alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.n  AMENDMENT
TO THE CHANGE
IN CONTROL, SEVERANCE
AND EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR
THOMAS J. SHARA  This Amendment to
the Change in Control, Severance and Employment Agreement for Thomas J. Shara
(the Amendment), is made this 17th day of September, 2003, between Hudson
United Bancorp and Hudson United Bank (collectively, the Company), a New
Jersey corporation which maintains its principal office at 1000 MacArthur
Boulevard, Mahwah, New Jersey, and Thomas J. Shara (the Executive), and
amends the Change in Control, Severance and Employment Agreement for Thomas J.
Shara, which was made effective as of October 1, 2002 (the Agreement).  WHEREAS, the
Executive is presently an executive officer of the Company;  and  WHEREAS, the
Executive and the Company wish to amend the Agreement to clarify certain
provisions therein;  NOW, THEREFORE,
for the good and valuable consideration set forth herein and the Executives
continued valuable service to the Company, the Company and the Executive, each
intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:  1.Paragraph
9(d) of the Agreement, relating to Payments and Benefits, is amended by
adding the following language after the end of the first sentence thereof:  For purposes of
the calculation of the bonus amount component of the Lump Sum only, Paragraph
1(b)(ii)(B), regarding the Time of the Change of Control, will be disregarded.  2.The
Company agrees that it will not treat (for tax reporting purposes or for
calculation purposes under Section 10 of the Agreement) any benefits under the
Hudson United Bancorp Supplemental Employees Retirement Plan (the SERP) as
parachute payments under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code, to the
extent that such benefits were vested and accrued prior to the occurrence of
such change of control, as the SERP was not adopted in contemplation of such
change of control.  
   IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized
representatives pursuant to the authority of its Board of Directors
Compensation Committee, and the Executive has personally executed this
Agreement, all as of the day and year first above written.  ATTEST:
  HUDSON UNITED BANCORP
  ANDHUDSON UNITED BANKBy:
  
  /s/ Charles F.X. PoggiCharles F. X. PoggiChairman, Compensation
  CommitteeWITNESS:
  EXECUTIVE/s/ Thomas J. SharaThomas J. Shara
#### § 137.298 Are Self-Governance Tribes required to comply with Executive Orders to fulfill their environmental responsibilities under section 509 of the Act [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-8]?

No, but Self-Governance Tribes may at their option, choose to voluntarily comply with Executive Orders. For facilities where ownership will vest with the Federal Government upon completion of the construction, Tribes and the Secretary may agree to include the goals and objectives of Executive Orders in the codes and standards of the construction project agreement.
# C_2005217EN.01003702.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/37

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 July 2005

in Case T-370/03 Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Post of Director of the Commission EuropeAid Co-operation Office - Vacancy notice - Rejection of candidature - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

(2005/C 217/83)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-370/03: Jacques Wunenburger, official of the Commission of the European Communities, resident in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and G. Berscheid with an address for service in Luxembourg) — request for annulment of, firstly, the Commission's decision not to appoint the applicant to the post of Director in the Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office and, secondly, the decision to appoint another person to that post — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Principal Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004

1

---
# Lebanon

242 items

        -    Report  		Lebanon	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  March 3, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Humanitarian Assistance  		Evaluating the Effectiveness of Shelter, Health, and Education Programs for Iraqi and Syrian Refugees in Lebanon [PDF]	  February 17, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Humanitarian Assistance  		Evaluating the Effectiveness of Shelter, Health, and Education Programs for Iraqi and Syrian Refugees in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan – Synthesis Report [PDF]	  February 1, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Humanitarian Assistance  		Evaluating the Effectiveness of Shelter, Health, and Education Programs for Iraqi and Syrian Refugees in Turkey [PDF]	  December 1, 2016 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Humanitarian Assistance  		Evaluating the Effectiveness of Shelter, Health, and Education Programs for Iraqi and Syrian Refugees in Jordan [PDF]	  July 1, 2016 

previous page1…202122232425next page

Back to Top
#### § 501.101 Relation of this part to other parts in this chapter.

This part sets forth standard reporting and recordkeeping requirements and license application and other procedures governing transactions regulated pursuant to other parts codified in this chapter, as well as to economic sanctions programs for which implementation and administration are delegated to the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Substantive prohibitions and policies particular to each economic sanctions program are not contained in this part but are set forth in the particular part of this chapter dedicated to that program, or, in the case of economic sanctions programs not yet implemented in regulations, in the applicable executive order or other authority. License application procedures and reporting requirements set forth in this part govern transactions undertaken pursuant to general or specific licenses. The criteria for general and specific licenses pertaining to a particular economic sanctions program are set forth in subpart E of the individual parts in this chapter. Statements of licensing policy contained in subpart E of the individual parts in this chapter, however, may contain additional information collection provisions that require production of specified documentation unique to a given general license or statement of licensing policy.

[62 FR 52494, Oct. 8, 1997]
#### Mrs. Georgia LEWIS v. QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and Santo Strangi, Jr.

No. 51370.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 6, 1979.

Sekul, Hornsby, Wallace & Teel, Thomas L. Wallace, Biloxi, for appellant.

