alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter Agreement between Education Management and John T. South III


 Exhibit 10.03 
 [EDMC LETTERHEAD] 
 VIA PERSONAL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 
 March 30, 2007 
 John T. South, III 
 12 Water Witch Crossing 
 Savannah, GA 31411 
 Re: Employment Agreement 
 Dear John: 
 Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of December 7, 2006 (the “Agreement”), between you and Education Management LLC (the
“Company”). As you know, Education Management Corporation (the “Parent”), South University, Inc. (the “University”), Higher Education Services, Inc. and you entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of
April 29, 2003 and as amended (the “Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which the Parent purchased all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of South University, Inc. and Higher Education Services, Inc. The Purchase
Agreement provides for a Health Profession Program Escrow Account, which is to be disbursed to you upon the achievement of certain milestones relating to Health Profession Programs at South University’s locations. This letter will confirm that,
consistent with your prior employment agreement with the Parent, the definition of “Good Reason” in Section 3.2(e)(1) of the Agreement will include: a material change in the control or structure of the Company, the University or their
subsidiaries which would materially and adversely affect the opportunity of the Executive to develop and implement the “Health Profession Programs” contemplated by the Purchase Agreement. 
 Capitalized terms used herein have the meanings given them in the Agreement unless otherwise defined herein. The terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect except as expressly modified pursuant to this letter agreement. The terms set forth in this letter agreement shall be in addition to the terms of the Agreement. The Company acknowledges and agrees that the terms set forth in
this letter agreement are a material inducement for you to enter into the Agreement and constitute material obligations of the Company. 
 Sincerely yours,

  

	
	 /s/ John R. McKernan, Jr.

	John R. McKernan, Jr.
	Executive Chairman

 Acknowledged and agreed this 30th day of March, 2007 
  

	
	 /s/ John T. South, III

	John T. South, III
#### Domineck Carriero, Respondent, v New York City School Construction Authority et al., Appellants.

[987 NYS2d 845]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered July 3, 2013, which denied defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted.

Leave to amend should have been granted, since the proposed affirmative defense of a setoff has merit *(see Thomas Crimmins Contr. Co. v City of New York,*74 NY2d 166, 170 [1989]; *see also Herrick v Second Cuthouse,*100 AD2d 952, 953 [2d Dept 1984], *affd*64 NY2d 692 [1984]). Indeed, defendants may be successive tortfeasors entitled to a setoff under General Obligations Law § 15-108, given that plaintiff settled another lawsuit 13 years *612ago against different defendants in which, as here, he claimed to be “permanently disabled” from working as an electrician *(see Hill v St Clare’s Hosp.,*67 NY2d 72, 82-84 [1986]; *see also Herrick,*100 AD2d at 953). Defendants may also be entitled to a setoff under CPLR 4545, as the prior settlement may have reimbursed plaintiff for the same “loss of earnings” for which he now sues (CPLR 4545 [a]; *see Oden v Chemung County Indus. Dev. Agency,*87 NY2d 81 [1995]). Plaintiffs argument that evidence of the prior settlement should be excluded at trial is premature, given that this action is only at the pleading stage.

Concur—Sweeny, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6068

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MALIK AL-SHABAZZ, a/k/a Beaver, a/k/a Beaver G,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00986-TLW-13)

Submitted: June 13, 2024 Decided: June 18, 2024

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malik Al-Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6068 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Malik Al-Shabazz appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(c)(1)(A) motion for a sentence reduction and denying his motions for appointment 

of counsel. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. See United States 

v. Davis, 99 F.4th 647, 653, 659-60 (4th Cir. 2024) (compassionate release); United States 

v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 729-30 (4th Cir. 2000) (appointment of counsel). We therefore 

affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Al-Shabazz, No. 3:19-cr-00986-JFA-13 

(D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2023; July 12, 2023; July 24, 2023; Aug. 24, 2023; Sept. 6, 2023; Nov. 8, 

2023). We deny Al-Shabazz’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6068 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q/A for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Janet M. Biski,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

