alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.2


 Exhibit 10.2 

 
 



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

(510) 896-3010 (fax) 
 July 22, 2013 
 Derek Kemp 
 Wayland House 
 Wayland Close 
 Bradfield 
 Berkshire 
 RG7 6AG 
 Dear Derek: 
 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/ Derek Kemp	  	7/22/13	  	
	Derek Kemp	  	Date	  	


  
 Page 2 of 2
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

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Earl Reed,
III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 220, 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2006



/s/ W. EARL REED, IIIW. Earl Reed, IIIChief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6198

JOHN J. GARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MACEO WILLIAMS, Parole Commissioner; FRANK

PAPPAS, Parole Commissioner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-96-4045-JFM)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John J. Garris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Garris v. Williams, No. CA-96-4045-JFM (D. Md. Jan.

15, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order entered July 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01100-CV

BARRY H. WELLS, Appellant

V.

MARC R. MAY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 417-02600-2012

ORDER

Appellant’s July 6, 2015 motion to copy a trial exhibit is GRANTED. The Clerk of the 

Court is directed to make a copy of the CD containing the audio recording of the deposition of 

Gregory Nicholas, and mail it to counsel for appellant. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
KATHERINE ANNE SMITH

,
Appellant,

v.

DOUGLAS W. SMITH AND E. DREW MITCHELL, INDIVIDUALLY, AS CO

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT H. SMITH, AND AS CO

TRUSTEES OF THE ROBERT H. SMITH MARITAL TRUST

,
Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1 D 16

- 2621

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James C. Hankinson , Judge

.
F. Wallace Pope, Jr., Brandon D. Bellew, and Caitlein J. Jammo of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP, Clearwater , for Appellant.

Dubose Ausley and Kevin A. Forsthoefel of Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee; James P. Judkins and Larry D. Simpson of Judkins, Simpson & Schulte, Tallahassee , for Appellee s

.2 PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR

, JAY

, and M.K. THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#     Glossary  

2ABCDEFGHIKMNOPRSTUX

----

## NIA

## I

Institute or Center (IC)

 The NIH organizational component responsible for a particular grant program or set of activities. The terms "NIH IC" or "awarding IC" are used throughout this document to designate a point of contact for advice and interpretation of grant requirements and to establish the focal point for requesting necessary prior approvals or changes in the terms and conditions of award. 

## N

NIA

NIAAA

NIAID

NIAMS
97-595.

#### State v. Davis.

Hamilton App. No. C-880733. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10193

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEREK RAY KING,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-200-1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derek Ray King appeals the judgment revoking his second term of 

supervised release and sentencing him to a 10-month prison term and a 20-

month term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Pretermitting

the question whether the district court infringed King’s due process right of 

confrontation, we affirm on other bases supported by the record. See United 

States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Ho, 311 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 30, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10193 Document: 00514816114 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2019
No. 18-10193

2

F.3d 589, 602 n.12 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 

219 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995). Additionally, we pretermit deciding the standard of 

review for the statutory bases for our decision because we conclude that “the 

district court’s reasons were sufficient under any standard.” Rodriguez, 523 

F.3d at 525.

First, revocation and imprisonment were mandatory because King 

conceded that he had tested positive for illegal substances more than three 

times in a year’s period. See § 3583(g)(4). The record offers no basis for 

concluding that the district court committed error of any kind in exercising the 

limited discretion granted by statute to forgo mandatory revocation for 

defendants on supervised release who fail drug testing. See § 3583(d); see also

United States v. Williams, 847 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 

