alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.4


 Exhibit 10.4 

 
 



 
 6528 Kaiser Drive 
 Fremont, CA 
 (510) 896-3015 (ph) 

(510) 896-3010 (fax) 
 July 22, 2013 
 Sujit Sircar 
 No.402, Vars Casa Rosa, 
 1st Main, Pai Layout 

Krishnarajapuram, 
 Old Madras Road 

Bangalore – 560016 
 India 

Dear Sujit: 
 On July 17, 2013, the
Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of iGATE Corporation (the “Company”) approved a retention bonus plan (the “Retention Bonus Plan”), in order to ensure that the key members of the
Company’s management team remain with the Company and stay focused on growing the Company’s business. This letter (the “Retention Bonus Agreement”) sets forth the terms of your eligibility for and the amount of this additional
incentive. This Retention Bonus Agreement is supplemental to, and does not impact, other compensation you are entitled to as an employee of the Company. 
 The Retention Bonus Plan provides for the payment of a Retention Bonus (the “Retention Bonus”) to you in the amount of $150,000 on June 30, 2014 and $100,000 on December 31, 2014. In
order to be eligible for each payment, you must be an employee on the applicable date of payment: June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2014 (the “Payment Dates”). 
 You will not be eligible for, and will not receive any portion of, the Retention Bonus if you resign for any reason prior to the Payment Dates or if the Company terminates your employment for any reason
prior to the Payment Dates. The Retention Bonus will be subject to applicable deductions and withholdings and will not be considered compensation for purposes of any other compensation or benefit program sponsored or maintained by the Company.

 This Retention Bonus Agreement sets forth the entire understanding between you and the Company with regard to the Retention Bonus and any
retention or “stay” bonus and may not be modified except by written agreement executed by you and a duly authorized representative of the Company, as determined by the Committee. 
 We thank you for your many contributions to the Company and your ongoing support during this transition. Please sign below and return an executed copy of this Retention Agreement to me by July 22,
2013 in order to indicate your understanding and acceptance of these terms. 

  
 Page 1 of 2








 Please sign below as your acceptance of these terms. We greatly appreciate your past hard work and efforts
on behalf of the Company and look forward to continuing to work with you under the terms of this Agreement. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
		
	By:	 	/s/ Gerhard Watzinger            
		 	Gerhard Watzinger
		 	 Chief Executive Officer
 and
President


  

			
	Agreed to by:
		
		 	/s/ Sujit Sircar             7/22/13
		 	Sujit Sircar                  Date


  
 Page 2 of 2
#### Larry E. GEORGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark A. BEZY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-1810.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 2, 2006.*

Decided Nov. 8, 2006.

Larry E. George, United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.

Gerald A. Coraz, Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, for Respondent-Appellee.

*570Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, and Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary, and the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Order

Larry George, who is in federal prison for bank robbery, contends in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that his sentence has expired and that he is entitled to release. The sentence has expired, according to George, because the Bureau of Prisons misunderstood its relation to a state sentence for aggravated assault. George insists that the two sentences should have been treated as concurrent; if that is so, then the federal sentence has been served.

The district court denied George’s petition in July 2005, and he did not appeal. Seven months later George filed a motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), and he has appealed from the order denying that motion. His brief treats a Rule 60(b) motion as a means of obtaining belated appellate review of the original order. It is not. The order of July 2005 is no longer open to appeal; the only order before us is that of March 2006 denying the post-judgment motion. And only extraordinary circumstances justify relief under Rule 60(b). See, e.g., *Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2650-51, 162 L.Ed.2d 480(2005). George does not contend that such circumstances exist. He has offered some new arguments, but they come too late.

George maintains that there is “newly discovered evidence,” but what he calls “newly discovered” are events that occurred before the § 2241 proceeding got under way. His argument is that the state court did not acquire personal jurisdiction through a properly issued writ of *habeas corpus ad prosequendum.*Whether such a writ was issued is something that George could have found out long ago, had he made diligent inquiry. It turns out at all events that the premise of the Rule 60(b) motion is false. George attached to his brief a copy of the supposedly nonexistent writ. The district judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to reconsider the decision of July 2005.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Guaman, Appellant.

