alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SJW 2012 Q4 10K Exhibit 10.16




EXHIBIT 10.16
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of January 11, 2013, by and between SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY a California corporation, (each individually and collectively a “Borrower”), and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (“Bank”).


RECITALS


WHEREAS, Borrower is currently indebted to Bank pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Credit Agreement between Borrower and Bank dated as of March 1, 2012, as amended from time to time (“Credit Agreement”).


WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower have agreed to certain changes in the terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement and have agreed to amend the Credit Agreement to reflect said changes.


NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Credit Agreement shall be amended as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 4.9. (a) is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following substituted therefor:




“(a) Funded Debt.  Funded Debt shall not exceed 66-2/3% of Total Capitalization. 
“Funded Debt” shall mean all funded debt of SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY excluding  
borrowings on the bank line of credit.  “Total Capitalization” shall mean as of any  
date the sum of (i) net worth plus (ii) Funded Debt.”


		
	2.
	Section 4.9. (b) is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following substituted therefor:




“(b)  Interest Coverage Ratio.  Interest Coverage Ratio, defined as the sum of net profit before taxes plus interest expense divided by interest expense (net of capitalized interest expense), not less than 1.75:1.0 as of each calendar quarter end on a rolling 4-quarter basis.”


3.    Except as specifically provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement remain in full force and effect, without waiver or modification.  All terms defined in the Credit Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Amendment.  This Amendment and the Credit Agreement shall be read together, as one document.


4.    Borrower hereby remakes all representations and warranties contained in the Credit Agreement and reaffirms all covenants set forth therein.  Borrower further certifies that as of the date of this Amendment there exists no Event of Default as defined in the Credit Agreement, nor any condition, act or event which with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both would constitute any such Event of Default.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first written above.









	
		
	SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
	WELLS FARGO BANK,

	 
	   NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

	 
	 

	By:   /s/ W. Richard Roth   
	By:   /s/ Anthony White   

	   W. Richard Roth, President
	   Anthony White, Senior Vice President

	 
	 

	By:   /s/ James P. Lynch    
	 

	   James P. Lynch, Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derrick Anthony SARDIN, also known as Xavier James Sardin, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-10291

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 18, 2012.

Derrick Anthony Sardin Marion, IL, pro se.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Derrick Anthony Sardin, federal prisoner # 35587-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentencing reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that despite his prior sentencing reduction based on Amendment 706, the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) and Amendment 750 further lower his sentencing range because they lower mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine offenses. He argues that nothing about Amendment 750 makes it inapplicable to prisoners who have received a previous reduction.

A district court may grant a § 3582(c)(2) motion only “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). This court reviews a district court’s decision “whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to ... § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, ... its interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error.” *United States v. Henderson,*636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks and footnote omitted).

When the district court reduced Sardin’s sentence pursuant to Amendment 706, the district court determined that Sardin’s revised guidelines range of imprisonment was 235 to 293 months. Applying Amendment 750, Sardin’s guidelines range of imprisonment is still 235 to 293 months. *See*
      *351U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A; § 201.1(c)(4); § 2D1.1 comment, (n.10). Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that Sardin was ineligible for a further reduction and did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion.

AFFIRMED.

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.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

JOSE MANUEL ALMONTE.

Crim. No. 2:11-cr-158 (WJM)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant’s pro se motion for 

leave to appeal out of time, filed on February 16, 2012 (ECF No. 79); the Court noting 

that the judgment being appealed was entered on January 11, 2012; the Court finding 

that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A), the deadline for 

Defendant to file a notice of appeal was January 25, 2012; the Court noting that, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4), it may extend the time for Defendant to

file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days beyond the January 25, 2012 

deadline upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause;

1

and the Court finding that, 

based upon Defendant’s February 16, 2012 submission, excusable neglect and good 

cause have been shown; 

IT IS on this 1st day of March 2012, hereby,

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

s/William J. Martini 

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

 

1

See also, United States v. Richmond, 120 F.3d 434 (3d Cir. 1997).
Case 3:11-mj-02516-DEA   Document 6   Filed 02/23/11   Page 1 of 3 PageID: 9

Case 3:11-mj-02516-DEA   Document 6   Filed 02/23/11   Page 2 of 3 PageID: 10

Case 3:11-mj-02516-DEA   Document 6   Filed 02/23/11   Page 3 of 3 PageID: 11
Exhibit 32.2





SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 operations of the Company.




