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

TO THE


AVON PRODUCTS, INC. COMPENSATION PLAN

FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


  The Avon Products, Inc. Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective January 25, 2006, as follows:

	
      1.	
      Section 2.1 of the Plan is revised in its entirety to read as follows:	
	 	 
	 	
  “2.1 Annual Retainer. Effective as of January 1, 2006, each non- employee director shall be entitled to receive an annual retainer consisting of (a) $50,000 in cash
and (b) Restricted Stock having a value as of the date of grant of approximately $100,000. The cash portion shall be payable in quarterly installments of $12,500 each.”	
	 	 
	
      2.	
      Section 2.2 of the Plan is revised in its entirety to read as follows:	
	 	 
	 	
  “2.2 Annual Restricted Stock Award. Effective as of January 1, 2006, as part of the Annual Retainer compensation, each non-employee director will receive an award of
shares of Restricted Stock immediately following each Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The number of shares so granted each year will be determined by dividing the sum of $100,000 by the closing price of a share of the Company’s Common Stock on
the New York Stock Exchange averaged over 10 consecutive trading days, ending with the trading day immediately preceding the Annual Meeting. All grants of Restricted Stock shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Article IV
below.”	
	 	 
	3.	  Section 3.1 of the Plan is revised to add the following new sentence at the end of the section to read as follows: 
	 	 



	 	
  “Effective as of January 1, 2006, there will be no additional annual grants of stock options.”	
	 	 
	
      4.	
      Section 4.1 of the Plan is revised in its entirety to read as follows:	
	 	 
	 	
  “4.1 Annual Retainer Grants of Restricted Stock. At the close of business on the date of each Annual Meeting of Shareholders, each non- employee director who then
continues as a director (whether or not re- elected at any such meeting) shall be granted shares of Restricted Stock. The number of shares of Restricted Stock to be granted will have a Fair Market Value of $100,000 on the date of grant. The Fair
Market Value per share shall be deemed to be the closing price of a share of Company Common Stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange averaged over the ten trading days next preceding the grant date. A fractional share	
	 	 















       resulting from such calculation will be rounded to the nearest whole share.” 


  Except as hereby amended, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Fourth Amendment of the plan to be executed as of this 25th day of January, 2006.

	 	
      AVON PRODUCTS, INC.	
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Andrea Jung
	 	 	

	 	 	
      Andrea Jung
	 	 	
      Chief Executive Officer
	





	
      ATTEST:
	
	 
	
      /s/ Kim K. Azzarelli
	


	
	
      Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          40,219
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  310,694
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (55,329)
<INVENTORY>                                    117,297
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               476,929
<PP&E>                                         955,368
<DEPRECIATION>                               (237,922)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,347,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,477,668
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         52
<COMMON>                                       337,458
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,467,401)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,347,777
<SALES>                                      1,282,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,282,182
<CGS>                                        1,325,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,512,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,480,661)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,480,661)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,480,661)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)


</TABLE>
#### Lyndon J. Evans et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 268]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Plaintiffs established that Lyndon J. Evans (plaintiff) was standing on the second highest step of a 10-foot unsecured stepladder while installing a water pipe at defendant’s plant. As plaintiff began to descend the ladder, the ladder skidded, and plaintiff lost his balance and fell. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s submission in opposition to the motion is in proper evidentiary form, we conclude that defendant failed to controvert those facts essential to establishing its liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see, Szymanski v Nabisco, Inc.,*256 AD2d 1154, 1155).

The court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion to preclude defendant from using at trial surveillance tapes of plaintiff that were produced prior to the date of the court’s order on plaintiffs’ motion and a recorded statement of plaintiff made by defendant. Defendant failed to produce the surveillance tapes and the recorded statement in response to plaintiffs’ discovery demands at times when defendant knew or *875should have known that they existed *(see, Barrowman v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*252 AD2d 946, 947, *lv denied*92 NY2d 817). Thus, we modify the order by granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Centra, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
224 A.2d 376.

#### Frederick W. Harrison *vs.*United Electric Railways Company.

DECEMBER 6, 1966.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kelleher, JJ.

*William R. Goldberg, Ronald, R. Gagnon,*for plaintiff.

*McGee, Gifford and Giannini, Frank J. McGee,*for defendant.

Per Curiam.

