alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.14

 

AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT
 AGREEMENT

 

This AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into as of February 23, 2011 between Thompson Creek Metals Company USA, a Colorado corporation (“Thompson Creek”), and Kevin Loughrey (“Executive”), effective December 30, 2009 (the “Effective Date”).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, Thompson Creek and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated December 1, 2006;

 

WHEREAS, Thompson Creek and Executive subsequently entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement effective December 30, 2009 and an Amendment to Employment Agreement effective August 5, 2010 (collectively, the “Agreement”), which Agreement remains in effect except as amended herein;

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings contained herein, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the parties hereto, Thompson Creek and the Executive agree to amend the Agreement as of the Effective Date as follows:

 

1.             A new paragraph 30 is hereby added to the Agreement as follows:

 

“PAYMENT PURSUANT TO RELEASE

 

30.           Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in the event that a payment to be made under this Agreement provides for the deferral of compensation pursuant to section 409A of the Code and is pursuant to this Agreement to be made to Executive within sixty days of the Executive’s Termination of Employment but only upon the execution (and, if applicable, the nonrevocation) of a general release, then, if such sixty-day period begins in one taxable year of Executive and ends in a subsequent taxable year of Executive, such payment shall only be made in such subsequent taxable year.”

 

1











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the dates written below.

 

 

EXECUTIVE:

 

 

	
/s/   Kevin Loughrey
    	
February 23, 2011
    	
 
    
	
Kevin   Loughrey
    	
(Date)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
THOMPSON CREEK METALS COMPANY USA:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Pamela L. Saxton
    	
February 23, 2011
    	
 
    
	
By:   Pamela L. Saxton
    	
(Date)
    	
 
    


 

 

Its: Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance

 

2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131957 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131957 COA: 270555 Washtenaw CC: 03-000753-AR WILLIAM ALLEN SIMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 13, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1120 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.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
DENY and Opinion Filed April 22, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00695-CV 

IN RE WALNUT HILL PHYSICIANS’ HOSPITAL, LLC D/B/A WALNUT 

HILL MEDICAL CENTER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-06696 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Osborne 

In this original proceeding, relator Walnut Hill Physicians’ Hospital, LLC 

d/b/a Walnut Hill Medical Center petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus 

ordering respondent to vacate and set aside her August 13, 2021 order denying 

relator’s motion to quash a trial subpoena and to quash the trial subpoena at issue. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition, the response, relator’s reply, the 

parties’ letters regarding supplemental authorities, and the record, we conclude that 
 –2– 

relator has failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny 

the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

Goldstein, J., dissenting without opinion. 

210695F.P05 

/Leslie Osborne/

LESLIE OSBORNE 

JUSTICE
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S UR I ND E R P . S I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 70951 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 256- 411 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S uri nd erP . S i ng h, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h i s ap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and p rot ec t i on un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture 

# FI LED DE C 28 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 70951 2 (“ C A T ”) . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s , G o n z a lez - H

e rn a n dezv . A s h c r o

ft , 336 F . 3d 9 9 5 , 9 9 8 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s c onc l us i on tha tc ondi t i ons ha ve c h a n g e din I n d ias u c h th a t S in g h n o lo n g e rh a s aw e ll- f o u n d e df e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n . Se e id. a t1000- 01. T he a ge nc yr a t i ona l l yc ons true d the r e c e ntc ountryr e port s a nd p r o v id e das u f

f ic ie n tlyin d iv idu a liz e da n a ly s is o f S in g h ’s s itu a tio n . Se e id. A cco rd i n g l y, S i n g h ’ s asyl u m cl ai m fai l s. B ec ause S i ng h d i d n otdem on strat e hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f or as ylum , i tfol l ow s that h e d idn o t s a tis f

yth e m o r e s tr in g e n t s tan d a r df o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. Se e i d. a t1001 n. 5. S u b st an t i al ev i d en ce sup p o rt s th e IJ’ s d en i al o f C A T p ro t ect i o n b ecau se S in g h f a ile dto e s tab lis h it is m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t h e w ill b e to rtu r e din I n d ia . See M a lh iv . I NS , 336 F . 3d 989, 993 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . S i ngh’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe a g e n c yd idn o t c o n du c t ap r o p e rC A T a n a ly s is is n o t s up p o rte db yth e r e c o r d . F in a lly , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rS in g h ’s h u m a n itar ian a s y lu m c la im b e c au s e h e f

a ile dto r a is e th is is s u e b e f o r e th e B I A . See T

i j an iv. H older , 628 F . 3d 10 71 , 10 80 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50448 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CALVIN DAVID WRIGHT, also known as Cal David Wright, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-99-CR-122-ALL

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Calvin David Wright has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Wright has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Compuware Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Peter Karmanos,
Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Laura L. Fournier, 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:

     (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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Peter Karmanos, Jr.
-------------------------------------
Peter Karmanos, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
June 13, 2006


/s/ Laura L. Fournier
-------------------------------------
Laura L. Fournier
Chief Financial Officer
June 13, 2006
EXHIBIT 11.1

CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2001

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

BEGINNING
BALANCE                                                   45,599,333

PERIOD           NO OF SHARES       CONTRIBUTION TO
ENDED            ISSUED             WEIGHTED AVERAGE      ENDING BALANCE
------           ------------       ----------------      --------------

<S>            <C>                <C>                   <C>
March 31, 2001   8,100,000          2,063,333             53,699,333

TOTAL            8,100,000          2,063,333             53,699,333

</TABLE>


Total Weighted Average Shares Outstanding:          47,662,666
Less Shares Outstanding                              1,500,000
                                                    ----------
Balance                                             46,162,666

