alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.22**

**EXECUTION COPY**

**EXTENSION OF EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

This EXTENSION OF EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Extension”) is made as of February 28, 2009 by and between Atlantic Broadband Management, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company (the “Company”), and Edward Holleran (“Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered anExecutive Employment Agreement dated March 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”) which will expire on February 28, 2009; 

WHEREAS the Company andExecutive desire to enter into a new employment agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to extend the terms of the Agreement on an interimbasis for a period of six months to allow parties sufficient time to enter a new agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenantscontained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

Section 1. Extension of Employment Period The Employment Period shall be extended for a period of six months, beginning on the date of this Extension, unless terminated earlier under the provisions of Section 5(a) (ii) – (iii) or by execution of a new employment agreement by Company and Executive. The term “fifth anniversary” is amended to read “fifth anniversary plus six months” wherever it appears in theAgreement. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain unamended. 

Section 2. Retroactive Effect The terms and consideration as agreed toby Company and Executive in a new employment agreement to be entered into following the date hereof shall apply retroactively to March 1, 2009. 

Section 3. Capitalized Terms Capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement. 

Section 4.Governing Law. Issues and questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Extension will be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to anychoice of law or conflict of law rules or provisions (whether of the State of Delaware or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Delaware. In furtherance of the foregoing, theinternal law of the State of Delaware will control the interpretation and construction of this Extension, even though under Delaware’s choice of law or conflict of law analysis, the substantive law of some other jurisdiction would ordinarilyapply. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Extension of Executive Employment Agreement as of the datefirst written above. 

 
ATLANTIC BROADBAND MANAGEMENT, LLCBy: 
 
Name: Title: 
 
Edward Holleran
#### Dwayne E. DICKENS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden MALDONADO, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-7628.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 28, 2004.

Dwayne E. Dickens, Appellant pro se. Barbara Mureier Bowens, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Dwayne E. Dickens, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Dickens v. Maldonado,*No. CA-03-3112-6-20AK (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 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*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6244

DARREL R. FISHER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SARAH RALSTON; W. EARL BRITT; JEAN ZULA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-ct-03165-FL)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrel R. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrel R. Fisher seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).*

 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Fisher v. Ralston, No. 5:18-ct-03165-FL

(E.D.N.C. Jan. 14, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 * Although the new claims raised in the amended complaint were dismissed 

without prejudice, the court’s order is final and appealable because Fisher cannot cure the 

defects simply by amending the complaint. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 

F.3d 619, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6457
JOHN DAVID SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusRONALD ANGELONE, in his individual and official capacity as the Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; DONALD GUILLORY, in his individual and official capacity as Warden of Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia; LARRY JARVIS, in his individual capacity as Assistant Warden of the PowhatanCorrectional Facility in the State of Virginia; CECIL N. LEWIS, in his individual capacityas Chief of Security at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia; LORETTA K. KELLY, in her indiv idual capacity as Assistant Warden of Programs (AWP) at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia; MARCIA ORNELAS, in her individual capacity as designated Grievance Coordinator at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia; KENNETH SUTTON, in hisindividual capacity as Personal Property Officer at the Powhatan Correctional Facility in the State of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-1081-2) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 19972 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.John David Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: John David Simpson appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Simpson v. Angelone , No. CA-94-1081-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for oral argument b ecause thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
9985.

#### Johnson *v.*The State.

Decided November 7, 1918.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Tifton—Judge Price. July 8, 1918.