This action of trespass on the case for negligence is here on the plaintiff’s exception to a ruling of a justice of the superior court granting the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

After reviewing the record we are satisfied that the evidence as well as the reasonable and legitimate inferences which can -fairly be drawn therefrom even when viewed most favorably to the plaintiff would not support a verdict in his favor. *Therrien*v. *First National Stores, Inc.,*63 R. I. 44; *Rogers*v. *Sundlun,*54 R. I. 329; *Sarcione*v. *Outlet Co.,*53 R. I. 76. In those circumstances, it was the duty of the trial justice to rule as he did.

The plaintiff’s exception to the granting of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict is overruled, and the case is remitted to- the superior court for the entry of judgment on the verdict as directed.
Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Richard C. Ford, Chief Executive Officer of Puradyn Filter Technologies
Incorporated ("the Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.        The quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
          ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
          (15 U.S.C.78m); and

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

                                              August 11, 2004



                                              /s/ Richard C. Ford
                                              ------------------------
                                              Name: Richard C. Ford
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer




                                                                      Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Lisa M. De La Pointe, Chief Financial Officer of Puradyn Filter Technologies
Incorporated ("the Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.       The quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
         ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m);
         and

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

                                               August 11, 2004



                                               /s/ Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                               ----------------------
                                               Name: Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1506.12 What happens if my debt becomes past due?

USADF will transfer to the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) any past due, legally enforceable non-tax debt that has been delinquent for 120 days or more for administrative offset, and delinquent for 180 days or more for other collections. BFS may take appropriate action to collect the debt in accordance with applicable law and regulation. USADF may transfer any past due, legally enforceable debt that has been delinquent for fewer than 120 days to BFS for collection in accordance with applicable law and regulation.
(May 31, 1977)

#### Ambassador Factors Corporation, Appellant, v Burton Rosenbaum et al., Respondents.

In an action in which a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff upon defendants-respondents’ confession of judgment, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 2, 1977, as granted the branch of defendants’ motion which sought a protective order staying execution of the judgment as against their home during the pendency of a separate plenary action commenced by them. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion when it granted the branch of defendants’ motion which sought to stay execution of the judgment as against their house. Martuscello, J. P., Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 18-0666

_________________

THOMAS KOOP, III,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Respondent and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Kaydee Snipes-Ruiz, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 19 2020

08/19/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0666
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED (Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

JackB. Buchold certifies as follows:

3.               I am the Chief Financial Officer of The BankHoldings.

4.               The Form 10-Q/A of The Bank Holdings for theQuarter Ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of The BankHoldings. 
| Date:  | January 4, 2007         |   | /s/ Jack B. Buchold |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   | THE BANK HOLDINGS       |
|   | Jack B. Buchold         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1


TO


AMENDED
CHANGE IN CONTROL AND TERM EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This is
Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”),
dated as of January 23, 2006, to that certain Amended Change in Control
and Term Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated as of August 31, 2005 by and between AmeriVest Properties Inc., a
Maryland corporation (the “Company”)
and John B. Greenman (“Executive”,
and collectively with the Company, the “Parties”).
Terms defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning when used herein.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties desire to extend Executive’s Employment Period; and


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Agreement, the Parties have agreed
to amend the Agreement as specified below.


 


NOW THEREFORE,
for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.               The reference to “January 17,
2006” in Section 4(a) of the Agreement is hereby replaced with “January 25,
2006.”


 


2.               The reference to “January 18,
2006 and payable on the 1st day of each following month ending on February 1,
2007” in Section 4(e)(i)(A) of the Agreement is hereby replaced with
“January 26, 2006 and payable on the regular payroll payment dates for
other corporate employees.”


 


3.               The reference to
“an office and executive suite services at the Kellogg Executive Suites in
Littleton, Colorado” in Section (4)(e)(i)(B)(b) is replaced with “an
office at Sheridan Center in Denver, Colorado.”


 


3.               Except as provided
in this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.


 


[Remainder of page intentionally
left blank]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed
this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  AMERIVEST PROPERTIES INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Kathryn L. Hale

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Kathryn L. Hale

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chief Financial Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ John B. Greenman

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  John B. Greenman
NO. 07-04-0076-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MAY 12, 2004

	______________________________

	FRANK DWIGHT CARTER, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 89-409,752; HONORABLE THOMAS L. CLINTON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Frank Dwight Carter appeals from a conviction for aggravated robbery.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. 				

