alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(g)



                                     Summary
                              Severance Arrangement
                          For A Named Executive Officer


         In connection with Bruce M. Ambler's early retirement, and in
recognition of his service as President and Chief Executive Officer of
Constellation Holdings, Inc., he received a severance package when he retired on
January 1, 1999. His severance benefits include a $509,503 lump sum severance
payment equal to the total of (1) annual base salary, (2) average of the two
highest annual bonus percentages earned during the preceding five years
multiplied by the prior year's final annual salary, (3) payment toward the cost
of active employee health coverage for 12 months, and (4) vacation accrual. He
also receives a pension benefit computed at 60% of total final average salary
plus bonus, and retired executive life insurance, home security, planning, and
club membership benefits. His effective cost of medical and dental benefits
beginning January 1, 2000 will be the same as if he were retired at age 60 with
20 years of service. Mr. Ambler received a 1998 short-term incentive payment,
and will be entitled to a prorata payout of any earned performance-based
restricted stock award for the 1997-1999 and 1998-2000 performance periods.
Document

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


    THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the date indicated below (the “Effective Date”) by and between LegalZoom.com, Inc. (the “Company”), and Rich Preece (“Executive”) (each, a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”).


Executive is employed as the Company’s Chief Product Officer and Chief Operating Officer pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement, dated June 16, 2021 (the “Employment Agreement”).  Executive and the Company have agreed to amend and restate Executive’s employment terms and the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.
1.Amendments to Employment Agreement. The Parties have agreed that henceforth the Executive’s job title shall be changed from “Chief Product Officer & Chief Operating Officer” to “Chief Operating Officer” and that the Employment Agreement shall be amended mutatis mutandis.  In undertaking this Amendment, the Parties agree and acknowledge that they intend only to change the Executive’s job title and to eliminate the job duties, responsibilities and authorities associated with the title Chief Product Officer.  All other terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  The Executive acknowledges and agrees that this Amendment, the change to the Executive’s job title and duties, and any corresponding changes to the Employment Agreement do not constitute or otherwise give rise to “Good Reason” or a termination without “Cause” pursuant to the Employment Agreement or under any other agreement, plan, or policy.
2.Misc. Terms and Provisions.  This Amendment contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all other agreements between or among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof; provided, however, that this Amendment only modifies but does not supersede the Employment Agreement.  This Amendment may be amended only with the written consent of each Party. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.


LegalZoom.com, Inc.


By:  /s/ Dan Wernikoff 


Its:   Chief Executive Officer   


Rich Preece


/s/ Rich Preece                     Effective Date:  10/27/2021


			
	258752718 v1
<PAGE> 93
                                                                    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 Annual Report of Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
Patrick Corydon, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 Company.



/s/ G. PATRICK CORYDON
-------------------------
G. Patrick Corydon
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
March 14, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Katisha Beaty, Appellant.

Submitted May 13, 2013;

decided June 11, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Harvey L. Greenberg, Esq., 232 Madison Ave., Room 909, New York, NY 10016 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<PAGE>

                                       
                                EXHIBIT 11.01



                    OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

        STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                 (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                                     September 30,
                                                                 ---------------------
                                                                   1998         1997
                                                                 --------      -------
<S>                                                              <C>           <C>
Statement of operations data:

     Net income (loss).........................................  $(14,179)     $ 6,193
                                                                 --------      -------
                                                                 --------      -------
Weighted average number of common and
     dilutive common equivalent shares used
     in computations:

          Common stock.........................................    40,928       41,321

          Stock options and other common stock equivalents.....        --        1,248
                                                                 --------      -------
Shares used in computing net income (loss) per share...........    40,928       42,569
                                                                 --------      -------
                                                                 --------      -------
Net income (loss) per share....................................  $  (0.35)     $  0.15
                                                                 --------      -------
                                                                 --------      -------
</TABLE>
Motion granted, appeal dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed September

28, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00086-CV

JORGE GOUDET, AUGE MACHINING MANUFACTURING, L.L.C., 

AUGE INDUSTRIAL FASTENERS, L.L.C., AND REAL PROPERTIES & 

TRUST, LLC, Appellants

V.

DIMENSIONAL CNC, L.L.C., DO’S VISION INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., AND 

DO VAN NGUYEN, Appellees

On Appeal from the 164th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-46104

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This interlocutory appeal is from an order signed January 19, 2023 denying a 

motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. See Tex. Civ. 