Thomas J. Wiltz, Biloxi, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and LEE and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
§ 1005.17 Evidence. ( a ) The ALJ will determine the admissibility of evidence.
( b ) Except as provided in this part, the ALJ will not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where appropriate, for example, to exclude unreliable evidence.
( c ) The ALJ must exclude irrelevant or immaterial evidence.
( d ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( e ) Although relevant, evidence must be excluded if it is privileged under Federal law.
( f ) Evidence concerning offers of compromise or settlement made in this action will be inadmissible to the extent provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
( g ) Evidence of crimes, wrongs or acts other than those at issue in the instant case is admissible in order to show motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, preparation, identity, lack of mistake, or existence of a scheme. Such evidence is admissible regardless of whether the crimes, wrongs or acts occurred during the statute of limitations period applicable to the acts which constitute the basis for liability in the case, and regardless of whether they were referenced in the IG's notice sent in accordance with § 1001.2002, § 1001.2003 or § 1003.109.
( h ) The ALJ will permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
( i ) All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record will be open to examination by all parties, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ for good cause shown.
( j ) The ALJ may not consider evidence regarding the issue of willingness and ability to enter into and successfully complete a corrective action plan when such evidence pertains to matters occurring after the submittal of the case to the Secretary. The determination regarding the appropriateness of any corrective action plan is not reviewable.
#### § 1006.5 Enforcement of a subpoena.

A subpoena to appear at an investigational inquiry is enforceable through the District Court of the United States and the district where the subpoenaed person is found, resides or transacts business.
HomeRwanda

# Rwanda

110 items

        -    DipNote  		Training Together to Save Lives: The State Department and Department of Defense Prepare for U.S. Citizen Evacuations	  May 23, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Rwanda	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Ambassador-at-Large Beth Van Schaack’s Remarks to the Cardozo Law School on Sexual and Gender Based Crimes in the Case of Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen	  Beth Van SchaackApril 21, 2023Cardozo Law School 
        -    Remarks  		Ambassador-at-Large Beth Van Schaack's Testimony for the Record Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing “Holding Russian Kleptocrats and Human Rights Violators Accountable for their  Crimes Against Ukraine”	  Beth Van SchaackApril 19, 2023Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing  
        -    Remarks  		Remarks for Kwibuka 29	  Molly PheeApril 7, 2023National Press ClubWashington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 28, 2023	  Vedant PatelMarch 28, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Release of Paul Rusesabagina	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 24, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Rwanda	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Dr. John Nkengasong, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Special Representative for Global Health Diplomacy	  John N. NkengasongFebruary 28, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Biruta	  February 1, 2023 

previous page12345…11next page

Back to Top
<PAGE>   1
                              CERPROBE CORPORATION                EXHIBIT 11

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                          JUNE 30,                     JUNE 30,
                                                --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                    1998           1997           1998           1997
                                                -----------    -----------    -----------    ----------- 
<S>                                             <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>         
Net income (loss)                               $   466,778    $ 1,589,326    $ 2,812,208    $(3,305,307)
                                                ===========    ===========    ===========    =========== 

Weighted average common shares outstanding        8,109,950      6,353,047      8,105,700      6,321,399

Common equivalent shares representing shares
issuable upon exercise of stock options             276,844        243,022        326,702        238,626

Subtraction of common equivalent shares due to
antidilutive nature                                     --             --             --       (238,626)
                                                -----------    -----------    -----------    ----------- 

Dilutive adjusted weighted average shares
and assumed conversions                           8,386,794      6,596,069      8,432,402      6,321,399
                                                ===========    ===========    ===========    =========== 



Basic net income (loss) per share               $      0.06    $      0.25    $      0.35    $     (0.52)
                                                ===========    ===========    ===========    =========== 


Diluted net income (loss) per share             $      0.06    $      0.24    $      0.33    $     (0.52)
                                                ===========    ===========    ===========    =========== 
</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 11, 2015

NO. 03-15-00266-CR

Randall Arthur Hazel, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. 

Randall Arthur Hazel has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the 

motion and dismisses the appeal. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
§ 594.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges authorized. ( a ) A U.S. financial institution is authorized to debit any blocked account held at that financial institution in payment or reimbursement for normal service charges owed it by the owner of that blocked account.
( b ) As used in this section, the term *normal service charge* shall include charges in payment or reimbursement for interest due; cable, telegraph, internet, or telephone charges; postage costs; custody fees; small adjustment charges to correct bookkeeping errors; and, but not by way of limitation, minimum balance charges, notary and protest fees, and charges for reference books, photocopies, credit reports, transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, and other similar items.
#### § 590.303 Entity.

The term *entity* means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.
Exhibit 32.1





Quarterly Certification Pursuant to





Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





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 Function (X) Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Janet ScardinoJanet ScardinoChief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





Date: May 11, 2011











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Function (X) Inc. and will be retained by Function (X) Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Anita STEIN and Warren Stein d/b/a Murray Realties and Tri-Engel Realties, Appellants, v. Klaus R. SCHELL and Theresa E. Schell, Appellees.

