alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w4xey



 





Exhibit 10.4 (e)


Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement




     THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of the 27th day of February, 2003. By and
between Rural Cellular Corp. (“RCC” or “Company”) and Richard P. Ekstrand (the
“employee”).



     WHEREAS, the company and the Employee have heretofore entered into an
Employment Agreement dated as of January 22, 1999 (the “Employment Agreement”),
which agreement, as amended, is now in full force and effect; and



     WHEREAS; the Company’s Board of Directors has determined that it is
appropriate and in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders, to
provide for post-retirement benefits for the employee.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements
herein contained, the Company and the Employee agree as follows:



Post-retirement Medical
Insurance Benefit:



     If the Employee remains employed by the Company until December 31, 2004, the
Company will provide him and his dependents with post retirement medical
insurance benefits at the same cost and coverage levels (most complete coverage
available) as is then provided to active employees of the Company (with a carve
out for Medicare benefits if Employee is covered by them). Medical insurance
benefits will cease should the employee become employed and becomes eligible
for medical insurance benefits provided by the new employer.



     This commitment is subject to change or termination to the same extent the
active employee’s plan is changed or terminated. Coverage will also be provided
if termination occurs before December 31, 2004 due to death, disability,
termination by the Company without cause, or termination by the Employee for
good reason.



     Approved By Compensation Committee on February 27, 2003.






							
	ATTEST
	Rural Cellular Corporation
	 
	 
	By 	 	/s/ Mary Francis Grzych
	 	By 	 	/s/ Paul Finnegan
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Chair,
Compensation Committe



	 
	WITNESS
	Employee
	 
	 
	By 	 	/s/ Nancy A. Gilbertson
	 	By 	 	/s/ Richard P. Ekstrand
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
Richard P. Ekstrand
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JANET ADERHOLD,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5411/LAC/EMT

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1

 Defendant.

 /

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on July 27,

2021 (ECF No. 17). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

1

Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) on July 9, 2021. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Ms. Kijakazi is automatically substituted for Andrew Saul as the Defendant in this

case. 

Case No.: 3:20cv5411/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05411-LC-EMT Document 18 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

17) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this action is

DISMISSED. 

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5411/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05411-LC-EMT Document 18 Filed 08/26/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.3055 Side.

A certain phase of quality, color, or length as contrasted with some other phase of quality, color, or length; or any peculiar characteristic of tobacco.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, and at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### § 29.3517 Finish.

The reflectance factor in color perception. Finish indicates the sheen or shine of the surface of a tobacco leaf. (See Elements of Quality, § 29.3586.)
#### § 301.76-11 Costs and charges.

The services of the inspector during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays) will be furnished without cost. APHIS will not be responsible for any costs or charges incident to inspections or compliance with the provisions of the quarantine and regulations in this subpart, other than for the services of the inspector.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of China Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Li Feilie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Li Feilie

Li Feilie

Chief Executive Officer

June 30, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

 Clerk records show that the Court’s order was mailed to Defendant on August 27, 2008.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:97cr43/LAC

STACY D. PERRY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on limited remand from the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals. On August 26, 2008, Defendant was ordered to respond as to whether his notice

of appeal was timely filed or whether there existed excusable neglect or good cause to justify

an extension of time.1 Defendant has not filed a response, and now the September 10, 2008,

deadline has clearly passed, even after allowing for “mailbox rule” considerations.

Review of the file shows that the notice of appeal was clearly not received on a timely

basis, and because of Defendant’s failure to respond, the Court finds he has not shown

excusable neglect or good cause to justify an extension.

Case 3:97-cr-00043-LC-MD Document 171 Filed 09/22/08 Page 1 of 2
As directed by the Eleventh Circuit, the Clerk is directed to return the file to

the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings.

ORDERED on this 22nd day of September, 2008.

 s/L.A. Collier 

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:97-cr-00043-LC-MD Document 171 Filed 09/22/08 Page 2 of 2
#### John Yonke, Plaintiff, v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. et al., Defendants. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anthony M. Schovel, Doing Business as Schovel Tree and Landscaping Service, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Koreman at Trial Term. (52 Misc 2d 1039.) Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2021

No. 04-20-00267-CV

Joe Jesse PONCE III,

Appellant

v.

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-04768

Mary C. Brown, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After this court granted Appellant’s first four motions for extension of time to file the 

brief, we set Appellant’s brief due on April 30, 2021. Before that date, new lead counsel for 

Appellant filed an unopposed fifth motion for an extension of time to file the brief until May 14, 

2021. 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on May 14, 2021. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(d). Any further request for an extension of time to file the brief may be 

disfavored.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of April, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
From: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:11 PM

To: Susan Miller <SMiller@bia.org>

Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>; Sroka, Kristin <ksroka@rti.org>; Holloway, 

Thomas C. (Tom) <tcholloway@rti.org>

Subject: RE: Sawdust fired kilns vented to sawdust dryers

Let me discuss with the team. Thanks.

Sharon Nizich

US EPA

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division/SPPD

RTP NC 27711

(919) 541 2825

From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 11:36 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Subject: Sawdust fired kilns vented to sawdust dryers

I had a question from a sawdust-fired kiln operator about how the MACT would apply- and I would 

like to run it by you to see how you interpret it- and ask that it is clarified in the final rule.

If a sawdust-fired kiln operator tests both stacks, do they then combine the two stack results and 

demonstrate compliance once? This seems to make the most sense since there is only one brick 

throughput to divide the total by to get lb/ton values. Combining them and demonstrating 

compliance once also seems to fit the rule language of Table 1 that speaks to “including all 

process streams” as opposed to “each” stream meeting it individually. If you did treat them 

individually, the “product” for the sawdust dryer would be the tonnage of sawdust, which does not 

seem to meet the intent of the rule- or the basis for any limits.

We are working on a few things that we will be sending you next week- some more specific 

concerns/questions about the metal and mercury numbers.

Have a great weekend!

sus

Susan J Miller

Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety

Brick Industry Association

311 South Academy Street

Cary, North Carolina 27511
919 380-2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may learn 

something new. 

-Dalai Lama
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2323 

To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to repeal a small business 

loan data collection requirement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2013 

Mr. PITTENGER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to repeal a 

small business loan data collection requirement. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right to Lend Act 

5 of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS LOAN DATA COLLECTION RE7 QUIREMENT. 

8 (a) REPEAL.—Section 704B of the Equal Credit Op9 portunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691c–2) is repealed. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2323 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 701(b) of 

2 the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691(b)) is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the 

5 end; 

6 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and in7 serting a period; and 

8 (3) by striking paragraph (5). 

9 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

10 for title VII of the Consumer Credit Protection Act is 

11 amended by striking the item relating to section 704B. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FRANK PATE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5091-MCR-EMT

WARDEN JOSEPH,

Defendant.

__________________________/

O R D E R

The Chief Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on April 1, 

2020, and a Supplement to Report and Recommendation on April 29, 2020 (ECF 

Nos. 5, 8). Plaintiffs were furnished copies of the Report and Recommendation and 

Supplement, and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and Supplement, and any 

timely filed objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation 

should be adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05091-MCR-EMT Document 10 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5091-MCR-EMT

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as 

supplemented, ECF Nos. 5, 8, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to each 

Plaintiff’s filing a new individual complaint on his own behalf, and either paying the 

full $400.00 fee ($350.00 filing fee and $50.00 administrative fee) or submitting an 

individual application to proceed in forma pauperis.

3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of May 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05091-MCR-EMT Document 10 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 2
H. R. 2289 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

An Act 

To rename section 219(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the Kay Bailey 

Hutchison Spousal IRA. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON SPOUSAL IRA. 

The heading of subsection (c) of section 219 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘SPECIAL RULES

FOR CERTAIN MARRIED INDIVIDUALS’’ and inserting ‘‘KAY BAILEY

HUTCHISON SPOUSAL IRA’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# – Temporary Revision PSM NO.: 1–2–2 AIRCRAFT: DHC-2 BEAVER SERIES: ALL PUBLICATION: MAINTENANCE MANUAL TEMPORARY REVISION NO.: 2-38

______________________________________________________________________________

RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS: Record this Temporary Revision No. and the releva nt information in the appropriate columns of the TEMPORARY REVISION INDEX provided at the front of the manual. Appendix 2 Part 3 (TR 2-38) Page 1 of 2 04 March, 2015 Insert in Appendix 2 Part 3, after page 10 PERIODIC INSPECTIONS REASON FOR ISSUE: To add Elevator Control Rod Assembly to Periodic Inspection. ACTION: In Appendix 2, Part 3, insert item 20A.
INSP. DUE ITEM NO. 4th 20A. Inspect the Elevator Control Rod, Elevator Actuating Lever, and the Column Torque Tube for corrosion, cracks and/or other damage, in accordance with paragraph 2.43A.

### Temporary Revision No. 2-38 (Cont’d)

Appendix 2 Part 3 (TR 2-38) Page 2 of 2 04 March, 2015 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.44  


 
 

SECOND AMENDMENT    
    


        THIS AGREEMENT made effective as of October 13, 2004 between Anika Therapeutics, Inc. ("ANIKA") and MedChem Products, Inc. ("MEDCHEM"). 


        WHEREAS,
ANIKA and MEDCHEM are parties to that Sublease effective November 1, 2001 (the "SUBLEASE"); 


        WHEREAS,
ANIKA and MEDCHEM entered into an Amendment of the SUBLEASE effective October 8, 2003 ("First Amendment"); 



        WHEREAS,
ANIKA and MEDCHEM are desirous of further amending the SUBLEASE; 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, the parties agree to amend the SUBLEASE as follows: 



	1.
	Section 1
is deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following; 



"1.
Sublandlord hereby leases to Subtenant, and Subtenant hereby takes and leases from Sublandlord, the Subleased Premises for an initial term which commences on November 1, 2001 (the
"Commencement Date") and ends on December 31, 2006. After the expiration of the initial term, this Sublease shall thereafter remain in effect until terminated by one party upon at least ninety
(90) days prior written notice to the other party. The Subleased premises are to be delivered to Subtenant in their "as is" condition and the Subleased Premises shall be treated as delivered on
the Commencement Date." 



