alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.65 
  
 December 23, 2003 
  
 Michael Zukerman 
  
 Dear Mike: 
  
 For good and valuable
consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Critical Path, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby amends the employment agreement between you and Critical Path (the “Company”) dated June 11, 2001 (the “Original
Agreement”), as subsequently amended December 20, 2002 (the “First Amendment”) in the following respects: 
  

	 	1.	Section 1. (b) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended to provide as follows: 

  
 “(b) Notwithstanding the last sentence of Section 1(a) above, upon your termination without Cause or your constructive
termination at any time after you have been employed by the Company for more than six (6) months, you shall receive a lump sum payment equal to twelve (12) months of your then current base salary, plus twelve (12) months continuation of your then
current benefits (as described in paragraph 8) from the Company.” 
  

	 	2.	For the avoidance of doubt, the parties reaffirm and acknowledge that Section 6 of the first Amendment shall govern any dispute resolution related to this amendment.


  

	 	3.	In the case of any conflict between the terms of this letter and either the Original Agreement or the First Amendment, this letter shall control. All other terms and conditions
contained in the Original Agreement and the First Amendment which are not inconsistent with the terms of this letter shall remain in full force and effect. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings prescribed to them in the
Original Agreement. 

  
 If you agree with the terms
and conditions contained in this letter, please sign where indicated below. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 /s/ William McGlashan, Jr.

	

	 William McGlashan, Jr.

	 Chairman and CEO



  

	
	 Accepted and Agreed:

	
	 /s/ Michael Zukerman

	

	 Michael Zukerman
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

E QUALCOM CORP.,

Appellant,

v.

GLOBAL COMMERCE CENTER ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-1382

[September 2, 2015]

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Cynthia G. Imperato, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. CACE 08-001242 (21).

Michael R. Bass of Michael R. Bass, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

Michael R. D’Lugo of Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., 

Orlando, for appellee.

CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to appellee’s proper concession of error, we reverse the trial 

court’s order amending the writs of garnishment issued against 

appellant’s tenants into continuing writs of garnishment, and remand 

this case back to the trial court for further proceedings. 

Reversed and Remanded.

WARNER, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miles Hasty, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 647]

*741Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered September 15, 2003, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Hanophy, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his written and videotaped statements were properly admitted into evidence. “It is well settled that where a person in police custody has been issued *Miranda*warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody has remained continuous” *(People v Glinsman,*107 AD2d 710 [1985], *lv denied*64 NY2d 889 [1985], *cert denied*472 US 1021 [1985]; *see People v Pierre,*300 AD2d 324 [2002]; *People v Baker,*208 AD2d 758 [1994]). Here, unlike the cases cited, the defendant was not in police custody when the *Miranda*warnings *(see Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]) were first administered, nor was he the target of the police investigation when he first waived his *Miranda*rights. Nevertheless, this is a distinction without a difference *(see People v Valentin,*264 AD2d 788 [1999]; *People v Hatzfeld, 240*AD2d 758 [1997]; *People v Williams,*115 AD2d 627 [1985]; *People v Oates,*104 AD2d 907 [1984]). The defendant continuously remained at the precinct from the time he voluntarily accompanied the police from his home to the precinct until the time he made his first incriminating statement.

The totality of the circumstances do not compel us to find that renewed warnings were necessary *(see Wyrick v Fields,*459 US 42, 48 [1982]; *cf. People v Zappulla,*282 AD2d 696, 697-698 [2001]). The defendant was not deprived of food, sleep, bathroom privileges, or the like. By all accounts, the defendant remained at the precinct to follow the investigation on his own volition. The defendant was not subject to intimidation or coercion before making his incriminating statements. Police Lieutenant Christopher White’s statements to the defendant regarding the results of the investigation were not so fundamentally unfair *742as to deny the defendant due process of law by inducing a false confession (see *People v Tarsia,*50 NY2d 1, 11 [1980]; *People v Joseph,*309 AD2d 946, 947 [2003]; *People v Foster,*193 AD2d 692 [1993]).

