how,” trade secrets, customer lists,
pricing policies, and operational methods, and not to disclose them to anyone outside of
FLIC or the Bank except in the course of performing your duties hereunder or with the
express written consent of FLIC. 



        11.3
If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any covenant contained herein is
unreasonable because of its term or territorial scope, or for any other reason, we agree
that such court may reform the condition of such covenant so that it is reasonable under
the circumstances and this covenant, as reformed, shall be enforceable.” 



        Please
confirm that the foregoing accurately sets forth our understanding by signing and
returning the enclosed copy of this letter. The Agreement will thereupon be deemed amended
in the foregoing respects. 



			       Very
      truly yours,

      

             THE FIRST OF LONG ISLAND CORPORATION

      

      

      By: /s/ Michael N. Vittorio

             ——————————————

             Michael N. Vittorio, President






19 




 







ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 








/s/ Donald L. Manfredonia

——————————————
DONALD L. MANFREDONIA 




Enclosure 




20
Exhibit 10.6




Exhibit
10.6

 

Summary
of Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation

Effective
as of May 26, 2005

 

Upon the
recommendation of the Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board of
Directors of Brown Shoe Company, Inc., on March 3, 2005, the Board of Directors
approved the payment of the following compensation to each director who is not
an employee of the Company (a “Non-Employee
Director”) in
respect of his/her service on the Board, effective May 26, 2005:

 

	·  	
      an
      annual retainer fee of $30,000;



 

	·  	
      an
      additional $7,500 annual retainer for the chair of the Compensation,
      Executive and Governance and Nominating Committees of the Board of
      Directors;



 

	·  	
      an
      additional $12,500 annual retainer for the chair of the Audit Committee of
      the Board of Directors;



 

	·  	
      a
      fee of $1,500 for each Board meeting attended;



 

	·  	
      a
      fee of $1,000 for each committee meeting attended;
and



 

	·  	
      reimbursement
      of customary expenses for attending Board, committee and shareholder
      meetings.



 

In
addition, each Non-Employee Director will be granted 1,200 restricted stock
units. The Company also pays the premiums for directors’ liability insurance and
travel accident insurance for each director.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Precision Castparts Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William D. Larsson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         
|-------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2007   
|                         
|/s/ William D. Larsson   
|William D. Larsson       
|Senior Vice President and
|Chief 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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Susser Holdings
Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sam L. Susser, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 19, 2010 |  | /S/    SAM L.
SUSSER                 
|                     |  | Sam L. Susser                        
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20347]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,271]


Horton Automatics a Subsidiary of Overhead Door Corporation 
Including On-Site Leased Workers From Remedy Staffing Corpus Christi, 
TX; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on June 12, 2008, applicable to workers of 
Horton Automatics, including on-site leased workers from Remedy 
Staffing, Corpus Christi, Texas. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36575).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the subassembly of parts for automatic windows and doors.
    New information shows that Horton Automatics is a subsidiary of 
Overhead Door Corporation and that some of the workers wages at the 
subject firm are being reported under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) 
tax account for Overhead Door Corporation.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
include workers of the subject firm whose UI wages are reported under 
the parent firm, Overhead Door Corporation.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-63,271 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``Workers engaged in the subassembly of parts at Horton 
Automatics, a subsidiary of Overhead Door Corporation, including on-
site leased workers from Remedy Staffing, Corpus Christi, Texas, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
April 10, 2007, through June 12, 2010, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, 
and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment 
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of August 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-20347 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
MICHAEL A. TRIMUAR,

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. 1D15-5825

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Michael Jones, Judge.

Michael A. Trimuar, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10710

Summary Calendar

 

MARY F. HAMILTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:95-CV-115-C

- - - - - - - - - -

January 22, 1997

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mary Hamilton appeals from the dismissal of her complaint

for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision denying her

application for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. 

Hamilton contends that the administrative law judge (ALJ) made

inconsistent findings regarding her ability to do various jobs;

that the ALJ erred by failing to order a consultative physical

evaluation; and that the district court should have remanded her
No. 96-10710

- 2 -

case to the Commissioner for findings on new evidence.

Hamilton did not raise her contention that the ALJ made

inconsistent findings before the Appeals Council. She failed to

exhaust that contention in her administrative proceedings. Paul

v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994). Regarding

Hamilton’s remaining contentions, we have reviewed the record and

the briefs of the parties and we have found no reversible error. 

According, as to those contentions, we affirm for essentially the

reasons relied on by the district court. See Hamilton v. Chater,

No. 5:95-CV-115-C (N.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 1996).

AFFIRMED.
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

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

TO THE 241ST DISTRICT COURT of SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 11th

day of February 11, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

LAQUENTIN WASHI NGTON , Appellant

NO. 12

- 13

- 00345

- CR; Trial Court No. 241

- 0592

- 13

Opinion by Greg Neeley, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and ther ein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDE RED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Twelfth Co urt of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal ther eof affixed, at the City of

Tyler, this the 7 th day of April , 201 5

.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:_______________________________

Ch ief Deputy Clerk

# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

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

TO THE 241ST DISTRICT COURT of SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 11th

day of February 11, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment betw een

LAQUENTIN WASHI NGTON , Appellant

NO. 12

- 13

- 00346

- CR; Trial Court No. 241

- 059 3

- 13

Opinion by Greg Neeley, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things a ffirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

r ecognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of

Tyler, this the 7 th day of April , 201 5

.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:_______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                               THE PANTRY, INC.

