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

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73731-73732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8108]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Masterpieces of the Joseon Dynasty From the National 
Museum of Korea''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Masterpieces of the Joseon Dynasty from 
the National Museum of Korea,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at The Los Angeles County Museum of Art in Los 
Angeles, California in two rotations from on or about January 24, 2013 
until on or about July 28, 2013, and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the

[[Page 73732]]

Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6473). The 
mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor 
(Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 3, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-29736 Filed 12-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 15, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 15, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0025. DREW WESTEN v. LAURA WESTEN. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2015CV256586
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09-17-00243-CV



### ____________________ LISA TELFORD, Appellant V. GEORGE LEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC, Appellees

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ On Appeal from the 88th District Court Tyler County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22,969

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court signed a final judgment on March 27, 2017. Lisa Telford filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a br ief. On October 24, 2017, we notified the parties that the brief had not been filed, and we warned th e appellant that her failure to file a brief could result in a dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. On November 9, 2017, we notified the parties th at the appeal would be submitted to the2 Court on November 30, 2017, without br iefs and without oral argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. In the absence of a brief assigning erro r for appellate revi ew, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a )(1); Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
APPEAL DISMISSED.

_______ _________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on November 30, 2017 Opinion Delivered December 7, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kr eger and Horton, JJ.
exv10w9wiii



 






Exhibit 10.9 (iii)




Amendment to Employment Agreement



This Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into effective as of June
6th, 2006 (the “Effective Date”) by and between TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd., of 2
Yodfat St., North Industrial Zone, Lod, Israel (the “Company”) and Yoav Venkert (I.D 57253007)
of 14 Hateena St., Zichron Yaacov, Israel (“Employee”) .



WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee entered into a certain Employment Agreement dated as of June
3, 2004 as amended (the “Employment Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee wish to amend the Employment Agreement in the manner provided
below.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises herein made, and in
consideration of the representations, warranties, and covenants herein contained, the parties agree
as follows:





	1.	 	All terms not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the
Employment Agreement.
	 
	2.	 	As of May 8, 2006, Employees Salary shall be increased to NIS 43,000 per month.
	 
	3.	 	As of May 8, 2006, Employee’s Salary shall be adjusted in a manner that it shall be
linked to the increase of the Consumer Price Index as known at the date of payment
quarterly.
	 
	4.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in
full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above
written.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TopSpin Medical (Israel) Ltd.	 	 	 	Yoav Venkert	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Erez Golan   /s/ Eyal Kolka	 	 	 	/s/ Yoav Venkert	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 

	 	 
	Name: Erez Golan & Eyal Kolka	 	 	 	Signature:	 	 
	Title: CEO & CFO
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20280

Summary Calendar

National Business Forms & Printing, Inc., doing business as 

Graphxonline.com, doing business as Quickstickers.com,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Ford Motor Company, 

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

4:08-cv-01906

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is the second time that the instant case has been before us on appeal. 

In disposing of the first appeal earlier this year, we affirmed the district court’s

partial summary judgment of October 30, 2009, reversed the portion of that

court’s Final Judgment that held the Plaintiff-Appellant’s sale of products

bearing Defendant-Appellee’s marks to three independent used car dealers

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 18, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 12-20280 Document: 00512024840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2012
No. 12-20280

constituted trademark infringement, affirmed the district court’s judgment in

all other respects, and remanded the case to that court with instructions to enter

judgment for Plaintiff-Appellant on the category of products bearing such marks

that Plaintiff-Appellant had sold to three independent used car dealers.

On April 12 of this year, the district court entered a Memorandum on

Entry of Amended Final Judgment and an Amended Final Judgment, after

which Plaintiff-Appellant filed the instant appeal. In the summary of its

argument contained in its brief filed in the instant appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant

expressly acknowledges that “[t]he only issue is the appropriateness of the

injunction language in the Amended Final Judgment.”

