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



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Office Depot Omnibus Amendment to Outstanding Equity and Long-Term Incentive Awards 

Reference is made to (i) the Office Depot, Inc. (the “Company”) 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2007 Plan”),
(ii) the Office Depot, Inc. 2010, 2011 and 2012 Long-Term Incentive Cash Plans for Officers and Directors (collectively, the “LTICPs”) and (iii) the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among the Company, Dogwood Merger Sub
Inc., Dogwood Merger Sub LLC, Mapleby Holdings Merger Corporation, Mapleby Merger Corporation and OfficeMax Incorporated, dated as of February 20, 2013 (the “Merger Agreement”). 

Except as otherwise specifically determined by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors as of the date of this Amendment or as
otherwise expressly provided under the terms of an award agreement, each outstanding equity award granted under the 2007 Plan and each outstanding long-term cash incentive award granted under the LTICPs is hereby amended to provide that in the event
of the award holder’s involuntary termination without “Cause” or termination for “Good Reason” (each, as defined below) during the two year period following the “Closing” (as defined in the Merger Agreement), any
such award, to the extent then outstanding, will become fully vested. In the case of any performance-based awards that become vested pursuant to the preceding sentence, the vesting of such awards shall be deemed to occur (i) at
“target” level in the case of any award for which the performance period has not yet been completed at the time of termination and (ii) based on actual performance results in the case of any award for which the performance period has
been completed at or prior to the time of termination. 
 As used herein, the term “Cause” shall have the meaning assigned to such
term under the 2007 Plan and the term “Good Reason” shall have the meaning assigned to such term under the award holder’s employment agreement or Change in Control Agreement with the Company, if applicable, and if not so defined, then
the references herein to “Good Reason” shall be inapplicable to such award holder. 
 Except as provided herein, the terms and
provisions of outstanding equity awards and long-term incentive awards shall continue in full force and effect. 
  

			
	OFFICE DEPOT, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Michael R. Allison
	Name:	 	Michael R. Allison
	Title:	 	EVP, Human Resources
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of POINTSTAR  ENTERTAINMENTCORP.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Rafeh
Hulays, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

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

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


                                          /s/ Rafeh Hulays
                                          ----------------------------------
Date: September 6, 2006                   Rafeh Hulays
                                          Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 57 Filed 12/04/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 318
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 on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 2002, that based on their knowledge and belief:

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

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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Brad E. Schwartz                                
|Brad E. Schwartz,                                   
|Chief Executive Officer                             
|                                                    
|/s/ Lynette P. Harris                               
|Lynette P. Harris                                   
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 10, 2010



39
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 16 Filed 09/13/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 161
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 16 Filed 09/13/10 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 162
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 16 Filed 09/13/10 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 163
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 16 Filed 09/13/10 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 164
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 16 Filed 09/13/10 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 165
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7558
RALPH FRANKLIN FREDRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00303-GCM) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Franklin Fredrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ralph Franklin Fredrick seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fredrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fredrick’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
**Exhibit 31.2**

**MedPro Safety Products, Inc.****Rule 13a-14(a) Certification****of Chief Financial Officer**

I, Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation.

| Dated: November 14, 2008 | /s/ Marc T. Ray         |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     | Marc T. Ray             |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer |

31

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5042 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5042

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 to ensure 
  that the dependents of employees of the Forest Service stationed in 
 Puerto Rico receive a high-quality elementary and secondary education.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5042

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 to ensure 
  that the dependents of employees of the Forest Service stationed in 
 Puerto Rico receive a high-quality elementary and secondary education.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO COVER EXPENSES OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 
              SCHOOLING OF DEPENDENTS OF FOREST SERVICE PERSONNEL IN 
              PUERTO RICO.

    Section 202 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 
(16 U.S.C. 554b) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a) Provision of Medical Care; Related 
        Transportation.--'' before ``Appropriations for the Forest 
        Service''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(b) Coverage of Dependent Educational Expenses in Puerto Rico; 
Related Transportation.--(1) Appropriations for the Forest Service 
shall be available to the Secretary of Agriculture to cover the cost of 
primary and secondary schooling of dependents of Forest Service 
personnel, who are stationed in Puerto Rico and are subject to transfer 
and reassignment to other locations in the United States, but not to 
exceed the costs authorized by the Department of Defense for the same 
area for dependents of members of the Armed Forces, when it is 
determined by the Secretary that the schools available in the area of 
Puerto Rico in which the dependents reside are unable to provide 
adequately for the education of the dependents.
    ``(2) If the Secretary determines that the school attended by a 
dependent described in paragraph (1) is not accessible by public means 
of transportation on a regular basis, the Secretary may provide, out of 
funds appropriated for the Forest Service, for the transportation of 
the dependent between the school and the place of residence of the 
dependent.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 5, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

AMERASIA BANK, , ., r· 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PTJ OF PARAMUS, INC., HSUEH HUA LEE and 

CHENG HSIEN LEE, 

Defendants 

-------------------------------------------------------------)( 

Civil Action No. 

