alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 

 
 



 
 December 15, 2010 
 Alan Wexler 
 ******** 
 ******** 
 Dear Mr. Wexler, 
 This letter clarifies the letter agreement between you and Sapient Corporation (the “Company”) of April 1, 2002 (the “2002 Letter”) concerning your compensation rate and your
entitlement to severance benefits upon termination of employment by the Company without Cause (as defined below). In that regard, the third paragraph of the 2002 Letter is amended in its entirety as follows: 

In the event your employment is terminated by the Company without Cause, you will receive, in a single lump sum payment, an amount equal to your
(i) annual base salary, as in effect immediately prior to the date of termination, and (ii) target annual bonus, under any annual bonus or incentive plan maintained by the Company in respect of the fiscal year in which the date of
termination occurs. Such payment shall be made no later than five (5) days following such termination of employment. Solely for purposes of this Agreement, “Cause” shall mean your unethical or illegal behavior, as determined in the
reasonable discretion of the Company. In no event will you be eligible to receive severance benefits under the 2002 Letter, as amended from time to time, if and to the extent that you are eligible to receive any severance benefits under the Change
in Control Severance Agreement dated April 13, 2010. 
 For purposes of this letter agreement, references to termination of employment mean
a “separation from service” (as defined at Section 1.409A-1(h) of the Treasury Regulations) from the Company and from all other corporations and trades or businesses, if any, that would be treated as a single “service
recipient” with the Company under Section 1.409A-1(h)(3) of the Treasury Regulations. 
  
 



 








 



 
  

 If at the time of separation from service the employee is a specified employee as hereinafter defined,
any and all amounts payable in connection with such separation from service that constitute deferred compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code, as determined by the Company in its sole discretion, and that would (but for this sentence)
be payable within six months following such separation from service, shall instead be paid on the date that follows the date of such separation from service by six (6) months and one day. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term
“specified employee” means an individual who is determined by the Company to be a specified employee as defined in subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) of Section 409A of the Code (including, if elected by the Company, the elective rules pursuant
to Section 1.409A-1(i) of the Treasury Regulations). 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Frank Schettino

	Frank Schettino
	Vice President, People Success
	
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	
	 /s/ Alan Wexler

	Alan Wexler
	
	Date:12/20/2010
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ SHERYL TAYLOR , Petitioner
,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD , Respondent.

__________________________ 201 3- 303 7

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT1221120255 -W-1.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R Sheryl Taylor moves for various relief, including a r eview of case law regarding app ointment of counsel and answers to legal questions regarding the scope of Ms. Ta y lor’s appeal. Ms. Taylor also moves for sanctions to order the MSPB to release federal funds and appoint or assign counsel to her. Case: 13-3037 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2013SHERYL TAYLOR V

. MSPB 2 Briefing is already complete in this appea l. Ms. Ta ylor has had the opportunity to raise any appealable issues in those briefs, and the merits panel will address them in turn.
We have also at least twice previously ruled on Ms. Taylor’s motion asking for appointment of coun sel, i nforming her that this court does not have a procedure for appointing or assigning counsel to pro se litigants. That holds equally true now in the context of Ms. Taylor’s request for sanctions. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion regarding the scope of Ms. Taylor’s appeal is deferred for consideration by the merits panel. Copies shall be transmi t ted to the merits panel

. (2) The motion s requesting sanctions to release fede ral funds and appoint counsel are denied.

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

s2 4 Case: 13-3037 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 04/30/2013
#### Frank Mitchell Corso, P.C., Appellant, v Sullivan, Papain, Block, McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 782]

an action to recover for professional services rendered, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated June 22, 2005, as, in effect, upon renewal, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated January 24, 2005, denying its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granting the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order dated June 22, 2005, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, upon renewal, adher*855ing to so much of the prior determination as granted the cross motion and substituting therefor a provision, upon renewal, denying the cross motion and vacating so much of the order dated January 24, 2005, as granted the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

Taking the allegations of the complaint, as amplified by the plaintiffs other submissions in the case, as true, and giving the plaintiff every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom, we find that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a cause of action to recover under Judiciary Law § 475 for the reasonable value of the legal services rendered (see *generally Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see *also Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot v City of New York,*302 AD2d 183, 186 [2002]). Thus, the Supreme Court, upon renewal, should have denied the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Supreme Court, upon renewal, properly adhered to the original determination denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint since discovery has yet to commence and triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether or to what extent the plaintiff surrendered its rights under the retaining lien in exchange for turning over the files *(see Spector v Zuckermann,*287 AD2d 704, 706 [2001]) or whether it waived any lien *(see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell,*81 NY2d 655, 658-659 [1993]; *Kaplan v Reuss,*113 AD2d 184, 187 [1985], *affd*68 NY2d 693 [1986]). Prudenti, EJ, Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ, concur.
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 1 of 23 PageID: 8512

