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



Exhibit 10.7 March 31, 2005 James W. Greenwell
11534 Hemmingway Drive
Reston, VA 20192 Dear Jim, I am pleased to inform you that effective April 1, 2005, you will be promoted to Senior Vice
President, Americas. Below are the specifics of your promotion package:  
    Your annual base salary will be increased to $255,000. This salary increase is in
recognition of your outstanding performance and predicted significant future contributions
to the Company.
    You will be entitled to a $50,000 signing bonus, which will be payable April 15, 2005,
and be subject to normal withholdings. If you voluntarily terminate your employment on or
before April 15, 2006, you will be required to reimburse LCC for the full bonus amount paid
to you.
    You will be eligible to purchase 75,000 shares of the Companys Series A Common Stock at
a per share market price equal to the fair market value of the option shares at market
close on March 31, 2005. Your options will best in increments of one-third on the first,
second and third anniversary of the date of the grant and will be subject to the terms of
LCCs 1996 Employee Stock Option Plan.
    In accordance with the terms of LCCs 2005 Annual Incentive Plan, you will be eligible
to receive a discretionary performance bonus equal to 30% of your annual salary. This
bonus is reflective of the 2005 performance year and will be paid in early 2006.
    If the Company is acquired and, as a result, your employment is terminated by the
acquirer, other than for cause, or you resign your position as a result of the acquirer
having materially and significantly reduced your pay or job responsibilities, then you will
be entitled to receive severance payments from the Company under the following terms: (i)
if requested, you must stay 3 months beyond the closing date of the acquisition to ensure
proper transition; (ii) the severance will be in the form of salary continuation for a
period of 12 months. Jim, we are tremendously encouraged by your decision to remain with LCC and assume this challenging
new role. I am confident that your leadership of The Americas will be mutually beneficial, and I
look forward to your contributions to LCCs continued success. Sincerely, /s/ Tom Faulders Tom Faulders
Chairman of the Board & CEO
LCC International, Inc. cc: Personnel File
Exhibit
      ___




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




I,
      Gary
      Herman, certify that:





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Digital Creative Development Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 (the
      "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, 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) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                July 11, 2007/s/ Gary
              HermanGary
              HermanChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                  A.S.V., INC.

                 EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                  YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004, 2003 AND 2002

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          2004             2003             2002
                                                     ---------------   -------------   -------------
<S>                                                  <C>               <C>             <C>
BASIC
   Earnings
     Net earnings                                    $    17,175,149   $   8,717,903   $   1,353,129
                                                     ===============   =============   =============
   Shares
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                                 12,735,999      10,218,793      10,170,645
                                                     ===============   =============   =============
   Earnings per common share                         $          1.35   $         .85   $         .13
                                                     ===============   =============   =============
DILUTED
   Earnings
     Net earnings                                    $    17,175,149   $   8,717,903   $   1,353,129
                                                     ===============   =============   =============
   Shares
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                                 12,735,999      10,218,793      10,170,645
     Assuming exercise of options and warrants
       reduced by the number of shares which could
       have been purchased with the proceeds from
       the exercise of such options and warrants             676,501         966,890          58,412
                                                     ---------------   -------------   -------------
     Weighted average number of common and
       common equivalent shares outstanding               13,412,500      11,185,683      10,229,057
                                                     ===============   =============   =============
   Earnings per common share                         $          1.28   $         .78   $         .13
                                                     ===============   =============   =============
</TABLE>


                                      E-2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00265-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.-J., J.W., AND 

J.W., CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-104719-17)

September 20, 2018

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
Exhibit 10.32


 


ASSIGNMENT OF INVENTION AND
PATENT APPLICATION


Whereas I, Christine Ichim,
a citizen of the Canada residing in Spring Valley, CA herein referred to as ASSIGNOR, have invented new and useful innovations
described in METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER BY INHIBITION OF NR2F6, the specification of which was filed
on December 15, 2014 as U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No 14/571,262, herein referred to as the Invention


And Whereas, Regen BioPharma,
Inc., with its principal place of business at 4700 Spring St., Suite 304, La Mesa, CA 91942 herein referred to as ASSIGNEE, desires
to acquire the entire right, title, and interest in and to the said Invention,