1.                                     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May 17, 2005 |      |                    |
|---------------------|-----------|-------------------------|
|                | By:  | /s/ Janet M. Biski      |
|                |      | Janet M. Biski          |
|                |      | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Stanislaw Szalbirak et al., Appellants, v Uptown Storage Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[665 NYS2d 895]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered July 17, 1996, which granted defendant Otis Elevator Company’s motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly granted defendant Otis Elevator Company’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County since plaintiffs, who chose Bronx County based on an incorrect address of defendant Uptown Storage Co., Inc., could have easily ascertained the correct address for this defendant from its certificate of incorporation. Furthermore, since some defendants sought to have the matter removed to Federal court shortly before the expiration of the time to make the motion to change venue, which motion was made shortly after the Federal court remit*176ted the matter back to State court, the delay in seeking a change of venue is excusable. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
EXHIBIT 21.1     **Subsidiaries** **State or Jurisdiction of Incorporation**     Business Objects Software Limited Ireland       Business Objects Holding S.A.S. France       Business Objects (U.K.) Limited United Kingdom       Business Objects Americas Delaware       Business Objects Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Singapore       Business Objects Australia Pty Ltd Australia       Business Objects BeluxS.A./N.V. Belgium       Business Objects Corp. New Brunswick & Delaware       Business Objects Danmark ApS Denmark       Business Objects Data Integration, Inc. Delaware       Business Objects do Brasil Ltda. Brazil       Business Objects de Mexico S. de RL de CV Mexico       Business Objects Deutschland GmbH Germany       Business Objects Finland Ltd. Finland       Business Objects Greater China Limited China       Business Objects Iberica S.L. Spain       Business Objects Italia S.p.A Italy       Business Objects Japan K.K. Japan       Business Objects Korea Ltd. South Korea       Business Objects Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia       Business Objects Nederland B.V. Netherlands       Business Objects Nordic A.B. Sweden       Business Objects Option LLC Delaware       Business Objects Schweiz A.G. Switzerland       Business Objects Software India Private Limtied India       Business Objects Software (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. China       Business Objects Software South Africa (Proprietary) Ltd. South Africa       Business Objects Taiwan Inc. Taiwan       Crystal Decisions (Hong Kong) Limited China       Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd. United Kingdom       Crystal Decisions (France) SAS France       Business Objects Argentina S.R.L. Argentina
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated January 23, 1998 in the registration statements
on Form S-8 (No. 333-24217, No. 333-50189, and No. 333-59615) of Brooke Group
Ltd., relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Thinking Machines
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' investment and cash flows
for the year ended December 31, 1997 and the period from February 8, 1996
(inception) to December 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1998
annual report on Form 10-K of New Valley Corporation.

                                                     /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 6, 1999
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~ ~ourt**  

# of**§ppeaI~** 

# for tbejf 

# eberaI**~irtUit** ALEXSAM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. PIER 1 IMPORTS, Defendant-CrossAppellant. 2013-1003, -1026 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in case no. 08-CV-0015, Judge Michael H. Schneider.

### ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of Metromedia Steakhouses Company's motion to reform the caption, Case: 13-1003 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/27/2012ALEXSAM, INC. v. PIER 1 IMPORTS, INC. IT Is ORDERED THAT: 2

The motion is granted. The official caption is revised as reflected above. FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 

### s25 Case: 13-1003 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/27/2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose CARRENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-12116

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 5, 2011.

Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Anne R. Schultz, Sivashree Sundaram, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Hector L. Flores, Attorney at Law, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Hector Flores, appointed counsel for Jose Carreno in this direct criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of the appellant, because counsel believes that the appeal is without merit. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Our independent review of the record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguably meritorious issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Carreno’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000928420
<NAME> COHESANT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                   352,895
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,519,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                   168,079
<INVENTORY>                                  3,367,160
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,491,138
<PP&E>                                       1,379,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                 796,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,987,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,691,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,688
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,283,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,987,071
<SALES>                                     14,191,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,191,450
<CGS>                                        7,930,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,930,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               969,958
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               133,229
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             116,689
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,115,250
<INCOME-TAX>                                   222,338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            892,912
<DISCONTINUED>                               (225,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   667,912
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28


</TABLE>
___________ No. 95-3702

___________ Mark A. Morris, * * Appellant, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. FSC Securities Corporation, * a Georgia Corporation; Edward * [UNPUBLISHED] Wisner; Richard Roe; John Doe, * * Appellees. *

___________ No. 95-3876

___________ Mark A. Morris, * * Appellee, * * v. * * FSC Securities Corporation, * a Georgia Corporation, * * Appellant, * * Edward Wisner; Richard Roe; * John Doe, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: October 24, 1996 Filed: December 5, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- Mark A. Morris appeals the September 26, 1995 order of the District Court 1 directing Morris to return certain discovery materials to their original source and directing Morris's counsel to refrain from any use of these materials to support any pending or future litigation. FSC Securities Corporation cross-appeals the portion of the District Court's order in which the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a confidentiality agreement signed by the parties. Having considered the record and the briefs and arguments of the parties, we summarily affirm the order of the District Court.

