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


   

  Exhibit 10.1

   

  Amendment # 1 to Sublease Agreement 

  THIS 1st AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective June 1, 2022 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between RxSight, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“RxSight”), and Compass Bible Church (“Sublessee”, and together with RxSight, the “Parties”).

  WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain Sublease Agreement dated as of April 4, 2022, (the “Agreement”), and

  WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement in the manner reflected herein, and

  WHEREAS, the Parties to the Agreement have approved the Amendment of the Agreement in the manner reflected herein,

  NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and conditions herein, the Parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

  1)The Commencement Date in Section 1.3 (Term) of the Agreement is hereby amended to be June 13, 2022. 


  2)Any rent payments actual paid for the month of June 2022 by Sublessee to RxSight, based on the initial commencement date of June 1, 2022, shall be prorated for 12 days and such amount will be refunded to Sublessee.


  1)This Amendment may be executed in one or more facsimile, electronic, or original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and both of which together shall constitute the same instrument.


  2)All terms and provisions of the Agreement not amended hereby, either expressly or by necessary implication, shall remain in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, all references to the term “Agreement” in this Amendment or the original Agreement shall include the terms contained in this Amendment.


  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Agreement effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.

   

  						
	 
	RxSight, Inc.
	 
	Compass Bible Church

	 
	By:
	/s/ Shelley Thunen
	By:
	 
	/s/ Ruth Staggs

	 
	Name:
	Shelley Thunen 
	Name:
	 
	Ruth Staggs

	 
	Title:
	Chief Financial Officer 
	Title:
	 
	Secretary 

	 
	Date: 
	6/8/2022
	Date: 
	 
	6/7/2022



   

   

  Page 1 of  NUMPAGES  1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2753 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2753

       To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on RSD 1235.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 9, 2009

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on RSD 1235.

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

SECTION 1. RSD 1235.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.93 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to RSD 1235) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2916 

To provide that Internal Revenue Service Notice 2010–2 shall have no force 

and effect and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restrict 

the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

under section 382 of such Code. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 18, 2009 

Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide that Internal Revenue Service Notice 2010–2 

shall have no force and effect and to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to restrict the authority of the 

Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations under 

section 382 of such Code. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON REGULATORY AUTHORITY RE4 LATING TO LIMITATION ON LOSSES FOL5 LOWING OWNERSHIP CHANGE. 

6 (a) REPEAL OF NOTICE 2010–2.—Internal Revenue 

7 Service Notice 2010–2 shall have no force and effect. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2916 IS

1 (b) MODIFICATION OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY

2 UNDER SECTION 382.—Section 382(m) of the Internal 

3 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following flush sentence: 

5 ‘‘Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or any other 

6 provision of law, the Secretary may not prescribe any reg7 ulation after December 18, 2009, which provides an ex8 emption or special rule under this section which is re9 stricted to dispositions of instruments acquired by the Sec10 retary unless such exemption or special rule is specifically 

11 authorized by Congress.’’. 

12 (c) NO INFERENCE.—Nothing in subsection (a) or in 

13 the amendment made by subsection (b) shall be construed 

14 to create any inference with respect to the authority of 

15 the Secretary of the Treasury on or before December 18, 

16 2009, to provide exceptions to the application of the rules 

17 of section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with 

18 respect to certain classes of taxpayers. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosa Maigualida MARANA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-20156.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Raquel Kathy Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

*486*ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*

PER CURIAM: *

In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed Appellant Marana’s conviction and sentence. *See United States v. Marana,*111 Fed.Appx. 761 (5th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (unpublished). Following our judgment, the defendant timely petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari alleging for the first time in her petition that the use of the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines violated her Sixth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court granted the writ, vacated defendant’s sentence, and remanded to this court for consideration of defendant’s sentence in light of its decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We now reconsider the matter and decide to reinstate our previous judgment affirming Marana’s conviction and sentence.

Absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider a defendant’s *Booker-related*claims presented for the first time in a petition for writ of certiorari. *United States v. Taylor,*409 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir.2005). Had Maraña raised her *Booker-related*claims in her initial appellate brief, this court would have reviewed the argument for plain error. *Id.*at 677. Marana concedes that she cannot show that any error affected her substantial rights, as is required under our circuit’s plain error review. *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Maraña fails plain error review, she also fails to show extraordinary circumstances, which is a more demanding standard. *Taylor,*409 F.3d at 677.

Marana’s concedes that her structural-error and presumptive-prejudice contentions are also foreclosed. *See United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 561 & n. 9 (5th Cir. 2005).

For the reasons stated above, our prior disposition remains in effect and we REINSTATE OUR EARLIER JUDGMENT affirming Marana’s conviction and sentence.

