alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.70

                           AMENDMENT NO.2 TO AMENDED
                       AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



     This Amendment No. 2 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is
executed as of March 11, 1999, by R. Scott Eynon (the "Executive") and D. I.Y.
Home Warehouse, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the "Company").

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

     A. Executive and the Company are parties to a certain Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 1995, as amended by Amendment No. 1
to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of May 28, 1998
(collectively, the "Agreement").

     B. The parties desire to amend the Agreement as set forth below.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties
agree as follows:

     1. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read, in its entirety,
as follows:

        1. EMPLOYMENT. For a period of seven (7) years from and after January 1,
        1995 (the "Effective Date") , unless sooner terminated as provided below
        or extended upon mutual agreement of the parties, the Company will
        employ Executive as the Vice President - Operations of the Company, to
        perform such services for and on behalf of the Company as the Company's
        Board of Directors may from time to time direct consistent with
        Executive's title and position, and Executive hereby accepts such
        employment, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
        Executive's principal place of business will be located within a fifty
        (50) mile radius of downtown Cleveland, Ohio.

     2. As amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect
and is hereby ratified and confirmed.

     3. This Amendment No. 2 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.

<PAGE>   2


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment No. 2 as
of the date set forth above.


                                                  EXECUTIVE

                                                  /s/ R. Scott Eynon
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  R. Scott Eynon



                                                  COMPANY

                                                  D.I.Y. Home Warehouse, Inc.,
                                                  an Ohio corporation



                                                  By: /s/ Fred A. Erb
                                                     -----------------------
                                                          Fred A. Erb
                                                  Its: Chairman
```

                      BERNARD CHAUS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                               BERNARD CHAUS, INC.
                            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 Quarterly Report of Bernard Chaus, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

o    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

November 9, 2005
                                /s/ Barton Heminover
                                ---------------------------------
                                Barton Heminover
                                Chief Financial Officer
```
# Treaty Affairs – NATO (Main Treaty) – United States Department of State

- NATO &#8211; Technical Information &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Finland, March 28, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- NATO &#8211; Secrecy of Inventions &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Finland, March 28, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- NATO &#8211; Paris Protocol &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Finland, March 28, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- NATO &#8211; NATO SOFA &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Finland, March 28, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- NATO &#8211;  Protocol to Atomic Information Agreement &#8211; Notification of Signature; Finland, March 14, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- NATO &#8211;  Atomic Information Agreement &#8211; Notification of Signature; Finland, March 14, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- NATO &#8211; North Atlantic Treaty &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Sweden, March 7, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- NATO &#8211; Sweden Accession Protocol &#8211; Notification of Entry Into Force, March 7, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- NATO &#8211; Sweden Accession Protocol &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Hungary, March 7, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
- NATO &#8211; Sweden Accession Protocol &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Turkiye, January 26, 2024 Office of Treaty Affairs
# C_2023046EN.01000101.xml

| 7.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

6 February 2023

(2023/C 46/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0776 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,41 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4432 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89278 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,3652 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9964 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 152,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,0428 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,843 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 390,83 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7228 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9055 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 20,2917 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5596 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4459 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4539 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7075 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4266 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 353,65 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,9013 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3090 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 338,36 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5884 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,686 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,207 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5625 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,4882 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 89,0922 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0776

JPY

Japanese yen

142,41

DKK

Danish krone

7,4432

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89278

SEK

Swedish krona

11,3652

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9964

ISK

Iceland króna

152,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,0428

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,843

HUF

Hungarian forint

390,83

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7228

RON

Romanian leu

4,9055

TRY

Turkish lira

20,2917

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5596

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4459

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4539

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7075

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4266

KRW

South Korean won

1 353,65

ZAR

South African rand

18,9013

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3090

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 338,36

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5884

PHP

Philippine peso

58,686

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,207

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5625

MXN

Mexican peso

20,4882

INR

Indian rupee

89,0922

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-1007 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 

Article 98 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and KAZAKHSTAN 

Signed at New York September 22, 2003 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
KAZAKHSTAN 

International Criminal Court: Article 98 

 Agreement signed at New York September 22, 2003; 

 Entered into force October 7, 2004. 

NOTE: At this time the Kazakh text has not been received. Once received and properly authenticated, the Kazakh text will be added to this publication.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00296-CV

EX PARTE ERIC ROBERSON

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09-0001170-CV-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State filed an appeal of an order by the trial court granting the expunction 

request of Eric Roberson. At the same time the State filed its appeal, the State also filed 

a motion for new trial with the trial court. On November 2, 2009, the trial court granted 

the State’s motion for new trial. The State now requests that its appeal be dismissed.

This appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(b).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 13, 2010

[CV06]
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2631 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2631

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide that the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits 
  offered to Medicare eligible enrollees by a plan under the Federal 
   employees health benefits program shall be at least equal to the 
actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits offered by such plan 
                      to its enrollees generally.

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

SECTION 1. NEGOTIATIONS BY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.

    Section 8902 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(p)(1) A contract may not be made or a plan approved which does 
not offer to Medicare eligible enrollees prescription drug benefits the 
actuarial value of which is at least equal to the actuarial value of 
the prescription drug benefits which are offered to enrollees under the 
plan generally.
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the Director of the Office 
of Personnel Management shall establish processes and methods for 
determining the actuarial value of prescription drug benefits.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall apply with respect to 
contract years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2603

To impose limitations on the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 

to claim title or other rights to water absent specific direction of law 

or to abrogate, injure, or otherwise impair any right to the use of 

any quantity of water. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2003

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

Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To impose limitations on the authority of the Secretary of 

the Interior to claim title or other rights to water absent 

specific direction of law or to abrogate, injure, or otherwise impair any right to the use of any quantity of 

water.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND WATER 

4 RIGHTS. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec6 retary of the Interior shall not—
2

•HR 2603 IH 

1 (1) claim title or other rights to water in a 

2 State, other than for Indian reservation lands, ab3 sent specific direction of law; or 

4 (2) exercise authority so as to abrogate, injure 

5 or otherwise impair any right to the use of any 

6 quantity of water—

7 (A) that has been allocated—

8 (i) in conformance with subsections 

9 (a) through (c) of section 208 of the De10 partment of Justice Appropriations Act, 

11 1953 (43 U.S.C. 666); 

12 (ii) by or pursuant to interstate com13 pact; and 

14 (iii) by a decision of the United States 

15 Supreme Court; 

16 (B) by requiring a change in the nature of 

17 use or the transfer of any right to use water or 

18 creating a limitation on the exercise of any 

19 right to use water; or 

20 (C) by modifying the delivery, diversion, 

21 nondiversion, allocation, or storage of any water 

22 to be delivered by contract.

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 225
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 225.33 Rebuttable presumption of noncontrol of a company. ( a ) In any proceeding under § 225.31(b) or (c) of this part, a first company is presumed not to control a second company if: ( 1 ) The first company controls less than 10 percent of the outstanding securities of each class of voting securities of the second company; and
( 2 ) The first company is not presumed to control the second company under § 225.32 of this part.
( b ) In any proceeding under this subpart, or judicial proceeding under the Bank Holding Company Act, other than a proceeding in which the Board has made a preliminary determination that a first company has the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a second company, a first company may not be held to have had control over a second company at any given time, unless the first company, at the time in question, controlled 5 percent or more of the outstanding securities of any class of voting securities of the second company, or had already been found to have control on the basis of the existence of a controlling influence relationship.
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.2.1

June 16, 2000

Mr. William J. Lindenmayer
President
International Fuel Technology, Inc.
7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1920
St. Louis, MO 63105

                                Re:  GEM Global Yield Fund Limited ("GEM")
                                     Debenture Purchase Agreement
                                     -------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Lindenmayer:

We represent GEM with regard to the Debenture Purchase Agreement between
International Fuel Technology, Inc. ("IFUE") and GEM, dated February 25, 2000
(the "Agreement").

As per the terms of the Agreement, IFUE is to have taken effective with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a registration statement with
regard to the Underlying Shares, as defined in the Agreement, no later than
June 24, 2000 (the "Deadline"). IFUE is liable to GEM for certain penalties in
the event the Deadline is not met.

As per your request, GEM is willing to extend the Deadline to August 24, 2000,
under the following conditions:

     1.  The Warrants, as defined in the Agreement, are delivered to GEM no
         later than June 24, 2000.

     2.  The first sentence of Section 4.(c)(i) of the Agreement is modified to
         read:

         "(c) (i)  The Conversion Price for each Debenture in effect on any
         Conversion Date shall be the lesser of (X) $0.8125 or 125% of the
         average closing bid price for the five (5) Trading Days immediately
         prior to the Closing Date ("Fixed Conversion Price") or (Y) 91%
         (ninety-one percent) of the average of the three (3) lowest closing bid
         prices during the twenty (20) day period ("Three Day Average Closing
         Bid Price") immediately preceding the Conversion Date ("Floating
         Conversion Price")."

     3.  The Purchase Price, as defined in the Agreement, is modified to read
         "$1,500,000.00."

<PAGE>

International Fuel Technology, Inc.
Page Two
June 16, 2000




          4.  All other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and
effect.

If IFUE agrees to the foregoing, please sign where indicated below and return a
signed copy of this letter to me at the above address in New York. I will then
have GEM sign and return a fully executed copy to you.