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.016. On September 22, 2023, appellants filed an 

unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion 

is granted.
2

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Wilson.
<PAGE>


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of ATS Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Dale, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

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

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

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




                                   /s/ Michael D. Dale
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   Michael D. Dale
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   May 13, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.01
                                       
                    OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                 (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                                September 30,
                                                           ---------------------
                                                             1997        1996
                                                           --------   ----------
<S>                                                        <C>        <C>
Statement of operations data:
    Net income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   $  6,193   $  (1,653)
                                                           --------   ----------
                                                           --------   ----------

Weighted average number of common and
    dilutive common equivalent shares used
    in computations:
       Common stock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     41,321      40,297
       Stock options and other common stock equivalents.      1,248           -
                                                           --------   ----------
Shares used in computing net income (loss) per share . .     42,569      40,297
                                                           --------   ----------
                                                           --------   ----------
Net income (loss) per share (1). . . . . . . . . . . . .   $   0.15   $   (0.04)
                                                           --------   ----------
                                                           --------   ----------
</TABLE>


(1) The difference between the primary and fully diluted shares used in 
computing net income (loss) per share is not material.
[988 NE2d 1285, 966 NYS2d 773]

#### Arpi Koulajian, Appellant, v Tamara Smith et al., Respondents.

Decided May 2, 2013

*919APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Law Office of Robert F. Danzi,*Westbury *(Robert F. Danzi*of counsel), for appellant.

*DeSena & Sweeney, LLP,*Bohemia *(Shawn P. O’Shaughnessy*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals *(22*NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division correctly held that defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Figueroa, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 889]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 27, 1995 *(People v Figueroa,*213 AD2d 669 [1995]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 13, 1991, an amended judgment of the same court rendered March 13, 1991, and an order of the same court dated January 27, 1992.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Mastro, J.E, Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
## NUMBER 13

- 1 4

- 00 382

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

VALERIE CELESTE MOOR E

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 75 th District Court

of Liberty County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez , Benavides, and P erkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Valerie Celeste Moore , by and through h er attorney, has filed a motion

to dismiss h er appeal because s he no longer desires to prosecute it. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

.

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant

to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX . G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 73.001

(West , Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S. ).2

P . 42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,

and our mandate will issue fo rthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

1 1th day of September, 2014

.
96-2442.

#### Richwalsky v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc.

Hamilton App. No. C-960064. On motion to consolidate case with Nos. 96-2364 and 96-2778, *Robinson v. B.O.C. Group, Gen. Motors Corp.,*Trumbull App. No. 96-T-5419. Motion denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          714894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   625263
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     550002
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1918801
<PP&E>                                          403932
<DEPRECIATION>                                  271210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2057623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           410014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2485
<OTHER-SE>                                     1636701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2057623
<SALES>                                         759850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                766707
<CGS>                                           553302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   123314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  90091
<INCOME-TAX>                                     29507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              60584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     60584
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KERR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on April 29, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of K.L.C., J.K.C., and L.E.C., Appellant

V.

No. 04

- 15

- 00149

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 14658B

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. It is ORDERED that no costs

be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as

indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 15

- 00149

- CV

In the Interest of K.L.C., J.K.C., and L.E.C.

v.

(NO. 14658B IN 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KERR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

CLERK'S RECORD $94.00 INDIGENT DECLARATION OF INDIGENCE

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this July 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

Certifications 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, in connection with the filing of the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Atlantic American Corporation (the "Company") for the
period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers
of the Company certifies, that, to such officer's knowledge:

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

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

Date: March 31, 2006         /s/ Hilton H. Howell, Jr.
                           ------------------------------------
                             Hilton H. Howell, Jr.
                             President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 31, 2006         /s/ John G. Sample, Jr.
                           ------------------------------------
                             John G. Sample, Jr.
                             Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Injah Tafari, Appellant, v Brian S. Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Submitted June 25, 2012;

decided September 6, 2012

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the May 2012 Appellate Division order denying reconsideration, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, *1008insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the March 2012 Appellate Division order of affirmance, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]). Appellant’s motion for reconsideration at the Appellate Division did not extend his time to move for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
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

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 15, 2009, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Sierra Pacific Industries, Camino Division, Camino, California; Sierra Pacific Industries, Sonora Division, Sonora, California; and Sierra Pacific Industries, Quincy Division, Quincy, California.

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

Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13454 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P