alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1





 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


WITH


MICHAEL J. HARTNETT





  


This Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement
(this “Amendment”) is dated as of August 1, 2022 and is made between RBC Bearings Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (“Employer”
or the “Company”), and Michael J. Hartnett Ph.D. (“Employee”). Employer and Employee previously entered into that
certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated June 3, 2022 (the “Employment Agreement”) and the parties, having
recognized that the Employment Agreement and the employment agreements between Employer and Employee that preceded the Employment Agreement
contain certain technical mistakes, desire to amend the Employment Agreement to correct those mistakes so that the Employment Agreement
accurately reflects the parties’ mutual agreement.


  


Therefore, Employer and Employee hereby amend the Employment
Agreement as hereinafter set forth.


  


		1.	Amendment of “Equity Vesting Trigger Event”
Definition. The definition of “Equity Vesting Trigger Event” in the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:



  


“Equity Vesting Triggering Event” means the
occurrence of any of the following:


 


		(i)	the expiration of the Term of this Agreement due to the Company giving notice of nonrenewal pursuant to
Section 2;



  


		(ii)	the termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 8(a) upon Employee’s death or Total Disability; or



 


		(iii)	the termination of this Agreement by the Employer pursuant to Section 8(c) without Cause.



  


		2.	Ratification. Except as set forth above, all the
terms of the Employment Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.



  


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


 


	EMPLOYER:	 	EMPLOYEE:
	RBC Bearings Incorporated	 	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Dolores J. Ennico	 	/s/ Michael J. Hartnett
	Dolores Ennico	 	Michael J. Hartnett, Ph.D.
	Chairwoman, Compensation Committee	 	 



  


Page 1 of 1
#### Tammy D. Johnson et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)

Submitted December 20, 2010;

decided March 24, 2011

Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*15 NY3d 676 (2010)].
FY20 GGR by Revenue Range

4% submissions 

reported revenues 

more than $250M: 

37% of total GGR

<$25M, 64%

<$25M, 8%

$25M to $50M, 12%

$25M to $50M, 9%

$50M to $100M, 8%

$50M to $100M, 11%

$100M to $250M, 11%

$100M to $250M, 35%

$250M+, 4%

$250M+, 37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of Operations % of Revenue

64% submissions 

reported revenues 

less than $25M: 

8% of total GGR
#### Stonebridge Capital, LLC, Appellant, v Nomura International PLC, Respondent, et al., Defendants. Nomura International PLC, Counterclaim Plaintiff-Respondent, v Stonebridge Capital, LLC, et al., Counterclaim Defendants, and J.R. 1042 Investor, LLC, et al., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants.

Submitted March 8, 2010;

decided June 24, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### BALDWIN v. NEWHALL.

Civil Action No. 3171.

United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 19, 1948.

Henry M. Biglan, of Scranton, Pa., for plaintiff.

Raymond Bialkowski (of Bialkowski, Bialkowski & Bialkowski), of Scranton, Pa., for defendant.

WATSON, District Judge.

Hearing was duly held on motion 'by plaintiff for an order requiring defendant to produce certain reports or memoranda and answer thereto.

At said hearing testimony was taken, and, after consideration, it appearing that the defendant did not and does not have possession, custody, or control of the reports and memoranda in question, plaintiff’s motion to produce should be dismissed.

It is the opinion of this Court that the information requested by the plaintiff in his motion may be secured by other means at his disposal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

Plaintiff’s motion to produce is dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Mark L. Weinstein, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc.        Dated: August 9, 2007 /s/ Mark L. Weinstein*   Mark L. Weinstein, President and Chief   Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION



      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rent-Way,
Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-K/A") of the Company 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 Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

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




Dated:   March 31, 2003                         /s/ William E. Morgenstern
                                                --------------------------
                                                    William E. Morgenstern
                                                    Chief Executive Officer



Dated:   March 31, 2003                         /s/ William A. McDonnell
                                                --------------------------
                                                    William A. McDonnell
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### DEVENS et al. v. M. A. HENRY CO., Inc., et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 3, 1948.

*369Chas. J. Colgan, of New York City, for plaintiffs.

Albert R. Eberlein, of New York City, for M. A. Henry Co., Inc.

Galli & Locker, of New York City, for Woonsocket Falls Mill.

COXE, District Judge.

The defendant Woonsocket Falls Mill is a Rhode Island corporation, and not licensed to do business in New York. The motion to dismiss as to that defendant for improper venue is therefore granted. Moss v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 701; Suttle v. Reich Bros. Const. Co., 333 U.S. 163, 68 S.Ct. 587. The motion of the defendant M. A. Henry Co., Inc., to implead Woonsocket Falls Mill as a third-party defendant under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 14, 28 U.S.C.A., is also granted; the defendant M. A. Henry Co., Inc., is a New York corporation, and the jurisdictional and venue requirements to support the motion are unquestioned.
#### Leslie Kahn, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 22, 2011;

decided April 5, 2011

*849Motion by the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators for leave to file an affirmation amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affirmation is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted, three copies of the brief to be served and an original and 19 copies filed within 30 days.
Exhibit 23.1



                                          Consent of Independent Auditors



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  333-05561)  pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan and the 1994
Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan, and the Registration  Statements (Form S-3
No.  333-42419,  Form S-3 No.  333-29477,  and Form S-3 No.  33-78016)  of NaPro
BioTherapeutics,  Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated March
23,  1998  with  respect  to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  NaPro
BioTherapeutics, Inc. incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                        ----------------------------
                                        ERNST YOUNG LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 30, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<ARTICLE>                                             5
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                5,100
<SECURITIES>                                          118,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                         306,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                          8,800
<INVENTORY>                                           679,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1,173,200
<PP&E>                                                4,544,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                        2,000,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        4,843,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 627,300
<BONDS>                                               1,393,200
<COMMON>                                              125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                            1,853,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          4,843,700
<SALES>                                               676,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      676,800
<CGS>                                                 503,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         577,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      1,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    24,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       74,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                          26,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   48,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       (2,700)
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                          45,300
<EPS-PRIMARY><F1>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED><F1>                                     0.40

<FN>
<F1>
Earnings per share has been calculated in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standard No. 128, "Earnings Per Share," and is,
therefore, stated on a basic and diluted basis.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Willie Lee JEFFERSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Ted D’AMICO; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-16711.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Decided June 20, 2006.

