alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.109

CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES



|        |  |                                                                         
|------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Between |  | Senetek PLC 831 Latour Court, Suite
A Napa, California 94558 (Company)
|        | 
|And     |  | Brian Clark (Chief
Scientist)                                         

Scope

Effective August 1, 2006, Brian Clark is appointed Chief Scientist of Senetek PLC reporting to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

Responsibility

The Chief Scientist will work under the direction of the Chairman and CEO of the Company. Such
direction will be principally provided via a rolling three month schedule of activities and objectives, mutually agreed by the Chief Scientist and the Chairman and CEO on a monthly basis.

Required Time Commitment

Chief Scientist will commit 31 weeks
per year to Senetek business and give Senetek business first order of priority with respect to other business activities in which he may be engaged.

Other Business Activities

Chief Scientist may be engaged in business activities other than Senetek but such business activities
shall not be of a nature that is directly competitive with Senetek and will be subject to Senetek priority as discussed in the paragraph above.

Fee

$9,000 per month, payable on the 15thday of the month.

Location and Travel

Chief Scientist will be based in Aarhus, Denmark. Expenses for travel undertaken on Senetek business will be reimbursed provided it is agreed in advance with the
Chairman and CEO.

Other Expenses and Support

Non-travel expenses undertaken for Senetek business will be reimbursed subject to advance approval by the Chairman and CEO or the CFO of Senetek PLC.



---

Contract for Personal Services

Page 2

Administrative support will be provided by Senetek PLC  Napa.

Term and Termination

This contact will remain in force until
terminated by either party to the contract. Such termination is solely at the will of either party, subject to a three month notice period.



|                |  |               
|--------------- |  | --------------
|                | 
|/s/ Senetek PLC |  | August 8, 2006
|Senetek PLC     |  | Date          
|                | 
|/s/ Brian Clark |  | August 8, 2006
|Brian Clark     |  | Date
S. Ct. order filed 3/17/03;

case is vacated and remanded
Petition for cert granted by

order filed 3/10/03; opinion

filed 6/24/02 is vacated
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6252

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MELVIN QUICK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Williams,

Senior District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-96-134,

CA-01-58-3-W-V)

Submitted: June 12, 2002 Decided: June 24, 2002

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Quick, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Quick seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Quick, Nos. CR-96-134; CA-01-

58-3-W-V (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 26, 2001 & entered Nov. 28, 2001).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 APRIL 20, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16400

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00005-CR-OC-10-GRJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVEN ANGELO MCDUFFIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(April 20, 2009)

Before BLACK, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Steven Angelo McDuffie, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion for a reduced sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). His motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing

Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine

offenses. On appeal, McDuffie argues the district court erred by denying his

motion based on its finding that he was sentenced as a career offender, and it

should have considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in evaluating

his motion.

“In a proceeding to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), we

review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its

authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. White, 305 F.3d

1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment

in the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Sentencing Commission has noted,

however, that a defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction where an

“amendment does not have the effect of lowering [his] applicable guideline range

because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision.” U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A).

2
McDuffie’s arguments on appeal are foreclosed by precedent. See United

States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that a defendant

sentenced as a career offender, whose Guidelines range is not affected by

Amendment 706, is not eligible for sentence reductions), cert. denied, McFadden

v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 965 (2009), and cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, No. 08-

8554, 2009 WL 301854 (U.S. Mar. 9, 2009); United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d

1217, 1220-21 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that Booker does not provide an

independent jurisdictional basis for an ineligible defendant to receive a reduction).

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000048569
<NAME> WYANT CORPORATION (FORMERLY HOSPOSABLE PRODUCTS, INC.)
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,570,625
<SECURITIES>                                   446,812
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,982,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                   255,907
<INVENTORY>                                  4,448,236
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,218,868
<PP&E>                                      19,378,851
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,834,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,111,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,959,844
<BONDS>                                      5,176,733
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,037
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,120,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,111,587
<SALES>                                     42,293,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,293,633
<CGS>                                       34,970,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,678,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             306,853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,663,086)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (607,896)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,055,190)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,055,190)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.62)
        

</TABLE>
(No. 74-CC-540

#### Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 11, 1974.*

Park Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
### **CHAPTER 224—PROTECTION OF WITNESSES**

Sec.
3521.
Witness relocation and protection.
3522.
Probationers and parolees.
3523.
Civil judgments.
3524.
Child custody arrangements.
3525.
Victims Compensation Fund.
3526.
Cooperation of other Federal agencies and State governments; reimbursement of expenses.
3527.
Additional authority of Attorney General.
3528.
Definition.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1990**—Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, §3581, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4929, substituted "State governments; reimbursement of expenses" for "State governments" in item 3526.
Exhibit 32.1

                          SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the quarterly report of Greenhold Group,
Inc.. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
(the "Report"), I, John Harris, Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The period 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 such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and the results of
operations of the Company.

