alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Consulting Agreement between Exar Corporation and Richard L. Leza



 Exhibit 10.28 
 AMENDMENT 
 OF 
 CONSULTING AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT of Consulting Agreement
(herein “Amendment”) is made this 22nd day of May 2007, by and between EXAR Corporation, a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal office at 48720 Kato Road, Fremont, California 94538 (herein “Exar”), and Richard L. Leza, an individual residing at 60653 Desert Shadows Drive, La Quinta,
California, 92253 (herein “Mr. Leza”). This Amendment is pursuant to Section 14 of that certain Agreement dated February 22, 2007 (herein “Agreement”), which permits the parties to modify its terms by a written document
signed by both parties. 
 IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises exchanged, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.	GENERAL 

 Except as
otherwise provided in this Amendment, the contractual relationship of the parties will continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of the Agreement. This Amendment shall not be construed as a modification of any provision of the Agreement
unless such provision, or portion thereof, is expressly modified herein. 
  

	2.	TERM 

  

	3.	The term of Agreement will be extended for an additional period of two (2) months commencing on the date specified above and ending on July 22, 2007,


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written, in counterparts, each of
which shall be considered an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. 
  

									
	EXAR CORPORATION	 		 	RICHARD L. LEZA
					
	By:	 	 /s/ John S. McFarlane
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Richard L. Leza

	Name:	 	John S. McFarlane	 		 	Name:	 	Richard L. Leza
	Title:	 	Chair, Corporate Governance and	 		 	Title:	 	Interim President and CEO
		 	Nominating Committee	 		 		 	
	Date:	 	May 22, 2007	 		 	Date:	 	May 22. 2007
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10870]



[[Page 21833]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,311]


Caterpillar, Inc., Large Power Systems Division, Mossville, IL; 
Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 19, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed by the United Automobile, Agricultural Implement Workers 
of America International Union, Local 974 on behalf of workers of 
Caterpillar, Inc., Large Power Systems Division, Mossville, Illinois.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10870 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

D ISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 20

- BG

- 66

IN RE JOSEPH A. FERRIERO

201 9 D DN 2 31

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 41 4306

BEFORE: Thompson and McLeese

, Associate Judge s , and Steadman , Senior J udge

.

O R D E R

(FILED

– April 30 , 2020 )

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey

disbarring respondent ; this court’s February 3, 2020

, order suspending respondent

pending resolution of t his matter and directing h im to show cause why reciprocal

discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel ; and it

appearing that respondent failed to file either a response to this court’s order to show

cause or h is D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Joseph A. Ferriero is hereby disbarred from the practice of

law in the District of Columbia

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010) ; In re

Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical

rec iprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not

participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement the period of

respondent’s disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar

R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

PER CURIAM
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 5, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00040

- CV

Donald E. GHIDONI

, Appellant

v.

Harry SKEINS , Jr., Paula K. Williamson and Skeins & Williamson, P.C.,

Appellee s

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 10318

Honorable Peter Sakai, Jud ge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee s ’ second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of July, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne Snell, Appellant.

[961 NYS2d 794]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), rendered September 29, 2011, convicting him of *778attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]). Counsel has informed this Court that the defendant has not authorized counsel to raise any issues related to the denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no remaining nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Cardwell,*98 AD3d 986 [2012]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Angiolillo, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10882]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,598]


Lincoln Electric/Harris Products Group, Mason, OH; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 16, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers of Lincoln Electric/Harris Products Group, 
Mason, Ohio.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10882 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co. *v.*Douglass.

The action being by a father for loss of service of his minor son, who died in consequence of an injury received while running a train as locomotive engineer; and the evidence suggesting that if the accident occurred from fast running by the deceased, who was a youth between seventeen and eighteen years of age, his immediate superior, who was on the train at the time and whose failure to testify in the case as to the real cause of the accident is not accounted for, ought to have controlled and restrained him so as to confine him to a safe speed, the jury were warranted in finding for the plaintiff as to his right to recover and in allowing full damages; and no direct point on the amount of the verdict being made here either in the record, the argument of counsel or their brief, and, so far as apppars, none such having been presented and insisted upon in the court below, a new trial is not required merely because this court, on reading the record, has discovered that, in fixing the amount of the damages, the jury may nothave deducted enough from the wages which the deceased was earning to cover his *548personal expenses, more especially as the evidence furnishes no basis for computing the amount of these expenses, and does not even show that the daily wages which the deceased was earning were not net or in addition to board furnished by his employer, or by whom, whether by himself or his employer, board was furnished. ■ *Judgment affirmed.*

April 30, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Action for damages. Before Judge Sweat. ■ Glynn superior court. May term, 1893.

Goodyear & Kay, for plaintiff in error.