The accusation charged that the defendant, on February 17, 1918, in Tift county, did “lead a profligate and immoral life, and did then aid there wander and stroll about in idleness, being then and there able to work, and having no property to' support himself.” A ■ police officer testified: “I arrested Cleveland Johnson [the defendant] in Tifton, Georgia, about the 17th day of February, 1918. He was walking alóng the street . ■ . I saw him hereHór two or three days, idling and loafing around, and when T would see him he was walking about in town. The first time.I saw him was on Monday morning when he came to me and told me that he had put up $10 to act as a bond for the appearance of a negro woman by the name of Salutie Carter, and he stated he put up the' money for her appearance at the mayor’s court on Monday morning. On Tuesday morning he came to me again and asked me about the money, and I told him that the bond had been forfeited and he could not get the money back. • The next day I arrested him on a complaint made by some negroes about having given him some money to buy whisky with. . . He stated that he lived in Albany, Georgia, when I arrested him. . . He is a stranger in Tifton, as I have never seen him here before. From his looks I would say he is able to work.” The only other witness testified: “I was at the Union Depot when this man came to me and *11asked me if I did not want to buy some whisky. I asked him how much it was worth and he told me $2.50 a pint. I gave him $2 and told him to get me the whisky. He told me to wait until he came back, and Lwaited for some time, but he did not come, so I went on. He did not bring me any whisky. I had never seen him before I gave him the money to get the whisky and did not see him again until the trial in the justice’s court.” The defendant, in. his statement at the trial, said that he had never seen this witness before the trial in the justice’s court; that he had a regular job in Albany and worked all the time; that he came to Tifton on Sunday morning, February 15, 1918, intending to return to' Albany that night, but remained to get back $10 lent by him to Salutie Carter, which, on her arrest on Sunday, was put up for her appearance in the mayor’s court Monday; that he had more money than this $10, and was able to pay his way and expenses.

*10Harwell, J.

The evidence was not sufficient to authorize- the verdict finding the defendant guilty of vagrancy, and a new trial should have been granted.

*Judgment reversed,.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*11
      *J. B. Murrow,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. S.*Ridgdill, *solicitor,*contra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              16,579
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       15,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                           647
<INVENTORY>                                          1,342
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    33,146
<PP&E>                                              82,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (59,740)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,056,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              348,688
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                         1,329,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,056,991
<SALES>                                              3,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     3,585
<CGS>                                                1,193
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       46,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (2,864)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (45,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (45,875)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.01)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 13.10**

 

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

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Global Limited (the “Company”) forthe annual period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Rick Medlock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: April 28, 2006
AUGUST 2021

Department of Commerce COVID-19 Policy

Keep the Certification of Vaccination Form with you at all 

times while on-site

Complete a Certification of Vaccination Form attesting to your 

vaccination status*

Show your Certification of Vaccination Form when requested

Follow all on-site COVID-19 safety protocols regarding mask 

usage and physical distancing

Produce a negative COVID-19 test from within the previous 

three calendar days on entry** 

Follow all on-site COVID-19 safety protocols regarding mask 

usage and physical distancing and comply with all instructions 

by Federal Protective Service officers and facility managers, as 

applicable

If you are not fully vaccinated or choose not to disclose 

your vaccination status, you must:

When coming on-site, you must: 

DOC Guidelines for On-Site 

Contractors

For contractors entering Department of Commerce facilities

*You may use any WHO authorized COVID-19 vaccine

**You may use any FDA authorized COVID-19 test

On-site contractors should contact their Contracting Officer Representative 

(COR) for any questions.
#### SHACKLEFORD v. VARIETY WHOLESALERS, INC.

No. 275P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 225

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 16, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00960-CV
CONNIE LOOP, CONNIE LOOP RNFA, LL C, AND SURGICAL STAFFING, LLC D/B/A TX SURG. SERVICES, LLC, Appellants V. DR. DOUGLAS S. WON, MDCL CONSULTING, LTD., AND SKW PARTNERS, LP, Appellees

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-11494

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Bridges Before the Court is appellants’ July 24, 2013 motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellants
have informed the Court that the parties have settled their differences. Accordingly, we grant
appellants’ motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

130960F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

CONNIE LOOP, CONNIE LOOP RNFA, LLC, AND SURGICAL STAFFING, LLC D/B/A TX SURG. SERVICES, LLC, Appellants

No. 05-13-00960-CV V.

