alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 10(x)**

 

THIRD AMENDMENT 

TO THE 

HANDLEMAN COMPANY 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 

(United States) 

 

WHEREAS, Handleman Company (the “Company”) has established and maintains the Handleman Company SupplementalExecutive Retirement Plan (the “SERP”) for the benefit of selected key executives; and 

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5.1 of the SERP, the Company has reserved the right to amend the SERP at any time; and 

 

WHEREAS, the Company is desirous of amending the SERP to providepre-retirement spousal death benefits thereunder. 

 

NOW,THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES, Section 3.3 of the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of December 1, 2000, to read as follows: 

 

“3.3 Payment. Subject to Section 3.4 hereof, an Executive’s SERP Retirement Benefit shall be paid to him/her, or to his/her SurvivingSpouse, at the same time, in the same manner, under the same terms and conditions, and applying the same actuarial factors and reductions, as his/her Accrued Benefit under the Pension Plan.” 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company hereby adopts this Third Amendment to theSERP, effective as of December 1, 2000, this 7th day of February, 2001.
#### § 263.9 Right-of-way in crosswalks.

No person shall fail or refuse to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian or bicyclist crossing a street in the marked crosswalk.
EXHIBIT 11

Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Quarter Ended   Three Quarters Ended
                                      11/2/96 10/28/95   11/2/96  10/28/95
<S>                                    <C>     <C>        <C>      <C>
Weighted average of shares outstanding
during period......................... 10,865  11,177     10,863   11,125
                                                                        
Weighted average common equivalent                                      
shares attributable to stock options                                    
granted, computed using the treasury                                    
stock method on a fully diluted            
basis.................................    476       0        345        0
                                                                        
Weighted average common and common                                      
equivalent shares..................... 11,341  11,177     11,208   11,125
                                                                        
Net income (loss) applicable to                                         
common stock..........................    530  (2,643)     2,717  (12,417) 
                                                                        
Net income (loss) per common                                            
and common equivalent share...........  $0.05  $(0.24)     $0.24   $(1.12)
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
### Part B—Sugar
### **CHAPTER 26A—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENTS**

Sec.
671.
Arbitration of disputes concerning milk.
672.
Agreements; licenses, regulations, programs, etc., unaffected.
673.
Taxes under Agricultural Adjustment Act; laws unaffected.
674.
Short title.
#### § 228.14 Prohibition on gambling.

Participating in games for money or other personal property, or the operating of gambling devices, the conduct of a lottery, or the selling or purchasing of numbers tickets, in or on protected property is prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply to the vending or exchange of chances by licensed blind operators of vending facilities for any lottery set forth in a State law and conducted by an agency of a State as authorized by section 2(a)(5) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 107(a)(5)).
### §2054. Discontinued service benefits

#### (a) Deferred annuity

A participant who separates from the Agency may, upon separation or at any time before the commencement of an annuity under this subchapter, elect—

(1) to have the participant's contributions to the fund returned to the participant in accordance with section 2071(a) of this title; or

(2) except in a case in which the Director determines that separation was based in whole or in part on the ground of disloyalty to the United States, to leave the contributions in the fund and receive an annuity, computed as prescribed in section 2031 of this title, commencing at age 62.

#### (b) Refund of contributions if former participant dies before age 62

If a participant who qualifies under subsection (a) to receive a deferred annuity commencing at age 62 dies before reaching age 62, the participant's contributions to the fund, with interest, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of section 2071 of this title.

(Pub. L. 88–643, title II, §234, as added Pub. L. 102–496, title VIII, §802, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3225; amended Pub. L. 103–178, title II, §202(a)(10), Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2026.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 234 of Pub. L. 88–643, title II, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1048; Pub. L. 97–269, title VI, §608, Sept. 27, 1982, 96 Stat. 1152; Pub. L. 99–335, title V, §501(2), June 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 622, related to discontinued service benefits and was set out as a note under section 403 of this title prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 88–643 by section 802 of Pub. L. 102–496.

#### Amendments

1993—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–178 substituted "section 2071" for "sections 2071 and 2121".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1993 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–178 effective Feb. 1, 1993, see section 202(b) of Pub. L. 103–178, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective on first day of fourth month beginning after Oct. 24, 1992, see section 805 of Pub. L. 102–496, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.
April *27,*1977.

M. P. No. 77-102.

#### Phyllis June Vlasaty *v.*State Board of Elections *et al.*

*Richard P. D’Addario,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Stephen*

*F. Achille,*for respondents.

This is certiorari to review a decision of the State Board of Elections.