Now therefore, for good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ASSIGNOR hereby acknowledges that they have
sold, assigned, transferred, and set over, and by these presents do hereby sell, assign, and transfer, and set over unto ASSIGNEE
and its successors and assigns, 100% of the following:


(A) ASSIGNOR’S right,
title and interest in and to the Invention entitled in METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER BY INHIBITION OF NR2F6,
US Non- Provisional Patent Application No. 14/571,262 filed December 15, 2014,


(B) any patent or reissues that
claim priority to U.S. Non-Provisional Application No 14/571,262; and


(C) any continuations, continuations-in-part,
substitutes, or divisionals that claim priority to US Non-Provisional Application No. 14/571,262.


ASSIGNOR authorizes and requests
the Commissioner for Patents to issue any resulting patent(s) as follows: 0% to ASSIGNOR and 100% to ASSIGNEE.


ASSIGNOR hereby further sells,
assigns, transfers and sets over unto ASSIGNEE, 100% of ASSIGNOR’S entire right, title, and interest in and to said invention
in the United States and every country foreign to the United States. ASSIGNOR agrees to execute all papers, give any required testimony,
and perform other lawful acts, at ASSIGNEE’S expense, as ASSIGNEE may require to enable ASSIGNEE to perfect ASSIGNEE’S
interest in any resulting patent of the United States and countries foreign thereto, and to acquire, hold, enforce, convey, and
uphold the validity of said patent and reissues and extensions thereof, and ASSIGNEE’S interest therein. 


In testimony whereof ASSIGNOR
intending to be legally bound hereunto affix his signature.


ASSIGNOR 


	/s/ Christine Ichim	December 16, 2014
	(Christine Ichim)	(Date)
#### Genitha Jones, Appellant, v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 8]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated March 10, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendant Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Because the plaintiff commenced the instant action more than one year and 30 days after her cause of action accrued, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the action was time-barred (see, Public Authorities Law § 1276 [2]; *Burgess v Long Is. R. R. Auth.,*79 NY2d 777). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2938 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction 

of a hydroelectric project. 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2938 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period 

3 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En5 ergy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12187, the 

6 Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the 

7 project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with 

8 the good faith, due diligence, and public interest require9 ments of that section and the Commission’s procedures 

10 under that section, extend the time period during which 

11 the licensee is required to commence the construction of 

12 the project for up to 3 consecutive 2-year periods from 

13 the date of the expiration of the extension originally issued 

14 by the Commission. 

15 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the 

16 period required for commencement of construction of the 

17 project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the 

18 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission may 

19 reinstate the license effective as of the date of its expira20 tion and the first extension authorized under subsection 

21 (a) shall take effect on the date of such expiration. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lekelford BOHANON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-6208.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 27, 2011.

BEFORE: MARTIN, SILER and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge.

Lekelford Bohanon pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), reserving the right to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his vehicle. Because the search was based on probable cause developed during the *577course of a lawful traffic stop, the motion was properly denied.

At an evidentiary hearing on a suppression motion, Tennessee narcotics agent Mike Patterson testified that he had smelled marijuana coming from inside Bohanon’s Chevy Tahoe during the stop. On cross-examination, Patterson clarified that he thought the smell was “raw” marijuana, but admitted that he had previously testified in a state-court preliminary hearing that it was “burned” marijuana. The magistrate judge believed Patterson, and found that the subsequent search of the vehicle— which yielded a kilogram of cocaine — was supported by probable cause. The magistrate judge relied in this regard on *United States v. Foster,*376 F.3d 577, 588 (6th Cir.2004), and *United States v. Garza,*10 F.3d 1241, 1246 (6th Cir.1993). The district court upheld the magistrate’s credibility determination. A small quantity of “raw” marijuana was also found on Bohanon’s person.