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 2 of 23 PageID: 8513

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 3 of 23 PageID: 8514

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 4 of 23 PageID: 8515

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 5 of 23 PageID: 8516

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 6 of 23 PageID: 8517

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 7 of 23 PageID: 8518

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 8 of 23 PageID: 8519

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 9 of 23 PageID: 8520

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 10 of 23 PageID: 8521

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 11 of 23 PageID: 8522

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 12 of 23 PageID: 8523

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 13 of 23 PageID: 8524

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 14 of 23 PageID: 8525

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 15 of 23 PageID: 8526

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 16 of 23 PageID: 8527

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 17 of 23 PageID: 8528

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 18 of 23 PageID: 8529

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 19 of 23 PageID: 8530

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 20 of 23 PageID: 8531

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 21 of 23 PageID: 8532

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 22 of 23 PageID: 8533

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1111   Filed 11/12/09   Page 23 of 23 PageID: 8534
Order entered July 17, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-10-00866-CR

MICHAEL EDWARD DANSBY SR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 25891-CC

ORDER

The trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and 

sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment and a fine of $960. On appeal, we concluded the 

trial court erred by revoking appellant’s community supervision and adjudicating his guilt. See 

Dansby v. State, No. 05-10-00866-CR, 2015 WL 3657749 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 15, 2015, no 

pet. h.). We reversed the trial court’s judgment, reinstated the order of deferred adjudication, and 

remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Appellant asks this Court to set bail pending final determination of the appeal under 

article 44.04(h) of the code of criminal procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

44.04(h) (West 2006). Bail is hereby set in the amount of $10,000, and any sureties must be 

approved by the trial court with any reasonable conditions of bail imposed by the trial court. 
Once bail is posted, the trial court is ORDERED to release appellant from confinement assessed 

in the cause.

The State has requested that we require appellant, as a condition of bail, to register as a 

sex offender under chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We decline to do so. 

Appellant’s duty to register as a sex offender already exists under article 62.101(a)(1) of the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because he has a reportable conviction or adjudication for a 

sexually violent offense as defined in article 62.001(5)(A) and (6)(A). The duty does not arise as 

a condition of bail.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send copies of this order to the Honorable 

Dennis Jones, presiding judge of the County Court at Law of Kaufman County, and counsel for 

all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Sean Mitchell, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MattMar Minerals
     Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
     this quarterly report;

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of January, 2007.


/s/ Sean Mitchell
---------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT

In re A.V., a juvenile
, * Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding

No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 361

- C V * January 5
, 20 2 3

* Per Curiam Memorand um Opinio n (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has considered A.V

. ’s application for writ of habeas corpus and concludes that the application for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the applica tion for habeas corpus is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5005 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5005

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
         September 30, 2004, for additional disaster assistance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums 
are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, to provide 
emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster 
assistance, namely:

  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

                            Disaster Relief

    For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'', $2,000,000,000, 
to remain available until expended, of which up to $30,000,000 may be 
transferred to ``Small Business Administration--Salaries and 
Expenses'', for administrative expenses to carry out the disaster loans 
program authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business Act: Provided, 
That the amounts provided herein are designated as an emergency 
requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H.Res. 
649 (108th Congress) and applicable to the Senate by section 14007 of 
Public Law 108-287.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2004''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
---

Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CYBRA
Corporation. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Harold Brand, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, 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.

Date: August 15, 2011
    /s/ Harold BrandHarold BrandChief Executive Officer


---
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4929 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4929

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish at least one 
    Border Patrol unit for the Virgin Islands of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2004

 Mrs. Christensen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish at least one 
    Border Patrol unit for the Virgin Islands of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. BORDER PATROL UNIT FOR VIRGIN ISLANDS.

    Not later than September 30, 2005, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall establish at least one Border Patrol unit for the Virgin 
Islands of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
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 on Form 10-K of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the "Company") for the period
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Richard N. Nottenburg, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



Date:
February 25, 2010

/s/ RICHARD N. NOTTENBURGRichard N. NottenburgPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---
# FILED
October 26, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE
JAMES AND CAROLYN CHRISMAN ) Appeal ) No. 03-S-01-9706-CV-00077 Plaintiffs-Appellees ) ) v. ) Knox County ) No. 1-787-94 HILL HOME DEVELOPMENT, INC. ) and JIM HILL ) ) Judgment of the Court of Defendants-Appellants ) Appeals is REVERSED

JUDGMENT ORDER

This cause came to be heard upon briefs, argument of counsel, and the record on appeal from the Court of Appeals.

The Court is of the opinion that under the facts of this case, summary judgment is appropriate for the claim of fraudulent concealment against Hill because Hill demonstrated that plaintiffs will be unable to prove an essential element of the tort. We are also of the opinion that summary judgment is appropriate for the cla imof nuisance against Hill and Hill Home Development bec aus e the four-year statute of repose in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 bars that claim. In accordance with the opinion filed herewith, it is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Costs of the appeal are taxed against the appellees, for which execution may issue if necessary.

10/26/98
Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 57   Filed 09/06/12   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 305

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 57   Filed 09/06/12   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 306
Exhibit 31.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer





Certification Pursuant to Section 302


of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, David C. Dreyer, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc.;





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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and





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, the periods presented in this report.




Date: April 29, 2011





/s/ DAVID C. DREYERDavid C. DreyerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit No. 32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Juhl Wind, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002 that, to the undersigned’s knowledge:





(1)   the
Report of the Company filed today fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and





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





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.





Date: August
      16, 2010
            /s/John
      P. MitolaJohn
      P. MitolaPresident