Dated:December 13, 2011By:/s/ Marc T. RayMarc T. RayChief Financial Officer
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 JPG Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Greeley, Chief Executive and 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 my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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/ John P. Greeley John P. Greeley Title: President and Chief Financial Officer   May 16 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**JARMEN M. NELSON AND RAKI D. NELSON,** 

**Petitioners**

**v.**

**LA FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 336 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27th day of September, 2016, 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 Helix Wind, Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, 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 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: July 27, 2011
/s/ Kevin ClaudioKevin Claudio, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
PD­0238­15

WILLIAN HERNANDEZ § IN THE TEXAS COURT OF

§

vs. § CRIMINAL APPEALS

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS § STATE OF TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S SECONDMOTION EXTENTION OF TIME

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes William Hernandez, Defendant, and files this Motion for                    

extension of time of this cause from its present setting of July 1, 2015 until July 7,                                  

2015 and shows the following: 

1. This motion is filed in accordance with Article 29.03 of the                      

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 

2. This is Defendant’s Second motion for extension of time. The                    

Brief was due on July 1, 2015. 

2. Counsel, Ronald T. Spriggs, needed additional time because of                  

computer problems and the office air conditioner broke. With the air condition not                          

working, the office became unbearable. Counsel could not work in his office                        

because of the heat.  

3. This motion is not made for purposes of delay but that justice may be                            

PD-0238-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/7/2015 4:06:48 PM

Accepted 7/7/2015 4:26:14 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
done.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED​, Defendant prays that the

Court enter its order extending the time to file the brief in this matter until July 7,

2015, continuing this cause until some future date, or, in the alternative, sets this

motion for hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

Ronald T. Spriggs

1011 S. Jackson Street

Amarillo, Texas 79101

Tel: (806) 376­7260

Fax (806) 372­3298

e­mail: spriggslawronald@gmail.com

By: /S/Ronald T. Spriggs

Ronald T. Spriggs

State Bar No. 00792853

Attorney for Petitioner

William Hernandez
VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS §

§

POTTER COUNTY §

"My name is Ronald T. Spriggs and I am the attorney of record for

WILLIAM HERNANDEZ and have been so for the last 45 days.

"I have read the Motion for Extension of time and every statement is within

my personal knowledge and is true and correct."

/s/ Ronald T. Spriggs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on July 6, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above

and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Harris

County, by facsimile transmission to 713 755­0242.

/S/ Ronald T. Spriggs
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1658]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Physics Proposal Review Panel; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: LIGO Annual Review Policy on access to LIGO Data for 
Physics (1208).
    Date and Time: Tuesday, February 17, 2009; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Wednesday, February 18, 2009; 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation Rm. II-535 and Room 130.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Beverly Berger, Program Director for 
Gravitational Physics, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7372.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning NSF support of the LIGO project.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate LIGO's practices and proposed 
policies regarding the availability of data.

    Dated: January 21, 2009,
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-1658 Filed 1-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1149 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 

deduction for qualified business income. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. THUNE) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the deduction for qualified business income. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Main Street Tax Cer5 tainty Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED BUSINESS INCOME 

7 MADE PERMANENT. 

8 Section 199A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

9 is amended by striking subsection (i). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
1 

 [Dkt. Ent. 37]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

 CAMDEN VICINAGE

 

JENNIFER KASILAG, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 11-1083 (RMB/KMW) 

ORDER

 THIS MATTER coming before the Court upon a motion to dismiss 

the Second Amended Complaint by the defendant Hartford Investment 

Financial Services, LLC (“HIFSCO”) [Dkt. Ent. 37]; and 

THE COURT having considered both parties’ papers and all 

accompanying materials; and 

FOR THE REASONS set forth in the Opinion issued herewith; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that HIFSCO’s motion to dismiss is 

DENIED as to Count One and GRANTED as to Count Two. 