We have reviewed the record on appeal, including the two April 21, 2012

filings of the district court, our earlier opinion remanding the case in part, the

briefs filed by the parties in the instant appeal, and all record excerpts. As a

result of our review, we are satisfied that the district court fully and correctly

followed our limited remand and that its rulings — including “the injunction

language” in its Amended Final Judgment on remand –– are correct, complete,

and wholly free of reversible error. Accordingly, the rulings of the district court

on remand, including its Amended Final Judgment, are, in all respects, 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 12-20280 Document: 00512024840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2012
I, Richard A. Altomare, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Universal
Express, Inc.:

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

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this quarterly report fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

      a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

      5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

      a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

      6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


                                                     /s/ Richard A. Altomare
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Richard A. Altomare,
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 9, 2005
#### CITY OF CARUTHERSVILLE, Respondent, *v.*WILLIE PALSGROVE, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Taken as Submitted February 9, 1911.

Opinion Filed February 21, 1911.

APPELLATE PRACTICE: Failure to File Abstracts and Briefs: Municipal Corporations: Prosecution for Violating Ordinances. A prosecution for the violation of a city ordinance is a civil action, and hence where the defendant in such a case appeals, but fails to file briefs and abstracts, as required by Rules 13, 14', 16 and 18 of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Henry G.*Riley, Judge.

Affirmed.

*J. S. Gossom*and *Ward & Collins*for appellant.

*Vance J.*Higgs, for respondent.

(1) A prosecution for the violation of an ordinance is a civil action. Mexico v. Harris, 115 Mo. App. 711; Gallatin v. Tarwater, 143 Mo. 40; St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 600; Cassville v. Jimerson, 75 Mo. App. 426; California v. Harlan, 75 Mo. App. 506. (2) The rules applicable to criminal causes having no application, the appeal should be dismissed for failure to file abstracts and briefs.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

This case originated in the police court of the city of Caruthersville, a city of the fourth class, in which court appellant was tried and convicted of maintaining a nuisance, in violation of the ordinance of that city. She appealed to the circuit court of Pemiscot county and at a trial there was again convicted and her punishment assessed at five dollars *565fine and costs of the canse. She afterwards duly perfected her appeal to this court, filing a full transcript here on the 4th of January, 1910. But appellant has in no other particular complied with the rules of this court governing the filing of abstracts, briefs and arguments, nor has any assignment or joinder in error, if that is required, been filed in this court. Counsel for the city move to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment of the circuit court for failure of appellant to comply with Bules 13, 14, 16 and 18 of this court. Our statute, section 5312, B.evised Statutes 1909, provides that no assignment of error or joiner in error shall be necessary upon any appeal or writ of error in any criminal cause, hut that the appellate court shall proceed upon the return thereof without delay and render judgment on the record before it. This section, in terms, is applicable to criminal cases alone. This court in the case of City of Mexico v. Harris, 115 Mo. App. 707, l. c. 711, 92 S. W. 505, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of City of Gallatin v. Tarwater, 143 Mo. 40, 44 S. W. 750, and other cases cited in the opinion (l. c. 711) held that a prosecution for a violation of a city ordinance, is not a criminal but a civil action. Hence the rules of court applicable to civil actions apply. For failure to comply with the statute as to prosecution of appeals and the rules of this court above referred to, the judgment of the circuit court in this case is affirmed.

*Nortoni, J.,*and *Caulfield, J.,*concur.
Exhibit 31(a)
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  August 6, 2010
    By:
    /s/ WILLIAM J. DOYLEWilliam J. DoylePresident and Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6690-1 Penalty for fraudulent statement or failure to furnish statement to plan participant. ( a ) *Penalty.* Any plan administrator required by section 6057(e) and § 301.6057-1(e) to furnish a statement of deferred vested retirement benefit to a plan participant is subject to a penalty of $50 in each case in which the administrator ( 1 ) willfully fails to furnish the statement to the participant in the manner, at the time, and showing the information required by section 6057(e) and § 301.6057-1(e), or
( 2 ) willfully furnishes a false or fraudulent statement to the participant. The penalty shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as the tax imposed on employers under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section shall take effect on September 2, 1974.
[T.D. 7561, 43 FR 38007, Aug. 25, 1978]
H. J. Res. 163

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

104–99 is amended by striking out ‘‘March 15, 1996’’ in sections

106(c), 112, 126(c), 202(c) and 214 and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘March 22, 1996’’, and by inserting in section 101(a) after ‘‘The

