alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex_106365.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


AMENDMENT NO. 2


 


This Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of February 27, 2018 by and between Alex B. Rozek (the “Executive”) and Boston Omaha Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 


 


The Company and the Executive are parties to an Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2015, which was amended pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement Amendment No. 1, dated as of June 5, 2017 (as so amended, the “Agreement”).


 


Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 


 


1.     Amendment to Article II, Section 2.01(A) of the Agreement. The Company and the Executive agree that the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting all of Article II, Section 2.01(A), and inserting the following in its place: 


 


“The Executive will serve for a Base Salary equal to the federal minimum wage until such time that Base Salary is otherwise modified by the Company’s Compensation Committee and shall not be entitled to any Base Salary in excess of the federal minimum wage for any period prior to such date.” 


 


2.     No Other Amendment. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain unamended and in full force and effect. This Amendment is only effective in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which it is given and shall not be effective for any other purpose, and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of, amendment of, or consent to or modification of any other term or provision of the Agreement.


 


3.     Governing Law. This Amendment, the performance of this Amendment and any and all matters arising directly or indirectly herefrom shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without giving effect to the conflict or choice of law provisions and principles thereof. 


 


4.     Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts including facsimile or PDF counterpart signature pages, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 


 


	
			 

				
			BOSTON OMAHA CORPORATION

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			By: 

				
			/s/ Adam K. Peterson

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			Name:      Adam K. Peterson

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			Title:        Co-Chief Executive Officer

				
			 

			
	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Alex B. Rozek	 
	 	 	Alex B. Rozek
Case 2:06-mj-00076-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00076-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00076-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00076-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00076-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00076-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00076-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 7 of 7
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION





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


(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF


TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of RRsat Global Communications Network Ltd., a company organized under the laws of the State of Israel (the "Company"), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:





1.
the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Form 20-F") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: March 21, 2011
By: /s/ David Rivel

David Rivel

Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00176-CV

__________________

DANIELLE GUAJARDO, Appellant

V.

OSCAR CASTILLO, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 23-33180

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 5, 2023, Danielle Guajardo appealed from a final judgment 

in Trial Cause Number 23-33180. After perfecting her appeal, however,

Guajardo failed to file a brief.

On September 27, 2023, we notified the parties that Guajardo had 

not filed a brief and that her appeal would be submitted without briefs 

unless, by October 9, 2023, she filed a brief supporting her appeal with a 
2

motion explaining why the Court should extend the appellate timetable 

that applies to the deadlines for filing briefs. We also warned Guajardo

that her appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution if the Court 

submitted her appeal without a brief.

On October 23, 2023, we notified the parties that the Court would 

submit the appeal on November 13, 2023, without briefs and without oral 

argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. On October 24, 2023, the appellee, 

Oscar Castillo, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution.

In the absence of a brief assigning error for our review, we grant 

Castillo’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want 

of prosecution. See id. 38.8(a)(1); id. 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 13, 2023

Opinion Delivered November 16, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
Subpart 1345.1 - General

Parent topic: PART 1345 - GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

1345.107 Contract clauses.

1345.107-70 Government furnished property.

Insert clause 1352.245-70, Government Furnished Property, when Government property is to be

furnished to the contractor and the contractor will be accountable for, and have stewardship of, the

property.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 2:06mj79-SRW

)

ALBERTO VILLAREAL )

ORDER

On August 9, 2006, defendant waived his preliminary hearing in this case. Based on

this wavier and on the complaint filed in this matter, the Magistrate Judge finds that there is

probable cause to bind the defendant over to the District Court for further proceedings.

DONE, this 10th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-mj-00079-SRW Document 13 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 1
Affirmed as Reformed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 10, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00072-CR

____________

TERRY DON BOOKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-08471

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a “guilty” plea to criminal solicitation. In accordance with the 

terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of 

guilt, placed appellant under community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of 

$500. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt. Appellant entered a plea of 

“true” to one allegation. The trial court found the allegation true, adjudicated guilt, and 

sentenced appellant to confinement for eleven years in the Institutional Division of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
2

In three issues, appellant claims the trial court erred in assessing a $500 fine against 

appellant in the judgment adjudicating guilt because there was no oral pronouncement of 

the fine. The State concedes the fine was included in the administrative-fee calculation 

and that no fine was orally pronounced. Appellant's issues are sustained. 

Because the oral pronouncement controls, the fine must be deleted from the 

judgment. See Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 

Accordingly, we reform the judgment of the trial court to reflect administrative fees are 

assessed in the amount of $2,906.00. As reformed, the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and McCally.

Do not publish - TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 D0 11 9 . SUSAN LOUI SE SNUGGS v . KELLI E ROSE, et a l

.