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Christopher C. Carey, Doing Business as Christopher C. Carey Associates, Appellant, v Impco Enterprises, Inc., Respondent.

[667 NYS2d 571]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Defendant entered into an oral agreement with plaintiff to find and place a person to serve as defendant’s Director of Information Services. Defendant contends that plaintiff agreed that he would not be compensated if defendant hired an individual who contacted defendant directly. Although plaintiff met his initial burden, defendant submitted proof in admissible form raising material issues of fact, including whether the person hired by defendant was found and placed through plaintiffs efforts and whether plaintiff should be deemed to have found and placed that person by posting a notice with a job leave bank and talking by telephone to him when he responded to the notice. Further factual issues exist concerning the substance of that telephone conversation. “The parties’ conflicting accounts make it clear that there are triable factual questions relating to the contents of the oral contract * * * plaintiffs performance and defendant’s liability, if any” *(Linwood Consultants v Frank Assocs.,*161 Misc 2d 546, 549). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Stander, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Green, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel Dewayne ANTOINE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40519

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 8, 2011.

David Haskell Henderson, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas John Burbank, Burbank Law Firm, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gabriel Dewayne Antoine appeals the 60-month prison sentence imposed for his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 17.48 grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Although § 841(b)(1)(B) no longer prescribes a five-year minimum sentence for offenses involving at least five but fewer than 28 grams of crack cocaine, see Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 111— 220, 124 Stat. 2372, Antoine did not benefit from the amendment of the statute because he committed his offense, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced before the act’s August 3, 2010 effective date. See *United States v. Doggins,*633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir.2011). Accordingly, former § 841(b)(1)(B)’s five-year minimum sentence for offenses involving at least five grams of crack cocaine applied in his case.

Antoine argues that the district court should have granted his motions for downward departure or variance below that mandatory minimum. We ordinarily lack authority to review a district court’s refusal to depart below a statutory minimum, but we may review de novo a district court’s decision that it lacked the authority to do so. *United States v. James,*468 F.3d 245, 246-47 (5th Cir.2006). The Government did not move for a downward departure based on substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), and Antoine was ineligible for a safety valve reduction under § 3553(f) because he had more than *431one criminal history point. *See*§ 3553(f)(1). Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that it lacked the authority to grant Antoine’s request for a downward departure. *United States v. Krumnow,*476 F.3d 294, 297 (5th Cir.2007). The district court also lacked the authority to grant Antoine’s motion for a nonguidelines sentence below the mandatory minimum. *See United States v. Farias,*469 F.3d 393, 401 (5th Cir.2006) (“[W]hatever result the Guidelines yield, the sentence cannot be less than the mandatory minimum.”); *see also Kimbrough v. United States,*552 U.S. 85, 108, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (stating that district courts remain constrained by statutory minimum penalties).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

October 18, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-11371

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-20613-CR-MGC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

RAYMUNDO FUERTES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(October 18, 2006)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Philip Reizenstein, counsel for Raymundo Fuertes in this direct criminal

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has
2

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Fuertes’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1




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





In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Poseidis,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2003, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Louis Pardo dit
Pardau, Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof) of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Louis Pardo dit Pardau
-----------------------------------------------
Louis Pardo dit Pardau
Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)
October 15, 2003
```

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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the
"Report") of Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2004, I, David S. Lerner, President, Principal Executive Officer
and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to my knowledge, 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.

                                     May 17, 2004

                                     /s/ David S. Lerner
                                     Name: David S. Lerner

                                     Title: President, Principal Executive
                                     Officer, and Acting Chief Financial Officer
```
#### SHAUN ROWE *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 31941)

Gruendel, Lavine and Espinosa, Js.

Submitted on briefs January 13

officially released January 31, 2012

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.