Comprehensive loss for the period                     $400,437

Net Loss per Share                                    $   0.01
1 Filed 12/2/14 Orcutt v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DANA LEE ORCUTT, Petitioner,

v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; ALEXANDER PINTO, Real Party in Interest. E061844 (Super.Ct.No. RIC1309053)

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate/prohibition. Sunshine S. Sykes, Judge. Petition grante d in part and denied in part. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, John S. Lowenthal, Mathew L. Walker; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robert A. Olson, Cynthia E. Tobisman, and David E. Hackett, for Petitioner.2 No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

In this matter we have reviewed th e petition and solicited a response from real party in interest. No response having been received, and based on our own analysis, the petition for writ of mandate is granted in part. Further, due to the lack of response, we deem this case appropriate fo r the issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. ( Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.) We agree with petitioner that interrogatory 20.8, which asks her to “State how the INCIDENT occurred” touches upon her Fift h Amendment rights and she was entitled to an order that the interrogatory not be answered. Accordingl y, the petition is granted in this respect.

DISPOSITION Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order directing petitioner to answer interrogato ry 20.8 and denying real party in interest’s moti on to compel as to that inte rrogatory only. In all other respects the petition is denied. Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this c ourt, together with proof of service on all parties. In the interest of justice, petitioner shall bear her own costs.3 The previously ordered stay of the discovery order is lifted.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J. We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON J.
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Forward]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionFOREWORDEvery four years, just after the Presidential election, the "United States 
        Government Policy and Supporting Positions," commonly known as the *Plum 
        Book,* is published, alternately, by the House Committee on Government 
        Reform and Oversight and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. 
        This publication contains data (as of September 1, 1996) on over 8,000 
        Federal civil service leadership and support positions in the legislative 
        and executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject to 
        noncompetitive appointment; e.g., positions such as agency heads and their 
        immediate subordinates, policy executives and advisors, and aides who 
        report to these officials. Note that the duties of many such positions 
        may involve advocacy of Administration policies and programs and the incumbents 
        usually have a close and confidential working relationship with the agency 
        head or other key officials.  Following are the major categories of positions listed: 
        ____________ 
      **Executive Schedule and salary-equivalent positions paid at the rates 
        established for Levels I through V of the Executive Schedule;****Senior Executive Service "General" positions;****Senior Foreign Service positions;****Schedule C positions excepted from the competitive service by the 
        President, or by the Director, Office of Personnel Management, because 
        of the confidential or policy-determining nature of the position duties.****Other positions at the GS-14 and above level excepted from the competitive 
        civil service by law because of the confidential or policy-determining 
        nature of the position duties.**
        ____________ 
       Senior Executive Service (SES) "General" positions may be filled by 
        career, noncareer or limited appointment. SES "Career Reserved" positions 
        are not listed in this publication because, by law, such positions may 
        be filled only by competitive career appointment. Only 10 percent of all 
        SES positions Governmentwide may be filled at any 
       one time by noncareer appointment. Similarly, by law, only 5 percent 
        of Senior Foreign Service (SFS) positions may be filled at any one time 
        by other than career appointment. 
       Note that the phrase "Career Incumbent" is shown under the heading "Name 
        of Incumbent" for all SES, SFS and other listed positions filled by career 
        appointment. 
       Additional information on the positions listed and the Federal salary 
        schedules under which they are paid is provided in the appendices. The 
        Legend on the following page shows the codes and acronyms used in this 
        publication.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1996 and the Statement of Operations for the
Year Ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         207,773
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  180,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               388,030
<PP&E>                                       2,412,011
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,644,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,155,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               91
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,155,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,155,545
<SALES>                                      1,342,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,350,355
<CGS>                                          676,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  676,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               169,146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                504,735
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            504,735
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   504,735
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    70.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    70.74
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HOMERO MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-904

Before SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, and HO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Homero Martinez, federal prisoner # 45120-177, was convicted of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of 

methamphetamine. The district court found that his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

was an unauthorized successive motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. 

Later, the district court denied his motion for a certificate of appealability 

(COA) as moot because it had already denied a COA.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 25, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10777 Document: 00514931318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2019
No. 18-10777

2

Martinez now seeks a COA. To obtain a COA, an applicant must make 

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). This requires him to show that reasonable jurists would find the 

district court’s decision to deny relief debatable or wrong, Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or “that jurists could conclude the issues presented 

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). This court would lack jurisdiction over an 

appeal from the district court’s dismissal of Martinez’s § 2255 motion because 

he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from this judgment. Accordingly, 

Martinez fails to make the showing required for a COA to appeal from this 

judgment. 

To the extent that Martinez also seeks to appeal from the denial of a 

COA, the denial of a COA is not, by itself, a final and appealable order within 

the meaning of § 2253(c)(1)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Accordingly, the appeal 

is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 18-10777 Document: 00514931318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2019
EXHIBIT 32.1

# Certificate of
Principal Executive Officer pursuant to section 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002

In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of CNET Networks, Inc. (CNET Networks) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report), I, Shelby W. Bonnie, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of CNET Networks, certify pursuant to 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 Section
               15(d), as applicable, 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 CNET Networks.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: May 9, 2006/s/Shelby W. Bonnie
Shelby W. Bonnie Chairman
of the Board and     Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNET Networks and will be retained
by CNET Networks and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0667

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

B.K.S.S., 

 A Minor Child.

A.E.C and M.L.C.,

 Petitioners and Appellees,

 and

C.S.,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Dan Wilson, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 15 2020

07/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0667