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                            (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                Sep. 26,  Sep. 25,  Sep. 24,  Sep. 30,  Sep. 28,
                                  1996      1997      1998      1999      2000
                                --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
<S>                             <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Pretax (loss) income..........  $(10,778) $  (975)  $ 4,673   $24,750   $24,772
Fixed charges:
Interest expense..............    11,992   13,039    28,946    41,280    52,329
Amortization of deferred
 financing costs..............     1,359    1,461     2,071     1,894     2,055
Preferred stock dividends.....     3,525    5,304     2,003     3,657       --
Rental expense (1)............     2,709    2,901     7,919    13,517    16,952
                                --------  -------   -------   -------   -------
Total fixed charges...........  $ 19,585  $22,705   $40,939   $60,348   $71,336
                                --------  -------   -------   -------   -------
Preferred stock dividends.....    (3,525)  (5,304)   (2,003)   (3,657)      --
                                --------  -------   -------   -------   -------
Earnings......................  $  5,282  $16,426   $43,609   $81,441   $96,108
                                --------  -------   -------   -------   -------
Ratio (shortfall) of earnings
 to fixed charges.............  $(14,303) $(6,279)     1.07      1.35      1.35
                                ========  =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
--------
(1) One-third of rental expense related to operating leases representing an
    appropriate interest factor.
EMPLOYMENT LETTER AGREEMENT


 


THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
is entered into this March 1st, 2013, and is to be effective as early of June 1st, 2013 and no later than
August 1st, 2013 as agreed upon by and between APOLLO MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, having its principal
place of business at 700 North Brand Blvd., Suite 220 Glendale CA 91203 (the “Company”) and between Kyle Francis, an
individual residing at 326 Ewing Terrace, SF CA 94118 (“Employee”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company
desires to engage Employee to assist Company as its Chief Financial Officer on an at-will basis, and Employee is willing to perform
such services subject to the terms and conditions set forth below (“Position”). This Letter Agreement represents agreed
upon terms for future employment and both parties agree to execute a formal employment agreement and both parties agree to negotiate
in good faith


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the above Recital, which the parties agree to be accurate and complete, and of the mutual promises and undertakings
hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, it is agreed as follows:


 


		1.	Employee will be paid a monthly salary equal to $18,750 per month



 


		2.	Employee will receive a maximum $1,200 of healthcare benefits per month



 


		3.	Employee may be eligible for additional cash and stock compensation in accordance with board compensation
committee approval



 


		4.	Employee will receive standard benefits in accordance with company policy including vacation, sick
days and company benefits such as parking and out-of pocket expenses. Both parties agree and acknowledge that any used vacation
and sick days will not accrue if unused within the calendar year. Vacation and sick days will be prorated for first year of employment,
but effective as of the Effective Date of this contract



 


		5.	If employee is terminated for any reason other than gross negligence or misconduct the company
agrees to meet the employment obligations for a period of one year less any portion paid under above terms.



 




    	 



    	 



    

 


SIGNATURE PAGE OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMONG
APOLLO MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND Kyle Francis DATED March 1, 2013


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have executed this Employment Agreement in the State of California as of the date first above written.


 


SELECTION OF SEPARATE COUNSEL


 


COMPANY
AND EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY AND/OR A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
OF THEIR CHOICE REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, ITS SUBJECT MATTER AND ANY AND ALL COLLATERAL DOCUMENTS WHICH
MAY BE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE TRUE INTENT OF THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, AND EACH HAS EITHER RECEIVED OR WAIVED SUCH ADVICE.


 


	APOLLO MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC.:	 	KYLE FRANCIS.:
	 	 	 
	/By:/ WARREN HOSSEINION, M.D.	 	/By:/ KYLE FRANCIS
	Name: Warren Hosseinion, M.D.	 	Name: Kyle Francis 
	Title: Chief Executive Officer	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4518** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. JADONAVAN O ’ BRYANT JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00425

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, T . Nick Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jadonavan O’Bryant Johnson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement , to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g)(1) , 924(e)(2) (2012). The district court sentenced Johnson to 204 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Johnson questions whether his sentence is substantively reasonable. Fin ding no error, we affirm. Johnson challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, which was at the upper

- end of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. We review the sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse

- of

- discretion
stan dard.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the court properly calculates the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gives the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, considers the 1 8 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, does not rely on clearly erroneous facts, and sufficiently explains the selected sentence. Id. at 49

– 51. As to substantive reasonableness, the 204

- month sentence, within Johnson’s properly

- calculated Guidelines range, is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, United States v. Strieper , 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012), which Johnson has not rebutted. See United States v. Montes

- Pineda , 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (“A defendant can only rebut the presumption3 by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.” (internal quotation marks and al teration omitted)). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion and imposed a reasonable sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 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