alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SHLDEX1036201210K


EXHIBIT 10.36






[SEARS HOLDINGS LETTERHEAD]






February 5, 2013




Mr. Imran Jooma




Dear Imran,


As you continue in the role of Executive Vice President and President, Online, Marketing, Pricing and Financial Services, we are pleased to provide you with the following compensation changes effective February 4, 2013, subject to approval by the Compensation Committee of the Sears Holdings Corporation Board of Directors. 


The changes to your compensation package are as follows:


		
	•
	Annual base salary at a rate of $750,000. 



		
	•
	You will be eligible to receive a long-term incentive cash award of $1,250,000 (gross).  The grant date of this award is February 4, 2013.  This award will be scheduled to vest on a graded basis, with $350,000 of the award vesting on the first anniversary of the grant date, $450,000 of the award vesting on the second anniversary of the grant date, and $450,000 of the award vesting on the third anniversary of the grant date, provided you are actively employed on the applicable vesting date, and will be payable as soon as administratively possible following the applicable vesting date.  This award is separate from and not in the place of your participation under the Sears Holdings Corporation Long-Term Incentive Program.  Please refer to the enclosed Sears Holdings Corporation Executive LTI Cash Award Agreement for the specific terms of the award. 



Imran, we are excited about the important contributions you will continue to make to the company as a member of the Executive Leadership Team.  I look forward to your acceptance of our offer.  If you need additional information or clarification, please call.  


To accept, sign below and return this letter to me.


Sincerely,


/s/ Dean Carter


Dean Carter
Chief Human Resources Officer




Accepted: 

	
		
	/s/ Imran Jooma                                      
	3/5/2013

	Imran Jooma
	Date
ex10_55.htm









Exhibit 10.55


 


AMENDMENT







This AMENDMENT amends that certain CONSULTING AGREEMENT (the “Consulting Agreement”) dated January 1, 2012, between MIMEDX GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, (the “Company” or “MIMEDX”) and Roberta L. McCaw (the “Consultant”).







WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant desire to make certain amendments to the Consulting Agreement.







NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Consultant agree that the Consulting Agreement shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
Effective January 7, 2013, Section 2 of the Consulting Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with the following:












Duties.  The Consultant shall provide consulting services to MIMEDX, to include professional legal services and serving as MIMEDX’s General Counsel and Secretary. The Consultant shall report to MIMEDX’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.  The Consultant shall devote approximately thirty (30) hours per week to the performance of services hereunder.








	
  

	
2.

	
Effective December 31, 2012, Section 3 of the Consulting Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with the following:












Term.  The engagement of the Consultant hereunder shall commence on the date hereof and shall continue until terminated by the happening of any of the following events:


 



	 	
(a) 

	
the death of the Consultant;







 



	
  

	
(b)

	
thirty (30) days following written notice to the Consultant from MIMEDX indicating MIMEDX’s decision to terminate the Agreement; or







 



	
  

	
(c)

	
thirty (30) days following written notice to MIMEDX from the Consultant indicating the Consultant’s decision to terminate the Agreement.







 



	
  

	
3.

	
Effective January 7, 2013, Section 4 of the Consulting Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with the following:












Compensation. In consideration of the performance by the Consultant of the services set forth herein, MIMEDX shall pay to the Consultant the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars per month. In addition, the Consultant shall be entitled to participate in MIMEDX’s stock option program and Management Incentive Plan to the same extent as if she were a MIMEDX employee. The Consultant shall also be entitled to reimbursement of travel and business-related expenses in accordance with MIMEDX’s expense policies.  Expense reimbursement requests shall be submitted to the attention of Accounts Payable, MiMedx Group, Inc., 60 Chastain Center Blvd, Suite 60, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144, and shall contain all back-up data as may be required by MiMedx.








	
  

	
4.

	
In all other respects, the Consulting Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this AMENDMENT as of December 31, 2012, with the effective dates set forth herein.


 




	
MIMEDX GROUP, INC.

	 	 	
ROBERTA L. MCCAW

	 
	 	 	 	 	/s/: Roberta L. McCaw	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
By:

	/s/ William C. Taylor	 	 	 	 
	
Its:

	President & COO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERAH NJOKI KARINGITHI,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting

Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70885

Agency No. A087

- 020

- 992

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 11, 2018

San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Serah Njoki Karingithi petitions for review of the B oard of I mmigration

A ppeal s ’ (“BIA”) decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and deny the petition

. 1

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

1 We address Karingithi ’s c ontention that the Immigration Court lacked jurisdiction

in this matter in an Opinion filed contemporaneously with this memorandum

disposition. 

# FILED

JAN 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

The BIA co rrectly found that Karingithi was ineligible for asylum beca use

her application was filed more than a year after she entered the United States. See

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Karingithi’s plan to obtain other lawful immigration

status was not an “extraordinary circumstance” excusing her late filing. See

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). None of the examples of extraordinary circumstances

listed at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5) include planning to apply for a visa or adjustment

of status, nor is such a plan “of a similar nature or seriousness” as the enumerated

examples. Gaspa ryan v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013)

.

S ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Karingithi was

ineligible for withholding of removal. See Sanjaa v. Sessions , 863 F.3d 1161,

1164 (9th Cir. 2017). At most, Karingithi established she was subject to

“unfulfilled threats,” which does not compel the conclusion that she was subject to

past persecution. Lim v. IN S , 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000)

. And while there

is no doubt “ that female genital mutilation constitutes p ersecution, ” Benyamin v.

