alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8


        Letter agreement terminating Fontenelle, LLC Consulting Agreement

                         VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
                        3100 West Lake Street, Suite 400
                          Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416

July 20, 1999

Fontenelle, LLC
Attn:  Mr. Steven Antebi
345 North Maple Drive, Suite 358
Beverly Hills, CA  90210

Re:  Termination of VTC/Fontenelle, LLC Consulting Agreement

Dear Mr. Antebi:

This confirms our recent discussions and serves as the mutual written agreement
of Virtual Technology Corporation ("VTC") and Fontenelle, LLC ("Fontenelle") to
terminate the Consulting Agreement ("Agreement") entered into between VTC and
Fontenelle on February 23, 1999.

VTC and Fontenelle mutually agree to terminate the Agreement effective July 20,
1999. In consideration for services rendered through July 20, 1999, Fontenelle
accepts 333,300 shares of VTC's common stock in full satisfaction of its rights
pursuant to the Agreement. Fontenelle releases VTC from any further obligations
under the Agreement and forever waives and releases any further claims of any
nature whatsoever under the Agreement.

Please contact Christy Prediger at our office to arrange the cancellation and
exchange of the previously issued stock certificate as required under the
Agreement. Please also sign below at the appropriate signature block and return
the executed correspondence to my attention to confirm Fontenelle's receipt and
understanding of this Agreement.

Yours truly,

VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

/s/ Kenneth Israel
Kenneth Israel, Chairman

                                         ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

                                         By:  /s/ Steven Antebi
                                         Steven Antebi, Authorized Officer
                                         Fontenelle, LLC
Exhibit 21.1
  LIST OF
    SUBSIDIARIES
    of SMART Modular Technologies (WWH), Inc.
    as of August 27, 2010
  Jurisdiction ofIncorporation1. SMART Modular Technologies (Global), Inc.

Cayman Islands2. SMART Modular Technologies (DH), Inc.

Cayman Islands3. SMART Modular Technologies (DE), Inc.

Delaware4. SMART Modular Technologies, Inc.

California5. SMART Modular Technologies (Europe) Limited

United Kingdom6. SMART Modular Technologies Deutschland GmbH

Germany7. ConXtra Inc.

California8. SMART Modular Technologies (AZ), Inc. (fka Adtron
    Corporation)

Arizona9. SMART Modular Technologies (CI), Inc.

Cayman Islands10. SMART Modular Technologies (Foreign Holdings),
    Inc.

Cayman Islands11. SMART Modular Technologies (Puerto Rico) Inc.

Cayman Islands12. SMART Modular Technologies (NL) B.V. (fka Euroground I
    B.V.)

Netherlands13. SMART Modular Technologies Sdn. Bhd.

Malaysia14. SMART Modular Technologies Indústria de
    Componentes Eletrônicos Ltda.

Brazil15. SMART Modular Technologies do Brasil 
    Indústria eComércio de Componentes Ltda.

Brazil16. SMART Modular Technologies (SG) PTE. LTD.

Singapore
(No. 73—CC—256

#### Xerox Corporation, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 15, 1973.*

Xerox Corporation, Claimant, pro se.

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

Per Curiam.
VALENTINO B LEE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-3292

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 4, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark J. Borello, Judge.

Valentino B Lee, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Surendrarama NAMASIVAYAM, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74420.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Filed Feb. 17, 2006.

Eric P. Lin, Esq., Law Offices of Carol L. Edward, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

*186Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Marshall Tamor Golding, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Surendrarama Namasivayam, a native and citizen of Malaysia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, and may reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ denied relief on the ground that Namasivayam was not credible. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion because Namasivayam presented vague testimony that contained inconsistencies that went to the heart of his claim. *See id; Wang v. INS,*352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003) (so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim of persecution, the Court is bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding).

In the absence of credible testimony, Namasivayam failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Namasivayam’s CAT claim also fails because it was based on the same evidence that the IJ found to be not credible. *See id.*at 1157.