Willie Lee Jefferson, Ely, NV, pro se.

Imran Anwar, Susan M. Carrasco, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, Brian Sandoval, Esq., Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Willie Lee Jefferson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Oliver v. Keller,*289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant D’Amico because Jefferson failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether additional MRI testing on his varicose veins was medically necessary. *See Sanchez v. Vild,*891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989) (a difference of opinion about a course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).

The district court properly denied Jefferson’s motion for appointment of counsel because Jefferson did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances. *See Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015,1017 (9th Cir.1991).

We will not consider Jefferson’s arguments regarding the prison administrative regulations because they are raised for the first time on appeal. *See Cold Mountain v. Garber,*375 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir.2004) *750(an appellate court will not consider arguments not raised before the district court absent exceptional circumstances).

Jefferson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of March
31, 2009 and for the periods then ended.
 /s/    Gregory T. RoyalGregory T. RoyalChief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 106 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26846-26847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-552-805]

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the 
Countervailing Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3586 and (202) 482-1396, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On April 20, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
initiated the countervailing duty investigation of polyethylene retail 
carrier bags from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigation and Request for Public Comment on the Application of the 
Countervailing Duty Law on Imports From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, 74 FR 19064 (April 27, 2009). Currently, the preliminary 
determination is due no later than June 24, 2009.

[[Page 26847]]

Postponement of Due Date for the Preliminary Determination

    Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a 
countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on 
which the Department initiated the investigation. However, the 
Department may postpone making the preliminary determination until no 
later than 130 days after the date on which the administering authority 
initiated the investigation if, among other reasons, petitioner makes a 
timely request for an extension pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the 
Act. In the instant investigation, petitioner made such a request on 
May 22, 2009, requesting a postponement until 130 days from the 
initiation date. Therefore, pursuant to the discretion afforded the 
Department under 703(c)(1)(A), we are fully extending the due date for 
the preliminary determination. The deadline for the completion of the 
preliminary determination is now August 28, 2009.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) 
of the Act.

    Dated: May 28, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-13062 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
```
No. 912.

#### Weber *v.*Squier, Warden.

March 2, 1942.

*Max Weber, prose. Solicitor General Fahy*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied on the ground that the cause is moot, it appearing that petitioner has been released upon order of the United States Board of Parole and that he is no longer in the respondent’s custody. The motion for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis*is therefore also denied.
#### KRANZ v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.

Civ. No. 3129.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 4, 1948.

Carl Kranz, pro se¡

No appearance for respondent, no rule having issued.

FOLLMER, District Judge.

The petitioner, Carl Kranz, a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, previously filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, which was *726denied.1 He’now seeks in forma pauperis *to*institute a proceeding designated “Petition for a Writ of Mandamus,” 2 in which he alleges that the respondent (the trial court) failed to furnish him with a copy of the minutes of his trial. Attached to' the petition is a copy of the communication of the clerk of the trial court showing that he was furnished with a certified copy of the judgment and commitment, together with a duplicate printed copy of the indictment. This letter informs him “At the time of your trial, it was not the practice for the courtroom deputy to make minutes of the proceeding.” He now asks that the trial court be directed to furnish him with a copy of such minutes and on failure so to do to direct that at no time in the future shall such records “be used to oppose your petitioner in any future proceeding for relief by habeas corpus or other proceeding *

The necessity for any particular record could not be ascertained until a proceeding is properly before the court; even assuming that on an application in forma pauperis the proper official of another court might be directed to furnish the same.3 However, the petitioner here in an independent proceeding seeks to have this 'Court order the production by a court of equal jurisdiction of a nonexistent record or in the alternative to bar its use in any proceeding. It is not necessary to consider this question since the fact that this Court possesses no original mandamus jurisdiction is sufficient for the disposition of the same.4

Petitioner’s application to proceed in for-ma pauperis is allowed. His petition for writ of mandamus is denied for the reason that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the same.

1

 Kranz v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa., 70 F.Supp. 869, affirmed, 3 Cir., 163 F.2d 1018.

2

 The propriety of such a writ under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 81(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, is discussed in opinion this day filed by this Court in Re Joseph Feyerchak v. W. H. Hiatt, Warden, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 726.

3

 The Committee on Habeas Corpus in Section 7 of a draft of a procedural statute (designated “Statute B”) has proposed that where permission has been granted to prosecute an application for writ of habeas corpus in forma pauperis, “the clerk of any court of the United States shall furnish to the petitioner without cost certified copies of such documents or parts of the record on file in his office as may be required by order of the judge before whom the application is pending.” This, however, would not cover a situation such as that now before us.

4

**See discussion in re Joseph Feyerchak v. W. H. Hiatt, Warden, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 726, filed in this Court this day.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of eTotalSource, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Virgil Baker, CFO of
the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

        (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/ Virgil Baker
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Virgil Baker, CFO

Dated:  8/12/03