Bohanon’s only argument on appeal is that it was clear error for the district court to find that Agent Patterson actually smelled marijuana inside the Tahoe. We give deference to a district court’s credibility assessments in ruling on a motion to suppress. *See United States v. Smith,*594 F.3d 530, 535 (6th Cir.2010). The district court did not clearly err in crediting Patterson’s testimony that he smelled marijuana. Patterson’s testimony was not controverted at the evidentiary hearing, Bohanon has not offered evidence to suggest that Patterson’s testimony was false, and some marijuana was found on Bohanon’s person.

The discrepancy in Patterson’s testimony (“burned” versus “raw”) is not material, “for in any event, marijuana was detected as emanating from [Bohanon’s] car and was ultimately discovered,” and “[w]hether it was burnt or fresh-smelling, marijuana does not change this.” *Foster,*376 F.3d at 584. The district court “quite appropriately[] did not believe that this discrepancy made any difference to the fact that marijuana was detected in [Bohanon’s] vehicle.” *Id.*at 583. Because this was a “permissible view[] of the evidence,” *Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,*470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985), the district court did not clearly err.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
        THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  CONTAINED IN THE JUNE 30, 1999 QUARTERLY  REPORT FILED ON
FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         544,975
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               627,759
<PP&E>                                          52,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 691,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,567
<OTHER-SE>                                     637,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   691,681
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  695,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (622,226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (622,226)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)




</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21530]


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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


SES Performance Review Board--Appointment of Members

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the 
Performance Review Board of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Traci M. DiMartini, Chief Human 
Capital Officer, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of the Performance Review Board 
(PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB reviews 
and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive' s 
performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chair, 
EEOC, with respect to performance ratings, pay level adjustments and 
performance awards.
    The following are the names and titles of executives appointed to 
serve as members of the SES PRB. Designated members will serve a 12-
month term; which begins on November 1, 2017.

PRB Chair:
    Mr. Bryan C. Burnett, Chief Information Officer, Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission
Members:
    Mr. Carlton Hadden, Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission
    Ms. Germaine P. Roseboro, Chief Financial Officer, Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission
    Ms. Marika Litras, Enforcement Director, U.S. Department of Labor
    Mr. Stuart Ishimaru, Assistant Director, Office of Equal 
Opportunity and Fairness, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

    By the direction of the Commission.

    Dated: September 29, 2017.
Cynthia G. Pierre,
Chief Operating Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-21530 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
#### In the Matter of Robert J. Troeller, Respondent, v Department of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Appellants.

[989 NYS2d 32]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W Hunter, Jr., J), entered January 7, 2013, confirming the arbitration award, dated August 20, 2010, which, upon a finding of improper suspension, awarded the grievant wages and applicable benefit contributions for the period from 30 days after his suspension through the date of the first arbitration hearing, unanimously modified, on the law, to define the period as from 30 days after the suspension through the *641date of the grievant’s retirement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The grievant was suspended indefinitely pursuant to article III (9) of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) based on his failure to provide a proper accounting of funds allocated to him in connection with his employment as a custodian engineer. He remained suspended until he retired on November 30, 2004.

Petitioners filed a grievance contending that suspension without pay is limited to 30 days by Civil Service Law § 75 (3), which is incorporated into the CBA under article XVII (4) (B). After a hearing, the arbitration panel found that the grievant had been improperly suspended for more than 30 days, in violation of the CBA, and awarded him wages and benefit contributions for the period from 30 days after his suspension through the date of the first arbitration hearing, which was held September 29, 2005.

Respondents are correct that, since the CBA and Civil Service Law § 75 (3) permit back-pay awards only for periods of improper suspension, even if the grievant was suspended improperly, the arbitrators exceeded their power (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [in]) by awarding him back pay for a period of time following his voluntary retirement.

However, we reject respondents’ argument that the arbitrators exceeded their power by deciding the grievance under the Civil Service Law, based on their contention that this impermissibly interfered with their exercise of discretion pursuant to CBA article III (9), which imposes a penalty that is not disciplinary in nature. *“[E]ven in circumstances where an arbitrator makes errors of law or fact,*courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the award to their sense of justice” *(Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y.,*1 NY3d 72, 83 [2003]).

We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Freedman, Richter and Clark, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Michael J. Marx, the Chief Financial Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-Q of Nano Mask for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.   /s/ Michael J. Marx Michael J. Marx Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  September 9, 2011