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the • courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22729-22730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9839]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,336]


Polaris Industries, Including On-Site Leased Workers From 
Westaff, Supply Technologies, Aerotek, Securitas Security Services, and 
Volt Workforce Solutions, Osceola, WI; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on August 26, 2010, applicable to workers of Polaris Industries, 
including on-site leased workers from Westaff, Osceola, Wisconsin. The 
workers are engaged in activities related to the production of 
components for recreational vehicles. The notice was published in the 
Federal

[[Page 22730]]

Register on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 56143). The notice was amended on 
December 6, 2010 and January 21, 2011 to include on-site leased workers 
from Supply Technologies, Aerotek and Securitas Security Services. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2010 (75 
FR 77666) and February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5833), respectively.
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The company reports that 
workers leased from Volt Workforce Solutions were employed on-site at 
the Osceola, Wisconsin location of Polaris Industries. The Department 
has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control 
of Polaris Industries to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Volt Workforce Solutions 
working on-site at the Osceola, Wisconsin location of Polaris 
Industries.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-74,336 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Polaris Industries, including on-site leased 
workers from Westaff, Supply Technologies, Aerotek, Securitas 
Security Services, and Volt Workforce Solutions, Osceola, Wisconsin, 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after June 28, 2009 through August 26, 2012, and all workers in the 
group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on 
the date of certification through two years from the date of 
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of April 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-9839 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 23.1









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors

Southern Trust Securities Holding Corp.:



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-148645), of Southern Trust Securities Holding Corp. of  our report dated March 30, 2009, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of Southern Trust Securities Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders equity (deficit) and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2008, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Southern Trust Securities Holding Corp. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.









| |                                   
| | ----------------------------------
| | /s/ Rothstein Kass & Company, P.C.
| | Rothstein Kass & Company, P.C.    
| | Roseland, New Jersey              
| | March 30, 2009
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Douglas A. Carty, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Laidlaw
International, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and 5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: April 12, 2004
    

/s/ Douglas A.
CartyDouglas A. CartySenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 40
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.261 What are special SSI cash benefits and when are they payable.

Special SSI cash benefits are benefits that we may pay you in lieu of regular SSI benefits because your gross earned income in a month of initial eligibility for regular SSI benefits exceeds the amount ordinarily considered to represent SGA under § 416.974(b)(2). You must meet the eligibility requirements in § 416.262 in order to receive special SSI cash benefits. Special SSI cash benefits are not payable for any month in which your countable income exceeds the limits established for the SSI program (see subpart K of this part). If you are eligible for special SSI cash benefits, we consider you to be a disabled individual receiving SSI benefits for purposes of eligibility for Medicaid. We compute the amount of special SSI cash benefits according to the rules in subpart D of this part. If your State makes supplementary payments which we administer under a Federal-State agreement, and if your State elects to supplement the special SSI cash benefits, the rules in subpart T of this part will apply to these payments.

[47 FR 15324, Apr. 9, 1982, as amended at 50 FR 46763, Nov. 13, 1985; 59 FR 41403, Aug. 12, 1994]
Exhibit 10.1


 





LOAN
AGREEMENT 


 


	THIS LOAN AGREEMENT
    (this "Agreement") dated this 1st day of December, 2014 
	 


	BETWEEN: 
	 
	 


	 	Hillary
    Merchant Inc, a New York Corporation,
	 	(the
                                         "Lender")






  


	OF THE FIRST PART
    
	 


	AND 
	 
	 


	 	American
    Education Center Inc, a New York Corporation
	 	(the
    "Borrower")





 


	OF THE SECOND PART
    
	 


	IN CONSIDERATION OF
    the Lender loaning certain monies (the "Loan") to the Borrower, and the Borrower repaying the Loan to the Lender,
    both parties agree to keep, perform and fulfill the promises and conditions set out in this Agreement: 


 


	Loan
    Amount & Interest 


	1. The Lender promises
    to loan $295,578.76 USD to the Borrower and the Borrower promises to repay this principal amount to the Lender, with
    interest payable on the unpaid principal at the rate of 10% percent per annum, calculated yearly not in advance. 