	2.
	Except
as specifically set forth in this Second Amendment, all other terms, provisions and covenants of the SUBLEASE, as amended by the First Amendment, shall continue in full force
and effect as originally set forth therein. 




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Second Amendment. 



	

Anika Therapeutics, Inc.	
 	

MedChem Products, Inc.
	

By:	

/s/  WILLIAM J. KNIGHT      
	
 	

By:	

/s/  DAN LAFEVER      

	

Title:	

CFO
	
 	

Title:	

President/Davol














QuickLinks


SECOND AMENDMENT
DEWEY KESSLER,

Appellant,

v.

STAGE CALL, INC. AND 

TRAVELERS INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Appellees.

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. 1D13-5445

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 21, 2014.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Thomas W. Sculco, Judge.

Date of Accident: February 25, 2012.

Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Gary J. Boynton, Winter Park, for Appellant.

Justin R. Crum, Orlando, and Thomas H. McDonald of Law Office of Jack D. Evans, 

Orlando, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF and ROWE, JJ., PARKER, GREGORY S., ASSOCIATE JUDGE, 

CONCUR.
#### Jerry Russo, Individually and as Custodian for Gary S. Russo et al., Appellants, v Becker Securities Corporation, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 16, 1979, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied without prejudice to a motion for summary judgment after issue has been joined. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs utilized the services of Advisory Investment Service (AIS), an investment advisory firm, to advise them with respect to the purchase and sale of stocks and bonds, and to place orders for these transactions with defendant and other stock brokerage firms. Proceeds from the sales, in the form of checks payable to plaintiffs, were sent by defendant to AIS. Mr. Sfisco, the president of AIS during the period in question, is alleged to have forged plaintiffs’ signatures on these checks, deposited them in his own bank accounts, and then converted the funds to his own use. Plaintiffs here sue for the proceeds of the above-mentioned sales, alleging in substance that defendant did not discharge its obligations by sending the checks to AIS. Special Term granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, holding, on the authority of *Hutzler v Hertz Corp.*(39 NY2d 209), that plaintiffs, by designating a dishonest agent to represent them, were precluded from denying the forged signatures. In *Hutzler,*the agent was a lawyer who forged his client’s signature on a settlement check made payable jointly to the attorney and the client. The Court of Appeals held that an attorney retained to collect a debt or to recover damages for personal injuries has at least apparent authority to receive payment from the debtor or tort-feasor after settlement or entry of judgment. On a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, the court is necessarily limited to considering the legal sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. The allegations here do not support the conclusion as a matter of law that AIS was authorized or apparently authorized to receive payments on behalf of the plaintiffs. The nature of the agency relationship requires further factual development. (See Restatement, Agency 2d, § 71, Comment a; see, also, *Higgins v Moore,*34 NY 417, 418.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
§ 30.36 Class 1; flue-cured types and groups. All flue-cured tobacco is graded under the same set of Official Standard Grades for Flue-cured Tobacco (U.S. Types 11, 12, 13, and 14). Flue-cured types are defined according to established general geographical areas of production. However, the determination as to type designations are based upon and indicate the geographic location where inspection and certification are performed—and do not necessarily identify the production area in which the tobacco was grown. ( a ) *Type 11a.* That type of flue-cured tobacco commonly known as Western Flue-cured or Old Belt Flue-cured, produced principally in the Piedmont sections of Virginia and North Carolina.
( b ) *Type 11b.* That type of flue-cured tobacco commonly known as Middle Belt Flue-cured, produced principally in a section lying between the Piedmont and coastal plains regions of Virginia and North Carolina.
( c ) *Type 12.* That type of flue-cured tobacco commonly known as Eastern Flue-cured or Eastern Carolina Flue-cured, produced principally in the coastal plains section of North Carolina, north of the South River.
( d ) *Type 13.* That type of flue-cured tobacco commonly known as Southeastern Flue-cured or South Carolina Flue-cured, produced principally in the coastal plains section of South Carolina and the southeastern counties of North Carolina, south of the South River.
( e ) *Type 14.* That type of flue-cured tobacco commonly known as Southern Flue-cured, produced principally in the southern section of Georgia, in northern Florida, and to some extent, in Alabama.
Groups applicable to types 11, 12, 13, and 14: A—Wrappers. B—Leaf. H—Smoking Leaf. C—Cutters. X—Lugs. P—Primings. N—Nondescript, as defined. S—Scrap, as defined.
Exhibit 32.1

The following statement is being made to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), which carries with it certain
criminal penalties in the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20549

Re: Coleman Cable, Inc.

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

(i) this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the period ended March 31,
2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Coleman Cable, Inc.

Dated as of the 5th day of May 2011.

|                                      |  |  |  |                                        
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|                                      |  | 
|/s/ G. Gary Yetman                    |  |  |  | /s/ Richard N. Burger                  
|G. Gary Yetman                        |  |  |  | Richard N. Burger                      
|Chief Executive Officer and President |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer, Executive     
|                                      |  |  |  | Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHARLES GHEE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 419 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of March, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.