alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

         This First Amendment to Management Agreement is executed effective as
of April 1, 2000 by and between AMRESCO Capital Trust, a Texas real estate
investment trust (the "Company"), and AMREIT Managers, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership (the "Manager").

         A. The Company and the Manager are parties to a Management Agreement
dated as of May 12, 1998 and desire to amend the Management Agreement with
respect to the fee to be paid to Manager under the Management Agreement.

         B. In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements and $10.00
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is
hereby acknowledged by the parties, it is agreed that the Management Agreement
will be amended as follows:

         1.       Section 7(b) of the Management Agreement relating to Manager's
                  incentive compensation is deleted in its entirety and replaced
                  with the following provision:

                  (b)      In addition to the base management fee, beginning
                           April 1, 2000, the Manager will be entitled to
                           receive reimbursement for its quarterly operating
                           deficits, if any. As used in this Section 7(b),
                           "operating deficits" means the excess, if any, of the
                           Manager's expenses as described in Section 8(a) below
                           (excluding those expenses described in 8(a)(iii)
                           relating to the year 2000 issues and (iv) relating to
                           the Manager's errors and omissions insurance policy)
                           over the sum of its quarterly base management fee and
                           any other fees received by the Manager from sources
                           other than the Company.

         2.       Section 12(b) of the Management Agreement relating to
                  Manager's termination fee is deleted in its entirety.

         3.       Section 8(c), 8(d) and 9 of the Management Agreement relating
                  to the Manager's reimbursement expenses are deleted in their
                  entirety.



<PAGE>   2



         Except as amended hereby, all other terms and provisions of the
Management Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

AMRESCO CAPITAL TRUST                       AMREIT MANAGERS, L.P.

                                            By:  AMREIT Managers, G.P., Inc.,
                                                 its general partner

By:    /s/ Jonathan S. Pettee               By:  /s/ L. Keith Blackwell
    -----------------------------                -------------------------------
       Jonathan S. Pettee                            L. Keith Blackwell
       President                                     Senior Vice President
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-30491

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Darius Williams,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:20-CR-145-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Darius Williams appeals his 80-month sentence for possessing a 

firearm as a convicted felon. Although the advisory guidelines range was 24-

30 months of imprisonment, the district court applied an upward variance to 

_____________________

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 1, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30491 Document: 00516842804 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
No. 22-30491

2

80 months of imprisonment. Williams challenges the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Williams preserved both of these issues, so we review under a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

128 (2007). Williams offers a procedural argument that the district court 

should have provided more explanation during sentencing. He also argues 

that the Guidelines variance sentence was substantially unreasonable on its 

face and because it was supported only by evidence of general neighborhood 

conditions.

We find the district court did not procedurally abuse its discretion. 

The court informed both parties it was considering a variance and allowed 

each to present argument and evidence. The court then stated which 

evidence it found supported an above-guidelines sentence, and the district 

court’s reasons addressed the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Accordingly, the sentence was rooted in the sentencing factors. See United 

States v. Bostic, 970 F.3d 607, 611 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Diaz 

Sanchez, 714 F.3d 289, 294 (5th Cir. 2013).

We find the district court did not substantively abuse its discretion. 

The district court established reliability and is not otherwise required to 

follow the rules of evidence at sentencing. United States v. Moton, 951 F.3d 

639, 645 (5th Cir. 2020). Unadjudicated conduct, moreover, may be taken 

into account at sentencing where, as here, the evidence bears sufficient 

indicia of reliability. United States v. Parkerson, 984 F.3d 1124, 1129 (5th Cir. 

2021). To the extent Williams argues general neighborhood conditions were 

imputed to him, only individualized evidence was cited by the district court 

as a basis for sentencing.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-30491 Document: 00516842804 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02567-RPM

PIERRE D. ROEMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLOYD CAPISTRANT, a Police Officer with the Pagosa Springs, Colorado Police

Department, in his Professional and Individual Capacities,

JOHN MARTIN, a Former Police Officer of the Pagosa Springs, Colorado Police

Department, and Current Deputy with the Archuleta County Sheriff Department,

in his Individual and Professional Capacities,

WILLIAM ROCKENSOCK, Former Sergeant and Current Police Chief of Pagosa

Springs, Colorado Police Department, in his Professional Capacity,

JOHN DOE, Employee and Supervisor with the Pagosa Springs, Colorado Police

Department, in his/her Individual and Professional Capacities, and

SCOTT MAXWELL, Employee and Supervisory Detective with the Pagosa Springs

Police Department, in his Individual and Professional Capacities,

Defendants. 