GREENHOLD GROUP, INC.


  /s/ John Harris               Principal Executive Officer, Principal
--------------------            Financial Officer,
      John Harris               Principal Accounting Officer and Director



Date: August 12, 2004

<PAGE>
§ 463.37 How does a program providing integrated education and training under title II meet the requirement that the three required components be “integrated”? In order to meet the requirement that the adult education and literacy activities, workforce preparation activities, and workforce training be integrated, services must be provided concurrently and contextually such that— ( a ) Within the overall scope of a particular integrated education and training program, the adult education and literacy activities, workforce preparation activities, and workforce training: ( 1 ) Are each of sufficient intensity and quality, and based on the most rigorous research available, particularly with respect to improving reading, writing, mathematics, and English proficiency of eligible individuals;
( 2 ) Occur simultaneously; and
( 3 ) Use occupationally relevant instructional materials.
( b ) The integrated education and training program has a single set of learning objectives that identifies specific adult education content, workforce preparation activities, and workforce training competencies, and the program activities are organized to function cooperatively.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 3272)
§ 395.17 Suspension of designation as State licensing agency. ( a ) If the Secretary has reason to believe that, in the administration of the program, there is a failure on the part of any State licensing agency to comply substantially with the Act and this part, he shall so inform such agency in writing, setting forth, in detail, the areas in which there is such failure and giving it a reasonable opportunity to comply.
( b ) If, after the lapse of a reasonable time, the Secretary is of the opinion that such failure to comply still continues and that the State licensing agency is not taking the necessary steps to comply, he shall offer to such agency, by reasonable notice in writing thereto and to the chief executive of the State, an opportunity for a hearing before the Secretary (or person designated by the Secretary) to determine whether there is a failure on the part of such agency to comply substantially with the provisions of the Act and of this part.
( c ) If it is thereupon determined that there is a failure on the part of such agency to comply substantially with the Act and this part, appropriate written notice shall be given to such agency and to the chief executive of the State suspending such agency's designation as licensing agency effective 90 days from the date of such notice. A copy of such written notice shall be given to each department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States responsible for the maintenance, operation, and protection of Federal property on which vending machines subject to the requirements of § 395.32 are located in the State. Upon the suspension of such designation, vending machine income from vending machines on Federal property due for accrual to the State licensing agency under § 395.32 shall be retained in escrow by such department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States responsible for the maintenance, operation and protection of the Federal property on which such vending machines are located, pending redesignation of the State licensing agency or rescission of the suspension under paragraph (e) of this section.
( d ) If, before the expiration of such 90 days, the Secretary (or person designated by him) determines that the State licensing agency is taking the necessary steps to comply, he may postpone the effective date of such suspension for such time as he deems necessary in the best interest of the program.
( e ) If, prior to the effective date of such suspension, the Secretary (or person designated by him) finds that there is no longer a failure on the part of the State licensing agency to comply substantially with the provisions of the Act and this part, he shall so notify the agency, the chief executive of the State, and each Federal department, agency, or instrumentality required to place funds in escrow under paragraph (c) of this section, in which event the suspension of the designation shall not become effective and the requirement to place funds in escrow shall be terminated.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6859]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are 
available through the Commission's Web site (http://www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88fcfae9ecede9e6e9e4f1fbe1fbc8eee5eba6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="027670636667636c636e7b716b7142646f612c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Agreement No.: 011790-001.
    Title: Dole Ocean Cargo Express/King Ocean Services Limited Space 
Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Dole Ocean Cargo Express, Inc., and King Ocean Services 
Limited.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1627 I Street, 
NW. Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006.
    Synopsis: The amendment would provide for chartering of space on an 
``as needed as available'' basis, update the address of King Ocean, and 
restate the Agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012088-001.
    Title: Hanjin and WHS Transpacific Vessel Sharing and Slot 
Allocation Agreement.
    Parties: Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. and Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) 
PTE. Ltd.
    Filing Party: Robert B. Yoshitomi, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; Gas 
Company Tower; 555 West Fifth Street, 46th Floor; Los Angeles, CA 
90013.
    Synopsis: The amendment would add COSCON as a party to the 
Agreement and revise the name of the Agreement to Hanjin/WHS/COSCON 
Transpacific Vessel Sharing and Slot Allocation Agreement.

