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



Exhibit 10.2





AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT
This Amendment to Independent Contractor Consultancy Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of July 30, 2019 and effective June 1, 2019 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Ross Stores, Inc. (“Company” or “Ross”) and Norman A. Ferber, an individual (“Contractor” or “Ferber”), and amends the Amended and Restated Independent Contractor Consultancy Agreement entered into by the Company and Contractor effective as of January 6, 2010 and subsequently amended effective January 30, 2012, February 17, 2015, March 1, 2017, and February 1, 2018 (collectively, the “Agreement”) as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “$1,875,000” with the phrase “$2,250,000”. 


		
	2.
	Section 2.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing both references therein to the phrase “May 31, 2020” with the phrase “May 31, 2021”.


		
	3.
	Section 8.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “May 31, 2020” with the phrase “May 31, 2021”.


		
	4.
	Except as so amended, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the first date first written above.
	
				
	Company:
	 
	Contractor:

	 
	 
	 

	ROSS STORES, INC.
	 
	NORMAN A. FERBER

	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/George P. Orban
	 
	/s/Norman A. Ferber

	 
	George P. Orban
	 
	 

	 
	Chairman, Compensation Committee
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

 

No. 03-2224

HÉCTOR E. COLÓN-RODRÍGUEZ, in his personal capacity and as

President of Fundación Eco-Cultural, Inc. and doing business as

the Eco-Logic Co., Inc. & TM; ECO-LOGIC CO., INC., & TM;

FUNDACIÓN ECO-CULTURAL, INC., represented by its president 

Héctor Colón-Rodríguez,

Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.

CARLOS D. LÓPEZ-BONILLA, Hon., in his personal capacity and

official capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Rincón; ALEXIS

ROSADO, Director of the Department of Public Works of the

Municipality of Rincón and member of the Municipality's

Procurement Board, ZAYDA RODRÍGUEZ-MORALES, in her personal

capacity and official capacity as President of the Procurement

Board, Municipality of Rincón; MUNICIPALITY OF RINCÓN,

represented by its Mayor Hon. Carlos D. López-Bonilla; PERSONS AZ,

Defendants, Appellants.

 

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on April 22, 2004 is amended

as follows:

On page 3, line 12, "June 19, 2003" should be replace with

"June 19, 2002"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-161-01-JD

Eugene Williams

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

23) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: August 8, 2007

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00161-JD Document 24 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harry Mendez, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 838]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J.), rendered April 30, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant raises various issues relating to the rule that burglary of a store located in an apartment building constitutes burglary of a “dwelling” *(see*Penal Law § 140.00 [2], [3]; § 140.25; *People v Rohena,*186 AD2d 509 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 794 [1993]). Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses review of his present claims, including his constitutional arguments *(see People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570, 575 [1998]). Moreover, even without an appeal waiver, defendant’s guilty plea also forecloses these claims *(see People v Taylor,*65 NY2d 1 [1985]). In any event, were we to find that these claims are not foreclosed, we would find them to be without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET  AS OF JUNE  30,  1997 AND
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0000081699 
<NAME>                                         RTI INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           22,433
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   371,916
<ALLOWANCES>                                     11,482
<INVENTORY>                                   2,227,441
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              2,820,054
<PP&E>                                        3,694,996
<DEPRECIATION>                                1,797,617
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                6,090,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,620,700
<BONDS>                                         299,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                       5,000
<COMMON>                                        118,495
<OTHER-SE>                                   17,679,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  6,090,822
<SALES>                                       2,291,640
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2,354,243
<CGS>                                         2,406,869
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3,857,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,443,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,443,448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (427)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,443,875)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (1.01)
        


</TABLE>
185 La. 577

#### STATE v. JOHNSON et al.

No. 34074.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 1936.

Rusca & Cunningham, of Natchitoches, for relators.

S. R. Thomas, of Natchitoches, for the State.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

 Dismukes Johnson and Ray Wilson are charged with the crime of lying in wait, armed with a dangerous weapon, with intent to commit murder. The charge was made by affidavit before a justice of the peace. The penalty for the crime is fixed by Act No. 26 of 1892 at not less than one year or more then ten years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. A deputy sheriff to whom the warrant of arrest was given presented it to the judge of the district court, before making the arrest, and obtained an order to release the defendants on bonds for $5,000 each. Thereafter, on the same day, the judge was informed that the defendants were not actually arrested at the time when he ordered them released on bond. For that reason the judge canceled the order for the release of the defendants on bond, and ordered the sheriff to arrest them and- keep them in custody. The sheriff having made the arrest and confined the defendants in the parish prison, they employed attorneys, who made application to this court for a writ of habeas corpus, and to have this court fix the bail, under the provisions of article 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There seems to be some disagreement between the judge and the attorneys for the defendants as to whether the attorneys made application to the judge to grant them bail, after the judge had canceled his order granting the bail. It is certain, though, that the attorneys understood, when they made their application to this court, that the judge of the district court was refusing to grant the defendants bail, and that the judge’s canceling his order for bail was intended as a refusal to grant bail. In such cases, under article 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendant has the right to a writ of habeas corpus, to the end that he may be released on such bail as the supreme court shall fix. The crime charged being not a capital offense, the defendants are entitled to bail, under article 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would merely cause unnecessary delay to send the matter back to the district court for a determination of the question whether the attorneys for the defendants made formal application for bail after the judge cancel*788ed his order therefor. The defendants say that they are willing and able to furnish bail for a reasonable amount. They complain now that the amount which was fixed by the judge of the district court, $5,000, is excessive. No such complaint, however, was made in the petition to this court, or in the application to the judge of the district court, as far as the record shows. We have concluded, therefore, to fix the bail at $5,000 for each defendant, reserving the right of either defendant to apply for a reduction of the amount, on a sufficient showing, if in fact he is unable to furnish a bond for $5,000.

Order.

The sheriff is ordered to release the defendants on bonds for $5,000 each, with sufficient and approved surety, as required by law.
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 13 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-193276) and Amendment No. 510 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763),
      and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity
      Company of New York and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 2 0 2 2

- 1350

_____________________________

R OBERT F. W ILLIAMS

,

Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA

,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Leon County

. Monique Richardson , Judge

.

January 10, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

. See § 90.953, Fla. Stat. (allowing for the use of duplicate recordings as evidence unless a genuine question is raised about its authenticity ) and Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (allowing the trial court to assess a mandatory prosecution cost in the absence of a request by the State)

.

O STERHAUS

, C.J., and R OWE and B ILBREY

, JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________

Tyler Kemper Payne , Assistant Public Defender

, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody

, Attorney General, Christina Piotrowski, and Adam
B. Wilson , Assistant Attorney s General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kermit Ceasar

v. Civil No. 07-cv-196-JD

United States of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Petitioner has applied for a certificate of

appealability. After reviewing the application and the record in

this case, the court finds that the petitioner has not presented

any sufficient justification under the requirements of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253 for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 

Therefore, his application is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 27, 2007

cc: Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire

Kermit Ceasar, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00196-JD Document 14 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 1
|   | 1. | this      Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for      the quarterly period ended September 27, 2009 (the “Report”) fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Exchange Act; 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 8, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/      RONALD J. BUSCHUR |
|                     |   |   |                       | Ronald      J. BuschurPresident      and Chief Executive OfficerPowerwave      Technologies, Inc. |
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 173

To amend the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of

2000 to allow for the financing of agricultural sales to Cuba.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on International Relations, and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 to allow for the financing of agricultural sales to Cuba.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM

4 AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000.

5 Section 908 of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Ex6 port Enhancement Act of 2000 (section 908 of H.R. 5426,

7 as enacted into law by section 1(a) of Public Law 106–
2

•HR 173 IH

1 387, and as contained in the appendix of such Public Law)

2 is amended—

3 (1) by striking subsection (b);

4 (2) in subsection (a)—

5 (A) by striking ‘‘PROHIBITION’’ and all

6 that follows through ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—’’ and

7 inserting ‘‘IN GENERAL.—’’;

8 (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as sub9 section (b) (and conforming the margin accord10 ingly); and

11 (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as sub12 section (c) (and conforming the margin accord13 ingly);

14 (3) in subsection (b) (as redesignated), by strik15 ing ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)’’;

16 and

17 (4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated), by strik18 ing ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin Sexton, et al

v.

Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., et al

Civil No. 07-cv-13-SM

O R D E R

The referenced case was removed from Rockingham County Superior Court on January 10,

2007.

It is hereby ordered that pursuant to LR 7.5 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Defendant Resurgens

Specialty Underwriting, Inc. shall file a Disclosure Statement by February 17, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

January 22, 2007

cc: Edmond J. Ford, Esq.

Karyn P. Forbes, Esq.

Doreen F. Connor, Esq.

James C. Wheat, Esq.

Robert A. Benjamin, Esq.

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Case 1:07-cv-00013-SM Document 9 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 1

Sexton et al v. Landmark American Insurance Company, et al. Doc. 9

Dockets.Justia.com
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1245 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1245

     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
 participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to 
reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of 
               the Castaic Lake Water Agency, California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

  Mr. McKeon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
 participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to 
reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of 
               the Castaic Lake Water Agency, California.

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

SECTION 1. CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT.

    (a) Authorization.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h 
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1635. CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
Castaic Lake Water Agency, California, is authorized to participate in 
the design, planning, and construction of a project to reclaim and 
reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of the Castaic 
Lake Water Agency.
    ``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project 
authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total 
cost of the project.
    ``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for the 
operation and maintenance of the project authorized by this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 2 of such 
Act is amended by adding after the item relating to section 1634 the 
following:

        ``Sec. 1635. Castaic Lake Water Agency reclaimed water 
                            project.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1789-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1789-DR),                               ( print page 55521)                            dated September 10, 2008, and related determinations.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         September 3, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective September 3, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-22562 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P