 


	Payment
    


	2. This Loan principal
    will be paid in full on December 13th, 2019. Interests will be paid on the last day of each quarter of each year from 2015
    to 2018, and on March 31, 2019, June 30, 2019, September 30, 2019 and December 12, 2019. 


 


	Use
    of Loan 


	3. The purpose of this
    loan is for pay off the security deposit and first month rent for the new location at 2 Wall Street 8th Floor,
    New York NY 10005. 


 


	Default
    


	4. Notwithstanding anything
    to the contrary in this Agreement, if the Borrower defaults in the performance of any obligation under this Agreement, then
    the Lender may declare the principal amount owing and interest due under this Agreement at that time to be immediately due
    and payable. 


 


	Governing
    Law 


	5. This Agreement will
    be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of New York. 


 


	Costs
    


	6. All costs, expenses
    and expenditures including, without limitation, the complete legal costs incurred by enforcing this Agreement as a result
    of any default by the Borrower, will be added to the principal then outstanding and will immediately be paid by the Borrower.
    


 


	Binding
    Effect 


	7. This Agreement will
    pass to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns
    of the Borrower and Lender. The Borrower waives presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest, and notice of protest.
    



 

	Amendments
    


	8. This Agreement may
    only be amended or modified by a written instrument executed by both the Borrower and the Lender.
###### Editorial Note on Part 602

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 602 appear at 71 FR 35513, June 21, 2006.

#### § 602.41 Proper expenditure of Quality Control granted funds.

The Secretary may, after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State agency, take exception to and require repayment of an expenditure for the operation of a QC program if it is found by the Secretary that such expenditure is not necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the QC program in the State. See sections 303(a)(8), 303(a)(9) and 303(b)(2), SSA, and 20 CFR 601.5. For purposes of this section, an expenditure will be found not necessary for proper and efficient administration if such expenditure fails to comply with the requirements of subpart C of this part.

[52 FR 33528, Sept. 3, 1987, as amended at 52 FR 34343, Sept. 10, 1987]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00429-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Acting through City Public Service Board of San Antonio

a/k/a CPS Energy

Appellant

v.

Casey 

CASEY INDUSTRIAL, INC.,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI-06252

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order on Motion to 

Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is REVERSED and a dismissal of Casey Industrial, Inc.’s claims 

against appellant for schedule compression, additional steel costs, steel painting, and 

miscellaneous costs for reworking Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc.’s work is 

RENDERED. The cause is REMANDED for further proceedings.

It is ORDERED that appellant recover its costs of appeal from appellee.

SIGNED July 1, 2015.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
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

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention set forth in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 61/465,598, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Stereo Imaging,” filed on March 11, 2011. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights to this invention.

# ADDRESSES:

Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The invention relates to a method and apparatus for the generation of macro scale extremely high resolution digital images and the generation of macro scale extremely high resolution images in 3D.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2011-9679 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
#### § 641.803 What is program income?

Program income, as described in 29 CFR 97.25 (State and local governments) and 29 CFR 95.2(bb) (non-profit and commercial organizations), is income earned by the recipient or sub-recipient during the grant period that is directly generated by an allowable activity supported by grant funds or earned as a result of the award of grant funds. Program income includes income earned from license fees and royalties for copyrighted material, patents, patent applications, trademarks, and inventions produced under an award. (*See* 29 CFR 95.24(e) (non-profit and commercial organizations) and 29 CFR 97.25(e) (State and local governments)). Costs of generating SCSEP program income may be deducted from gross income received by SCSEP recipients and sub-recipients to determine SCSEP program income earned or generated provided these costs have not been charged to the SCSEP.
#### Solomon Z. Melup, Appellant, v. Rubber Corporation of America, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.