    Dated: March 18, 2011.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6859 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2013

s1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2013

147097 & (58)(59)

PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147097

COA: 306796

Kalamazoo CC: 2008

- 000570

- FC

ANTHONY JUAN ALLEN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issues is GRANTED. The application for

leave to appeal the March 26, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and

it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is DENIED.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 16 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN W. CONNELLY and PHYLLIS M.

CONNELLY,

 Petitioners - Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

WILLIAM A. JACOBS and ANN M.

JACOBS,

 Petitioners - Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 00-9011

(U.S. Tx.Ct.)

(T.C.No. 627-98)

No. 00-9012

(U.S. Tx.Ct.)

(T.C. No. 626-98)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 
**The Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Judge, United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

2

Before MURPHY, HALL**, and PORFILIO, Circuit Judges.

 

After reviewing the briefs of the parties and the record below, and having had the

benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the tax court did not err. We therefore affirm

the judgment of the tax court on the basis of that court’s opinion.

Entered for the Court

Cynthia Holcomb Hall

Circuit Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court 

Eastern District of Virginia 

________________ Division 

In re: 

Case Number ________________ 

Debtor(s) Chapter ____

ORDER

 A hearing was held on ______________________, pursuant to the Order Setting Hearing 

entered by the Clerk.

 The debtor(s) appeared at the hearing. 

 The debtor(s) did not appear at the hearing. 

 Counsel for the debtor(s) appeared at the hearing. 

 For the reasons stated on the record from the bench, the Court ORDERS: 

 The debtor(s) shall cure the following deficiency(ies) on or before ____________________

see attached Exhibit A: 

Failure to timely cure each deficiency listed above will result in the above-captioned 

bankruptcy case being dismissed without further notice or hearing. 

 The case is dismissed because the debtor(s) failed to appear at the hearing; and it is further 

 The case is dismissed; and it is further 

ORDERED that the debtor(s) pay the balance of the filing fee in the amount of 

$______________ to the Clerk of Court within 14 days of the date of this order; and it is further 

ORDERED that dismissal of this case revests the property of the estate in the entity in 

which such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case. The trustee 

need not file a final report unless property or money was administered. 

Date: ____________________ _________________________________ 

United States Bankruptcy Judge 

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 

ENTERED ON DOCKET: ___________________ 

[opursosethrg ver. 07/18] 

Alexandria

3518 1st Ave., LLC

19-11277-KHK

7

May 28, 2019

✔

✔

-0.00-

May 30 2019 /s/ Klinette Kindred

 May 30, 2019

Case 19-11277-KHK Doc 15 Filed 05/30/19 Entered 05/30/19 12:12:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                            AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE (1)

                                       TO

                    Employment Contract Dated October 1, 1995
                                     Between
                      Global TeleMedia International, Inc.
                                       and
                                Herbert S. Perman


This Amendment Number One (1) dated February 1, 1996 to that certain Employment
Agreement dated October 1, 1995 by and between Global TeleMedia International,
Inc. and Herbert S. Perman shall be amended as follows

     Article 2. shall be amended to include new Article 2.5 as follows:

     2.   COMPENSATION.

               2.5  Employer hereby grants to employee the right to purchase
          50,000 warrants and options in Global TeleMedia International, Inc.
          for the sum of $1.00 per warrant.  These warrants must be exercised,
          in whole or in part, no later than January 31, 1997.  In order to
          receive said warrant options, Employee must remain in the employ of
          Global TeleMedia International, Inc. through January 31, 1997.

All other terms and conditions of the original agreement dated October 1, 1995
shall remain in full force and effect.


GLOBAL TELEMEDIA INTERNATIONAL,              HERBERT S. PERMAN
INC.



By:  /s/ Roderick A. McClain                 By:  /s/ Herbert S. Perman
    --------------------------------              -----------------------------
Its: President and Chief Executive Officer
December 30, 2015

Dear Mr. Bollinger:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-4022). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 1/13/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/S/ Program Analyst
### §5409. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title X, §1068, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2135, related to designation of America's National Maritime Museum. See section 308705 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.