alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.19
 
 AMENDING AGREEMENT
 This Amending Agreement dated effective the 1 st day of September, 2010 (the Effective Date)
 BETWEEN:
 IAN BARNETT Employee
 OF THE FIRST PART
 and
 IVANHOE ENERGY INC. Company
 OF THE SECOND PART
 WHEREAS:
    NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 IAN BARNETT
    
    DAVID A. DYCK/s/ Ian Barnett
    
    /s/ David A. DyckExecutive Vice President
    
    President andBusiness Development
    
    Chief Operating Officer




---



##### 



SCHEDULE A OF AMENDING AGREEMENT
 TERMINATION DATE
  PART TIME/COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES
   September 1, 2010  December 31, 2010:
    
    80% of annual base salary of $Cdn 263,626 = $210,900$210,900 divided by 24 = $Cdn 8,787.50 per pay period.January 1, 2011  March 31, 2011:
    
    50% of annual base salary of $Cdn 263,626 = $131,813$131,813 divided by 24 = $Cdn 5,492.00 per pay period.
   SERVICES
  VACATION
  2




---



##### 



STOCK OPTIONS
  ANNUAL BONUS ENTITLEMENT
  GROUP BENEFITS
  EARLY TERMINATION
  GOVERNING LAW
  3




---



##### 



NOTICES
  COMPANY:
    
    EMPLOYEE:Ivanhoe Energy Inc.
    
    Mr. Ian Barnett2100, 101  6th Avenue SW
    
    111 Hudson DriveCalgary, Alberta T2P 3P4
    
    Toronto, Ontario M4T 2K4
  RATIFICATION
     4
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00639- CV

C. Y., Appellant

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F H AY S CO UNTY, 22ND J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. 14- 1203 , H ONO RAB LE MELI SSA M CCLENAHAN, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N C.Y. appea ls from the trial court’s order terminating her pare ntal rig hts to her minor child, C.K. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001. Following a jury trial, the trial court enter ed judgme nt

1
in acc ordanc e with the jury ’s finding s by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that statutory g rounds for terminating C.Y.’s pare ntal rig hts exis ted and that termination was in the child’s best interest. See id. §§ 161.001(1)( d), (E) , (O), ( 2). 2

On appea l, C.Y.’s court-a

ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without mer it. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738,
744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders proce dure in appea l from termination of pare ntal

W e re fe r t o the mother and her child by their initials only

. See Tex. Fa m. Code 1 § 109.002(d); Te x . R. App. P. 9.8. Although the t ri al co u rt ’s order cites section 161.001(1)( N), the lang uag e of the order 2 trac ks that of sec tion 161.001(1)(O)

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1) (N), ( O).rig hts). The brie f mee ts the require ments of Anders by prese nting a profe ssional e valuation of the

rec ord demonstrating why there are no arg uable gr ounds to be advance d on appea l. S ee 3 8 6 U.S.
at 744; Taylor , 1 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d at 646–47. Appellant’s counsel has cer tified to this Court that she provided C.Y. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw as counsel and informed her of her rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. The Depa rtment of Family and Protective Service s has filed a response to the Anders brief, indicating it will not file a brief unless it deems a brief nece ssary afte r revie w of any pro se brief or unless reque sted to do so by this Court. To date, C.Y. ha s not filed a pro se brief.

Upon rec eiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a ful l ex amination of all of the
proce eding s to deter

mine whether the appea l is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have revie wed the entire rec ord, including the Anders brief submitt ed on C.Y.’s behalf , and have found nothing that would arg uably support an appea l. We ag ree that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. Acc ording ly , we aff irm the trial court’s order terminating C.Y.’s pare ntal rig hts and g rant c ounsel’s motion to withdraw as c ounsel.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland
Affir med Filed: January

27, 2016

2
EX-10.14



 EXHIBIT 10.14 
 HealthStream, Inc. (the “Company”) 
 Summary of Director and
Executive Officer Compensation 
 I. Director Compensation. Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive additional
compensation for serving as directors of the Company. The following table sets forth current rates of cash compensation for the Company’s non-employee directors. 
  