*

 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.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00121-CR

Jason Andrew PAUL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR0811

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 7, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On November 30, 2020, appellant entered into a plea bargain with the State pursuant to 

which he pleaded no contest to retaliation. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the 

agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO 

right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On November 1, 2022, a magistrate entered an order extending appellant’s civil 

commitment in the case. On January 30, 2023, we received a pro se notice of appeal which we 

understood to be an untimely attempted appeal of the civil commitment order. Therefore, on 
04-23-00121-CR

- 2 -

February 24, 2023, we notified appellant of a possible jurisdictional defect and ordered appellant 

to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by March 13, 2023.

On March 3, 2023, the district clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing 

appellant’s pro se Notice of Appeal From Negotiated Plea, which was filed in the trial court on 

March 3, 2023, along with a response to this court setting out complaints about the underlying 

cause.

Because the trial court imposed sentence in the underlying cause on November 30, 2020, 

and appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due by December 30, 

2020. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was 

due by January 14, 2020. See id. R. 26.3. Therefore, on April 14, 2023, we ordered appellant’s 

counsel to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by May 15, 

2023. On May 3, 2023, appellant filed a pro se motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal and 

motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. Neither vests this court with jurisdiction.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. See Olivo 

v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may be considered 

timely so as to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last 

day allowed for filing, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within 

fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the court of appeals 

grants the motion for extension of time. Id. Accordingly, because appellant did not file a timely 

notice of appeal or timely request an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, this appeal is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>



                                                        Exhibit 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements 
Nos. 33-24258, 33-24259, 33-60405, 33-54351, 33-54353, 33-54355,      
33-65946, and 333-01687 and in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to 
Registration Statement Nos. 33-20852 and 33-20853 of Armco Inc. on Form 
S-8 of our reports dated February 9, 1998 on the consolidated financial 
statements and financial statement schedule of Armco Inc. and 
subsidiaries appearing in and incorporated by reference in this Annual 
Report on Form 10-K of Armco Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP



Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 17, 1998
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TEXCHEM ADVANCED PRODUCTS 

INCORPORATED SDN. BHD.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

E.PAK INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1355

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 5:12-cv-01341-JGBSP, Judge Jesus G. Bernal.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KENT M. WALKER, Lewis Kohn & Fitzwilliam LLP, 

San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. 

 STEVEN C. SUSSER, Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C., 

Birmingham, MI, argued for defendant-appellant. Also 

represented by DAVID J. GASKEY. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (TARANTO, PLAGER, and LINN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

November 10, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
Opinion issued August 12, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00 4 1 6 - CV

——————————— ROLANDO ACEVEDO , CHARLES RAY ALLEY, R ODOLFO ALONSO, JOSE ALVARADO, MARIO ARAIZA, SEBASTIAN AV ILA, EMILIO BELTRAN, CLARENCE BO LTON , RALPH BURNETT, MODES TO CAMPOS, JAMES CEDARS , JIMMY COLE, ERICH CORBIN, JESUS CRUZ, C.M. DEAR, MAR IO FERNANDEZ, JAMES FICKLEN, WILLIAM FICKLEN, RAFAEL FIGU EROA, MICHAEL GADDIS , R AMIRO GARCIA, JOHN W. GARR ETT, ARTURO GARZA, M OSSYE HANDY, JOHN HEITMAN, JOEL M . HERRERA, RICKIE KI DWELL, HILARIO MONREAL, ELMER NELSO N, DOMINGO NUNEZ, JU AN T. PENA, DAVID PEREZ, ORLANDO PEREZ, THOMAS PYLE, ALEJANDRO RAMIREZ, JUAN RANGEL , EZEQUIEL ROBLES, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, DAVID RODRIGUEZ, ROB ERTO RODRIGUEZ, FRAN CISCO ROLDAN, ISAAC SAENZ, CARLOS SALAZAR, JUAN SANCHE Z, DONALD SESSUM, JAMES SIFFER D, JOHN SIMPSON, FID ENCIO R. SORIA, JUAN SUAREZ, CLARENC E URBAN, Appellants v.2 THE O’QUINN LAW FIRM, JOHN M. O'QUINN & ASSOCIATES, LLP, THE ESTATE OF JOHN M . O’QUINN, DECEASED, AND ABEL MANJI , Appellees On Appeal from the Probate Court N umber 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 3 92,247 - 416 MEMORANDUM OPINION T he intervenors - appellants, Rolando Acevedo, et al., in the above - referenced appellate case number, filed a “Motion to Consolidate Or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss,” seeking consolidation of the above - referenced appeal with the pending appellate cause number 01 - 14 - 00 138 - CV or else dismissal of the above - referenced appeal. The intervenors contend that this appeal is a duplicate of the prior appellate cause number 01 - 14 - 00138 - CV because they both appeal from the same trial court’s summary judgment order, signed Novembe r 5, 2013. The intervenors filed their new notice of appeal on May 16, 2014, in the trial court out of an abundance of caution because that court , on May 9, 2014, had issued a subsequent “Agreed Amended Order Complying With The First Court of Appeals’ Ord er of Abatement” after the intervenors’ first notice of appeal was filed on January 13, 2014 and their second notice was filed on February 12, 2014.3 Because the above - referenced appellate cause number 01 - 14 - 00416 - CV was opened in error as it has the same t rial court case number 392,247 - 416 as 01 - 14 - 00138 - CV, and involves the exact same parties and issues as 01 - 14 - 00138 - CV , we grant Intervenors’ alternative motion to dismiss appellate cause number 01 - 14 - 00416 - CV. Cf. Berger v. Flores , Nos. 03 - 10 - 00874 - CV, 03 - 12 - 00415 - CV, 2012 WL 4477405, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Sept. 28, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (granting motion to consolidate appeal from a summary judgment order with appeal from subsequent order in the same case and dismissing one of the appellate cause n umbers) . The refore, the intervenors’ appeal shall continue to proceed under the pending cause number 01 - 14 - 00138 - CV. Accordingly, we grant the intervenors’ motion and appellate cause number 01 - 14 - 00416 - CV is dismissed. We dismiss all other pending motion s as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chi ef Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes .
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

