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



Exhibit 10.1



June 30, 2020
Alan Masarek
Vonage Holdings Corp.


Re: Notice of Termination


Dear Mr. Masarek:
Reference is made to your Employment Agreement with Vonage Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) dated October 6, 2014, as amended on December 17, 2015 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms in this Notice of Termination (the “Notice”) that are not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.
Pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Agreement, you are hereby notified in writing of the termination of your employment. This Notice hereby confirms that your date of termination for purposes of the Agreement is the close of business on June 30, 2020 (the “Termination Date”). 
As a result of such termination, you are entitled to the payments and benefits set forth in Section 4(b) of the Agreement, subject to the conditions thereof, including the execution and non-revocation of a release of claims (which is attached to this Notice). You acknowledge that you are subject to that certain Non-Compete Agreement dated as of October 6, 2014 between you and the Company and that certain Employee Covenants Agreement dated as of October 6, 2014 between you and the Company, and, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, certain provisions of the Agreement survive your termination of employment, including, without limitation, Section 5 (Confidentiality), Section 6 (Noncompetition), Section 7 (Non-Solicitation and Non-Hire), Section 8 (Certain Remedies; Disclosure of Restrictive Covenants), Section 9 (Defense of Claims) and Section 10 (Nondisparagement).
Your outstanding awards under the Company’s Amended and Restated 2015 Equity Incentive Plan shall be treated in accordance with the terms of the award agreements pursuant to which such awards were granted. 
In accordance with Section 4(g) of the Agreement, effective upon the Termination Date, you shall have resigned from your position as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, as well as from all other director, officer and employee positions with the Company and its subsidiaries or affiliates and, if requested by the Company, you will confirm such resignations in writing. 


[the remainder of this page is intentionally left blank]



















By your signature below, you acknowledge and agree to the terms of this notice of termination.
Sincerely,
/s/ Randy K. Rutherford
Randy K. Rutherford
Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary






Acknowledged and Agreed:


/s/ Alan Masarek
Alan Masarek
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         390 Greenwich Street, 1st Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396

January 28, 2000



Trendview Management Inc.
600 B street - Suite 1650
San Diego, California 92101

Attention:  Mr. Clark Smith

         Re:      Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.

Dear Clark:


         Please liquidate all of your positions for the above referenced fund in
an orderly fashion by the close of business, Monday, January 31, 2000.

        Please acknowledge receipt and acceptance by signing below and returning
this to me by fax at 212-723-8985.

         If you have any questions, please call me at 212-723-5416.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC




Daniel A. Dantuono
Chief Financial Officer & Director

AGREED AND ACCEPTED

TRENDVIEW MANAGEMENT INC.


DAD/sr
* 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 CIR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 98-40451 Summary Calendar

_____________________ HELEN FEARS, as Next of Kin of Gary Aderholt, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TERRY BOX, Sheriff of Collin County, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (4:95-CV-270)

_______________________________________________________ January 25, 1999 Before REAVLEY, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Helen Fears, as next of kin to decedent Gary Aderholt, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendant Terry Box, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Collin County, Texas. While a pretrial detainee at Collin County Jail, Aderholt suffered a severe asthma attack, which ultimately caused his tragic death. Fears filed this civil rights action against Sheriff Box under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Collin County Jail policies and customs caused a substantial delay in obtaining emergency medical treatment for Aderholt in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment2

for the defendant, holding that (1) the policies complained of were facially constitutional because they did not compel a substantial delay in receiving medical care; and (2) Fears failed to present any summary judgment evidence that the policies were adopted with deliberate indifference to the medical needs of pretrial detainees. We affirm. After thoroughly reviewing the record, briefs, and authorities, we conclude that summary judgment for the defendant was proper, essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s order. The policies at issue are constitutional on their face and Fears has presented no summary judgment evidence that the policies were adopted with deliberate indifference to the medical needs of pretrial detainees. See, e.g. , Scott v. Moore , 114 F.3d 51, 54 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (municipal liability for a constitutional violation is established by showing that a municipal policy or custom was “adopted or maintained with objective deliberate indifference to the detainee’s constitutional rights”) (emphasis omitted). The policies do not compel a constitutional violation by preventing jail officers or nursing staff from obtaining immediate emergency medical care for detainees. We also reject Fears’ contention that the jail’s emergency medical policy is “so riddled with bureaucratic loops” that it “manifests defendant’s deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of pretrial detainees.” The alleged custom of requiring officers to notify the medical staff of an emergency via the control room does not substantially delay emergency medical treatment and certainly does not reflect deliberate indifference. AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from United
Investors Income Properties 1997 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000830056
<NAME> UNITED INVESTORS INCOME PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       12
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          12,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,053
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,373
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,017
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.04<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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 American Tax Credit Properties L.P. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of Richman Tax Credit Properties Inc.,
general partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P., general partner of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)
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
      Registrant.









/s/
David Salzman


David
Salzman


Chief
Executive Officer of Richman Tax


Credit
Properties Inc., general partner of


Richman
Tax Credit Properties L.P., general


partner
of the Registrant


February
14, 2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Chemical Warfare Defense will meet in closed session on April 10, 2001, and April 24, 2001, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201. The Task Force will assess the possibility of controlling the risk and consequences of a chemical warfare (CW) attack to acceptable national security levels within the next five years.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will assess current national security and military objectives with respect to CW attacks; CW threats that significantly challenge these objectives today and in the future; the basis elements (R&D, materiel, acquisition, personnel, training, leadership) required to control risk and consequences to acceptable levels, including counter-proliferation; intelligence, warning, disruption; tactical detection and protection (active and passive); consequence management; attribution and deterrence; and policy. The Task Force will also assess the testing and evaluation necessary to demonstrate and maintain the required capacity and any significant impediments to accomplishing this goal.