Involved is the question of the validity of nomination papers filed for and in behalf of Jeanne R. O’Rourke candidate for State Representative in the Democratic Primary in the 98th Representative District held on March 29, 1977. Also involved is the contention by petitioner that she is entitled to be certified as the only candidate to have filed valid nomination papers for the office of State Representative to be voted upon at the Democratic Primary held on March 29, 1977.

The petition is denied and dismissed, the writ heretofore issued is quashed, the action of the Board of Elections dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to the nomination papers of her opponent is affirmed, and the records certified to this court are ordered returned to the Board of Elections with our order endorsed thereon.

Our opinion will follow at a later date.
Exhibit 14.3

CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-111310) of Elron Electronic
Industries Ltd pertaining to the Employees Stock Option Plans of Elron
Electronic Industries Ltd. of our report dated March 2, 2003, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Sela Semiconductor Engineering
Laboratories Ltd., included in Elron Electronic Industries Ltd.s Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|               |                                    | 
|-------------- | ---------------------------------- | 
|Haifa, Israel  | KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER       | 
|March 12, 2006 | A Member of Ernst &
  Young Global | 

13

---
### §§1008, 1009. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §341(a), Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 318

Section 1008, acts July 22, 1937, ch. 517, title II, §22, 50 Stat. 525; Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 964, §4, 60 Stat. 1071, related to debt adjustment.

Section 1009, acts July 22, 1937, ch. 517, title II, §23, 50 Stat. 525; Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 964, §4, 60 Stat. 1071, authorized appropriations for production and subsistence.

For subject matter of sections 1008 and 1009 of this title, see section 1921 et seq. of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective one hundred and twenty days after Aug. 8, 1961, or such earlier date as the provisions of section 1921 et seq. of this title are made effective by regulations of Secretary of Agriculture, see section 341(a) of Pub. L. 87–128, set out as a note under section 1921 of this title.

Sections repealed effective Oct. 15, 1961, by former section 300.1 of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, see Effective Date note set out under section 1921 of this title.
#### Frances Wasserman et al., Respondents, v. Glens Falls Insurance Company, Appellant.

In an action, pursuant to section 167 of the Insurance Law, by judgment creditors (husband and wife) of an assured under an automobile liability insurance policy, against the defendant as the insurer, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 30, 1962 after a jury trial, in favor of the female plaintiff for $10,213, with interest thereon of $714.91 from February 1, 1961, and costs of $212, making a total of $11,139.91; and in favor of the male plaintiff for $1,200 with interest thereon of $84 from February 1, 1961, making a total of $1,284. Judgment modified on the law by reducing the recovery in favor of the plaintiff Frances Wasserman to $8,928.57, plus $213 costs awarded in the prior action, with interest thereon of $639.90 from February 1, 1961 to March 30, 1962, plus costs of $212 awarded in this action, making a total of $9,993.47; and by reducing the recovery in favor of the plaintiff Samuel Wasserman to $1,071.43, with interest thereon of $75 from February 1, 1961 to March 30, 1962, making a total of $1,146.43. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. On February 1, 1961, in a negligence action against the defendant’s assured by reason of personal injury which the female plaintiff sustained in an automobile accident, the plaintiffs obtained a judgment against him which remained unpaid. The judgment was for $10,213 in favor of the female plaintiff for her personal injury and for $1,200 in favor of the male plaintiff for the loss of her services and for medical expenses. In this action against the insurer upon the policy, plaintiffs, as judgment creditors, have obtained a judgment against it for the respective amounts stated, plus the interest thereon from February 1, 1961 to March 30, 1962, plus costs. The policy limits of liability for bodily injuries are $10,000 for each person, and $20,000 for each accident. Bodily injuries are *553defined in the policy as including damages for care and loss of services. The policy provides that the limitation of liability is the “total limit of the company’s liability for all damages, including damages for care and loss of services, arising out of bodily injury, sickness or disease * * * sustained by two or more persons as -the result of any one accident.” The judgment appealed from exceeds the $10,000 limitation of the defendant’s liability as fixed in its policy *(Rankin*v. *Travelers Ins. Co.,*254 App. Div. 687). We, therefore, have modified the judgment by prorating the principal recovery of the respective plaintiffs on the basis of such policy limitation. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Reply To

Attn. Of:

U.\lll t:U~'lA l"E~ t:N'JiHUI~j!:l'4,A""rJHU, C\,;, lUI" i-'uc,lil\'; '(

REGION 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 981 01

SEP 1 9 ZOCl

WCM-127

v

'.~~.~.

Greg Sorlie, Program Manager

Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program

Washington State Department of Ecology

P.O. Box 47600

Olympia, WA 98504-7600

. Dear Mr_?Gr15fI wish to thank iol and your staff for all the preliminary

work done on the development of this major. hazardous waste

program revision and for working so dilig~ntly with us on

resolving many concerns prior to the submittal of the

authorization revision application.