2: 11-CV-01831· 

''-''ORDER 

Assigned to: 

Han. Claire C. Cecchi 

This matter having come before the Court upon plaintiff Amerasia Bank's Motion 

for Default Judgment (ECF Docket Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18) against Defendants PTJ of 

Paramus, Inc., Hsueh Hua Lee and Cheng Hsien Lee, which motion duly submitted for 

the Court's consideration without any opposition; and the Court having reviewed the 

papers submitted in support of the motion and, pursuant to Rule 78 of Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, decided the motion without oral argument; 

IT IS ON THIS Jl DAY OF JANUARY, 2012: 

1. ORDERED that Plaintiff Amerasia Bank's Motion for Default Judgment 

against Defendants PTJ of Paramus, Inc., Hsueh Hua Lee and Cheng 

Hsien Lee, jointly and severally, pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedures is GRANTED in its entirety and with prejudice; and 

2. ADJUDGED that Default Judgment against said Defendants, jointly and 

severally, can be entered in a sum certain amount or a sum that can be 

made certain by computation; 

Case 2:11-cv-01831-CCC-JAD Document 20 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 189
3. DIRECTED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment against Defendants 

PTJ of Paramus, Inc., Hsueh Hua Lee and Cheng Hsien Lee, jointly and 

severally, in the sum certain amount of $160,941.52, which is the sum 

computed and demanded in this action's Complaint, plus default interest 

accruing from March 30, 2011 at the per diem rate of$51.9537, together 

with all costs and disbursements allowed by law; 

4. LEAVE is granted to Plaintiff Amerasia Bank to submit additional 

information to prove and recover attorney fees incurred in connection with 

this action, and to enter a separate judgment for that sum; and 

Dated: January II , 2012 

CLAIRE C. CECCHI 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:11-cv-01831-CCC-JAD Document 20 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 190
April 13, 2012

Honorable Faith S. Hochberg

United States Magistrate Judge

United State District Court

Frank R. Lautenberg U.S. P.O. & Cthse, Rm 417

PC Box 999

Newark, NJ 07101

Re: James Wright v. Hartford Financial Services Group, et al.

Civil Action No.: 2:11-CV-00602-SRC-MAS

Dear Judge Hoch berg:

I am in receipt of the court’s order requesting that I respond to Hartford’s Statement of

Facts. I am respectfully requesting an adjournment of this order due to the fact that I

had wrist surgery and have been out of the office. I will try to have a response to the

court by Monday, but in the event that I cannot I would like a week to respond. I have

spoken to my adversary and have their consent.

Respectfully submitted,

Is! Kevin T. Kutyla

Kevin T. Kutyla

KTK:tw

Cc: Daniel Meier, Esq. — via fax 212-422-0925

Case 2:11-cv-00602-FSH-MAH Document 68 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1977
Exhibit 10.26






EXHIBIT  10.25


AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is effective as of February 4, 2010 and amends the July 23, 2008 Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) by and between FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and PETER T. SADOWSKI (the “Employee”) as follows:


1.    Excise Taxes. Section 10 of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety with the following:  


“Excise Taxes.  If any payments or benefits paid or provided or to be paid or provided to the Employee or for Employee's benefit pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or otherwise in connection with, or arising out of, employment with the Company or its subsidiaries or the termination thereof (a "Payment" and, collectively, the "Payments") would be subject to the excise tax imposed by Section 4999 of the Code (the “Excise Tax”), then Employee may elect for such Payments to be reduced to one dollar less than the amount that would constitute a “parachute payment” under Section 280G of the Code (the “Scaled Back Amount”).  Any such election must be in writing and delivered to the Company within thirty (30) days after the Date of Termination.  If Employee does not elect to have Payments reduced to the Scaled Back Amount, Employee shall be responsible for payment of any Excise Tax resulting from the Payments and Employee shall not be entitled to a gross-up payment under this Agreement or any other for such Excise Tax.  If the Payments are to be reduced, they shall be reduced in the following order of priority:  (i) first from cash compensation, (ii) next from equity compensation, then (iii) pro-rata among all remaining Payments and benefits.  To the extent there is a question as to which Payments within any of the foregoing categories are to be reduced first, the Payments that will produce the greatest present value reduction in the Payments with the least reduction in economic value provided to Employee shall be reduced first.”


2.    Definitions and Conflicts.  All terms not specifically defined in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement.  In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, this Amendment shall control.  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first set forth above.


	
			
	 
	 
	FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.

	 
	By:
	/s/ Michael L. Gravelle

	 
	Its:
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary

	 
	 
	Peter T. Sadowski

	 
	 
	/s/ Peter T. Sadowski
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**





The
      undersigned, Patricia E. Dowell, the Secretary of Franklin Towers Enterprises,
      Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for
      the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on
      Form
      10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
                May 14, 2007By:/s/
                Patricia E. DowellName:Patricia
                E. Dowell
              Title:Secretary




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.
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 1 of 17 PageID: 175

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 2 of 17 PageID: 176

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 3 of 17 PageID: 177

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 4 of 17 PageID: 178

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 5 of 17 PageID: 179

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 6 of 17 PageID: 180

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 7 of 17 PageID: 181

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 8 of 17 PageID: 182

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 9 of 17 PageID: 183

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 10 of 17 PageID: 184

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 11 of 17 PageID: 185

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 12 of 17 PageID: 186

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 13 of 17 PageID: 187

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 14 of 17 PageID: 188

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 15 of 17 PageID: 189

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 16 of 17 PageID: 190

Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD   Document 17    Filed 07/05/11   Page 17 of 17 PageID: 191
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 2289** 

THORN ELL JOHNSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv - 02536

- GJH )

Submitted : October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Dmitry Balannik, TOUCHSTONE LAW FIRM, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Craig R. Haughton, MCGUIREWOOD S, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Thornell Johnson seeks to appe al the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss and, dismissing his complaint . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the
distr ict court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a not ice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bow l e s v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 21, 2015 . The notice of appeal was filed on November

2 1 , 2015 . Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before th is cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED