alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated Severance Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10(iii)A(2) 
 AMENDMENT No. 2 
 TO 
 ACUITY BRANDS, INC 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into as of the 29th day of September, 2006, by and between ACUITY BRANDS, INC. (the “Company”) and VERNON J. NAGEL (“Executive”); 
 W I T N E S S E T H 
 WHEREAS, the
Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Severance Agreement, dated as of January 20, 2004 (“Severance Agreement”), providing for the payment of certain compensation and benefits to Executive if Executive’s
employment is terminated under certain circumstances; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Severance Agreement in the manner
hereinafter provided; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Agreement is hereby amended, as follows: 
 1. 
 Section 4.3 is hereby amended by
deleting the present section in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof: 
  

	 	“4.3	Stock Options. Unvested Stock Options granted to Executive under the Acuity Brands, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) shall continue to vest during the
Severance Period, provided, that if Executive dies during the Severance Period, the continued vesting of such Stock Options shall cease. Stock Options vested as of Executive’s Date of Termination and Stock Options that vest during the Severance
Period shall remain exercisable for the shorter of the remaining exercise term or ninety (90) days following the end of the Severance Period. Subject to the proviso at the end of this sentence, all Stock Options outstanding ninety
(90) days following the end of the Severance Period shall be immediately forfeited; provided, that if the Stock Option Agreement granting the Stock Option to Executive provides for more favorable continued vesting or exercisability after
Executive’s Date of Termination, the provisions of such Stock Option Agreement shall apply to the vesting and exercisability of Executive’s Stock Options after Executive’s termination. “ 








 2. 
 This Amendment to the Severance Agreement shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment. Except as hereby modified, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Vernon J. Nagel

	VERNON J. NAGEL
	
	COMPANY
	
	ACUITY BRANDS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kenyon W. Murphy
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          36,508
<SECURITIES>                                     2,505
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,568
<INVENTORY>                                        344
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,020
<PP&E>                                          19,452
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,541
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,082
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,340
<SALES>                                        114,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,253
<CGS>                                           16,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                93,241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,805
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,184
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,877
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,877
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.0





List of Subsidiaries of the Company





Subsidiaries

Shareholders

Ownership%Business Objects Australia Pty Ltd

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects Asia Pacific Pte Ltd

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects Holding B.V.

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects Nihon B.V.

Business Objects Holding B.V

100.00%Business Objects Nederland B.V.

Business Objects Holding B.V

100.00%Business Objects Japan KK

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects BeLux S.A./N.V.

Business Objects S.A.

99.96%Business Objects Deutschland GmbH

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects Iberica S.L

Business Objects S.A.

99.98%Business Objects Italia S.p.A

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects Nordic A.B.

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects Switzerland Ltd.

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects (U.K.) Ltd

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects Americas, Inc.

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Business Objects Canada, Inc.

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%Ithena U.K. Ltd

Business Objects Americas, Inc

100.00%Set Analyzer Ltd.

Business Objects Americas, Inc

100.00%Business Objects Holding, Inc

Business Objects Americas, Inc

100.00%Business Objects Canada Co

Business Objects Holding, Inc

100.00%Blue Edge Software Ltd

Business Objects Americas, Inc

100.00%Alphadere Limited

Blue Edge Software Ltd

100.00%Business Objects Brazil Ltda

Business Objects S.A.

100.00%
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3243 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide that any hours worked by Federal firefighters 

under a qualified trade-of-time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations relating to overtime pay. 

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


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3243 RFS

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF HOURS WORKED UNDER A 

2 TRADE-OF-TIME ARRANGEMENTS. 

3 Section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

6 section, any hours worked by a firefighter under a quali7 fied trade-of-time arrangement shall be disregarded for 

8 purposes of any determination relating to eligibility for or 

9 the amount of any overtime pay under this section. 

10 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this section— 

11 ‘‘(A) the term ‘qualified trade-of-time arrange12 ment’ means an arrangement under which 2 fire13 fighters who are employed by the same agency 

14 agree, solely at their option and with the approval 

15 of their employing agency, to substitute for one an16 other during scheduled work hours in performance 

17 of work in the same capacity; and 

18 ‘‘(B) the term ‘firefighter’ has the meaning 

19 given such term by sections 8331(21) and 8401(14), 

20 respectively.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 30 

(legislative day September 29), 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy Dewayne COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10796

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William Reynolds Biggs, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sam L. Ogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Timothy Dewayne Coleman *376has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Coleman has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *376published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JASON FITZGERALD, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. §

§ No. 117, 2022 § § § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § § Cr. ID No. 2007010286 (N) § § Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 21, 2022

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES , Justices.

ORDER After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 6, 2022, the appellant, Jason Fitzgerald, filed a notice of appeal from his criminal conviction and sentence for second-degree assault. The Superior Court sentenced Fitzgerald on November 8, 2021. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal was due on or before December 8, 2021. 1 (2) On April 7, 2022, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Fitzgerald to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii).2 In his response to the notice to show cause, Fitzgerald alleges that he failed to file a timely notice of appeal due to, among other things, court delays attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. 2 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective. 3 An appellant’s prisoner pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. 4 Unless an appellant candemonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to courtrelated personnel, the appeal cannot be considered. 5 (4) The record does not reflect that Fitzgerald’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this case is attributable to court-related personnel. Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal, and this appeal must be dismissed. To the extent that Fitzgerald alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective, he may pursue those claims in the Superior Court by filing a timely motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.

2 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 4 See Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012). 5 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 5, 2016

NO. 03

- 14

- 00802

- CR

Pedro Elizondo Martinez, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUS TICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTONAND BOURLAN D MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

– OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the district court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

district court’s judgment of conviction but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore,

the Court modifies the district court’s j udgment of conviction to delete the deadly

- weapon

finding. The Court affirms the judgment of conviction as modified. Because appellant is

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Exhibit 10.5


 


Thomas Arnost


 


 


 


 


 


December 9, 2014


 


 


 


Mr. Dean Julia


Mobiquity Technologies, Inc.


600 Old Country Road, Suite 541


Garden City, NY 11530


 


Re: Secured Promissory Note in the outstanding balance of $322,000


 


Dear Mr. Julia:


 


This letter shall serve
to confirm that I have agreed to extend the due date of my Secured Promissory Note in the principal unpaid balance of $322,000
to December 31, 2015 on the same terms and conditions that currently exist.


 





	 	Sincerely,

    

    /s/ Thomas Arnost

    Thomas Arnost



 




 


Agreed to and accepted by:


 


MOBIQUITY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


 


By: /s/ Dean Julia


Dean Julia, Co-Chief Executive Officer
Unassociated Document






December 19, 2014


 


Kelly Walters


President and Chief Executive Officer


Supertel Hospitality, Inc.


1800 West Pasewalk Avenue, Suite 200


Norfolk, Nebraska 68701


 


Dear Kelly,


 


As discussed, we agree that you will extend your service as President and Chief Executive Officer to the earlier of the hiring of a new chief executive officer or January 31, 2015.  Additionally, the March 31, 2015 date set forth in the Company’s letter to you, dated September 10, 2014, is extended to April 30, 2015.  All other matters set forth in the Company’s letter remain unchanged.


 


If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please sign and date below and return a signed copy to me.


 


Supertel Hospitality, Inc.


 


 


/s/ James Friend


James Friend, Chairman of


the Board of Directors


 


Accepted and agreed this December 19, 2014


 


/s/ Kelly A. Walters


Kelly A. Walters
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 PalWeb Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending August 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Warren F. Kruger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


October 15, 2003                                      /s/ Warren F. Kruger
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Warren F. Kruger,
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick D. PHELPS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-3264.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 20, 2011.

James A. Brown, Office of the United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Frederick D. Phelps, Jr., Forrest City, AR, pro se.

Before LUCERO, GORSUCH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

*682ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

Frederick D. Phelps, a federal prisoner proceeding *pro se,*filed a writ of *audita querela*in the District of Kansas, attacking his sentence. But the district court held such a challenge must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See United States v. Torres,*282 F.3d 1241, 1245 (10th Cir.2002) (“[A] writ of audita querela is not available to a petitioner when other remedies exist, such as a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” (internal quotation omitted)). Rather than dismissing Mr. Phelps’s petition, however, the court construed it as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. *See In re Cline,*531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (“A district court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive § 2255 ... claim until this court has granted the required authorization.”). We discern no error in the district court’s reasoning or result and so deny Mr. Phelps’s application for a certificate of appealability and dismiss his appeal. In addition, we deny Mr. Phelps’s motion to proceed *in forma pauperis*as he fails to present a non-frivolous argument on appeal.

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
| 1. | The Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Form 10-K), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the Corporation. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 10, 2010 | /s/ Carol K. Nelson                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | By:     Carol K. Nelson,President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|       |                                                                                                                                       |
| Date: March 10, 2010 | /s/ Terry Stull                                                                                                                            |
|                 | By:     Terry Stull,Senior Vice President and Controller(Chief Accounting Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer) |
EXHIBIT 35.1

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC

                RASC SERIES 2006-KS2 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of February 1, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among  Residential  Asset  Securities  Corporation,  as  depositor,  Residential
Funding  Company,  LLC (formerly  Residential  Funding  Corporation),  as master
servicer,  and U.S. Bank National  Association,  as trustee, does hereby certify
that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material  respects  throughout
such  period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
    Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
    Title: Managing Director
| (1)  | the      annual report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the period ended March      31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act      of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));and |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                      |   |                                                        |   |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:      July 29, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Edward      Christie III                           |   |
|                      |   | Edward      Christie III                                    |   |
|                      |   | Senior      Vice President and Chief Financial      Officer |   |
|                      |   |                                                        |   |