alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX 10.1 Amendment No.5 to Employment Agreement






AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 5 to Employment Agreement is entered into on September 30, 2014 by Vistaprint USA, Incorporated (the “Company”) and Robert S. Keane (the “Employee”). The Company and the Employee previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now wish to amend the Agreement further to reflect the Employee’s compensation for the Company’s 2015 fiscal year.
The parties agree as follows:
1.Compensation and Benefits.
1.1Salary.  The Company shall pay the Employee, in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices, an annualized base salary of $206,780 (approximate, based on the 30-day trailing average currency exchange rate in effect at May 13, 2014) for the one-year period commencing on July 1, 2014. 
1.2FY 2015 Incentive Compensation.  The Employee is entitled to receive the bonuses, incentive awards, and equity compensation awards for the Company’s fiscal year 2015 described on Schedule A.
1.3Withholding.  All salary, bonus, and other compensation payable to the Employee is subject to applicable withholding taxes.
2.No Other Modification.  Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


The parties have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.


VISTAPRINT USA, INCORPORATED




By:    /s/Lawrence A. Gold
		
	Title:
	Senior Vice President and Secretary






EMPLOYEE




/s/Robert S. Keane
Robert S. Keane















SCHEDULE A


Incentive Compensation Payable by the Company for fiscal year 2015


Annual incentive, pursuant to the terms of the Employee’s award agreement under the Vistaprint Amended and Restated Performance Incentive Plan for Covered Employees, with a target amount of $1,046,000 (approximate, based on the 30-day trailing average currency exchange rate in effect at May 13, 2014) subject to the satisfaction of the performance criteria set forth in such award agreement.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  R ICHARD S TENGEL ; M ARYL OU S TENGEL , No. 10-17755

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 

#  4:10-cv-00318-RCC M EDTRONIC I NCORPORATED , a ORDER foreign corporation,

Defendant-Appellee. 

# 
Filed July 25, 2012

ORDER
KOZINSKI , Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. Judges Wardlaw, Murguia and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote as to whether the case should be taken en banc.

8563
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this Annual
Report of Mojo Data Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Spiteri, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
    2014, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K
    for the year ended December 31, 2014, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company.





|Date: September 6, 2018 | By: | /s/ Joseph Spiteri                                
|----------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------
|                        |     | Joseph Spiteri                                    
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer, Mojo Data Solutions, Inc.

| |  | 
| |  |
KINGS ROAD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
                             A Delaware corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kings Road Entertainment, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the quarter ended July 31, 2004 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Geraldine Blecker, Chief Executive Officer, and I, H. Martin DeFrank, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350, as adopted pursuant
to SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authentication, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed from within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kings Road
Entertainment, Inc., and will be retained by Kings Road Entertainment, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated: October 31, 2005                    /s/ Geraldine Blecker
                                           _________________________________
                                           By:  Geraldine Blecker
                                           Its: Chief Executive Officer



Dated: October 31, 2005                    /s/ H. Martin DeFrank
                                           _________________________________
                                           By:   H. Martin DeFrank
                                           Its:  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report of U.S. Microbics, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Conrad Nagel,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)The
      Report fully complies
      with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange
      Act of 1934; and





2)The
      information contained
      in the Report fairly presents, In all material respects, the financial condition
      and result of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by U.S. Microbics, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





May
      21,
      2007




/S/
              Conrad
              Nagel
              Conrad
                Nagel
              Chief
                Financial Officer
[No. 17618-5-III.

Division Three.

April 13, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gilbert Allen Gulick, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Klickitat County, No. 97-1-00036-1, Tom Reynolds, J., entered June 4, 1998. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Kurtz, C.J., and Kato, J.
#### Jose Trevino v. Santiago Garza.

(No. 1396, Op. Book No. 2, p. 683.)

Error from Webb County.

January 31, 1883.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§821. *Citation; service of, must be five days before return day.*Citation was served on defendant January 13, 1882, returnable on the 16th of January, 1882, and on the 18th of January, 1882, judgment by default was rendered upon such service. *Held*error. The judgment by default was prematurely rendered. Five days, exclusive of the day of service andtbe return day, had not elapsed. [R. s". 1228, 1245, 1281,1282.]