E. H. Harris, J. D. Sparks, and J. L. Harris, *contra.*

Douglass sued for the homicide of his son who was seventeen years and eight months old, and was killed in July, 1889, by the derailing of an engine which he was driving backwards, pulling eight empty coal cars. He was employed by the railroad company as an engine-driver or “hostler” to carry engines from the depot in Brunswick to a coal-chute and return them. His wages were $2 per day. He was under the control of the yardmaster. The testimony for plaintiff tended to show that the derailment was caused by the defective state of the track, which was dangerous to be run over even at ordinary and usual speed; and that deceased was without fault. The testimony for defendant was to the effect, that the track was in good condition, and that the train was running at a high and unsafe speed, etc. The jury found for the plaintiff$2,000. Defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds, that the verdict was contrary to the charge of the court and to the evidence, and that the evidence clearly showed that deceased contributed to the accident that caused his death, and therefore no recovery could be had.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 17, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00126

- CV

Soorena Sharifi, Appellant

v.

Sonia Danielle Sharifi, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTI CES PURYEAR, PEMBERT ON, AND FIELD

VACATED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on January 21, 2014. The part ies

have filed a joint motion requesting that we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand the

cause for entry of judgment in accordance with their Mediated Settlement Agreement. Having

considered the motion, the Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court

grants the parties’ motion, set s aside the district court’s judgment with out regard to the merits,

and remands the case to the district court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the

parties’ agreement. Each part y shall pay the costs of the appeal incurred by that party, both in

this Court and the court below

.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10017 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSÉ LOUIS PECINA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CV-263-E

- - - - - - - - - - September 24, 1997 Before King, Higginbotham, and Davis, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * José Louis Pecina appeals the district court’s order scheduling resentencing on the remaining drug-trafficking counts of conviction after vacating his firearms conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He contends that the district court was without authority to order resentencing and that resentencing would violate double jeopardy and due process. Contrary to Pecina’s assertions, the district court had the authority to order resentencing. United States v. Hernandez , 116 F.3d 725,No. 97-10017 -2- 727-28 (5th Cir. 1997). Further, resentencing will not implicate double jeopardy or due process concerns. United States v. Rodriguez , 114 F.3d 46, 47-48 (5th Cir. 1997); see also , United States v. Benbrook , 119 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the district court’s decision to resentence Pecina on the remaining counts of conviction is affirmed, and the case is remanded for resentencing.
AFFIRMED.
EX-35.2
(logo) CHASE



SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


RE: BNC Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2007-1: This Securitization Servicing Agreement (this "Agreement"),
entered into as of the 1st day of February, 2007, by and among Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Seller"), JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association, a national banking association (the "Servicer"), Aurora
Loan Services LLC, as master servicer (the "Master Servicer") and acknowledged
by U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee") under the Trust
Agreement

The undersigned, each a duly authorized officer of Chase Home Finance LLC
("CHF"), do hereby certify that:

     (1) CHF is a Subservicer under the Agreement

     (2) A review of the activities of CHF during the calendar year ending
December 31, 2007 and of the performance of CHF under the Agreement has been
made under our supervision; and

     (3) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, CHF has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement in a11 material respects throughout such
year.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement.

Date: 02/28/2008


Chase Home Finance LLC,
as Subservicer

By: /s/ Kim Greaves
Name: Kim Greaves
Title: Senior Vice President
Servicing Manager

By: /s/ Jim Miller
Name: Jim Miller
Title: Senior Vice President
Default Servicing Manager
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                          |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- | -
|Parent                                                    |  | State or Other Jurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | PercentageOwnership |  
|                                                          |  |                                            
|BCSB Bancorp, Inc.                                        |  | United States                               |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                            
|Subsidiary (1)                                            |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                            
|Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B.                     |  | United States                               |  | 100                 | %
|BCSB Bankcorp Capital Trust I                             |  | Delaware                                    |  | 100                 | %
|BCSB Bankcorp Capital Trust II                            |  | Delaware                                    |  | 100                 | %
|                                                          |  |                                            
|Subsidiaries of Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B. (1) |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                            
|Ebenezer Road, Inc.                                       |  | Maryland                                    |  | 100                 | %





|(1) | The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### State v. Artis

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 601

No. 017P06-2

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06-443)

Denied 06/27/07
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10893]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,741]


3M Company, Columbia, MO; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 3, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of 3M Company, 
Columbia, Missouri.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10893 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      21,598,024           
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,860,357 
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,584,715  
<INVENTORY>                                 41,775,599 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           112,259,257  
<PP&E>                                      10,902,929  
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,040,439  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             187,073,899  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,830,076  
<BONDS>                                              0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                    976,755  
<COMMON>                                       144,455  
<OTHER-SE>                                 165,122,613  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               166,243,823  
<SALES>                                     50,701,185  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            50,701,185  
<CGS>                                       34,690,739  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,690,739  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,677,418  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,287,679  
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,271,072  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,016,607  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,016,607  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14  
                                                        
                                                         

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cyril Winebrenner, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 884]

— Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,611]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 17, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Kreber, High Point, North Carolina.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of April 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10915 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Maria S. Masigla, P.T., as Assignee of Gomez, Sarae, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>ELRAC, Inc., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Carman, Callahan &amp; Ingham, LLP (Joshua Copperman, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Mojgan Cohanim Lancman, J.), entered March 5, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third, fifth and seventh causes of action.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the third, fifth and seventh causes of action. </p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's sole contention on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claims forms had been timely mailed (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed. </p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>