alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


 


WAIVER


 


In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my
employer’s participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP
Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the
United States or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits
that are required to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the
Treasury as published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.


 


I acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the
compensation, bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies
and agreements (including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have
with my employer or in which I participate as they relate to the period the
United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired
through the TARP Capital Purchase Program.


 


This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United
States or any state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned
regulation, including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other
payments I would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this
regulation was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of
these regulations on my employment relationship.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<MULTIPLIER>     1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         472,546
<SECURITIES>                                   100,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,739,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                    86,548
<INVENTORY>                                    584,699
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,956,706
<PP&E>                                       3,082,555
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,116,081
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,013,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,863,385
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,415
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,933,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,013,081
<SALES>                                      3,358,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,358,881
<CGS>                                        2,243,637
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,243,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,089,751
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,785
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,862
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,228
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,634
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        

</TABLE>
#### Cory B. HOWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D09-2939.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 30, 2010.

*47Cory B. Howard, Jay, pro se.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appel-lee.

GERBER, J.

The circuit court denied the defendant’s motion seeking additional jail credit under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(a). We reverse and remand for the circuit court to determine if the record demonstrates the defendant’s right to the requested credit.

The defendant’s motion alleged that the trial court awarded him 28 days of credit, but that he was still due 148 days of credit which he served on house arrest. The defendant further alleged that his court and jail records would conclusively demonstrate his entitlement to that credit. The state’s response argued that the plea transcript conclusively refuted the defendant’s motion. According to the state, the transcript showed that the defendant expressly acknowledged his agreement to 28 days of credit.

The circuit court entered an order denying the defendant’s motion, reasoning that • the plea transcript conclusively refuted the defendant’s motion. According to the court, “[t]he record reflects that Defendant was fully advised by the Court of his sentence, agreed to credit for 28 days, *and thereby waived any additional credit.”*(emphasis added).

We reverse. A stipulation as to a specific amount of credit is not sufficient to demonstrate that a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived credit to which he otherwise would be entitled “in the absence of evidence that the defendant knew of his entitlement to additional credit and voluntarily relinquished that right.” *Velasquez v. State,*11 So.3d 979, 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted); *cf. Lahens v. State,*27 So.3d 174, 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (finding Velasquez to be distinguishable where written plea agreement, *stating that the defendant agreed to waive a full year of credit,*satisfies the requirement that a defendant “knew of his entitlement” to additional jail credit and voluntarily waived his right to that credit).

Neither the circuit court in its order, nor the state in this appeal, has cited any evidence in the record that the defendant knew of his alleged entitlement to additional credit and voluntarily relinquished that right. Therefore, we remand for the circuit court to determine if the record demonstrates the defendant’s right to the requested credit and to rule accordingly. *Velasquez,*11 So.3d at 980.

*Reversed and remanded.*

TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ, concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6668

CHARLES HOYE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN CLARK, U.S. Marshal (Acting); JOHN R.

LONG, Chief Probation Officer; UNITED STATES

PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-03-1029-A; CA-03-1361-A)

Submitted: October 6, 2004 Decided: October 26, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Hoye, Appellant Pro Se. Anita Claire Snyder, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

Although the district court construed Hoye’s motion as a

motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),

the motion was filed more than ten days after entry of the judgment

denying § 2241 relief. Thus, the motion should have been construed

as one under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1,

3 (4th Cir. 1992).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Charles Hoye, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order denying his motion to reconsider* the court’s denial

of relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Hoye v. Clark, Nos. CA-03-1029-A; CA-03-1361-A (E.D. Va. filed Feb.

2, 2004 & entered Feb. 3, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Cedric Anton LANG, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-2975.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 30, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 18, 2010.

Cedric Anton Lang, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
855 A.2d 759

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Jose Rene SANTIAGO, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2004.

Decided Aug. 18, 2004.

Janna Rae Steinruck, for Com. of Pa.

James Jude Karl, Merrill Michael Spahn, Jr., Strasburg, for Jose R. Santiago.

Before CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, BAER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2004, the order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas is reversed insofar as it declared the Registration of Sexual Offenders Act unconstitutional, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. *See Commonwealth v. Williams,*574 Pa. 487, 832 A.2d 962 (2003); *Commonwealth v. Maldonado,*576 Pa. 101, 838 A.2d 710 (2003).

Justice EAKTN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
644 A.2d 580

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM J. EWING, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

July 7, 1994.

ORDER

Prior Report; 132 *N.J.*206, 624 A.2d 564.