The defendant’s contention that his sentencing as a discretionary persistent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.10 [2]) violated his constitutional right to a jury trial pursuant to *Apprendi v New Jersey*(530 US 466 [2000]) is without merit (see *People v Rivera,*5 NY3d 61 [2005], *cert denied*— US —, 126 S Ct 564 [2005]; *People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23005]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of the Secretary


Privacy Act of 1974; Retirement of Systems of Records

AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of the retirement of two Privacy Act system of records 
notices.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of 
Homeland Security is giving notice that it proposes to retire the 
following Privacy Act system of records notices, Treasury/CS.001 
Acceptable Level of Competence, Negative Determination (66 FR 52984 
October 18, 2001) and Treasury/CS.286 Electronic Job Application 
Processing System (66 FR 52984 October 18, 2001), from its inventory of 
records systems and rely upon the Government-wide system of records 
notice issued by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM/GOVT-5 
Recruiting, Examining, and Placement Records (71 FR 35351 June 19, 
2006) which is written to cover all Federal recruiting, examining, and 
placement activities.

DATES: These changes will take effect on October 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy 
Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, by 
telephone (703) 235-0780 or facsimile (703) 235-0442.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy 
Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of its ongoing integration and 
management efforts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is 
retiring the systems of records notices Treasury/CS. 001 Acceptable 
Level of Competence, Negative Determination (66 FR 52984 October 18, 
2001) and Treasury/CS.286 Electronic Job Application Processing System 
(66 FR 52984 October 18, 2001), that were issued by Customs Service, 
Department of the Treasury prior to the creation of the Department of 
Homeland Security.
    DHS will continue to collect and maintain records regarding 
individuals involved in recruitment, examining and placement activities 
and will rely upon the existing Federal Government-wide system of 
records titled OPM/GOVT-5 Recruiting, Examining, and Placement Records, 
(71 FR 35351 June 19, 2006), which is written to cover all recruiting, 
examining, and placement activities.
    Eliminating these notices will have no adverse impacts on 
individuals, but will promote the overall streamlining and management 
of DHS Privacy Act record systems.

    Dated: September 24, 2008.
Hugo Teufel III,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8-23005 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Marvin E. Aspen, Senior United States District Judge **

for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LIBRADO ALVAREZ-BAJO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10143

D.C. No. 4:07-CR-01525-JMR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding** 

Submitted February 11, 2013*** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. 

Librado Alvarez-Bajo appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 78-month sentence for illegal reentry

FILED

FEB 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10143

after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Alvarez-Bajo’s counsel has filed a brief stating

that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Alvarez-Bajo the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of theundersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and that information contained in thisperiodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Golf Trust of America, Inc. for theperiods covered by this periodic report.

 
|                               |   |                                   |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
| Date: November 14,  2008 |   | /s/ Michael C. Pearce                  |
|                          |   | Michael C. Pearce                      |
|                          |   | Chief Executive Officer  and President |
|                          |   |                                   |
| Date: November 14,  2008 |   | /s/ Tracy S. Clifford                  |
|                          |   | Tracy S. Clifford                      |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer  and Secretary |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350

Principal FinancialOfficer

 

To my knowledge: the quarterly report onForm 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2006, containing financialstatements for the period then ended, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained inthe Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periodspresented.

 

 

March 17, 2006

 

 
| /s/ John Sakys                      |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| John Sakys, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
---

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Section B
Selected Statistics from the Quarterly Reports of Condition of Commercial Banks  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|
|B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks                                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                 
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks         
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                     
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks             
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            
|
|B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                                                
|B.8. Average Loan-Deposit Ratios at Agricultural Banks in Selected Federal Reserve Districts
|ASCII (10 KB)                                                                               
|B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures                                                   
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: July 11, 2006
1

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02285-BNB

CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY, 

d/b/a The Legal Center for People With Disabilities and Older People,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGGIE BICHA, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of

Human Services, and

TERESA A. BERNAL, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of the Colorado Mental

Health Institute at Pueblo,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. # 20, filed

11/14/2011] (the “Motion to Stay”). 

I am informed that the parties are engaged in settlement discussions which may lead to a

resolution of the case. I have recently granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Modify

Scheduling Order [Doc. # 42] to allow the parties to focus their efforts on settlement rather than

preparation of the case for trial. In view of these circumstances,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [Doc. # 20] is DENIED without prejudice, to

be renewed, if at all, after the parties determine that the case cannot be resolved through

settlement.

Case 1:11-cv-02285-BNB Document 47 Filed 02/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Dated February 27, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02285-BNB Document 47 Filed 02/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
H. R. 2187

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To amend title 10, United States Code, to make receipts collected from mineral

leasing activities on certain naval oil shale reserves available to cover environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance costs incurred by the United States with respect to the reserves.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. USE OF RECEIPTS FROM MINERAL LEASING ACTIVITIES

ON CERTAIN NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES.