Submitted October 29, 2012;

decided November 19, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARA VARGAS RAMIREZ; et al. ,

Petitioners,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 73156 Agency Nos. A208

- 930

- 455

A208

- 930

- 456

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Sara Vargas Ramirez and her minor child, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withho lding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

* 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

OCT 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 73156

Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review. As to asylum and withholding of removal, petitioners fail to challenge in their opening brief the BIA’s determination that they did not establish past persecution and that they waived before the BIA any challenge to the IJ’s future persecution finding. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Petitioners also fail to challenge the BIA’s determination that they waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief

. Id . Thus, petitioners’ asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail. We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not meaningfully address

the issues raised. We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the IJ’s adverse credibility

determination and corroborative evidence because the BIA did not reach those

issues. See Santiago

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to groun ds relied upon by the BIA). We lack jurisdiction to3 18

- 73156

consider petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated their due process rights because they failed to raise the claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674,

677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
96-2256.

#### State ex rel. Haywood v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 95APD10-1302. On motion to strike appellant’s merit brief. Motion denied and extension to file and serve brief granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: M.R., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 32 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
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 Apogent Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis B. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ DENNIS B. BROWNDennis B. Brown Chief Financial Officer  August 13, 2003




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Apogent Technologies Inc. and will be retained by Apogent Technologies Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Hilary Best, Appellant, v Ann Marie Barbarotta, Respondent.

Submitted February 25, 2013;

decided April 2, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
      “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Randall H. Breitenbach, Co-Chief Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the
      general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that, to 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
      Partnership.




/s/
                      RANDALL H. BREITENBACHRandall
                      H. Breitenbach*Co-Chief
                        Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP,
                        LLC*


Dated:
      May 12, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,314
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       41
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,880
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,144
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,736
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,880
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   322
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (209)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (218)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,092)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,310)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.64)
        

</TABLE>
----

|   | (1)    |   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the      Company. |

|                              |   |               |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------------------|
| By: /s/ Ray      Singleton   |   | July      11, 2008 |
|                              |   |               |
| Ray      Singleton, President and |   |               |
| Chief      Executive Officer      |   |               |
Cause No. 2001-PC-1263

2015 JUL PM li- 13

IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF IN THE PROBATECOURT

t-i*':. COUHTS

TY. TcXAS

ADMINISTRATOR FOR ESTATE OF KING) NUMBER ONE S*.. -r-r—f{

Petitioner

v.

BEXAR COUNTY, ET AL

Respondents, FOR BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF APPEAL Iv^ fe ^S

Notice is hereby given by Petitioner Rowland J. Martin that, subject to t& reljef *"

I«

requested in his pending "Motion To Abate Or Dismiss Without Prejudice" to tH8 E^Qh^Coujt *^ZJ

of Appeals in Case No. 04-15-00271 -CV, that his earlier notice of record is supplemented in •'

order to appeal from the apparent overruling by operation of law of his motion for rehearing in

Probate Case No. 2001-PC-1263 to set aside the dismissal order granted in favor of Respondent

Bexar County tax authorities. The respondents include the County of Bexar, the City of San

Antonio, and the San Antonio Independent School District. Out of an abundance of caution,

Petitioner also appeals from the Probate Court's omission to file findings of fact and conclusions

of law in response to proposed findings and conclusions filed on June 19,2015. The non-filing

was previously noticed in notice of late filing of findings arid fact and conclusions of law filed

in the Probate Court on July 10, 2015. Petitioner asserts that the overruling and withholding of

findings are fundamental errors under the circumstances within 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Dated: July 14, 2015 Respectfully Submitted,

Rowland J. Martin^

951 Lombrano

San Antonio, Tx 78207

(210)323-3849
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

delivered copy of this, "supplemental Notice of Appeal," to Attorney Karen Evertson

c/o 411 S. Frio St., San Antonio, Tx., via email on July 14,,2015.

Rowland J. Marti
#### Cleveland Bar Association *v.*Rea.

[Cite as *Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rea*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 71.]

(No. 96-1433

Submitted January 7, 1997

Decided March 26, 1997.)

*73
      *Robert Marcis*and *James S. Aussem,*for relator.

*Per Curiam.*

In all six of the counts in this case, respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to her. In four of the counts, respondent obtained retainers which she did not earn or return. With respect to two counts, respondent lied to her clients.