Reversed and remanded.
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 Quarterly Report of Document Security Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick White,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:
 
 The
Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date: May
14, 2009
 
 
 /s/Patrick
White
 Patrick
White
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Document Security Systems, Inc and will be retained by Document Security
Systems, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
News United States Air Force
 Air Force announces CY24 promotion board schedule, aligns to officer SCODsPublished Aug. 23, 2023
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS)   --**
                The Air Force announced the 2024 promotion board schedule Aug. 22, which marks the transition to align most promotion boards with their associated evaluation closeout dates.
With the completion of establishing officer static closeout dates, or SCODs, this year, next year’s board schedule takes an incremental step to a predictable schedule that ensures officers have an evaluation within six months of promotion boards. The alignment of the evaluation within six months of the promotion board was already in place for all Air Force enlisted promotion boards.
“Maximizing alignment of promotion boards to SCODs represents a strategic step toward enhancing our talent management decisions,” said Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services **Lt. Gen. Caroline Miller**. “This also provides transparency and consistency that are cornerstones of our promotion and evaluation system.”
During this transition year, the major **LAF-A/C/I/F/N** boards that would have convened toward the end 2024 will shift to convene in January/February 2025, resulting in no major board in 2024. Eligibility, based on dates of rank and projected pin-on dates will remain unchanged. All future major LAF-A/C/I/F/N boards are planned to convene the same time each year.
Additionally, the lieutenant colonel LAF-A/C/I/F/N/X boards that would have convened in spring of 2025, will now convene in November 2024, resulting in two lieutenant colonel LAF-A/C/I/F/N/X boards in 2024. Like the major’s board, eligibility, based on dates of rank and projected pin-on dates will remain unchanged. All future lieutenant colonel LAF-A/C/I/F/N/X boards are planned to convene around the same time each year.
The changes to align Air Force officer promotion boards with SCODs were completed without impacting Air Force enlisted promotion boards and met all the **Space Force**’s promotion timing requirements.
The 2024 board schedule and additional information can be found on **here**, on myFSS.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



promotion 



board 



schedule 



SCOD 



officer force management 



evaluation 



alignment 



Lt. Gen. Caroline Miller 



LAF-A/C/I/F/N/X 



myFSS 



readiness 



One Team One Fight 



strategy 



management
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Document Security Systems, inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip Jones,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully 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:





The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      August 14, 2009/s/Philip JonesPhilip
      JonesChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Document Security Systems, Inc and will be retained by Document Security
Systems, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### W. E. Mayes v. Rufus G. Bruton.

(No. 314, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 206.)

Appeal from Houston County.

January 30, 1878.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 699. *Stolen property; right of owner as against a purchaser in good faith.*Bruton owned two mules, one two-horse hack, and a set of double harness. One Peacock, his hired laborer, sold this property to Mayes, the defendant, who purchased the same in good faith, paying full value for it, and without notice that it belonged to plaintiff;. *Held,*that the good faith of defendant cannot invest him with the title to the property if his vendor had no title. The owner of property cannot be deprived of it except by his consent. The universal and fundamental principle of our law is, that no man can be divested of his property without his own consent, and consequently that even the honest purchaser under a defective title cannot hold against the proprietor. [Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 275; 2 Kent’s Comm. 324; Wheelright v. Depeyster, 1 Johns. 480; Dame v. Baldwin, 8 Mass. 521; Dodd & Co. v. Arnold, 28 Tex. 97.]

Affirmed.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-1700

___________ United States of America, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Maria Delourdes Andrade-Mora, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 30, 2004 Filed: January 18, 2005

___________ Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Maria Delourdes Andrade-Mora was found guilty after a jury trial of conspiring to distribute, and possessing with intent to distribute, methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. The government appeals the sentence, which reflected a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12 (coercion and duress). Andrade-Mora argues that the government did not preserve its objection to the departure. We reverse and remand. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that the government preserved its objection to a sentence below the mandatory minimum. Reviewing de novo the-2- district court’s decision to depart, see United States v. McCart , 377 F.3d 874, 876-77 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review), we find that the court exceeded its authority, because the government did not file a substantial-assistance motion, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), and the court did not find that Andrade-Mora qualified for safety-valve relief, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Cf. United States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (“district court was correct that it could not use § 5K2.0 to depart below the statutory minimum because ‘the only authority for the district court to depart below the statutorily mandated minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when the government makes a motion for substantial assistance or when the defendant qualifies under the safety valve provision’” (quoted case omitted)). Accordingly, we vacate Andrade-Mora’s sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

______________________________
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. OLIVER WHITE.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification granted.
#### G. H. & S. A. R. Co. v. J. C. Douglass.

(No. 1184, Op. Book No. 3, p. 373.)

Error from Guadalupe County.

Opinion by

Clark, J.

