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





                             PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

October 13, 2004
                                                              Anthony A. Massaro
                                                                  Chairman

Hellene S. Runtagh                              Harold L. Adams
Chair, Compensation & Executive                 Chair, Nominating & Corporate
   Development Committee                        Governance Committee
Board of Directors                              Board of Directors
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.                 Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.
22801 St. Clair Avenue                          22801 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio  44117                          Cleveland, Ohio  44117

                         RE: TERMINATION FOR GOOD REASON

Dear Hellene and Harold:

With the Board's election of John M. Stropki as Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on October 13,
2004, I hereby provide notice that I am resigning from the Board of Directors,
effective immediately. This resignation is consistent with Board's policy that
"individual employee Directors who change the responsibility they held when
they were elected to the Board should volunteer to resign from the Board."

In addition, as a result of the election of Mr. Stropki as Chairman, I hereby
provide notice that I will be terminating my employment with the Company for
Good Reason, as that term is defined in my Employment and Benefits letter
agreement, dated June 23, 2003, between the Company and myself (my "Agreement").
All of the terms of my Agreement, relative to a termination for Good Reason,
shall apply. The effective date of my termination will be October 30, 2004 and
my retirement date, under normal Company policy, will be October 31, 2004.


                                                     Very truly yours,


                                                     /s/ Anthony A. Massaro
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Anthony A. Massaro
         ACCEPTED:


         /s/ H. S. Runtagh                      /s/ Harold L. Adams
         ------------------------                    ------------------------
         Hellene S. Runtagh                          Harold L. Adams


         October 13, 2004                            October 13, 2004
EXHIBIT 4J


          AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO INVESTORS' RIGHTS AGREEMENT

     Section 1.2(b) of the Investors' Rights Agreement, dated
April 26, 2002, by and among CONCEPTS DIRECT, INC., a Delaware
corporation, ST. CLOUD CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware limited
partnership, PHILLIP A. WILAND, an individual, and LINDA S.
WILAND, an individual, is hereby amended to read as follows:

     (b)  Mandatory Registration.  In addition to the foregoing,
     the Company shall prepare and file with the SEC prior to
     March 15, 2003, a Registration Statement or Registration
     Statements (as necessary) covering all of the Holder's
     Registrable Securities.  The Company shall cause such
     Registration Statement to be declared effective by the SEC by
     June 15, 2003.

The parties have executed this Amendment to Investors' Rights
Agreement as of January 22, 2003.

                                CONCEPTS DIRECT, INC.


                                By:  /s/ Zaid H. Haddad
                                Name:  Zaid H. Haddad
                                Title:  Chief Financial Officer

                                ST. CLOUD CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP


                                By:  /s/ Robert Lautz
                                Name:  Robert Lautz
                                Title: Managing Director

                                PHILLIP A. WILAND


                                By:  /s/ Phillip A. Wiland
                                Phillip A. Wiland

                                LINDA S. WILAND


                                By:  /s/ Linda S. Wiland
                                Linda S. Wiland
#### Wheeler *against*Bailey.

Where an officer having-a defend-turn a proml«Ece'twóiíare® amóuntPoí the officer on a ct”'officer ^accordlilm7} It eawra held, that this' SaeTMnd uwt tiie officer could maintain no ac-on the^on^pet-pro^Tisef °f'tós

*M*ERROR, •on *certiorari*tpá-jnsiffee^'-coyrt..

. The defendant in. error brought ah action jn the court below. agai»sí the plain tiff, in errpr, and declared*, for that he, the plain? tiff: below,,as constable, had,, in his cusfody, one *JChaf les., Bife lings,.*by virtue of two r executions, an.d the defendant, in.cqn. stderation.that the plaintiff Would' 'release and discharge' *Bifr.*fe^i,.and that *Billings*would go'fo.jypfk for.him, the 'defendant, prom ispd .the plaintiff , tha.t he would pay him thé.áiíiount of the executions and costs, if lie failed, to deliver *Billings*into the- - " ' V; ” ■’ ' “• 1 ' , ’• . .. ° *-*Gu^t0°j-;0P tRe;'.plaintiff the next *Monday*morning,; and die breach alleged. was, ■ that the defendant had Jailed; in-the peiv . ‘‘ ^ ‘ ** ■ . J ' . - *j **íbunance of his ,promise. •• The allegations pf the declaration were substantially made out in ey-idencb on the trial; butthére .Was, no proof thát the plaintiff below had paid the' executions, off sustained ;any damage.' A,verdict and judgment were given foy the plaintiff below*, the defendant in error. ■ ..r

*Per Curiam,*

. .The conduct of the constable, i{i permitting *Billings*to go at large, amounted to a voluntary escape, and hp had no authority *to-*take any security for the redelivery of *Billings*to him; the promise pf the defendant was, therefore, void, fjad it fieen an absolute engagement .to pay the amount of the executions, it might have altered the case; but the undertaking of; the defendant amounted only tp his becorhing security for the .redelivefy *ofBillings^*into his custody, a contract which the -law would not justify his making ; and it does not appear that lie has sustained aiiy damage whatever by the non-performance on. the part of the defendant TJie judgment must, accordingly, bp rey.ers.pd,!