No. 79-1975.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 15, 1980.

*1101Larry Finkelstein of Law Offices of James Cary Jacobson, Hollywood, for appellants.

Robert C. Maland, Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment holding that the appellants were not entitled to a brokerage commission under the terms of an agreement with the appellees. The agreement is ambiguous as to the liability of the appellees to the appellants under the circumstances of this case. In the trial court both sides submitted affidavits supporting a construction of the contract in their favor. Because the controlling provisions of the contract are ambiguous and the parties are in disagreement as to the proper construction thereof, we believe it was error to resolve the dispute by summary judgment. *Westchester Fire Insurance Company v. In-Sink-Erator,*252 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).

Accordingly, this cause is reversed for further proceedings consistent herewith.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10681

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00489-MTT

MARION WILSON, JR.,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC PRISON,

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(November 15, 2016)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Upon the majority vote of the judges in this Court in active service, on July 

30, 2015, this Court vacated this panel’s prior opinion and granted rehearing en 

banc. We concluded that when reviewing a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus, federal courts need not “look through” a summary decision on the 

Case: 14-10681 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

merits to review the reasoning of the state trial court. Wilson v. Warden, Ga. 

Diagnostic Prison, 834 F.3d 1227, 1230 (11th Cir. 2016). We also held that the

summary denial of a certificate of probable cause to appeal by the Supreme Court 

of Georgia was an adjudication on the merits for purposes of our review. Id. at 

1235. 

The en banc Court remanded to the panel all outstanding issues in this 

appeal, and we ordered and received supplemental briefing from the parties. The 

original panel opinion reviewed the “one-line decision of the Supreme Court of 

Georgia denying Wilson’s certificate of probable cause . . . because it is the final 

decision on the merits.” Wilson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 774 F.3d 671, 

678 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), reh’g en banc granted, op. 

vacated, No. 14-10681 (11th Cir. July 30, 2015). And the panel “[could] not say 

that the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia to deny Wilson’s petition . . .

‘was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’” Id. at 681 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). Because the panel opinion reviewed the correct 

state-court decision and the remaining issues have not changed, we reinstate the 

original panel opinion and affirm the denial of Wilson’s petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-10681 Date Filed: 11/15/2016 Page: 2 of 2
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97">
<TITLE>December 30, 1999</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<FONT SIZE=5><P ALIGN="CENTER"></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"> </P>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=6><P ALIGN="CENTER">EXHIBIT 10.11</P>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3><P ALIGN="CENTER"></P>
</B><P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>December 30, 1999</P>

<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Moto Photo, Inc.</P>
<P>4444 Lake Center Drive</P>
<P>Dayton, OH 45426</P>
<P>Attn:  David A. Mason, Executive Vice President & Treasurer</P>

<P> </P>
<P>Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.</P>
<P>555 Taxter Road</P>
<P>Elmsford, NY 10523</P>
<P>Attn:  Jonathan F. File, Vice President and General Counsel</P>

</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3><P></P>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3><P></FONT><FONT SIZE=3>mendment to Loan and Security Agreement dated as of September 2, 1999, said agreements together hereinafter called the "Loan Agreement."</P>

<P>Reference also is made to the Lien Subordination Agreement dated February 21, 1997 among Provident, Moto Photo and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. ("Fuji"), said agreement hereinafter being referred to as the Lien Subordination Agreement.</P>

<P>Reference also is made to the Term Note dated December 30, 1999 in the principal amount of $2,700,000 from Moto Photo to Fuji, said note hereinafter being referred to as the Term Note.</P>

<P>Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, Provident is providing certain financing accommodations to Moto Photo and Moto Photo has granted to Provident a first priority security interest in all of Moto Photo's Accounts, Notes Receivable, Equipment, General
Intangibles and Inventory to secure such financing.</P>

<P>Pursuant to the Lien Subordination Agreement, Provident's security interest in Accounts and Inventory originating from Fuji is subordinated to any security interest of Fuji in the Fuji Accounts and Inventory.</P>

<P>By executing copies of this Letter, Provident, Moto Photo and Fuji acknowledge and reaffirm their respective positions as provided in the Lien Subordination Agreement.</P>

<P>Moto Photo and Fuji further acknowledge and agree that upon the occurrence of an Event of Default as defined in Section 9.1 of the Loan Agreement, Moto Photo thereupon, and for the duration of such Event of Default or until otherwise agreed by
Provident, shall cease making payments to Fuji upon the Term Note.</P>

<P>Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing by dating, signing and returning a copy of this letter to the undersigned.</P>

<P>					Sincerely,</P>

<P>					The Provident Bank</P>
<P>	</P>
<P>					By:  <U>							</P>
</U>
<P>Agreed and Acknowledged:</P>

<P>Moto Photo, Inc.</P>

<P>By: <U>							</U>  Date: <U>				</P>
</U>
<P> </P>
<P>Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.</P>

<P>By: <U>							 </U> Date: <U>				</P>
</U><P ALIGN="CENTER"></P></FONT></BODY>
</HTML>
No. 99-8727.

#### Olivo Rodriguez *v.*Walker, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.