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

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.28

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     WHEREAS, Alderwoods Group Services Inc. (the "Company"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Alderwoods Group, Inc. ("AGI"), and Kenneth A. Sloan ("Sloan")
are parties to an Employment Agreement, dated as of January 2, 2002 (the
"Employment Agreement"), pursuant to which Sloan agreed to serve the Company
and AGI as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer;

     WHEREAS, the Company and Sloan desire to amend the terms of the
Employment Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual representations and
warranties, covenants, undertakings and agreements set forth herein and in
the Employment Agreement, the Company and Sloan hereby enter into this
Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement, effective as of December ___,
2002. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
set forth in the Employment Agreement.

                                       I.

     Section 11(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

     a)   In consideration for the Executive's continued performance of his
          duties as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, the
          Executive will receive a base salary of $285,000 U.S. per annum. The
          amount of such salary shall be subject to review and improvement on a
          periodic basis in accordance with Company practice, but in no event
          shall such amount be reduced. The Executive's base salary is payable
          in accordance with the Company's customary payroll practices and is
          subject to deductions required by applicable law.

                                       II.

     Section 15(b) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     b)   VEHICLE ALLOWANCE. The Executive will be entitled to a vehicle
          allowance of $600.00 per month plus operating expenses with no
          allowance for auto insurance coverage.
<Page>

                                      III.

     Section 16(b)(i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

     i)   24 months' base salary;



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date
and year first above written.

                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Kenneth A. Sloan


                                         ALDERWOODS GROUP SERVICES INC.


                                         By:
                                             ---------------------------------
                                         Name:
                                         Title:


                                       2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Nikki Welch","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nikki-d-welchnasa-gov\/","title":"John H. Glenn","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TdX8Xvtgg6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/john-glenn\/\">John H. Glenn<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/john-glenn\/embed\/#?secret=TdX8Xvtgg6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“John H. Glenn” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TdX8Xvtgg6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/145210main_image_feature_534_ys_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":476}
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Annual Report of Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Irvin E. Richter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 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), as applicable, 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.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                      
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|By:                  |  | /S/    IRVIN E.
RICHTER                              
|                     |  | Irvin E. Richter Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                    
|Date: March 12, 2010
#### Lepanto Gin Company *v.*Barnes.

Opinion delivered October 20, 1930.

*424
      *Caraway, Baker Gautney,*for appellant.

*Dudley & Dudley,*for appellee.

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The sole issue raised by the appeal and decided by ns is whether or not the court erred in finding that there was no liability against the defendants upon the certificates of stock which had 'been issued to them and for which each of them had given his note.

Article 12, § 8, of our Constitution provides that no private corporation shall issue stocks or bonds, except for money or property actually received or labor done, and all fictitious increase of stock or indebtedness shall be void. In the construction of this clause of the Constitution in *Bank of Dermott*v. *Measel,*172 Ark. 193, 287 S. W. 1017, it was held that a note given to a private corporation for the purchase of stock in it is void. To support the holding, the court quoted from *Bank of Commerce*v. *Goolsby,*129 Ark. 416, 196 S. W. 803, the following:

> “'"When notes are taken in exchange for stock, it is a palpable violation of the constitutional provision, because notes are merely evidences of indebtedness, and such a transaction shows upon its face that the stock has not been paid for. The design of the framers of the Constitution was that stock should not be issued and sold except for its value in money or property actually received, or labor done. A note is not property in the sense of the Constitution, because it only indicates that the stock has not, in fact, been paid for; and where the notes are worthless the stock has been exchanged for nothing. Notes are not money and not bankable paper, but mere choses in action and it in no sense meets the requirements of the above provision of the Constitution *425to accept a note in exchange for stock” (citing authorities).

The notes introduced in evidence in this case were contractual in their nature because they contained a clause that they were given for shares of stock of the Lepanto Gin Company. The notes were merely evidence of the indebtedness of the persons executing them; and if the notes were void as being given in violation of the constitutional provision above referred to, there was no indebtedness of the stockholders to the corporation, for the certificates of stock which had been issued to them were also void; and the court properly held that there was no liability upon the part of the defendants.

Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the other questions discussed by counsel in their respective briefs. Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00439-CR

Jose Augustin Gutierrez Perez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR22,624, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After Jose Augustin Gutierrez Perez pleaded no contest to the charge of aggravated

sexual assault, the trial court found him guilty and assessed sentence at twenty years in prison. Perez

filed a notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements

of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the

records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State,

516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s
brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State,

300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is

granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Henson, Rose and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: February 17, 2011

Do Not Publish

2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50287

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE TORRES-DUENAS, Also Known as Joe Angel Torres, 

Also Known as Leonardo Duenia-Torres, Also Known as Leonard Torres, 

Also Known as Joe Torres,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 5:10-CR-814-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 24, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-50287 Document: 00511997279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2012
No. 11-50287

Jose Torres-Duenas appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty

to illegal reentry after deportation. The seventy-one-month sentence was within

the properly calculated guidelines range and is presumed reasonable. See

United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Torres-Duenas’s contention that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply because the

applicable guideline is not founded on empirical data is foreclosed. See United

States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). His disagreement with

the district court’s weighing of the sentencing factors does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir.