In *Disciplinary Counsel v. Palmer*(1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 174, 642 N.E.2d 1087, when an attorney lied to clients and neglected their interests, we ordered an indefinite suspension. We also found an indefinite suspension appropriate in *Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers*(1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 18, 562 N.E.2d 1386, where an attorney accepted numerous retainers, failed to perform the work requested, failed to return the unearned fees, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. In both *Palmer*and *Chavers*the respondents failed to answer the complaints against them and our sanction was based on relators’ motions for default judgment.

Here respondent has failed to answer and relator has moved for a default judgment. Here also, given the facts as alleged and undisputed, we find the appropriate sanction to be indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Cook, J., dissents.

Cook, J.,

dissenting. The pattern of dishonesty reflected in the six counts against respondent, her failure to respond to relator’s charges, and her presentation before this court persuade me that the appropriate sanction is disbarment.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. The evidence does not clearly establish that respondent received adequate notice of all the stages of the proceedings, particularly in light of her hospitalization and illnesses. I would remand and give the respondent an opportunity to appear and respond. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.

Pfeifer, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
exh_1038.htm


Exhibit 10.38


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This Third Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement by and between NetSol Technologies, Inc. (“Netsol” or the “Company”) and Najeeb Ghauri (“Executive”), dated July 25, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement is entered into as of the date indicated below.  Other than the specific amendments enumerated in the Amendment, all of the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in the full force and effect, and shall not be obviated or affected by this Amendment.







In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall govern.  All capitalized terms contained herein are, unless otherwise stated, as defined in the Agreement.







Now therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:







Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement is modified to read:







3.1           The Company shall increase, effective July 1, 2013, Executive’s base salary to Four Hundred Seventy-Four Thousand Dollars ($474,000) per year (the "Base Salary"), payable in accordance with the Company policy.  Such salary shall be pro rated for any partial year of employment on the basis of a 365-day fiscal year.  Executive will be eligible for bonuses from time to time as determined by the Board.







Section 3.12 of the Employment Agreement is added to read:








3.12   Executive shall receive 5,000 shares per quarter of service completed commencing with the quarter beginning 7/1/13.  Executive shall receive performance share grants based on the gross revenue of the Company for the fiscal year ending 6/3/14 of: 25,000 at $51,000,000; 25,000 at $56,000,000; 25,000 at $62,000,000.


 







  





  











  






The Amendment is agreed to on July 25, 2013, and shall become effective as of the date first written above.


 







 


Employee


 







 


By:  /s/Najeeb Ghauri


Najeeb Ghauri


 







 


NetSol Technologies, Inc.


 







 


By:  /s/Boo-Ali Siddiqui                                                          By:  /s/Patti L. W. McGlasson


Boo Ali Siddiqui                                                                           Patti L. W. McGlasson


Chief Financial Officer                                                                 Secretary


 







 


By: /s/Mark Caton


Mark Caton


Chairman of Compensation Committee
Amendment #3 To 


 


DEBT CONVERSION AGREEMENT


 


This Agreement (the “Amendment Agreement”) is the
third amendment to the Debt Conversion Agreement dated the 21st day of March, 2013 (“Conversion Agreement”),
by and between VAST TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("Holder"), and VUZIX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation ("Company").


 


In consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements contained herein and in the Debt Conversion Agreement, the parties agree to amend the Conversion Agreement and its
first and second prior Amendments effective immediately as follows:


 


		1.	Paragraph 6 (a) of the Conversion Agreement currently provides that:



 


6 (a) At the option of any party in the event that
the Debt Conversion has not occurred by June 30, 2013 and such delay was not as a result of any breach of this Agreement by the
terminating party;


 


The Conversion Agreement Paragraph 6 (a) is hereby
amended to state:


 


6 (a) At the option of any party in the event that
the Debt Conversion has not occurred by August 31 2013 and such delay was not as a result of any breach of this Agreement
by the terminating party;


 


		2.	All provisions and terms making reference to or subject to the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange (“TSXV”) shall
be deleted and removed from the Conversion Agreement and any amendments there to.



 


		3.	All other provisions and terms of the Conversion Agreement and any amendments thereto shall remain the in effect in accordance
with their original terms.



 


EXECUTED on this 24th day of July 2013.


 


	Company:       Vuzix Corporation	Holder: Vast Technologies, Inc.
	 	 
	By: /s/ Paul Travers	By: /s/ Johnny Wei-Chuan Liao
	 	 
	Name: Paul Travers	Name: Johnny Wei-Chuan Liao
	Title: President & CEO	Title: President