DR. DOUGLAS S. WON, MDCL CONSULTING, LTD., AND SKW PARTNERS, LP, Appellees On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-11494. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Moseley and Lang-Miers, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellees, DR. DOUGLAS S. WON, MDCL CONSULTING, LTD ., AND SKW PARTNERS, LP, recover their costs of this appeal from appellants, CONNIE LOOP, CONNIE LOOP RNFA, LLC, AND SURGICAL STAFFING, LLC D/B/A TX SURG. SERVICES, LLC.

Judgment entered August 16, 2013

/David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

           I, Douglas P. Rosefsky, as Chief Executive Officer of North Atlantic
Holding Company, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period
ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Date: August 19, 2005

/s/ Douglas P. Rosefsky
--------------------------------
Name:    Douglas P. Rosefsky
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4013 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4013

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
 approval of any drug that infringes the right to life, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2004

 Mr. Gingrey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
 approval of any drug that infringes the right to life, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT; PROHIBITION AGAINST 
              APPROVAL OF DRUG INFRINGING RIGHT TO LIFE.

    Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
355) is amended by adding at the end the following subsection:
    ``(o)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the 
Secretary may not approve an application under subsection (b) or (j) 
for a drug whose intended use would infringe the right to life. Drugs 
whose approval is prohibited under the preceding sentence include a 
drug intended to assist with the act of suicide and a drug intended to 
induce an abortion.
    ``(2) Effective upon the expiration of 30 days after the effective 
date of this subsection--
            ``(A) the approved application under subsection (b) or (j) 
        of any drug whose intended use infringes the right to life 
        within the meaning of paragraph (1) is deemed to have been 
        withdrawn under subsection (e) or (j)(6), respectively; and
            ``(B) a drug to which subparagraph (A) applies shall be 
        considered adulterated for purposes of section 301.''.
                                 <all>
```
December 2003 

Package Labeling Guides 

By Kathy Dresser 

To assist manufacturers and packers in complying with the somewhat confusing 

Handbook 130 package labeling regulations, the Laws and Metric Group is developing a 

series of package labeling guides that distill the regulations down to their most basic 

components. Guides are being developed for each method of sale: weight, fluid volume, 

dry volume, length/area, and count. Filled with examples of common errors and simple 

corrections, the guides will cover labeling in both inch-pound and metric units. 

A draft of the guide for labeling by weight was distributed to industry members at the 

November 2003 Metric Forum and is available for review upon request. The Laws and 

Metric Group is seeking input on these guides to make them as useful and helpful to 

industry members as possible. For further information contact Kathy Dresser at 301-975-3289 or by 

email at kathryn.dresser@nist.gov.
1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1447

___________

David F. Leach, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Mediacom, *

*

Appellee, * [PUBLISHED]

*

United States of America, *

*

Movant Below. *

___________

Submitted: December 10, 2003

Filed: June 28, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David F. Leach appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his complaint,

purportedly brought under the Cable Communications Policy Act. See 47 U.S.C.

§ 521 et seq. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court
-2-

that there is no implied private right of action under 47 U.S.C. § 531(e), as Congress

expressly gave the franchiser enforcement authority. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532

U.S. 275, 290 (2001) (“The express provision of one method of enforcing a

substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others.”) Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4 -**  **6 156** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. ANTWAINE TACOMA JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 4: 08

- cr - 000 24

- F L

- 1 ; 4:1 2

- cv - 00 0 80

- F L )

Submitted : March 17 , 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Antwaine Tacoma Johnson , Appellant Pro Se. Brian Scott Meyers , Assistant United States Attorney, Augustus D. Willis , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antwaine Tacoma Johnson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Johnson , Nos. 4:08

- cr - 00024

- FL

- 1; 4:12

- cv - 00080

- FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2014)
. We deny Johnson’s motion to appoint cou nsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED