alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Restricted Shares Agreements



 Exhibit 10(z) 
 CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC 
 Amendment 
 to 
 Restricted Shares Agreements 
 for 
 John S. Brinzo 
 This Amendment is executed as of the date set forth below by Cleveland-Cliffs Inc (the “Company”); 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, Cleveland Cliffs Inc (the “Company”) established the 1992
Incentive Equity Plan (the “Plan”), under which the Company has granted shares of Common Stock to certain eligible employees by entering into Restricted Shares Agreements with such employees at various times; and 
 WHEREAS, in conjunction with the Plan, the Company has entered into various Restricted Shares Agreements with John S. Brinzo (the
“Brinzo Restricted Shares Agreements”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to waive the restrictions
applicable Common Shares granted under any Restricted Shares Agreement pursuant to Section 2 of such Restricted Shares Agreements; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Brinzo Restricted Shares Agreements, effective September 1, 2006, in order to waive certain restrictions on the Common Shares granted under such Brinzo Restricted Shares
Agreements; 
  







 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 2 of the Restricted Shares Agreements,
Section 2 of Brinzo’s Restricted Shares Agreements are hereby amended, effective September 1, 2006, by the addition of a new sentence at the end of such Section to read as follows: 
 “In accordance with the previous sentence, effective September 1, 2006, all restrictions on the Grantee’s sale or transfer
of stock granted under this Agreement, to the extent still applicable, shall lapse as of the day following the date of the Company’s May 2007 stockholder meeting, provided the Grantee remains the non-employee Chairman of the Board of Directors
of the Company until such date and provided that the Grantee shall also retire from the Board of Directors as of such date.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company by its appropriate officer, duly authorized, has executed this Amendment as of this 18th day of September, 2006. 
  

			
	 CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Joseph A. Carrabba
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CURTIS LEE RUCKER, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. ( 5:18

- cr - 00057

- KDB

- DCK

- 1 )

Submitted : July 20, 2021 Decided: July 23, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Curtis Lee Rucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Lee Rucker , Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for release to home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116

- 136, § 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. 281, 516 (2020) (“CARES Act”). The district court correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to grant Rucker the requested relief because, “under the CARES Act, the Attorney General[] has plenary control over [federal] inmates’ placement.” United States v. Saunders , 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021) . We t herefore affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Rucker , No. 5:18

-

cr - 00057

- KBD

- DCK

- 1 (W.D.N.C. June 5, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court a nd argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### Randall S. KEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon R. ENGLAND, Secretary of the United States Navy, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-35069.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 13, 2006.

Filed Oct. 3, 2006.

Randy W. Loun, Esq., Loun *&*Tyner, Bremerton, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Marion J. Mittet, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Randall Kean appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint alleging that his employer, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and the Family Medical Leave Act. In his complaint he asserts claims on the basis of both his own disabilities and those of his father.

Kean did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the Rehabilitation Act for claims based on his own disabilities. *See Cherosky v. Henderson,*330 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.2003). The district court therefore properly dismissed those claims on that ground. *See*29 U.S.C. § 794. Kean did pursue administrative remedies for claims based on his father’s disabilities, but the Rehabilitation Act does not recognize claims for discrimination and failure to accommodate disabilities of relatives, rather than disabilities of the employee. *See*29 U.S.C. § 794. For similar reasons, Kean has asserted no valid claims for retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act.

The district court properly ruled that the Family Medical Leave Act under these circumstances did not apply to the federal government. *See Russell v. United States Dept, of Army,*191 F.3d 1016, 1018-19 (9th Cir.1999). Sovereign immunity has not been waived.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          76,039
<SECURITIES>                                   494,750
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               570,981
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 734,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    109,356
<COMMON>                                         4,851
<OTHER-SE>                                   (114,519)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   743,731
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (143,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (143,671)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 84,891
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (228,562)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00156-CR

COURTNEY LEV

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-CR-3433-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 20, 2015
EXHIBIT10-1MAXIMEDAamendment8-15final






Exhibit 10.1
                                
August 4, 2015


STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL


William A. Carter, M.D.
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc.
1617 JFK Boulevard
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103


Dear Dr. Carter:
 
This letter (the “Amendment Agreement”) constitutes an agreement between Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) and Maxim Group LLC (the “Agent”) to amend the Equity Distribution Agreement, dated as of July 23, 2012, between the Company and the Agent, as amended (the “Agreement”), as follows:


Section 1(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the following initial text:


 “A registration statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-182216) (the “registration statement”) was initially declared effective by the Commission on July 2, 2012, and is currently effective, under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder (the “Rules and Regulations”) (collectively called the “Securities Act”);” 


and inserting in replacement thereof the following: 


“A registration statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-182216) (the “First Registration Statement”) was initially declared effective by the Commission on July 2, 2012, and, prior to the expiration of such First Registration Statement, a new registration statement on Form S-3 (File No 333-205228) (the “Second Registration Statement”) was initially declared effective by the Commission on August 4, 2015  (such date, the “Effective Date”) (the First Registration Statement from July 2, 2012 through the Effective Date and the Second Registration Statement from the Effective Date and thereafter, respectively, hereinafter referred to as the “registration statement”)  is currently effective, under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder (the “Rules and Regulations”) (collectively called the “Securities Act”);”.     