Section 7439 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (f)(1), by striking the second sentence;

and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(g) USE OF RECEIPTS.—(1) The Secretary of the Interior may

use, without further appropriation, not more than $1,500,000 of

the moneys covered into the Treasury under subsection (f)(1) to

cover the cost of any additional analysis, site characterization,

and geotechnical studies deemed necessary by the Secretary to

support environmental restoration, waste management, or environmental compliance with respect to Oil Shale Reserve Numbered

3. Upon the completion of such studies, the Secretary of the Interior

shall submit to Congress a report containing—

‘‘(A) the results and conclusions of such studies; and

‘‘(B) an estimate of the total cost of the Secretary’s preferred

alternative to address environmental restoration, waste

management, and environmental compliance needs at Oil Shale

Reserve Numbered 3.

‘‘(2) If the cost estimate required by paragraph (1)(B) does

not exceed the total of the moneys covered into the Treasury under

subsection (f)(1) and remaining available for obligation as of the

date of submission of the report under paragraph (1), the Secretary

of the Interior may access such moneys, beginning 60 days after

submission of the report and without further appropriation, to

cover the costs of implementing the preferred alternative to address

environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental

compliance needs at Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 3. If the cost

estimate exceeds such available moneys, the Secretary of the
H. R. 2187—2

Interior may only access such moneys as authorized by subsequent

Act of Congress.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John M. HUMMASTI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-35765.

D.C. No. CV-94-01576-HJF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 17, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Hummasti’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM**

John M. Hummasti appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), challenging his conviction for attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Hummasti may not challenge his sentence pursuant to a petition for a writ of error coram nobis because he is still in federal custody. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255; *Matus-Leva v. United States,*287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir.) (deciding that a writ of coram nobis was unavailable to a petitioner on supervised release, because he was still in “custody” and could seek relief pursuant *732to a § 2255 motion), *cert. denied*, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 544, 154 L.Ed.2d 431 (2002).

Further, because Hummasti has already attacked his conviction pursuant to a § 2255 motion, he “may not resort to *co-ram nobis*merely because he has failed to meet the AEDPA’s gatekeeping requirements.” *Matus-Leva,*287 F.3d at 761; *see Garcia v. Bunnell,*33 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir.1994) (recognizing that this court “may affirm on any ground supported by the record, even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
AO 247 (02l08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reductio n

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

o(~Rtc~~~y COURT

~ s~f t

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

1Q ._ 3

2008

United States of America F

tLED

v. Case No. 03-cr-127-01-J D

USM No: 03177-049

Kasev Harge Defense Attorney : Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Date of Previous Judgment: Apri123, 2004

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable )

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of ❑ the defendant ❑ the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ■ the court under 18

U.S.C . § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing

range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencin g

Commission pursuant to 28 U .S.C . § 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is :

❑ DENIED. ■ GRANTED and the defendant's previously imposed sentence of

imprisonment (as reflected in the last judgment issued) of 77

months is reduced to 63 months.

1 . COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to AnyDepartures)

Previous Offense Level: 26 Amended Offense Level: 24

Criminal History Category : VI Criminal History Category: VI

Previous Guideline Range: 92 to 115 months. Amended Guideline Range : 77 to 96 months.

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

❑ The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

■ The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the

defendant at the time of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced

sentence is comparably less than the amended guideline range .

❑ Other ( explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect .

SO ORDERED.

Order Date : March 3, 2008

Effective Date : March 3, 2008

(if different from date of order)

osepli A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:03-cr-00127-JD Document 25 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 1
| *Release Date: October 16, 2008* |
|----------------------------------|
#### Dorothea J. BARNES, Appellant, v. Edward M. BARNES, Margaret Louise Barnes and Anna Dundore, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

July 13, 1954.

W. Dow Woodward, Miami, for appellant.

Nathanson, Oka & Spaet, Miami Beach, for appellee Edward M. Barnes.

Estil H. Lanham, Miami, for appellees Leslie Dundore and Anna Dundore.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed but without prejudice to the right of Dorothea J. Barnes to pursue any common-law remedy of which she may be advised.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, SE-BRING, HOBSON, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.

THOMAS, J., dissents.