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

The Court having determined that a pretrial conference should now be

scheduled, it is

ORDERED that a pretrial conference is scheduled for September 27, 2012, at

2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States

Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with

the Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Final Pretrial Order which may be

found at www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges_frame.htm. The proposed Final Pretrial Order,

original only, shall be delivered in paper form directly to chambers by 4:00 p.m. 

Case 1:11-cv-02567-RPM Document 22 Filed 08/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

on September 20, 2012. The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in

person. No parties or representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: August 21st, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02567-RPM Document 22 Filed 08/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00395-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HUBERT B. AGUIRRE, SR.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

A Notice of Disposition was filed in the above matter on October 7, 2011. A

Change of Plea hearing is set for Tuesday, November 29, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. 

Counsel for the parties shall deliver all change of plea documents

separately to Judge Daniel’s chambers AND to the Probation Department not later

than 72 HOURS before the hearing date. If the documents are not timely submitted,

the hearing will be VACATED. There will be no exceptions to this policy, and

sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply.

Dated: October 12, 2011.
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Docket T-2-2008] 

                    Notice is hereby given that the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board staff has terminated its review of the application requesting temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) authority within FTZ 26 at the Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. (KMMG) facility in West Point, Georgia. The application was filed on May 7, 2008 (73 FR 27492, 5-13-2008). Substantive comments submitted in opposition to the KMMG application during the public comment period remove the application from eligibility under the specific T/IM standard of “clearly presenting no new, complex, or controversial issues” (                    *see*                     “Proposals to Facilitate the Use of Foreign-Trade Zones by Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers,” 69 FR 17643, 4/5/2004). The review was terminated on September 12, 2008.                 

Dated: September 26, 2008. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8-23738 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02623-LTB-MEH

MICHAEL GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALVARY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant.

_______________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

_______________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal

With Prejudice (Doc 4 - filed November 1, 2011), and the Court being fully advised in the

premises, it is therefore

ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to

pay their own fees and costs. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: November 2, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 5 Filed 11/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated August 22, 2000, included in this Form 10-K, into Colorado MEDtech,
Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statements File Nos. 333-17207, 333-93689,
333-70755, and 333-64705.  It should be noted that we have not audited any
financial statements of Colorado MEDtech subsequent to June 30, 2000, or
performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.



                                         ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Denver, Colorado,
 September 25, 2000.
#### Jesse Lee WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### Hawley K. CHALLONER et al., etc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAY AND ZIMMERMANN, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 74-1555.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1977.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1977.

Norman C. Russell, Texarkana, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

Cahill Hitt, Texarkana, Tex., for plaintiff s-appellees.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and COLEMAN and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Our decision in this case, 512 F.2d 77, was vacated by the Supreme Court, *Day and Zimmermann, Inc. v. Hawley K. Challoner,*423 U.S. 3, 96 S.Ct. 167, 46 L.Ed.2d 3 (1975).

The Supreme Court said:

> “The Court of Appeals in this case should identify and follow the Texas conflicts rule. What substantive law will govern when Texas’ rule is applied is a matter to be determined by the Court of Appeals.”

On this point we requested and received briefs of the parties. Upon consideration, we are unconvinced that at the time this case was tried in the District Court the Supreme Court of Texas, consistently with its prior precedents, would not have applied the law of Cambodia to the issue of liability in this case, *Click v. Thurson Industries, Inc.,*475 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.1972); *Continental Oil Company*v. *Lane Wood and Company,*443 S.W.2d 698 (Tex.1969); *Marmon*v. *Mustang Aviation, Inc.,*430 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. 1968). See, also, 22 Loyola Law Review 519 (1976); 11 Texas International Law Journal 147 (1976).

On May 29, 1975, the Texas Legislature enacted House Bill 974, providing that the Texas Wrongful Death Statutes shall apply to injury causing death to any person occurring either within or without the State. There was no language indicating that the statute should apply to cases already tried (although not finally decided on appeal). Moreover, counsel have raised constitutional objections to such an application.