Judgment reversed
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11847]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,043]


Daramic, LLC, Owensboro, KY; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on January 30, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 
Lodge 726, on behalf of workers of Daramic, LLC, Owensboro, Kentucky.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11847 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1105 BAYCHAR, INC. and BAYCHAR HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. SALOMON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ON MOTION Before NEWMAN, RADER, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. RADER, Circuit Judge

. O R D E R Salomon North America, Inc. moves to dismiss Baychar, Inc et al.’s (Baychar) appeal of the United States District Court for the District of Maine’s judgment in Baychar, Inc. v. Salomon North America, Inc. , No. 04-CV-136 (Nov. 6, 2006), as untimely. Baychar has not responded.

The district court’s docket sheet in reflects that judgment was entered on November 6, 2006. The docket sheet further reflects that Baychar filed its notice of appeal on December 11, 2006, 35 days after ent ry of judgment. On December 11, Baychar filed a motion in the district court requesting an extension of time to file its notice of appeal. The trial c ourt denied that motion on January 2, 2007. We note that Baychar filed a renewed motion for an enlargement of time in the district court on January 29, 2007.A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after judgment is entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). An appeal not filed within that time must be dismissed. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. , 459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982) (“It is well settled that the requirement of a timely notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’ ” (citation omitted)); Sofarelli Associates, In c. v. United States , 716 F.2d 1395 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ( appeal must be dismissed for lack of ju risdiction where notice of appeal is untimely). Thus, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 1, 2007 /s/ Randall R. Rader Date Randall R. Rader Circuit Judge cc: John Kepler, III, Esq. James E. Hartley, Esq.

s17

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: _____________________________

2007-1105 2
#### Robert Henry, Appellant, v Pedro L. Peguero et al., Respondents.

Decided September 14, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               (9,900)
<SECURITIES>                                         138,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                        152,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4,600
<INVENTORY>                                          300,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     655,100
<PP&E>                                               3,552,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,626,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       2,684,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                262,500
<BONDS>                                              515,800
<COMMON>                                             65,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           775,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         2,684,100
<SALES>                                              1,034,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1,040,400
<CGS>                                                771,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        811,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     86,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   22,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      120,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                         46,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  73,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         73,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.20


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM DI INDUSTRIES, INC. 10-Q DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          25,081
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,099
<INVENTORY>                                      2,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,591
<PP&E>                                          70,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,437
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              764
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,772
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,505
<SALES>                                         61,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,316
<CGS>                                           57,205
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,172)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 788
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (159)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (159)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (159)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence SMITH, a.k.a. Terry, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-15212

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 11, 2009.

Lisette M. Reid, Anne R. Schultz, Laura Thomas Rivero, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Terrence Smith, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Smith, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. Smith’s § 3582(c)(2) motiob was based on Amendment 591 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which requires the selection of the applicable guideline be based on the statute of conviction, rather than judicial findings of relevant conduct not made by the jury. Smith asserts the offense level for his arson conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), was improperly based upon the guideline applicable to first-degree murder’, in light of Amendment 591.

“We review *de novo*a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” *United States v. James,*548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir.2008). A district court may reduce the sentence “of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” provided that “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The applicable policy statements provide that a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence, pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), where “the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of’ a covered amendment to the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(l).

Amendment 591 became effective on November 1, 2000, and Smith was sentenced on July 30, 2001. Therefore, although the Amendment was made retroac*881tive by incorporation into U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c), it does not constitute a subsequent amendment within § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statement because it was already in effect at the time he was sentenced. *See United States v. Stossel,*348 F.3d 1320, 1322 n. 2 (11th Cir.2003) (stating that a *pro se*inmate’s motion “could fit under § 3582(c) only if he was arguing his sentence should be modified based on a subsequent sentencing guideline amendment”). Moreover, we previously rejected Smith’s challenge to the calculation of his offense level by reference to the first-degree murder guideline in his direct appeal. *See United States v. Smith,*No. 01-14427, manuscript op. at 18-19, 61 Fed.Appx. 668 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2003). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
#### Carter-Hubbard Publ’g Co. v. WRMC Hosp. Operating Corp.

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 621

No. 411A06

1. Defs Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

2. Def’s NOA (Dissent)

1. Allowed 01/25/07

2. _

Hudson, J., Recused
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDONG LI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-72065

Agency No. A201-211-488

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Sandong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-72065 

the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies between Li’s testimony, his asylum application, and his 

daughter’s birth certificate as to her date of birth, the omission of an attempt by 

family planning officials to arrest Li’s wife for sterilization, and on Li’s false 

statements to an asylum officer. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination 

was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 

F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility determination properly relied 

on an omission where the added details presented more compelling story of

persecution); Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum 

applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the 

rest of his story.”). Li’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. 

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject Li’s contention that the 

agency did not consider his explanation for his misstatements to the asylum officer. 

Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Li’s evidence does 

not rehabilitate his credibility. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 
 3 14-72065 

2014). We reject Li’s contention that the BIA should have remanded his case. In 

the absence of credible testimony, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims 

fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    . Copies of the agreement are available through the Commission's Web site (                    *http://www.fmc.gov*) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)  523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov*.                

*Agreement No.:*                     201201.                

*Title:*                     Port of Seattle/Terminal Operator Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     Port of Seattle; Eagle Marine Services, Ltd; SSA Terminals LLC; SSA Terminals (Seattle), LLC; and Total Terminals International, LLC.                

*Filing Party:*                     David F. Smith, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036; C. Jonathan Benner; Esq.; Troutman Sanders LLP; 401 9th Street, NW.; Suite 1000; Washington, DC 20004.                

*Synopsis:*                     The agreement would authorize the parties to discuss, exchange information, and reach agreement regarding various matters pertaining to operations at the Port of Seattle.                

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Dated: May 15, 2009.

Karen V. Gregory,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-11760 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P