In acknowledgment that the foregoing correctly sets forth the understanding reached by the Agent and the Company, please sign in the space provided below, whereupon this Amendment Agreement shall constitute a binding amendment to the Agreement as of the date indicated above.


                
[remainder of page intentionally left blank]










Very truly yours,


MAXIM GROUP LLC


By s/Clifford A. Teller    
Name: Clifford A. Teller
Title: Executive Managing Director


Accepted and Agreed:


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA, INC.


By: s/ William A. Carter    
     Name: William A. Carter
     Title: Chief Executive Officer
















[SIGNATURE PAGE TO HEB AMENDMENT AGREEMENT]
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**STATMON
      TECHNOLOGIES CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**19
      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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Geoffrey P. Talbot, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that to the best of my knowledge:




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




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


/s/ Geoffrey P. Talbot
 
 **Geoffrey
        P. Talbot**
 ****  **Chief Financial Officer**
 **August
        14, 2007**




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 Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
      retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0186 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. ROBERT D. MAXIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 4 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 28 2020

04/28/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0186
Exhibit 31.2
**Certifications**
I, Jon D. Greenwood, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of American BuildingControl, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.     Dated:May 17, 2004      By /s/ Jon D. Greenwood      Jon D. Greenwood   Interim-Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

October 22, 2012

t1015

Order 

October 22, 2012

145576

CLYDE SALLIE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145576

COA: 302554

Kent CC: 10-003496-CH

FIFTH THIRD BANK,

Defendant-Appellee, 

and

FORECLOSURE MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### In the Matter of Kim M. Cagle, as Administrator of the Estate of John R. Cagle, Deceased, Appellant, v Judge Motor Corporation et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted June 29, 2009;

decided September 15, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 1118.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
U.S. State Metrology Laboratori

Regional Measurement Assurance Program (RMAP) G

Flor

Georgia

Alabama

Mississippi

Tennessee

Sout

Caroli

N

Ca

Kentucky

V

Louisiana

Texas

Arkansas Oklahoma

Kansas Missouri

Arizona New Mexico

Colorado

SWAP

USDA - GIPSA

Indiana

Michigan

Ohio

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Illinois

Nebraska

South Dakota

North Dakota

MidMAP

New Y

West

Virginia

Pennsylvania

Vermo

Alaska 

Hawaii

Oregon

Montana

Wyoming

Idaho

Washington

California

Nevada

Utah

WRAP

• WRAP - Western• MidMap - MidAmerica• NEMAP - Northeastern• SWAP - Southwestern• SEMAP - Southeastern• CaMap - Caribbean

Los Angeles County
Exhibit 99.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and
the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (Holdings), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



(a)    the Form 10-K of Holdings for the year ended December 31, 2002
filed on the date hereof with the 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; and



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



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



Date: March 31, 2003



|By: |  | /s/    Hugh Panero                   
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|    |  | Hugh Panero                          
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | (principal executive officer)        



Date: March 31, 2003



|By: |  | /s/    Joseph J. Euteneuer                          
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|    |  | Joseph J. Euteneuer                                 
|    |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | (principal financial officer)
EX-10.31



 





Exhibit 10.31




Acknowledgement



As you know, on February 23, 2007, the Board of Directors elected you to the office of Executive
Vice President, Global Risk & Compliance, such that your full title will be “Executive Vice
President, Global Risk & Compliance and Corporate Secretary.” Since your current Employment
Agreement, dated September 25, 2006, makes reference to your previous title, this Acknowledgement
confirms that any references to your previous title and related duties and responsibilities are
replaced by references to your current title — Executive Vice President, Global Risk & Compliance
and Corporate Secretary — and the duties and responsibilities associated with such new title. You
acknowledge and agree to waive, in this instance only (and only regarding the above changes), the
Good Reason clause of Section 5(b) (as defined in Appendix A). Such waiver shall be deemed without
prejudice (and without use as precedent) to your assertion now or in the future of Good Reason with
respect to any other changes, whether similar to or different from the changes acknowledged hereby.



Except as modified by this Acknowledgement, the terms of your Employment Agreement remain
unchanged. Please acknowledge your agreement to these terms by signing the enclosed copy of this
letter.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Sincerely,
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	/s/ Andrew Goodman
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Andrew Goodman
	 

	 	 	 	Executive Vice President,
	 

	 	 	 	Worldwide Human Resources






Agreed to and accepted by:




	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Kenneth V. Handal 5/9/07
 

Kenneth V. Handal
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario OLIVAS-AGUILAR, also known as Mario Olivas, also known as Mario Aguilar Olivas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-20915

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public, Federal Public Defender’s *623Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mario Olivas-Aguilar (Olivas) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment.

Olivas’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Olivas contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Olivas properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.