alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Employees' Excess Benefits Plan A



 Exhibit 10.N(6) 

AMENDMENT TO ALCOA INC. 
 EMPLOYEES’ EXCESS BENEFITS PLAN A 
 1.     Effective January 1,
2011, the following will be added to the end of subsection 2.2 d.: 
 To the extent a Participant dies before his or her
payments have begun, payments to the Surviving Spouse will be as follows: 
 1) If the Participant was a Participant in Rule IM
of Plan I, and dies while accruing pension service, the survivor annuity under this Plan will begin the later of: a) the month following the Participant’s death or b) the month after the Participant would have turned age 55. 

2) If the Participant was a Participant in Rule IC or Rule IN of Plan I and dies while accruing pension service, the survivor annuity
under this Plan will begin the month following the Participant’s death. 
 3) If the Participant dies after pension service
has terminated, the survivor annuity under this Plan will begin the later of: the month following the Participant’s death or the month after the Participant would have turned age 55. 
 2.    The definition of Retirement is restated as follows: 

“Retirement” or “Retires” means the termination of employment after attainment of a specified age and specified
service as determined under Normal or Early Retirement type under Plan I Rules or Excess B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, “Retirement” also includes termination of active employment under a Disability Retirement under Plan I Rules or
Excess B, and such disability must also comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated there under for purposes of this Plan. “Retirement” shall also mean any retirement as may be defined under
any executive severance agreement entered into between the Company and a Participant to the extent it otherwise complies with termination of employment for purposes of Section 409(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

3.    In all other respects the Plan is ratified and confirmed.
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 Charles & Colvard, Ltd.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James R. Braun, Vice President of Finance 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:



| | (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/ James R. Braun                                   
|James R. Braun                                       
|Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|August 10, 2005                                      



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Charles & Colvard, Ltd. and will be retained by Charles & Colvard, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Stellios DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-11238

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2008.

Thomas Ray Wolsoncroft, Pelham, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Michael Boysie Billingsley, Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant pled guilty to knowingly transporting and shipping in interstate commerce, by computer, child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(l), and was sentenced at the low end of the Guidelines sentence range *266to prison for a term of 285 months.1 He appeals his sentence, contending that (1) the district court enhanced his sentence range based on evidence established by a preponderance of the evidence, in derogation of the rule established by *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and (2) the district court failed properly to consider the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in arriving at his sentence.

We reject appellant’s first contention because the court, in treating the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, did not commit *Booker*error. We turn then to appellant’s second point, that the court failed properly to consider the § 3553(a) factors in fashioning the sentence.

Section 3553(a) lists several factors a court must consider in determining a reasonable sentence: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence to criminal conduct; (4) the need to protect the public from further crimes by the defendant; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The weight the court gives to a particular § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the court’s sound discretion. Here, the record establishes that district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and then concluded that the sentence it imposed was appropriate to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. We find no basis in the record for disturbing appellant’s sentence. It is accordingly

AFFIRMED.

1

. The sentence range the Guidelines prescribed called for a term of imprisonment of 235 to 293 months. The maximum sentence prescribed by statute was 20 years. Because the Guidelines sentence range of 235 to 293 months exceeded that maximum, the high end of the range became 240 months.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

s1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

139287

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139287 COA: 283372 Genesee CC: 07-085592-CE V. K. VEMULAPALLI, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2650 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 510 19th 

Street, Bakersfield, California, as the Myron Donovan Crocker United 

States Courthouse. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2011 

Mr. COSTA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California, as the 

Myron Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MYRON DONOVAN CROCKER UNITED STATES 

4 COURTHOUSE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

6 under construction, as of the date of enactment of this 

7 Act, at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California, shall be 

8 known and designated as the ‘‘Myron Donovan Crocker 

9 United States Courthouse’’. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2650 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub4 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

5 ‘‘Myron Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-50314

SOUTHWESTERN WOMEN'S SURGERY CENTER; BROOKSIDE 

WOMEN'S MEDICAL CENTER, P.A., doing business as Brookside Women's 

Health Center and Austin Women's Health Center; ROBIN WALLACE, M.D., 

M.A.S.; HOUSTON WOMEN'S CLINIC; PLANNED PARENTHOOD 

CENTER FOR CHOICE; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS 

SURGICAL HEALTH SERVICES; PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH 

TEXAS SURGICAL CENTER; WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH; WHOLE 

WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

GREG ABBOTT, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, in his official 

capacity; KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas; 

PHIL WILSON, in his official capacity as Acting Executive Commissioner of 

the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; STEPHEN BRINT 

CARLTON, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Medical 

Board; KATHERINE A. THOMAS, in her official capacity as the Executive 

Director of the Texas Board of Nursing, 

 Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:20-CV-323 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 20-50314 Document: 00515388293 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2020
No. 20-50314

2

Before DENNIS, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendants-Appellants appeal the order entered by the district court on 

April 9, 2020 and extended on April 14, 2020. Temporary restraining orders 

are not appealable; however, an order styled a temporary restraining order 

may be appealed if its “actual content, purport, and effect” is that of a 

preliminary injunction. Smith v. Grady, 411 F.2d 181, 186 (5th Cir. 1969); see 

also 28 U.S.C. § 1292. We conclude that the orders involved here are properly 

understood as an extended temporary restraining order and that we lack 

jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction and DENY AS MOOT the emergency motion to stay.

* 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.

 Case: 20-50314 Document: 00515388293 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2020
#### In the Matter of: Shahram MESBAHI, aka Shawn Mesbahi, aka Sharam Mesbahi, Debtor, *304Khanbaba Banayan; Parirokh Banayan, Appellants, v. Shahram Mesbahi; Katie Mesbahi, a/k/a Kayhaneh Dirinpour, Appellees.

No. 06-56686.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 21, 2008.

Shai Oved, Esq., Shai Oved Law Offices, Woodland Hills, CA, for Appellants.

Shahram Mesbahi, Katie Mesbahi, Esq., Laguna Niguel, CA, for Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The Banayans appeal the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming in part their appeal from the bankruptcy court and dismissing in part. We affirm in part and dismiss as moot in part.

1. The Banayans sought to revoke Mesbahi’s discharge. The bankruptcy court found that the Banayans failed to prove either that “such discharge was obtained through the fraud of the debtor, and the requesting party did not know of such fraud until after the granting of such discharge,” or that Mesbahi “knowingly and fraudulently failed to report the acquisition of or entitlement to” estate property. 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1) — (2). The BAP held this finding was not clearly erroneous, setting out in detail its reasons for so holding. We agree with the BAP’s reasoning and uphold the bankruptcy court’s factual findings.

2. During the revocation proceedings, the Banayans moved to compel discovery. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to compel because it failed to comply with a local rule designed to streamline and facilitate such motions. Central District Bankr. Local Rule 9013 — 1(c). The Banay-ans did not, as required, formulate a stipulation with Mesbahi, nor did they submit a declaration explaining the reason for such failure. As the local rule expressly permits a motion to be denied for failure to comply, the denial was not an abuse of discretion.

*3053. Because we affirm the judgment for Mesbahi, we dismiss the Banayans’ appeal with respect to Katie Mesbahi as moot. *See Mujahid v. Daniels,*413 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir.2005). Katie Mesbahi was not a party to the underlying discharge. We note further that the Banayans could have sought any relevant discovery from Katie even if she was not a party.

AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED AS MOOT in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[CDC-2015-0021; Docket Number NIOSH-153-C]


Final Skin Notation Profiles

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: NIOSH announces the availability of the following 9 Skin 
Notation Profile documents: 1-Bromopropane [CAS No. 106-94-5], 
Disulfoton [CAS No. 298-04-4], Heptachlor [CAS No. 76-44-8], 2-
Hydropropyl acrylate [CAS No. 999-61-1], Trichloroethylene [CAS No. 79-
01-7], Tetraethyl lead [CAS No. 78-00-2], Tetramethyl lead [CAS No. 75-
74-1], Dimethyl sulfate [CAS No. 77-78-1], Arsenic and compounds [CAS 
No. 7440-38-2].

DATES: The final Skin Notation Profile documents were published on 
August 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: These documents may be obtained at the following link: 
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/skin/skin-notation_profiles.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Naomi Hudson, Dr. Ph.D., NIOSH, 
Education and Information Division (EID), Robert A. Taft Laboratories, 
1090 Tusculum Ave., MS-C32, Cincinnati, OH 45226, phone 513/533-8388 
(not a toll-free number), email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#79100c0341391a1d1a571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d041817552d0e090e430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 1, 2015, NIOSH published a request 
for public review in the Federal Register [80 FR 24932] on skin 
notation profiles and technical documents. All comments received were 
reviewed and addressed where appropriate.