BACKGROUND

	Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery in Cause No. 89-409,752 in the 99th District Court of Lubbock County.  Sentence was imposed on June 12, 1990.  On February 19, 2004, a notice of appeal was filed with the trial court clerk.  On March 1, 2004, a docketing statement was filed with the appellate clerk.  On March 30, 2004, an amended docketing statement was filed.  Various pro se briefs and documents have been filed; some in response to this court’s direction that appellant submit matters he wished considered by this court on the issue of whether jurisdiction exists over the appeal.

	The substance of appellant’s filings and documents and assertions challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction to have tried, sentenced, and entered judgment of conviction against appellant in 1990.  

LAW

	In a criminal case, appeal is perfected by timely filing a notice of appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b).  The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order, unless a timely motion for new trial is filed. TRAP  26.2(a).  A motion for new trial may be filed by a criminal defendant no later than 30 days after the date sentence is imposed in open court.  TRAP 21.4(a). 

	An untimely-filed notice of appeal will not invoke the jurisdiction of the court of appeals.  See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).  Thus, if an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal, and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523-25 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).

	ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

	Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.  Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal.  Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523. 

 	The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Tex. R. App. P. 39.8, 40.2, 43.2. 

							Phil Johnson

							Chief Justice

Do not publish.
#### Sam Giglio, Appellant, v. Charles Lo Vullo, Respondent.

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment for defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4134 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4134

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that any person 
   who, for a commercial purpose, makes available for consumer use a 
  machine capable of producing tobacco products, is a manufacturer of 
                           tobacco products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2012

  Mrs. Black introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that any person 
   who, for a commercial purpose, makes available for consumer use a 
  machine capable of producing tobacco products, is a manufacturer of 
                           tobacco products.

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

SECTION 1. FACILITATING THE PRODUCTION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS FOR 
              COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 5702 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
flush sentence:
``Such term shall include any person who for commercial purposes makes 
available for consumer use a machine capable of producing tobacco 
products. In the case of any such use, such person shall be treated as 
having removed any such tobacco products so produced.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to articles removed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Cindy Lea Gimler, Chief Financial Officer of Puradyn
Filter Technologies Incorporated ("the Company") has executed this certification
in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report").

         The undersigned certifies 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 operation of the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as
of the 15th day of May 2006.




                                                  /s/ Cindy Lea Gimler
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name: Cindy Lea Gimler
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
Prepared and filed by St Ives Financial



Exhibit 10.15

	

    
	STOCK OPTION GRANT LETTER
	

    





  	TO:  	NAME	NAME


Congratulations.  I am pleased to confirm that you have been awarded [OPTION AMOUNT] Stock Options to purchase shares of Common Stock of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

The schedule for the grant is as follows:
  	Date of Grant:	 	[GRANT DATE]
	 	 	 
	Option Shares:	 	[OPTION AMOUNT]
	 	 	 
	Exercise Price Per Share:	 	[STRIKE PRICE]
	 	 	 
	Vest Schedule:	 	[OPTION AMOUNT] shares vesting on [GRANT DATE]

[OPTION AMOUNT] shares vesting on [GRANT DATE]

[OPTION AMOUNT] shares vesting on [GRANT DATE]
	 	 	 
	Expiration Date:	 	[EXPIRATION DATE]


The company appreciates your contributions to the success of our company. 

Sincerely,

______________________________

Paul Eibeler

President and Chief Executive Officer










	

    
	This Stock Option Grant is subject
            to the terms and conditions of the Stock Option Agreement and the
            Company’s 2002 Stock Option Plan, copies of which will be available
            through the Corporate Human Resources Department.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

§ 200.505 Original classification. ( a ) No Commission Member or employee has the authority to classify any information on an original basis.
( b ) If a Commission employee originates information that appears to require classification, the employee shall immediately notify the Secretary and protect the information accordingly.
( c ) If the Chief Operating Officer believes the information warrants classification, it shall be sent to an agency with original classification authority over the subject matter, or to the information Security Oversight Office, for determination.
[44 FR 65737, Nov. 15, 1979, as amended at 51 FR 5315, Feb. 13, 1986]
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Michael J. Watson, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[820 NYS2d 834]

Appeal from an order of the Chautauqua County Court (John T. Ward, Jr., J.), dated August 9, 2005. The order denied the People’s motion for reconsideration of the order dated July 18, 2005.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed *(see People v Auslander,*169 AD2d 853 [1991]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche and Green, JJ.