Thank you,



Yours truly,


Ronald Scott Moss

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

International Fuel Technology, Inc.         GEM Global Yield Fund Limited


By: /s/ William J. Lindenmayer              By: /s/ Pierce Loughran
    ----------------------------                ----------------------------
William J. Lindenmayer                      Name: Pierce Loughran
President                                   Title: Director
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2826 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2826

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 1000 Avenida Sanchez Osorio in Carolina, Puerto Rico, as the 
           ``Roberto Clemente Walker Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1000 
Avenida Sanchez Osorio in Carolina, Puerto Rico, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Roberto Clemente Walker Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Roberto Clemente Walker Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Brown *v.*The State.

*Burglary.*

(Decided Nov. 28, 1912.

60 South. 430.)

1. *Uharge of Cowt; Directing Verdict.*— Where the offense is proven and there is evidence sufficient to authorize the jury to find the defendant guilty of the offense charged, the affirmative charge was properly refused.

2. *Burglary; Evidence.*— The evidence considered and held sufficient to authorize the finding by the jury of the guilt of the defendant.

*57Appeal from Clarke Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. John T. Lackland.

Dan Brown was convicted of burglary and he appeals.

Affirmed.

No counsel marked for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

It was the jury’s province to determine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, and the court properly denied the affirmative *charge.*— Kemp *v. The*State, 89 Ala. 52; *Shepherd v. The*State, 94 Ala'. 102.

PELHAM, J.

The general charge requested by the defendant was, in our judgment, properly refused; as being on the effect of the evidence. The commission of the offense embodied in the charge was proven without dispute or conflict in the evidence, and the jury was authorized to believe from the facts before the court that the defendant Avas guilty of burglary, the crime alleged,

The defendant’s recent possession of the goods' and the contradiction in the evidence explanatory of that possession, together Avith the evidence showing the defendant had been “hanging around” the store a short time prior to the commission of the offense, disclosed a state of facts authorizing an inference of the defendant’s guilt, Avhich Avas properly submitted by the court for solution by a determination of the jury, on the conflict produced by the defendant’s *denial.*— Ross *v.*State, 82 Ala. 65, 2 South. 139; *Kemp v.*State, 89 Ala. 52, 7 South. 413; *Shepperd v.*State, 94 Ala. 102, 10 South. 663.

Affirmed.
42070.

#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. THOMASON et al.

Jordan, Judge.

The State Highway Department filed its petition in the Superior Court of Whitfield County to condemn 0.491 acres of land. Assessors were appointed and on October 15, 1962, an award of $27,500 was entered. Judgment was entered on the same date declaring the 0.491 acres of land to be condemned in fee simple upon payment of the award which was duly paid into court and later disbursed to the condemnees by order of court dated October 27, 1962. Within the time provided by law both the State Highway Department as condemnor and James E. Thomason as condemnee filed appeals to a jury in the superior court and on March 10, 1966, the appeals proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of the case for the condemnor, the trial court entered the following order on March 11, 1966, from which this appeal is taken: “The State Highway Department of Georgia having failed to carry the burden of proof in this case, it is the order and judgment of this court that a nonsuit be granted and the judgment heretofore entered which took the property described in this case is hereby set aside.” *Held:*

It is clear under the decision of the Supreme Court in *State Hwy. Dept. v: Noble,*220 Ga. 410 (139 SE2d 318), that the trial court did not have authority to enter a judgment of nonsuit against the condemnor in its appeal from the assessors’ award and to vacate the original judgment of condemnation of October 15, 1962. The judgment of condemnation placing fee simple title in the condemnor, being unappealed from and unreversed, had become final, the timely appeals by both condemnor and condemnee going only to the amount of the award made by the assessors.

It is equally clear that even if a judgment of nonsuit could be entered in a proceeding of this nature, such judgment was unauthorized here since the State Highway Department clearly carried its burden of presenting competent evidence of just and adequate compensation by introducing the testimony of an expert witness showing .the value of the whole tract and then the value of the land remaining as of the day of taking and further showing that there were no consequential damages not offset by consequential benefits. *Elliott v. Fulton County,*
      *170220 Ga. 377 (139 SE2d 312); *State Hwy. Dept. v. Thompson,*112 Ga. App. 488 (145 SE2d 784).

Argued June 9, 1966

Decided June 28, 1966

Rehearing denied July 26, 1966

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Richard L. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, Horace E. Campbell, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

*Mitchell & Mitchell, Warren N. Coppedge, Jr.,*for appellees.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*