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act, 1996’’ the following ‘‘, H.R. 1977’’, and by inserting in section

101(a) after ‘‘The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996’’

the following ‘‘, H.R. 2127’’, and that Public Law 104–92 is amended

by striking out ‘‘March 15, 1996’’ in section 106(c) and inserting

in lieu thereof ‘‘March 22, 1996’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Walter J. Roache, Appellant, v S.A. Connell, as Superintendent of Oneida Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 150]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cannizzaro, J.), entered December 14, 2004 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

We find no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s decision rejecting petitioner’s application for poor person status with an *942underlying writ of habeas corpus challenging his sentence calculation and motion for change of venue. The record establishes that petitioner, an inmate at a state correctional facility in Oneida County, had the same application pending before Supreme Court in Oneida County. Inasmuch as that court already had reviewed and adjudicated petitioner’s application by decision dated August 30, 2004, Supreme Court, Albany County, had “no authority to rule on a matter already reviewed by another Judge of equal authority” *(Matter of DeLanoy v O’Rourke,*276 AD2d 728, 729 [2000]; *see generally Nong Yaw Trakansook v 39 Wood Realty Corp.,*18 AD3d 633 [2005]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
§ 31.3406(b)(3)-4 Reportable payments of royalties. ( a ) *Royalty payments subject to backup withholding.* A payment of a kind, and to a payee, that is required to be reported under section 6050N (relating to information reporting of payments of royalties) is a reportable payment for purposes of section 3406. See § 31.6051-4 for the requirement to furnish a statement to the payee if tax is withheld under section 3406.
( b ) *Amount subject to backup withholding.* In general, the amount described in paragraph (a) of this section that is subject to withholding under section 3406 is the amount subject to reporting under section 6050N. However, if the reportable payment is for an oil or gas interest, the amount subject to withholding is the net amount the payee receives (i.e., the gross proceeds less production-related taxes such as state severance taxes).
[T.D. 8637, 60 FR 66119, Dec. 21, 1995]
Exhibit 11
 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30
 2009
    
    
    2008A  Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    744.2
    
    
    
    2,707.2B  Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    
    1.0
    
    
    
    (51.3
    )C  Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    745.2
    
    
    
    2,655.9D  Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    295,467,000
    
    
    
    310,076,000E  Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (Canadian GAAP)
    
    
    8,335,000
    
    
    
    10,408,000F  Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (US GAAP)
    
    
    8,334,000
    
    
    
    10,404,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    
    2.52
    
    
    
    8.73Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    
    2.45
    
    
    
    8.45UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    
    2.52
    
    
    
    8.57Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+F))
    
    
    2.45
    
    
    
    8.29
#### § 48.6421-0 Off-highway business use.

For purposes of the regulations under section 6421, after March 31, 1983, the term “off-highway business use” is used in lieu of the term “qualified business use” and has the same meaning as “qualified business use” under § 48.6421-4(b).

[T.D. 8043, 50 FR 32039, Aug. 8, 1985]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

SAVOY S. ROBINSON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 97 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit
10.99


INTERCOMPANY
SERVICES EXTENSION AGREEMENT


This Extension Agreement
dated as of January 1, 2007 is by and between Hallmark Cards, Incorporated (“Hallmark”)
and Crown Media Holdings, Inc. (“Crown Holdings”).


WHEREAS, Crown Holdings
and Hallmark have previously entered into that certain Intercompany Services
Agreement between the parties dated as of December 23, 2002 (the “Services
Agreement”) as extended on January 1, 2006; and


WHEREAS, the parties
desire to further extend the term of the Services Agreement;


NOW, THEREFORE, Crown
Holdings and Hallmark hereby agree as follows:


The term of the License
Agreement shall be extended for an additional period terminating on January 1,
2008, subject to any earlier termination pursuant to the terms of the Services
Agreement.


All other terms and
conditions of the Services Agreement will remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have executed this Extension Agreement as of the date set forth
above.


	
  HALLMARK CARDS, INCORPORATED

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By: 

  	
  

  /s/ Brian Gardner

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  



  
	
  Title: 

  	
  Executive Vice President.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CROWN MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By: 

  	
  

  /s/ C. Stanford

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  



  
	
  Title: 

  	
  Executive Vice President