alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.5.2

                The Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement



This Second Amendment dated January 24, 1997 is made between Madison River
Telephone Company, LLC ("Holdings") and J. Stephen Vanderwoude, ("Executive")
pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Employment Agreement between Holdings and
Executive dated April 17, 1996 ("Employment Agreement").



1.   Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended by adding the
     following paragraph 3.11:


         "Beginning February 1, 1997 and continuing until the closing of the
         Company's First Acquisition Closing Date, Executive shall accrue but
         not vest in any base salary compensation. Executive shall accrue his
         unvested base salary compensation at the rate of $8,333.33 per month
         for full months and pro-rata amount for partial months. Executive shall
         vest in his accrued base salary compensation on the First Acquisition
         Closing Date. In the event there is no first acquisition of a business
         in any form by the Company or the enterprise contemplated in the LOI is
         abandoned or terminated, Executive will not vest in his accrued base
         salary compensation and Holdings shall not owe any base salary
         compensation to Executive and the Executive shall have no claims for
         any base salary compensation against Holdings. Beginning after the
         First Acquisition Date, Holdings shall pay Executive a base salary
         ("Base Salary") at the annual rate of $100,000 under paragraph 3.1
         above unless adjusted under paragraph 3.2."


All other provisions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and
effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive and Holdings have caused this Second Amendment to
the Employment Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above.


                         Madison River Telephone Company, LLC


                         by: PAUL H. SUNU
                            ----------------------------



                             J. STEPHEN VANDERWOUDE
                         -------------------------------
                         Executive
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>   0000719244
<NAME>  JMB INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. - X

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1995

<CASH>                                 21,431,887 
<SECURITIES>                                    0 
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,287,551 
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0 
<INVENTORY>                                     0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       22,719,438 
<PP&E>                                 26,646,460 
<DEPRECIATION>                          7,645,144 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         56,832,712 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,816,373 
<BONDS>                                 7,890,281 
<COMMON>                                       0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0  
<PREFERRED>                                    0  
<OTHER-SE>                             47,109,558 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           56,832,712 
<SALES>                                13,190,501 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       15,186,857 
<CGS>                                        0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           9,057,063 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          830,613 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        9,300,000 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      4,074,322 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (8,075,141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (7,313,908)
<DISCONTINUED>                          3,832,429 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         3,934,532 
<CHANGES>                                    0    
<NET-INCOME>                              453,053 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                4.45 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                4.45 

        



</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1074 

To provide for direct access to electronic tax return filing, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. BINGAMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for direct access to electronic tax return filing, 

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 ‘‘Free Internet Filing 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DIRECT ACCESS TO E-FILE FEDERAL INCOME TAX 

7 RETURNS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

9 shall provide individual taxpayers with the ability to elec10 tronically file their Federal income tax returns through 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1074 IS

1 the Internal Revenue Service website without the use of 

2 an intermediary or with the use of an intermediary which 

3 is contracted by the Internal Revenue Service to provide 

4 free universal access for such filing (hereafter in this sec5 tion referred to as the ‘‘direct e-file program’’) for taxable 

6 years beginning after the date which is not later than 3 

7 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (b) DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF PROGRAM.— 

9 In providing for the development and operation of the di10 rect e-file program, the Secretary of the Treasury shall— 

11 (1) consult with nonprofit organizations rep12 resenting the interests of taxpayers as well as other 

13 private and nonprofit organizations and Federal, 

14 State, and local agencies as determined appropriate 

15 by the Secretary, 

16 (2) promulgate such regulations as necessary to 

17 administer such program, and 

18 (3) conduct a public information and consumer 

19 education campaign to encourage taxpayers to use 

20 the direct e-file program. 

21 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

22 authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 

23 to carry out the direct e-file program. Any sums so appro24 priated shall remain available until expended. 

25 (d) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 1074 IS

1 (1) REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.—The Sec2 retary of the Treasury shall report to the Committee 

3 on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on 

4 Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 

5 every 6 months regarding the status of the imple6 mentation of the direct e-file program. 

7 (2) REPORT ON USAGE.—The Secretary of the 

8 Treasury, in consultation with the National Tax9 payer Advocate, shall report to the Committee on 

10 Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 

11 and Means of the House of Representatives annually 

12 on taxpayer usage of the direct e-file program. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,446-01

EX PARTE DAVID EARL HICKMAN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 25472 IN THE 354 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HUNT COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to life imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because counsel did not advise applicant

that a conviction required non-accomplice witness testimony when there was none. Applicant has

alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. In these circumstances, additional facts are

needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial

court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond
2

to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court may use any means set out

in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its

personal recollection. Id.

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to Applicant’s

claim that his plea was involuntary. Should the trial court find that counsel erred in advising

Applicant, it shall make specific findings addressing whether, but for counsel’s errors, Applicant

would have insisted on a trial. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be

obtained from this Court. 