					
	 Retainers and Fees
	  	2013	 
	 Annual Retainer fee
	  	$	4,000	  
	 Board meeting fee
	  	$	1,000	  
	 Committee chair meeting fee
	  	$	1,000	  
	 Committee member meeting fee
	  	$	500	  

 In addition to the cash compensation set forth above, each non-employee director is eligible to receive a
nondiscretionary annual grant of restricted share units for conversion to 3,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. The restricted share units are granted annually and vest over a three year period. 

II. Executive Officer Compensation. The following table sets forth the current base salaries and fiscal 2012 performance bonuses provided to our
executive officers, including the individuals who the Company expects to be its Named Executive Officers for 2013. 
  

									
	 Executive Officer
	  	Current
Base
Salary	 	  	Fiscal
2012
Bonus
Amount	 
	 Robert A. Frist, Jr.
	  	$	257,000	  	  	$	20,151	  
	 J. Edward Pearson
	  	$	244,000	  	  	$	19,132	  
	 Arthur E. Newman
	  	$	234,000	  	  	$	18,348	  
	 Gerard M. Hayden, Jr.
	  	$	230,000	  	  	$	18,034	  
	 Jeffrey S. Doster
	  	$	230,000	  	  	$	18,034	  
	 Michael Sousa
	  	$	192,500	  	  	$	5,005	  

 III. Additional Information. The foregoing information is summary in nature. Additional information regarding
Director and Named Executive Officer compensation will be contained in the Company’s 2013 Proxy Statement.
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 50-3 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 487
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 50-3 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 488
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 50-3 Filed 02/04/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 489
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 50-3 Filed 02/04/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 490
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 50-3 Filed 02/04/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 491
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 50-3 Filed 02/04/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 492
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the filing by ADE Corporation (the Company) of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2004
(the Report), the undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                    |  |                                       
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------ |  | --------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: September 9, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Brian C. James
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                    |  | Brian C. James Chief Financial
Officer
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4977 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect the reasonable expectation 

of privacy of users of e-mail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004 

Mr. NADLER (for himself, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. KUCINICH, and Mrs. 

MALONEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect the reasonable expectation of privacy of users of e-mail, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘E-mail Privacy Protec5 tion Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTERCEPTION OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS 

7 DURING TRANSMISSION. 

8 Section 2510(12) of title 18, United States Code, is 

9 amended by inserting ‘‘and includes any temporary, inter-
2 

•HR 4977 IH 

1 mediate storage of that communication incidental to the 

2 electronic transmission thereof,’’ after ‘‘commerce,’’. 

3 SEC. 3. IMPROPER ACQUISITION OF CONTENTS OF STORED 

4 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BY ELEC5 TRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS. 

6 Section 2701 of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(d) IMPROPER ACQUISITION BY SERVICE PRO9 VIDER.—Whoever, being a provider of an electronic com10 munication service, or an agent or employee of such a pro11 vider, acquires or uses the contents of a stored electronic 

12 communication of which that provider, agent, or employee 

13 is not an intended recipient other than for the purposes 

14 of providing that electronic communication service, shall 

15 be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 

16 years, or both.’’. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: 

Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-107445) pertaining to the registration of securitiesaggregating $90,000,000.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-48534) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000Employee Stock Purchase Plan

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-56610) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan, 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan, 2001 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan vEngines, Inc. and 2000 Stock Incentive Plan.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-85236) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-103271) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-113318) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-123280) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

of Centillium Communications, Inc. of our reports dated March 13, 2007, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Centillium Communications, Inc., Centillium Communications, Inc. management's assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CentilliumCommunications, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP                