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court recommending that WILLIAM J. EWING of MONT-CLAIR, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year by Order of this Court dated May 11,1993, be restored to the practice of law;

And the Disciplinary Review Board further recommending that respondent’s restoration to practice be conditioned on his filing with the Office of Attorney Ethics certified annual audits of the books and records required to be maintained pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 for a period of three years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that WILLIAM J. EWING of MONTCLAIR, is hereby restored to the practice of law, effective immediately, and it is further

ORDERED that WILLIAM J. EWING file with the Office of Attorney Ethics, on a schedule to be set by that office, on an annual basis for a period of three years, beginning with calendar *102year 1994, certified audits of the books and records required to be maintained by *Rule*1:21-6.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         240,343
<SECURITIES>                                   250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,427,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,079,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,221,670
<PP&E>                                      78,391,026
<DEPRECIATION>                             (27,547,812)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,672,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,363,866
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,527
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,904,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,672,719
<SALES>                                     63,285,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,285,123
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               58,822,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             943,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,519,129
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,442,259
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,076,870
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,076,870
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58


</TABLE>
V 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7162 

For the relief of David Beasley. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2018 

Mr. NOLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

For the relief of David Beasley. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR 

4 ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS WITH REGARDS 

5 TO DAVID BEASLEY. 

6 With regards to David Beasley, the Secretary of Vet7 erans Affairs shall treat ankylosing spondylitis as a dis8 ease specified in section 1116(a)(2) of title 38, United 

9 States Code. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement Nos. 333-68929, 333-64242, 333-109311, 333-109332 and333-125245 on Form S-8 of our reports relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Gevity HR, Inc.and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting dated March 16, 2009, appearingin this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,2008.

 
| /s/ Deloitte &  Touche LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   |
| Tampa, Florida                      |   |
| March 16, 2009                 |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from General
Media, Inc.'s March 31, 1999 Form 10Q and is qualified in its' entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos       
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999 
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999 
<CASH>                                         39,440      
<SECURITIES>                                   0           
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,281       
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0           
<INVENTORY>                                    4,395       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               58,017      
<PP&E>                                         3,474       
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0           
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 68,126      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          34,600      
<BONDS>                                        79,689      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0           
<PREFERRED>                                    0           
<COMMON>                                       5           
<OTHER-SE>                                     (50,859)     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   68,126      
<SALES>                                        22,779      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,779      
<CGS>                                          10,389      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,233      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               133         
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0           
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,480)      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                28,503      
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,287       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            27,216      
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0           
<CHANGES>                                      0           
<NET-INCOME>                                   27,216      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0           
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0           
                                               


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7381** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee ,
v. SHANNON DERRELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Doe , Petitioner

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , Senior District Judge. ( 3:02

- cr - 00085

- JRS

- 1 )

Submitted : December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Shannon Derrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shannon Derrell Williams seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order construing his petition for a writ of audita querela as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The district court’s order is not appealabl e unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 0 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 5 29 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion state s a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis miss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A2 26 1 . ARTHUR L. STEELE v

. THE STATE.

A ju ry fo u n d A rt h u r L. St eel e g u i l t y o f t wo co u n t s o f b u rg l ary , an d w e affi rm ed h i s co n v i ct i o n i n an u n p ub l i s h ed o p i ni o n

. S e e S t eel e v. S t a t e , Cas e Nu m b er A0 9 A1 94 1 , d eci d ed J an

. 1 3 , 2 0 1 0

. In 2 0 1 5 , St eel e fi led an ex t rao rd i n ary m o t i o n fo r

a n ew t ri al , wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed . St eel e s eek s t o ap p eal t h i s ru li n g

. An o rd er den y i n g an ex t rao rd i n ary m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al m u s t b e ap p eal ed by
ap p li cat io n fo r d i scret i o n ary ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (7 ); Ba l kco m v. S t a t e , 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 7 , 3 2 9 (4 8 9 SE2 d 1 2 9 ) (1 9 9 7). Becau s e St eel e fai led t o co m p l y wi th
t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u re, we l ack j u ri s d i ct i o n ov er t hi s ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 09/03/2015 September 03, 2015
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.4

                      LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                           CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
            RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

      In connection the Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Trust (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR., Chief Financial Officer of Liberty Property Trust
(the sole general partner of the Company), certify, in connection with Rule
13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that based on
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, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ GEORGE J. ALBURGER, JR.
--------------------------------------------
George J. Alburger, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Liberty Property Trust, its sole general partner

Date: August 5, 2004
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **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 Annual Report of Brigham Exploration Company (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ben M.
        Brigham, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
        the
        Company, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                  and
  (2)
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
 
 
 Dated:
                  March 6, 2007
              /s/BEN
                  M. BRIGHAMBen
                  M. Brigham
                Chief
                  Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the
                  Board
 
 
 This
        certification shall not be deemed to be "filed" for the purpose of Section
        18 of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated
        by
        reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act
        of
        1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated
        therein by reference.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to Brigham Exploration Company and will
        be
        retained by Brigham Exploration Company and furnished to the Securities and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.