    Dated: September 18, 2017.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017-20126 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7204

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BERNARD EDWARD DIXON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00048-JAG-1)

Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 27, 2020

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Edward Dixon, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Edward Dixon, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Dixon, 

No. 3:14-cr-00048-JAG-1 (E.D. Va. May 19, 2020). 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
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document










































 
 

  Exhibit 10.19    
    


 BASE SALARIES OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY  



        As of October 1, 2011, the following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) of the executive officers of Network
Engines, Inc.: 

 






					
	Name and Title



 
	 	Base Salary 	 
	 Gregory A. Shortell
	 	$	400,000	 
	 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
	 	 	 	 
	 Douglas G. Bryant
	 	
$	

250,800	 
	 Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
	 	 	 	 
	 Charles N. Cone, III
	 	
$	

258,825	 
	 Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing
	 	 	 	 
	 Richard P. Graber
	 	
$	

210,945	 
	 Senior Vice President of Engineering and Operations
	 	 	 	 




 

 








QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.19
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 Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Richard A. Bird, Chief Executive 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:



| | (1) | The Report 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 operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Richard A. Bird    
|Richard A. Bird        
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 14, 2009
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 2428

KIMBERLY T. SPENCE, f/k/a Kimberly S. Willis

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

and

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR

,

Plaintiff

,

v.

CARL J. WILLIS, II

,

Defendant

- Appellee

,

and

WELLSTAR MEDICAL GROUP PEDIATRIC & ADOLESCENT CENTER; ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CARDINALS, of Atlanta; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE, of Atlanta; ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC SCHOOL AND LEADERSHIP; UNITED METHODIST CHURCH BISHOPS; BEN HILL UNITED METHO DIST CHURCH; BEN HILL CHRISTIAN ACADEMY; WOODWARD ACADEMY; GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; GEORGIA FARM BUREAU CASUA L TY INSURANCE COMPANY; CREATE

- A

- LOAD KENNESAW; REUNION PLACE SUBDIVISION; PAT ASTRIN; RE/MAX OF GEORGIA; PAT ASTRIN PROPERTY M ANAGEMENT LLC; CHELSEA BYNUM; MIA NICOLE SPENCER; MAID OF THE MIST CORPORATION; SEAN M. BOUSHIE; UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Defendants

.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III
, Chief District Judge. ( 5:17

- cv

- 00272

- D )

Submitted : March 13, 2018 Decided: May 4, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kimberly T. Spence, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Kimberly T. Spence seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s memorandum and

recommendation recommending that Spence’s civil action be dismi ssed as frivolous

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The

memorandum and recommendation Spence seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), (c)(1) (2012);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) ; Donaldson v. Ducote , 37 3 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction , and deny Spence’s pending

motions as moot . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials befo re this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 11, 2020

No. 04-19-00821-CV

Larry LANGSTON,

Appellant

v.

Tom HAYDEN and Shirley Hayden,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CV-0211

Honorable Bill Squires, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed by February 6, 2020. Neither the brief nor a motion 

for extension of time has been filed. Appellant is therefore ORDERED to file, within fifteen 

(15) days of the date of this order, his brief and a written response reasonably explaining: (1) his

failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s

failure to timely file a brief. If appellant fails to timely file a brief and the written response, we 

will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if an appellant fails to comply with a court 

order).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


[U.S. PLASTIC LUMBER CORP. LETTERHEAD]


August 9, 2001



Robert Chender, Managing Director
Halifax Fund, L.P.
195 Maplewood Avenue
Maplewood, NJ 07040
VIA FACSIMILE: (973)-313-6491

Re: DEBENTURE DATED JUNE 15, 2001

Dear Robert:

This letter shall constitute an amendment to the $4,000,000 Debenture dated June
15, 2001 ("Debenture") between the Company and Halifax Fund, L.P. The Maturity
date set forth in said Debenture shall be changed to July 1, 2002 from May 31,
2002. All other terms and conditions of the Debenture shall remain unchanged.

Please acknowledge your acceptance of this change by signing below.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Bruce C. Rosetto
----------------------------------
Bruce C. Rosetto
Vice President and General Counsel

Acknowledged and Accepted By:

/s/ Robert Chender
----------------------------------
Robert Chender, Managing Director
Halifax Fund, L.P.