In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public.

Dated: February 14, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-4336 Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1222

___________

Betty R. Porter, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Jennifer Welsh, M.D.; William Miller, * [UNPUBLISHED]

M.D., *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 6, 2003

 Filed: August 19, 2003

___________

Before BOWMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Betty R. Porter appeals the decision of the District Court1

 to grant summary

judgment to the defendants in her diversity medical malpractice action after the

District Court determined that Porter had failed to meet the requirements of Minn.

Stat. § 145.682 (West 1998) (certification of expert review). Having reviewed de

novo the Court’s interpretation and application of § 145.682, see Reimer v. City of

Crookston, 326 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 2003), we agree with the District Court that

expert testimony was required and that a psychologist was not qualified to render
-2-

expert opinions in this case. Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we

deny Porter’s motion to supplement the record. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 American Tax Credit Properties L.P.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of Richman Tax Credit Properties Inc.,
general partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P., general partner of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)
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
      Registrant.


/s/ David Salzman
-----------------------------------
David Salzman
Chief Executive Officer of
Richman Tax Credit Properties Inc.,
general partner of
Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P.,
general partner of the Registrant
February 13, 2006
**CH** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0 232 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. SEAN MCKELVEY CALAHAN ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including July 1 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 23 2023

05/23/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0232
EXHIBIT 99.1
        SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT OF AMERISTAR CASINOS, INC.


Ameristar Casinos, Inc. ("ACI") hereby agrees to furnish
supplementally to the Securities and Exchange Commission a copy
of any of the exhibits and schedules to Exhibit 10.12 to ACI's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.
Such Exhibit 10.12 includes a list setting forth a description of
the omitted exhibits and schedules.

ACI further agrees to furnish supplementally to the Securities
and Exchange Commission a copy of any of the following
instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt
issued by ACI or its subsidiaries:

     Promissory Note, dated November 22, 1976, from Cactus
     Pete's, Inc. ("CPI") to United States of America and related
     Credit Agreement.
     
     Promissory Note, dated October 7, 1983, from CPI to United
     States of America and related Credit Agreements.
     
     Promissory Note, dated December 28, 1995, from Ameristar
     Casino Council Bluffs, Inc. ("ACCBI") and General Electric
     Credit Corporation ("GECC") and related Preferred Ship
     Mortgage, Subordination and Intercreditor Agreement and
     Subordinations of Preferred Ship Mortgage; and Corporate
     Guaranty from ACI to GECC.
     
     Loan Agreement, dated December 12, 1995, between ACCBI, as
     borrower, ACI, as guarantor, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as
     the successor to First Interstate Bank of Nevada, N.A.), as
     lender ("WFB/FIB"); Promissory Note from ACCBI to WFB/FIB;
     and related Security Agreement and Ship Mortgage.
     
     Credit Agreement, dated June 27, 1996, between ACCBI and PDS
     Financial Corporation ("PDS"); Promissory Note from ACCBI to
     PDS; related Security Agreement; and Guaranty from ACI to
     PDS.
     
     Promissory Note, dated October 10, 1994, from Gem Air, Inc.
     to The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. and related
     Aircraft Security Agreement.  (Contractually assumed
     obligation.)
     
     Business Loan Agreement, dated June 15, 1994, between Gem
     Air, Inc. and Bank of America Nevada; Amendment to Business
     Loan Agreement, dated November 15, 1994, between Gem Air,
     Inc. and Bank of America Nevada; and related Deed of Trust,
     Assignment of Rents, and Fixture Filing.  (Contractually
     assumed obligation.)
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the annual report of Natural Health Trends Corp. (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chris T. Sharng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: May 8, 2006 /s/ Chris T. Sharng     Chris T. Sharng  Chief Financial Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL RAMIREZ ROSETE;

MARGARITA CORTEZ DE RAMIREZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73393

Agency Nos. A097-351-655

 A097-351-658

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Ramirez Rosete and Margarita Cortez De Ramirez, natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reissue. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

FILED

OCT 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73393

reopen, Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010), we

grant the petition for review and remand. 

The BIA abused its discretion by failing to specifically address petitioners’

evidence that they did not receive notice of the BIA’s September 28, 2007, order. 

See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA is obligated to

consider and address the evidence submitted by petitioner). We remand for the

BIA to address petitioners’ evidence of non-receipt in the first instance and

determine whether it is sufficient to overcome the presumption of mailing. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          20,779
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                       514
<INVENTORY>                                     26,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,220
<PP&E>                                          73,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,543
<BONDS>                                        154,132
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (74,035)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,658
<SALES>                                        196,974
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,974
<CGS>                                          116,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  146,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   152
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,534
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,284)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

WILLIAM KERRY STEPHENS

, Appellant,

v.

EXECU F LIGHT, INC.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 1499

[ April 27, 2023 ]

Appeal and cross

- appeal from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ellen Feld , Judge; L.T. Case No.

C OWE18

- 007130

.

Charles M. Eiss of Law Offices of Charles Eiss, P.L.

, Plantation , for

appellant.

Andrew S. Douglas of Andrew Douglas, P.A., Weston, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.