Holder , 579 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 2009), Karingithi has not shown a “clear

probability” that she will be subject to female genital mutilation upon return to

Kenya, see Garcia v. Holder , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         329,023
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,208,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (49,409)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,590,566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,181,291
<PP&E>                                       4,256,258
<DEPRECIATION>                               (925,109)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,220,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,123,000
<BONDS>                                        840,524
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,614
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,253,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,220,671
<SALES>                                      6,833,209
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,854,450
<CGS>                                        5,094,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,363,219
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                448,437
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,629
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            412,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   412,808
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 164

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the human 

rights situation in Cuba, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2003

Mr. FLAKE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the human rights situation in Cuba, and for other 

purposes.

Whereas the Cuban government continues to systematically 

violate fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens; 

Whereas the Cuban government denies citizens the freedoms 

of speech, press, assembly, and association; 

Whereas the Cuban government denies political dissidents 

and human rights advocates due process; 

Whereas Cuban authorities routinely harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, detain, imprison, and defame human rights 

advocates and members of independent professional associations, including journalists and economists; 
2

•HRES 164 IH 

Whereas in March 2003 the Cuban government detained dozens of independent journalists and political activists solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression; 

Whereas in May 2002 a group of Cuban citizens led by 

Oswaldo Paya, in an effort known as the Varela Project, 

submitted over 11,000 signatures to the National Assembly of the Republic of Cuba in support of a referendum 

on guarantees of human rights and civil liberties; 

Whereas many of the supporters of the Varela Project were 

among those detained in March 2003; 

Whereas the Varela Project seeks a national referendum on 

fundamental civil liberties, including freedom of speech, 

amnesty for political prisoners, support for private business, a new electoral law, and a general election; and 

Whereas the goal of United States policy in Cuba is to promote a peaceful transition to democracy: Now, therefore, 

be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) calls on the Cuban government to imme3 diately release all prisoners of conscience, including 

4 those detained in March 2003; and 

5 (2) calls on the Cuban government to provide 

6 its citizens with internationally-accepted standards 

7 for civil, political, and human rights, and the oppor8 tunity to vote in free and fair elections.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of
Watsco, Inc. (Watsco) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Albert H. Nahmad, the Chief Executive Officer of Watsco,
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 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 Watsco.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Albert H. NahmadAlbert H. NahmadChief Executive OfficerMarch 16, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Watsco and will be retained by Watsco 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 Watsco for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
##### 



EXHIBIT 11 THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY
and Subsidiaries CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
(Amounts in thousands except per share data) Fiscal Year2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Weighted average shares outstandingClass A Common
    
    
    1,722
    
    
    
    1,722
    
    
    
    1,722Class B Common (excluding shares issuable
upon exercise of stock options  accounted for below)
    
    
    7,841
    
    
    
    7,808
    
    
    
    7,782Shares used in computation of basic earnings
per share
    
    
    9,563
    
    
    
    9,530
    
    
    
    9,504Add  Shares assumed issuable upon exercise of
stock options
    
    
    119
    
    
    
    138
    
    
    
    152Deduct  Shares assumed to be purchased for
Treasury with proceeds from exercise of stock
options
    
    
    (90
    )
    
    
    (113
    )
    
    
    (133
    )Shares used in computation of diluted earnings
per common share
    
    
    9,592
    
    
    
    9,555
    
    
    
    9,523Net income available for common shares
    
    $
    331,740
    
    
    $
    240,061
    
    
    $
    203,235Basic earnings per common share
    
    $
    34.69
    
    
    $
    25.19
    
    
    $
    21.38Diluted earnings per common share
    
    $
    34.59
    
    
    $
    25.12
    
    
    $
    21.34
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman MANUEL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-4530.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 10, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Norman Manuel, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court sentenced Manuel to seventy-two months’ imprisonment, within his properly calculated Guidelines range. *See*
      *303
      *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(2011). On appeal, Manuel challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, contending that it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) (2006). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

This court reviews the district court’s sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range[] under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 88, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). When reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, this court “examines the totality of the circumstances,” and, if the sentence is within the properly-calculated Guidelines range, applies a presumption on appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. *United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza,*597 F.3d 212, 216-17 (4th Cir.2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.” *United States v. Montes-Pineda,*445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that Manuel’s seventy-two-month, within-Guidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable, as Manuel fails to overcome the appellate presumption of reasonableness afforded his sentence. The district court carefully considered the § 3553(a) factors and showed particular concern that Manuel’s prior sentences had not deterred him from participating in further criminal activity, that he had a poor employment history, and that he was a former gang member. Moreover, the court considered the particular needs of Manuel in crafting his sentence, ordering him to participate in substance abuse and mental health counseling and prohibiting him from associating with his former gang. In sum, we conclude that Manuel’s carefully crafted sentence was not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6693

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HAROLD STEVEN JACKSON, a/k/a Ears,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:06-cr-00306-PJM-1)

Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Steven Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Harold Steven Jackson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

 

I, Jeffrey D. Hoyal, certify that: 

 

1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Raybor Management, Inc.; 

 

2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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;

 

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, 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;

 

4.      The registrant’s other certifyingofficer 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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 whichthis report is being prepared; 

 

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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)    disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, 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 and financialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and 

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.