Su s an Lo u i s e Sn u g g s , p l ai n t i ff i n t h e m ed i cal m al p ract i ce act i o n bel o w, s eek s

ap p el l at e rev i ew o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t i n fav o r of t h e d e f en d an t

. W e l ack

ju ri s d i ct i o n b ecau se t h e ap p l i cat i o n i s u n t im el y

.
Bas ed o n t h e l i m it ed i n fo rm at i o n i n cl u d ed wi t h t h e a p p l i c a t io n m at eri al s , i t

ap p ears t h at t he tr ia l co urt d i s m is s ed Sn u g gs ’ s co m p l ai n t i n Au g us t 2 0 1 5

, b ecau s e s h e

h ad n o t p ro v i d ed an ex p ert affi d av i t as req u i red b y O C G A § 9 -1 1-9 .1 (a). Sn u gg s

fi led a m o t i o n fo r reco n s id erat i o n , w h i c h t h e tri al co u rt d en ied i n Sep t em b er. On

Oct o b er 3 0 , 2 0 1 5

, Sn u g gs fi l ed t h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew.

Sn u g g s ap p ears t o b e s eek i n g rev i ew o f t he t ri al co u rt ’ s Sep t em ber o rd er

d en y i n g her m o t i on fo r reco n si d erat i o n

. Ho wev er, an o rd er den y i n g a m o t i o n fo r

reco n s i d erat i on is n o t ap p eal ab l e i n i t s o wn ri g h t

. See B el l v. Co h r an , 2 4 4 G a. Ap p.

5 1 0

, 5 1 1 (5 3 6 SE2 d 1 8 7 ) (2 0 0 0)

. M o r e o v e r, a m ot i o n fo r reco n si d erat i on d o es n ot

ex t en d t h e t i m e fo r fi li n g an ap p eal fro m t h e u n d erl y i n g o rd er. See Ch eel ey-To wn s

v. Ra p i d Gr o u p, In c. , 2 1 2 Ga. Ap p

. 1 8 3 (4 4 1 SE2 d 4 5 2 ) (1 9 9 4 ); H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 2 7 8

Ga. 2 8 0

, 2 8 2 n .3 (6 0 0 SE2 d 59 2) (2 0 0 4 ) (“ [A] m o t i o n t o reco n s i d er d o es n o t t o l l t h e

t i m e fo r fi l i n g an ap p l i cat i on t o ap p eal .”). Th u s , t o t h e ex t en t Sn u g gs m ay b e s eek i n g

rev i ew o f t h e A u gu s t o rd er di s m i ss i n g h er co m p l a i n t, h er ap p l i cat i o n is u n t i m el y

b ecau s e it was n ot fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 day s o f t h at ru l i n g. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ).

Acco rd in g ly

, we l ack au t h ori t y t o co n s i der Sn u g g s ’ s ap p l i cat i on , an d i t i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED. November 30, 2015Sn u g g s h as al s o fi l ed a m o t i o n t o t ran s fer t h i s ap p l i cat i o n t o t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt

o f DeKal b Co un t y

. Th at m o ti o n i s h ereb y DENIED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/30/2015
# Subpart 2936.2 - Special Aspects of Contracting for Construction

**Parent topic:**PART 2936 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

## 2936.201 Evaluation of contractor performance.

The HCA must establish procedures to evaluate construction contractor performance and prepare performance reports as required by FAR 36.201.   

## 2936.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.

As required by FAR 36.209, no contract for construction of a project may be awarded to the firm that designed the project, or to its subsidiaries or affiliates, without the written approval of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. Any request for approval must include the reason(s) why award to the design firm is required; an analysis of the facts involving potential or actual organizational conflicts of interest including benefits and detriments to the Government and the prospective contractor; and the measures which are to be taken to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate conflicts of interest.
##### 



IMMUNOSYN CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
  Date: March 30, 2007
    
    /s/ Douglas McClain, Jr.Douglas McClain, Jr.Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
 51
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

STEVE ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:06cv707-ID

)

MERCHANTS FOODSERVICE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

Upon CONSIDERATION of the joint stipulation of dismissal (Doc. No. 30), which

comports with Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the clerk is

DIRECTED to close this case.

Done this 9 day of November, 2007. th

/s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00707-ID-CSC Document 31 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 948.29 Procedure.

Rules and procedures for granting exemptions may be issued by the Secretary, upon recommendation of area committees. Such rules and procedures may provide for methods of determinations by area committees of average proportions of crops shipped or being shipped in respective areas or subdivisions thereof during any or all portions of a season, for processing applications for exemption, for issuing or denying certificates of exemption, for administrative compliance with certificates issued, for reports by handlers thereon, and for such other procedures as may be necessary to administration hereof.
# 22.001 Definitions.

(S-90) Unless there is an associated service being offered with the telecommunications and that associated service is billed separately, the leasing/provisioning of the telecommunications circuit (commoditized bandwidth) is not a “service contract.” IAW FAR 22.001, a “service contract means any Government contract, or subcontract thereunder, the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees...”

**Parent topic:**PART 22 –– APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS
2953.103 Acquisition Screening and Review -

over $100,000 DL 1-2004.