The applicability of this statute to any future trial should be left to the trial court.

*27We accordingly reverse the judgment of the District Court in this case and remand for further proceedings, to be had consistently with the views of the Supreme Court and applicable Texas law.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02613-DME-MEH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$782,893.49 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION

_____________________________________________________________________

I hereby certify that a Notice of Forfeiture Action was posted on an official 

government internet site (www.forfeiture.gov) for at least 30 consecutive days, beginning 

October 23, 2011, as required by Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for 

Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, and as evidenced by 

Attachment I- Notice of Forfeiture Action and Advertisement Certification Report.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

 By: s/ Martha A. Paluch

Martha A. Paluch

Assistant United States Attorney

1225 Seventeenth Street, Ste. 700

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0100

E-mail: martha.paluch@usdoj.gov

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-DME-MEH Document 7 filed 11/30/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02663-REB-MEH

DEMPSEY ALEXANDER KENNEDY, and

CRYSTAL PHIFER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Tennessee corporation, and

TAMMY MOSNESS, an individual,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is the CCA Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss [#8]1 filed

October 20, 2011. On March 15, 2012, after the motion was filed and briefed, plaintiffs

filed a Motion To Amend Scheduling Order and Motion for Leave To Amend

Complaint [#24]. Plaintiffs sought leave to amend to incorporate evidence uncovered

in discovery and provide greater specificity as to the underlying events in this law

suit. The magistrate judge subsequently granted the motion and accepted the amended

complaint for filing. (See Order on Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint [#31]

filed March 13, 2012.) 

The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the

superceded complaint. See Griggs v. Jornayvaz, 2009 WL 1464408 at *1 (D. Colo.

1

 “[#8]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

Case 1:11-cv-02663-REB-MEH Document 32 Filed 04/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
May 22, 2009); United States ex rel. Babb v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2007 WL

1793795 at *1 (D. Colo. June 19, 2007). Moreover, the magistrate judge specifically

considered and rejected defendants’ argument that amendment would be futile in light

of the instant motion to dismiss. Therefore, the motion will be denied without prejudice

as moot. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that CCA Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss [#8]

filed October 20, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

Dated April 16, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

2

Case 1:11-cv-02663-REB-MEH Document 32 Filed 04/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### SOUTHLAND FROZEN FOODS v. ROBINSON.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 18 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Shareholders

Key Tronic Corporation

Spokane Valley, Washington

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-159582, 333-70917, and 333-61202) of Key Tronic Corporation and
subsidiaries of our report dated September 11, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    BDO Seidman, LLP
|                       
|September 11, 2009     
|Spokane, Washington
[745 NYS2d 460]

#### In the Matter of Ames D. Ressa, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

July 1, 2002

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Diana Maxfield Kearse,*Brooklyn *(Colette M. Landers*of counsel), for Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts.

*Ames D. Ressa,*respondent pro se.

*216OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Ames D. Ressa has submitted an affidavit dated February 6, 2002, in which he tenders his resignation as an attorney and counselor-at-law *(see*22 NYCRR 691.9).

He avers that the proffered resignation is freely and voluntarily tendered, that he has not been subjected to coercion or duress, and that he is fully aware of its submission. Mr. Ressa acknowledges the pendency of two charges of professional misconduct against him. The charges involve fraud and conflict of interest. He concedes that he cannot successfully defend himself with respect to the pending charges.

Mr. Ressa avers that his resignation is submitted subject to any application by the Grievance Committee to direct him to make monetary restitution to any persons whose money or property was misappropriated or misapplied, or to reimburse the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (d). He acknowledges the continuing jurisdiction of the Court to make such an order. Moreover, Mr. Ressa is aware that any order issued pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (d) could be entered as a civil judgment against him. He specifically waives the opportunity afforded him by Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) (f) to be heard in opposition thereto.

Inasmuch as the respondent’s proffered resignation comports with all appropriate Court rules and regulations, it is accepted. The respondent is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the resignation of Ames D. Ressa is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, Ames D. Ressa is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that Ames D. Ressa shall promptly comply with this Court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, Ames D. Ressa is commanded to desist and refrain *217from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
#### Henry WEAVER v. STATE.

8 Div. 28.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 21, 1935.

RICE, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**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 the CardioDynamics InternationalCorporation (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael K. Perry, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

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, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: March 1, 2005 **