In accordance with the established review procedures, EPA

must first determine whether the State's revision application is

complete and notify the State accordingly. If the application is

found to be complete, EPA then has 90 days to process and publish

our determination. As of today, Region 10 has determined the

authorization revision application received on August 2, 2001, to

be complete.

I want you to know that the processing of this major

authorization revision application is a high priority for this

office and my staff.

If you have any questions regarding the status of this

pending authorization dete~ination please call Nina Kocourek at

(206) 553-6502 or me at (206) 553-1846.

Sed1~ Richard A~right, Director

Office of Waste & Chemicals

Management

cc: Patricia Hervieux, Ecology HQ

Colleen G. Warren, Assistant Attorney General

o Printed on Recycled Paper
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Mark L. Freitas, certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Lancer Corporation;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a.     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

Date:  April 22, 2005

 

 
| /S/  MARK L. FREITAS                      |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark  L. Freitas, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 95-10611 & 95-10634 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARMANDO GABRIEL BARRAZA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC Nos. 89-CR-00026 & 90-CR-00039

- - - - - - - - - - June 24, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Armando Gabriel Barraza appeals his sentences from his convictions for unlawful use of a communication facility in committing, causing, and facilitating a controlled-substance felony and escape from federal custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 843. Barraza’s arguments that the district court erred in sentencing him by considering prejudicial information in theNo. 95-10611 No. 95-10634 - 2 - Presentence Report and by sentencing him to the maximum of the applicable sentencing range for both offenses are without merit.
See United States v. Buenrostro , 868 F.2d 135, 139 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 495 U.S. 923 (1990). Barraza argues that the district court lacked authority to order him deported under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). In relevant part, § 3583(d) provides that "if an alien defendant is subject to deportation, the court may provide, as a condition of supervised release, that he be deported and remain outside the United States, and may order that he be delivered to a duly authorized immigration officer for such deportation." § 3583(d). Although the district court could have provided that deportation be a condition of supervised release, the district court lacked authority under § 3583(d) to order Barraza deported without a deportation hearing. See United States v. Quaye , 57 F.3d 447, 449-51 (5th Cir. 1995). A 1994 amendment to 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d), which authorizes district courts to order aliens deported under certain circumstances, is inapplicable to either of Barraza’s convictions. Accordingly, we MODIFY the judgments as follows and AFFIRM as modified: As a condition of supervised release, upon completion of his term of imprisonment the defendant is to be surrendered to a duly-authorized immigration official for deportation in accordance with the established procedures provided by the Immigration andNo. 95-10611 No. 95-10634 - 3 - Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. As a further condition of supervised release, if ordered deported, defendant shall remain outside the United States.
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.
### §21023. Requirements for eligibility

#### (a) Application

Each State or unit of local government that desires to receive a payment under this subpart for a fiscal year shall submit an application for the payment to the Secretary at such time and in such manner and containing such information as the Secretary shall require.

#### (b) Contents of application

Each application submitted under subsection (a) shall—

(1) describe the activities for which assistance under this section is sought; and

(2) provide such additional information and certifications as the Secretary determines to be essential to ensure compliance with the requirements of this subpart.

#### (c) Protection against actions based on information in application

#### (1) In general

No action may be brought under this chapter against a State or unit of local government on the basis of any information contained in the application submitted under subsection (a).

#### (2) Exception for criminal acts

Paragraph (1) may not be construed to limit the liability of a State or unit of local government for criminal acts or omissions.

(Pub. L. 107–252, title II, §263, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1698.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c)(1), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 107–252, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1666, known as the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 15423 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Thomas L. Balkum. (B) The People of the State of New York v. George Albert Berry. (C) The People of the State of New York v. Joseph Copeland. (D) The People of the State of New York v. James E. McIntosh. (E) The People of the State of New York v. Richard John Simari.

[In each ease] Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original papers, typewritten briefs.
#### MURPHY, Respondent, v. MILLIKEN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 25, 1903.)

Action by Patrick Murphy against Edward F. Milliken and Foster Milliken.

PER CURIAM.

The statement in the opinion that there was no evidence that Finck signaled at all was too broad. But that statement is not necessary to support the conclusion, reached. It is enough that there was no definite or satisfactory evidence that Finck signaled prematurely. Motion for reargument denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Davidson
Income Real Estate, L.P. 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety 
by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000768598
<NAME> DAVIDSON INCOME REAL ESTATE, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             776
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          24,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,149)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         12,011
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,269
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,728
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,849
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (77)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.80<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>