DANIEL L. BROWN, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 83 MAP 2014 

Appeal from the order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 24 MD 2014 

dated July 1, 2014, exited July 2, 2014. 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM DECIDED: May 27, 2015 

AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2015, the order of the Commonwealth Court is 

AFFIRMED.
----

**Exhibit 32.2**

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

I, Michael Ash, CFO of The Tirex Corporation (the "Company") do herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A ofthe Company for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
2. 

The information contained in thereport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Michael Ash                    Michael Ash, CFO

Date: May 22, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Alexander URQUHART, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40931.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 2, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis*422trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Defendant-Appellant.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Calvin Alexander Urquhart has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Urquhart has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit 10.2


 


 


 


 


 


 


August 2, 2022


 


Via E-Mail


Jacques Tortoroli


[***]


 


Re: Amendment to Offer of Employment with Charlotte’s
Web Holdings, Inc.


 


Dear Jacques,


 


This letter serves as an amendment (“Amendment”)
to your offer of employment from Charlotte’s Web Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), dated December 16, 2021 (the
“Offer Letter”). Provided that you timely sign and return a copy of this Amendment to me, this Amendment shall be effective
as of August 2, 2022 (the “Effective Date”). Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions
of your Offer Letter remain in full force and effect, as if expressly stated herein.


 


		1.	Base Salary. Section 4 of your Offer Letter shall be amended such that your Base Salary shall be:
(a) commencing on the Effective Date and ending on December 31, 2023, Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,0000) per year; and (b)
commencing on January 1, 2024, Four Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($425,0000) per year. For the avoidance of doubt, your Base Salary
shall be pro-rated for any partial years worked and continue to be payable in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll practices
and procedures, less applicable withholdings and deductions.



 


		2.	Restricted Stock Award. Subject to the approval of the Company’s Board of Directors, the
Company will award you a one-time equity grant (the “Restricted Stock Award”) consisting of Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand
(850,000) restricted stock units (“RSUs”). The Restricted Stock Award shall be issued under and subject in all respects
to the terms and conditions of the Company’s 2018 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and restricted stock
award agreement (“Award Agreement”), which you will be required to execute as a condition of your receipt of the Restricted
Stock Award. The Restricted Stock Award shall vest as follows: (a) 50% of the RSUs shall vest on December 31, 2022; and (b) 50% of RSUs
shall vest on December 31, 2023. Such vesting shall be subject to your continuous service on each applicable vesting date, as described
in the Plan and Award Agreement.



 


Nothing contained herein is intended to or shall in
any way alter the nature of your employment status as an at-will employee. Please confirm your understanding and acceptance of this Amendment
by signing and returning one copy of this Amendment to me by August 2, 2022.


 


We look forward to a mutual collaboration and to your
continued contribution in developing the Company’s business. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.


 


Sincerely,


/s/ Stephen Rogers


Stephen Rogers


Senior Vice President, General Counsel/Corporate Counsel


On behalf of Charlotte’s Web Holdings, Inc.


 


 


[***] Indicates material that has been excluded from this Exhibit 10.2
because it is not material.



    	 



    	 



    

 


Accepted and Agreed:


 


 


 


 


/s/ Jacques Tortoroli               


Jacques Tortoroli                                                                                                 DateAugust 2, 2022
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|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 Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 23, 2010



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                              
|Dean L. Cash                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer of      
|ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)

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