S. Ct. 192 (2017); United States v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327, 335-36 (5th Cir. 

2010); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486-87 (5th Cir. 2005). King had 

been required to participate in substance abuse treatment since at least 

October 2012 and yet continued his abusive behavior, as shown by testing in 

April, May, June, and July of 2017. Second, revocation and imprisonment were 

mandatory because King conceded that he had violated the condition of his 

supervised release that he not possess illegal controlled substances. See

§ 3583(g)(1). And to such extent as King may be understood to argue that the 

district court was influenced in its sentence by the allegations of an addendum 

to the petition for revocation and the testimony related to those allegations,

i.e., that his due process right of confrontation was infringed with regard to his 

revocation sentence, he is entitled to no relief. See United States v. Beydoun, 

469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-10193 Document: 00514816114 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2019
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60654 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. S HER RYA NNA CO RD D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 1: 02- C R

- 98- 1
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d S T E W A R T an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * S h erry A n n a C ord ap pea l s t h e revocat i on of sup ervi sed rel ease en t ered on Ju l y 15, 200 8. S h e argu es t h at t h e even t s t h at resul t ed i n h er t erm i n ati on f rom a com m u n i t y corr ect i on s c en t er w ere not h er fau l tan d that she show ed p rogress w h i l e on su pervi sed rel ease. Sh e ha s not, h ow ever, show n t h at t h e di st ri ct c o ur t ' s de c i s i o n was b as e d o n a n e r r o r o f l aw o r a c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us a s s e s s m e nt o f th e e v id e n c e . A p p ly in gth e a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d , w e fin dn o e r r o r . S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . G r andl und , 7 1 F .3d 5 0 7 , 5 0 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60654

2 C or d f urt herc ont ends t hather10- m ont h p ri so n se nt enc e w as s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b l e . C o r d ’ s s e n te n c e w a s w ith in th e a p p lic a b le S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es r an ge, b el ow the st atutor y m axim u m , a n d i m posedaf t er h er t h i rd revocat i on of sup ervi sed rel ease. U n der t h e pl ai n err or s t an da rd, C ord has fai l ed t o de m ons t r at e a ny c l earorob vi ous er r oraf fec t i ng hers ubst ant i al r ig h ts . S e eUn ite dS ta te s v . He r n a n d ez -Ma r tin ez, 4 8 5 F .3d 2 7 0 , 2 7 3 (5t h C ir.) , c e r t. d e n ie d, 1 2 8 S
. C t. 3 2 5 (20 0 7 ). T h e j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Donald Sargeant, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Agassiz Energy, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andc) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 27, 2006                                        /s/ Donald Sargeant   Donald Sargeant   President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT        23

 

CONSENT        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.        2-72576) pertaining to the 1981 Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8        No. 33-34107) pertaining to the Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. Deferred Directors Fee Option        Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No 33-31316) pertaining to the Baldwin &        Lyons, Inc. Employee Discounted Stock Option Plan of our reports dated March 11, 2008, with        respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Baldwin & Lyons,        Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, of Baldwin &        Lyons, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,        2007.

 

 

/S/ ERNST        & YOUNG LLP

 

Indianapolis, Indiana

March        12, 2008

- 80        -

----
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

In connection with the Annual Report of CyGene Laboratories, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Martin
Munzer, Chief Executive Officer 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 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 Company.


                                                   /s/ Martin Munzer
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Martin Munzer,
                                                   Chief Executive Officer and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

Date:  September __, 2004
Order entered August 12, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00225
- CR ROSS BRANTLEY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. F13
- 00014
- V



### O RDER Appellant’s brief is overdue in this appeal. We also note the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal is incomplete in that none of the boxes on the form is checked. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the trial co urt to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indig ent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court isORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. The supplemental clerk’s record shall also contain a completed certific ation of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the f indings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


(18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Tel Group, Inc. and its
Subsidiaries (“Company”), on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2010, as filed with the Untied States Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Carlos A. Trujillo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), 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.







By:
      /s/ Carlos A.
      Trujillo
              Carlos
      A. Trujillo
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              May
      24, 2010








[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Tel Group, Inc. and will be retained by China Tel Group, Inc. and
furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.]
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 LILM,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George I. Norman, III,
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/S/   GEORGE I. NORMAN, III
--------------------------------
George I. Norman, III
Principal Accounting Officer
November 20, 2006



     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 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.