Dated: December 17, 2012 s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 45 Filed 12/17/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 3007
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Crescendo Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ending November 30, 2006, I, Anthony E. Lombardo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  January 16, 2007 Crescendo Capital Corp. By: /s/ Anthony E. Lombardo  Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Crescendo Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ending November 30, 2006, I, Margaret L. Sollish, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  January 16, 2007 Crescendo Capital Corp. By: /s/ Margaret L. Sollish
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16623]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,762]


Chrysler, LLC, Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, Including On-Site 
Leased Workers From Caravan Knight Facilities Management LLC, Sterling 
Heights, MI; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on April 27, 2009, applicable to workers of 
Chrysler, LLC, Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, Sterling Heights, 
Michigan. The notice was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 
2009 (74 FR 23214).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers assemble the 
Chrysler Sebring, Chrysler Sebring Convertible and the Dodge Avenger.
    New information shows that workers leased from Caravan Knight 
Facilities Management LLC were employed on-site at the Sterling 
Heights, Michigan location of Chrysler, LLC, Sterling Heights Assembly 
Plant. The Department has determined that these workers were 
sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered 
leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Caravan Knight Facilities 
Management LLC working on-site at the Sterling Heights, Michigan 
location of Chrysler, LLC, Sterling Heights Assembly Plant.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-65,762 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Chrysler, LLC, Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, 
including on-site leased workers from Caravan Knight Facilities 
Management LLC, Sterling Heights, Michigan, who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after March 8, 2008, 
through April 27, 2011, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also 
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under 
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-16623 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 20

- 14796 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
versus PETER CHRISTIAN BOULETTE , Defendant

- Appell ant

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States Distri ct Court for the Northern District of Ala bama D.C. Docket No. 2 : 06

- c r
- 00131

- R DP

- HNJ

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14796 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 20

- 14796

- AA

Before J ILL P RYOR , B RASHER , and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : On October 21, 20 20, the district court entered an order denying Peter Boulette’s motion for compassionate release under18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Under criminal timeliness rules, Boulette had 14 days to file a notice of appeal, i.e. , until November 4, 2020. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1); see also United States v. Fair ,326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is criminal in nature). The deadline in Rule 4(b) for a defendant to file a notice of appeal in a criminal case i s not jurisdictional. United States v. Lopez , 562 F.3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2009). Instead, the filing deadline is considered a claims

- processing rule, and the government can waive an objection to an untimely notice of appeal. Id. at 1312

– 13. Nevertheless, if the government raises the issue of timeliness, then we “must apply the time limits of Rule 4(b).” Id. at 1313

– 14. In its brief, the government argues that this appeal shouldbe dismissed as untimely. Indeed, Boulette’s signed notice of appeal is dated December 2, 2020. Absent evidence that Boulette provided his notice of appeal to prison authorities for mailing at an earlier date, the notice of appeal is deemed filed on December 2 and is, therefore, untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(A); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014). However, in criminal cases, we have customarily treated a late notice USCA11 Case: 20-14796 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 Page: 2 of 320

- 14018 Opinion of the Court 3of appeal that is filed within the 30 days during which an extension is permissible as a motion for an extension of time an d remanded to the district court for a finding of good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Ward , 696 F.2d 1315, 1317

- 18 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Rothseiden , 680 F.2d 96, 98 (11th Cir. 1982). Because Boulett e’s notice of appeal was filed after the 14

- day appeal period but within the next 30 days, we REMAND the case to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing the court to determine whether Boulette has shown excusable neglect or good cause warran ting an extension of the appeal period. Following this limited remand, the record as supplemented will be returned to this Court for further consideration. We defer rulingon the government’s request to dismiss pending the limited remand. USCA11 Case: 20-14796 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 Page: 3 of 3