§ 67. *Common carrier; measure of damage against, for non-delivery in a reasonable time.*Where goods are not delivered in a reasonable time by a common carrier, the measure of damages is any reasonable loss and expense occasioned by the delay1, together with the value of the goods at the time and place they should have been delivered, less their value at the time and place of actual delivery or tender. [Nettles v. R. R. Co. 7 Rich. 190; *30Angelí on Corp. sec. 490a.] The loss of profits on the sale of the goods, or other damages of like character, are too remote to furnish a proper basis for recovery; but any damages which are the immediate consequence of the unreasonable delay may be recovered.

June 9, 1880.

Reversed and remanded.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REJEANNE BERNIER; HANS S. 

CROTEAU, as individuals, and as members 

of a similarly situated class, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

RICARDO LARA, in his capacity as 

California Insurance Commissioner; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55160 

D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00046-MMABLM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. 

Rejeanne Bernier and Hans S. Croteau appeal pro se from the district court’s

order dismissing their action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant prefiling order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 30 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-55160 

abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We 

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ action

because the complaint was within the scope of the pre-filing order and plaintiffs 

failed to comply with the pre-filing requirements. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, 

Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the inherent power 

to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive and 

lengthy histories of litigation. . . . Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant 

from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain 

requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that 

support the merits of the case.”).

To the extent that plaintiffs seek to challenge the underlying pre-filing order,

we do not consider their contentions because such a challenge is outside the scope 

of this appeal.

Plaintiffs’ motion to take judicial notice, and request set forth in the opening 

brief for reassignment to a different district court judge on remand, are denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### Volney Bayless et al. v. J. J. Alston et al.

(No. 1295, Op. Book No. 2, p. 256.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§1031. *Injunction;practice relating to.*The Farmers’ and Merchants’ Bank sued out an attachment against the property of one Jones, which wras levied upon cotton claimed and replevied by him. Before the institution of this suit, Jones and one Levner had executed to Bay less a mortgage upon their joint crop, to secure advances to be made by him.to them, to enable them to make and *579gather the crop, and this mortgage was placed upon record prior to the levy of the attachment. In the attachment suit, Bayless and Levner sought to intervene, claiming the cotton — Bayless claiming by virtue of his mortgage, and Levner that he was owner of one-half the cotton. Appellants were not permitted to intervene, and judgment was rendered against Jones for the debt due the bank, with foreclosure of attachment lien on the cotton. The replevy bond of Jones, upon which Bay less and Levner were sureties, was declared forfeited, and execution issued thereon; and Bayless and Levner brought this suit, and obtained an injunction restraining the collection of the execution, which injunction, upon motion made in term time in the county court, was dissolved, and, appellants declining to amend, judgment was rendered against appellants and the sureties upon their injunction bond for the amount of the debt enjoined and ten per cent, damages thereon, and for costs. *Held,*the motion to dissolve the inj unction was heard and determined during term time, and, for aught that appears in the record, when the case was called for trial. The motion was properly sustained. The averments of the petition showed no right in Bayless entitling him to relief; and as to Levner, it shows that he had an ample legal remedy, to which he failed to resort at the proper time. He, as owner of one half the property levied on, could have made claim thereto under the statute, and had the question of title determined. There is no averment in the petition showing that Jones & Levner are insolvent, or that the cotton levied on was the only property that they owned that was subject to execution; besides, all the equities contained in the petition are denied by the answer. It was not error to dismiss the petition. The appellants, if they desired to amend and have a hearing upon the merits, should have applied therefor, and saved the refusal by bill of exception. [Ferguson v. Herring, 49 Tex. 126.] The injunction was issued in the case to restrain the collection of money, and the court did not err in rendering judgment *580against the appellants and their sureties on the injunction, bond for ten per cent, damages. [Pas. Dig. 3935; R. S. 2894; Wright v. Thomas, 6 Tex. 420; Pryor v. Emmerson, 22 Tex. 162.] The affidavit to the answer made by defendant’s attorney, that the facts stated were “within his knowledge, and known by him to bo.true,” was sufficient. Besides, no exceptions were taken to the answer.

March 3, 1881.

Affirmed.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WALTER F. BARRY.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
H. Con. Res. 442 Agreed to October 3, 2008

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill S. 3001, the Secretary 

of the Senate shall make the following corrections: (1) In section 201(1), strike ‘‘$11,045,052,000’’ and insert 

‘‘$10,943,840,000’’. 

(2) In section 202(a), strike ‘‘$11,799,660’’ and insert 

‘‘$11,799,660,000’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.