San Jose, California
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   I, Jonathan So, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of JPG Associates, 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 periods 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 me 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 my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my 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  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 my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: May 29, 2008  /s/ Jonathan So Jonathan So Title: Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer   2
Case 2:11-cv-02360-ES Document 5 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 37
Case 2:11-cv-02360-ES Document 5 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 38
Case 2:11-cv-02360-ES Document 5 Filed 06/17/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 39
Case 2:11-cv-02360-ES Document 5 Filed 06/17/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 40
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Ellis, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 16]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J., at hearing; Bonnie G. Wittner, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 16, 2005, convicting defendant of burglary in the second degree and stalking in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Were we to find that the photo identification was unduly suggestive, and were we to further find that the victim’s lineup and in-court identifications should have been suppressed, we would nevertheless find any error to be harmless. Defendant conceded the element of identity in his own trial testimony *(see People v Jorgensen,*298 AD2d 209 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 616 [2003]), and we are not persuaded by his present assertion that his testimony was a product of the court’s suppression ruling. Moreover, even without defendant’s testimony, and without any identification testimony from the victim, there still would have been overwhelming evidence of identity, including the fact that defendant left his cell phone in the victim’s apartment, from which his identity was ascertained.

Defendant’s procedural and substantive arguments concerning the court’s response to a note from the jury are without merit.

Defendant’s claim that the court considered improper criteria in imposing sentence is unpreserved *(People v Harrison,*82 NY2d 693 [1993]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find it is not supported by the record. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60294

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISAAC ROBERT GERKEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:01-CR-15-2-BrS

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

January 29, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Isaac Robert Gerken appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for armed bank robbery and for using a gun during the

commission of the robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a)

and 924(c). He contends that the Government breached the plea

agreement by failing to move for a downward departure for

substantial assistance with respect to the investigation and

trial of codefendant Chadwick Engle, which argument is reviewed

de novo. See United States v. Laday, 56 F.3d 24, 26 (5th Cir.
No. 02-60294

-2-

1995). Gerken bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of

the evidence, the underlying facts establishing a breach. Id. 

Gerken has not met his burden. His assertion that the

Government breached the plea agreement by refusing to move for a

downward departure for substantial assistance as to Engle fails

because Gerken provided no assistance, substantial or otherwise,

regarding the investigation and trial of Engle. As the district

court determined, there is no evidence that Gerken repudiated his

statement exonerating Engle or presented the Government with any

information regarding Engle’s involvement in the robbery. He

thus did not qualify for the downward departure under the plain

terms of the plea agreement. Gerken’s contention that the

Government lured him into pleading guilty with a deceptive

promise is likewise unavailing; he was given the opportunity to

receive the downward departure but chose not to avail himself of

the opportunity by providing substantial assistance regarding

Engle.

Gerken alternatively contends that the district court erred

in failing to allow him to withdraw his plea for a “fair and just

reason” under FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e). The denial of a Rule 32(e)

motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is reviewed for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Adam, 296 F.3d 327, 332 (5th Cir.

2002). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Gerken’s motion, which was predicated entirely on the

contention that the Government breached the plea agreement. As
No. 02-60294

-3-

noted above, that contention is without merit. It thus can not

serve as a “fair and just reason” permitting withdrawal of the

plea under Rule 32. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
13.2
  Certification of CFO
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 20-F of ClickSoftware Technologies
Ltd. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Shmuel
Arvatz, as Chief Financial 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 the best of his 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/Shmuel
Arvatz
 Name:
Shmuel Arvatz
 Title:
Chief Financial Officer
 Date:
December 19, 2008
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 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.
 
 This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 82 Filed 11/20/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1008
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy, Office of Science.

# ACTION:

Notice of Renewal.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and in accordance with section 102-3.65, title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee has been renewed for a two-year period beginning July 2009. The Committee will provide advice to the Director, Office of Science, on the Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program managed by the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research.

The renewal of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee has been determined to be essential to the conduct of the Department of Energy business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The Committee will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), and rules and regulations issued in implementation of those Acts.

Further information regarding this Advisory Committee may be obtained from Ms. Rachel Samuel at (202) 586-3279.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2009.

Eric Nicoll,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-16254 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5216 

To suspend temporarily the duty on chloroneb. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2004 

Mrs. CAPITO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on chloroneb. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHLORONEB. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.29.48 Chloroneb (CAS No. 2675– 

77–6) (provided for in subheading 2931.00.30) ............ Free Free No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 
2 

•HR 5216 IH 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