Filed: February 3, 2016

Do not publish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02467-DME-MJW

CARLO LOMBARDI,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ADVANTAGE LOGISTICS, INC.,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate Scheduling Conference

Currently Set For January 11, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. [Docket No. 6, filed January 09, 2012]

is granted in that the Scheduling Conference is converted to a Status Conference. All

counsel who have entered shall appear in person in Courtroom A-502, Fifth floor, Alfred

A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294, for the

Status Conference set January 11, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

Anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse will be

required to show a valid current photo identification. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B. 

Failure to comply with this requirement may result in denial of entry to the courthouse.

Date: January 10, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02467-DME-MJW Document 8 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02462-BNB

KING EDWARD ANDROS JOHNSON, a/k/a Paul Edward Johnson,

Applicant,

v.

MOSEZ’S ALFRED NORMAN NORMA, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORAHDOHE PURANGO,

Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Paul Edward Johnson, initiated this action by filing pro se an

Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In an order filed

on September 27, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland directed Mr. Johnson to cure

certain deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claims. Specifically, Magistrate Judge

Boland ordered Mr. Johnson either to pay the filing fee or to file a properly supported

motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and

to file an amended application that is intelligible and written in English. Mr. Johnson

was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure

the deficiencies within thirty days.

On October 4, 2011, the copy of Magistrate Judge Boland’s September 27 order

that was mailed to Mr. Johnson at an address in Aurora, Colorado, was returned to the

Court undelivered. The same day another copy of Magistrate Judge Boland’s

September 27 order was mailed to Mr. Johnson at the Denver County Jail because the

Case 1:11-cv-02462-LTB Document 5 Filed 11/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

mailing address he provides for himself in the application appears to indicate that he is

an inmate at that facility. (See Doc. #1 at 9.) The copy of Magistrate Judge Boland’s

September 27 order that was mailed to Mr. Johnson at the Denver County Jail has not

been returned to the Court undelivered.

Mr. Johnson has failed to cure the deficiencies within the time allowed and he

has failed to respond in any way to Magistrate Judge Boland’s September 27 order. 

Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure the

deficiencies. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the application is denied and the action is dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr.

Johnson failed to cure the deficiencies as directed.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 9th day of November , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02462-LTB Document 5 Filed 11/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

In
connection with the Annual Report of A.G. Edwards, Inc. (the Registrant) on
Form 10-K for the period ended February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas L. Kelly,
Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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
Registrant.

|                           | A.G. EDWARDS,
      INC.
|-------------------------- | ------------------------
|                          
|Date: April 27,
      2007 | By:                     
|                           |                         
|                           |                         

|* |  | A signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant
      and will be retained by the Registrant and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINA VENGOECHEA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-99-98, CA-01-3832) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Regina Vengoechea, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Regina Vengoechea appeals from the district court’s order giving her notice, under Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that the Government had moved to summarily dismiss her motion for a reduction of sentence. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order giving Vengoechea Roseboro notice is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-mj-101-04-JM

Ernie Martinez

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. Defendant does not deny the bail violations -

being with his co-defendant; testing dirty for marijuana; failing

to appear for probation; and obtaining employment. It also

appears he lied to probation. He tested dirty again today.

 Given the number of failed opportunities to comply with

conditions I find that the defendant is unlikely to abide by any

condition or combination of conditions. The conditions of

release are revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

Case 1:08-mj-00101-JM Document 36 Filed 03/09/09 Page 1 of 2
2

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 9, 2009 

cc: Mark E. Howard, Esq.

 Arnold H. Huftalen, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-mj-00101-JM Document 36 Filed 03/09/09 Page 2 of 2
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

EESAM ARABBO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

July 2, 2019

v No. 341713

Genesee Circuit Court

CITY OF BURTON, PAULA ZELENKO, 

STEPHEN HEFFNER, THOMAS 

MARTINBIANCO, and MICHAEL JOLIAT,

LC No. 2016-107043-CZ

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: METER, P.J., and JANSEN and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.

RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result only.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      20,074,000
<SECURITIES>                                13,097,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               78,684,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (500,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 96,600,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           220,061,000
<PP&E>                                      70,890,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              37,235,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             253,716,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       78,132,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       296,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 171,564,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               253,716,000
<SALES>                                    177,925,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           177,925,000
<CGS>                                      128,536,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              128,536,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             28,817,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                10,230,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                18,587,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
        

</TABLE>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 12Federal Reserve Bank of: San FranciscoFilings received during the week ending August 14, 2010FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodANCHOR BANCORP, INC.                                                                                                    * 3A1Anchor Bancorp, Inc., Lacey, Washington, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Anchor Mutual Savings Bank, Aberdeen, Washington, upon conversion from a mutual savings bank to a stock savings bank.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 04/15/2010RBB BANCORP                                                                                                             * 3A1RBB Bancorp, Los Angeles, California, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Royal Business Bank, Los Angeles, California.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 09/10/2010
skip to main navigation
skip to secondary navigation
skip to content
| What's New ·What's Next ·Site Map ·A-Z Index ·Careers ·RSS ·All Videos ·Current FAQs |  | SearchAdvanced Search |  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|-----------------------|--|

| About |
|-------|
#### AMERICAN CENTRAL AIRLINES v. ZARING.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.