2010). His contention that a federal court may not order a sentence to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-determined state sentence is foreclosed by Setser v.

United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1466-73 (2012). 

The district court imposed a reasonable sentence. See Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007).

Because there was no error, plain or otherwise, with regard to the sentence, the

judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-50287 Document: 00511997279 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2012
IB

Union Calendar No. 70

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 848

[Report No. 105–122]

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of the AuSable Hydroelectric Project in New York, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 26, 1997

Mr. MCHUGH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

JUNE 7, 1997

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of the AuSable Hydroelectric

Project in New York, 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. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

4 (a) PROJECT NUMBERED 10836.—Notwithstanding

5 the time period specified in section 13 of the Federal
2

•HR 848 RH

1 Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply

2 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project

3 numbered 10836–000NY, the Commission shall, at the re4 quest of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable

5 notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence,

6 and public interest requirements of that section and the

7 Commission’s procedures under that section, extend the

8 time period during which the licensee is required to com9 mence the construction of the project, under the extension

10 described in subsection (b), for not more than 3 consecu11 tive 2-year periods.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall take

13 effect on the date of the expiration of the extension of

14 the period required for commencement of construction of

15 the project described in subsection (a) that the Commis16 sion issued, prior to the date of enactment of this Act,

17 under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.

18 806).

19 (c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the

20 license for the project referred to in subsection (a) has

21 expired prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the

22 Commission shall reinstate the license effective as of the

23 date of its expiration and extend the time required for

24 commencement of construction of the project as provided

25 in subsection (a) for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year
3

•HR 848 RH

1 periods, the first of which shall commence on the date of

2 such expiration.
Union Calendar No. 70

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 848

[Report No. 105–122]

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power

purposes.Hydroelectric Project in New York, and for otherAct applicable to the construction of the AuSable

JUNE 7, 1997

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Exhibit 13.2








PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro Tankers (Bahamas III) Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kate Blankenship, the Principal Financial Officer 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; 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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.






Date: June 24, 2011





/s/ Kate Blankenship


Kate Blankenship


Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosures controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/  Eric W. FinlaysonEric W. FinlaysonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Wm. Hackworth *v.*J. Logan, &c.

Pleading — Answer Containing Record of Another Suit.

Where, in an answer, reference is made to another suit, alleged to he pending, it is not available unless a copy of the record be filed therewith; or proof showing same.

APPEAL PROM &REENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

September 21, 1870.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

By the admissions in appellee’s answer, James Logan had got ten from the places described in the pleadings, on the premises; fifteen or sixteen cords of tan bark in excess of the twenty-five cords he contracted for at the price of $45. Por the fifteen or sixteen cords he.admitted he owes $1.50 per cord, taking.the admissions as to quantity strongest against him, which would cause the quantity to be fixed at sixteen cords, worth $1.50 per cord *428will make the sum of $24, to which add five dollars admitted to be due on- tbe twenty-five cords, James Logan’s indebtedness is $29.

Roe, *for appellant.*

Tbe jurisdiction of the court is not questioned, but Logan says in bis answer that tbe amount be owes appellant bad been attached in his hands by Alexander in a suit in the Lewis circuit court, but the record of that suit is not filed, nor is there any sufficient evidence that any recovery has been, or will be had, in that case, or that it is pending. It was erroneous in any view to dismiss appellant’s petition. Appellees should have filed a transcript of that suit if it existed, and interpleaded the parties and the court below should, on that being done, have retained the cause until it was judicially decided who was entitled to the fund, and adjudged accordingly. It does not appear that appellant can get a credit with Alexander. And his remedy against James Logan is barred by this judgment. In the absence of a transcript of the record, of the suit in Lewis circuit court, judgment should have been rendered in favor of appellant against James Logan for the $80, and costs.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial and further proceedings consistent herewith. As the cause must return for further proceedings, J. Logan should be allowed to amend and prepare the case on equitable terms, if in proper time he should offer to do so.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 779 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 779

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the percentage 
            depletion allowance for certain hardrock mines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 1997

 Mr. Miller of California (for himself and Mr. Rahall) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the percentage 
            depletion allowance for certain hardrock mines.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Elimination of Double Subsidies for 
the Hardrock Mining Industry Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN HARDROCK MINES.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 611(a) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after ``mines'' 
the following: ``(except for hardrock mines located on land currently 
subject to the general mining laws or on lands patented under the 
general mining laws)''.
    (b) General Mining Law Defined.--Section 611 of such Code is 
amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and inserting 
after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
    ``(c) General Mining Law Defined.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
the term `general mining laws' means those Acts which are generally 
codified as chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161 and 162 of title 
30 of the United States Code.''

 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to taxable years 
beginning after December 31, 1996.
                                 <all>
```