The requiring organization must complete the following form for all acquisitions above the simplified

acquisition threshold. This form will then be submitted through the contracting officer to the Office

of Small Business Programs for review.

Parent topic: Subpart 2953.1 - General
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 77624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Intent To Grant an Exclusive License for U.S. Army Owned 
Inventions to Polymer Processing Institute

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces that, unless there is an 
objection, after 15 days it contemplates granting an exclusive license 
to Polymer Processing Institute, a not-for-profit corporation having a 
place of business in the New Jersey Institute of Technology Campus in 
Newark, New Jersey, to produce the following inventions:
     ARDEC Reference 2006-043, and U.S. patent application 12/
483420--``Foamed Celluloid Mortar Propellant Increment Containers''--
Inventors Ming-Wan Young, Costas G. Gogos; Niloufar Faridi; Linjie Zhu; 
Peter Bonnett; Howard Shimm; Elbert Caravaca; Joseph Palk.
     ARDEC Reference 2006-043 continuation (disclosure)--
``Foamed Celluloid and Applications Therefor''.
     ARDEC Reference 2009-014 (disclosure)--``Prepare Foamed 
Energetic Material at a High Production Rate''--Inventors Linjie Zhu; 
Fei Shen; Ming-wan Young; Costas G. Gogos; Chong Peng; Mohamed Elalem; 
Joseph Palk; Howard (Howie) Shimm, Dale Conti; Elbert Caravaca; Peter 
Bonnett.
     ARDEC Reference 2009-015 (disclosure)--``Prepare Foamed 
Energetic Material by Expandable Bead Methodology''--Inventors Niloufar 
Faridi; Linjie Zhu; Ming-wan Young; Costas G. Gogos; Kuanyin Lin; 
Mohamed Elalem; Joseph Palk; Elbert Caravaca; Dale Conti.
    Any license granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 
404.

DATES: File written objections by December 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Timothy S. Ryan, Technology 
Transfer Program Manager, RDAR-EIB, U.S. Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, 
NJ 07806-5000, e-mail: [email protected]; (973) 724-7953.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written objections must be filed within 15 
days from publication date of this notice in the Federal Register. Any 
license granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-31174 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
```
§ 75.43 Laboratory testing. Fees for testing each sample shall include the time required for actual testing, preparation of test records, issuing the certificate, and filing of samples and documents, with: ( a ) Fees assessed based on the formulas in § 75.41.
( b ) A minimum fee of 1 hour per sample for testing shall be charged.
( c ) The fee for a preliminary report issued prior to completion of testing shall be assessed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
[49 FR 18724, May 2, 1984, as amended at 67 FR 11384, Mar. 14, 2002; 79 FR 67325, Nov. 13, 2014]
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Daniel Ray Garcia, * From the 106th District Court

of Gaines County,

Trial Court No. 19-5086.

Vs. No. 11-21-00145-CR * July 25, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 94

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 94 appear at 61 FR 51352, Oct. 2 1996.

#### § 94.100 General.

Analyses for voluntary egg product samples may be requested to certify that specifications regarding stated identity, quality, and wholesomeness are met; to test routinely for the presence of *Salmonella;* and to ensure laboratory quality control with testing activities.
#### In the Matter of George Donnellan, Appellant, v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Respondent.

Judgment appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the judgment vacated and the motion to stay arbitration denied, with $30 costs'and disbursements to claimant-appellant. The credible evidence in the record supports a determination that there was actual physical contact between claimant’s car and the unidentified vehicle and we so find (cf. *Matter of MVAIC [Landau],*20 A D 2d 699). All findings or conclusions contrary thereto are hereby reversed. Concur—'Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Tilzer and MeGivern, JJ.
1319.812 Contract administration.

Awards under the Partnership Agreement are subject to 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(21). These contracts shall

contain the clause 1352.219-70, Section 8(a) Direct Award (Deviation), which requires the

contractor to notify the SBA and the contracting officer when ownership of the firm is being

transferred.

Parent topic: Subpart 1319.8 - Contracting With the Small Business Administration (the 8(a)

Program)
Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 15 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00682-TFM Document 15 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### Hutchinson *v.*Columbus Power Company *et al.*

November 12, 1913.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Freeman. Troup superior- court. August 30, 1913.

*M. U. Mooty, A. J. Andrews,*and *Henry Beeves,*for plaintiff.

*Frank U. Garrard*and *A. H. Thompson,*for defendants.

Hill, J.

The defendants having pleaded that they were residents of counties of. this State other than that of the venue of suit, and the evidence authorizing a finding that the plea was true, this court will not reverse the judgment refusing to grant an injunction against the defendants, as ancillary to any equitable relief prayed against them. *Etowah Milling Co.*v. *Crenshaw,*116 *Ga.*406 (42 S. E. 709).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State,

v.

VICTOR MANUEL GALLEGOS,

 

 Appellee.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00272-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20120C00942)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until 

March 27, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza, the State’s Attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 27, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11

th day of February, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.