alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Renewal of Law Firm Agreement



 Exhibit 10.30 

RENEWAL OF LAW FIRM ENGAGEMENT 

AGREEMENT 
 This Agreement
(this “Agreement”) entered into in the City of Jacksonville and State of Florida between Stein Mart, Inc., a Florida corporation and its divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates (the “Company”), and
KIRSCHNER & LEGLER, P.A. (which, together with its president, Mitchell W. Legler, “Legler”, and with Legler and Kirschner & Legler, P.A. collectively called the “Firm”), is made as of
April 1, 2015 (the “Effective Date”). 
 Background 

The parties entered into a Law Firm Engagement Agreement dated April 1, 2011 as renewed effective April 1, 2013 (the
“Existing Agreement”) which expires by its terms on March 31, 2015. The parties wish to renew the Existing Agreement on the terms provided below. 

In consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 

 

	SECTION 1.  	TERM OF ENGAGEMENT 

 (a) Term. Section I (a) of the Existing Agreement is
hereby modified to read in its entirety as follows: “The Company agrees to employ the Firm, and the Firm agrees to be employed by the Company, for a period of two (2) year(s) beginning on the April 1, 2015 and ending on March 31,
2017 (the “Term”).” 
 (b) Compensation. Section 4(a) of the Existing Agreement remains unchanged thereby
maintaining the annual compensation at $200,000. 
  

	SECTION 2.	  RATIFICATION 

 (a) Agreement Continuing. Except as expressly modified
as provided above, the Existing Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 
 (b) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed
in counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Firm have executed this Agreement effective as of the Effective Date. 
  

									
	STEIN MART, INC.				KIRSCHNER & LEGLER, P.A.
					
	By:		 /s/ D. Hunt Hawkins
				By:		 /s/ Mitchell W. Legler

	Name:		David H. Hawkins, President and COO						Mitchell W. Legler, President
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.35

January 23, 2003

STRICTLY PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
HAND DELIVERED, ORIGINAL TO FILE

Dear Rick:

I am pleased to confirm your new title and position as Senior Vice President
Sales and Marketing, at ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC. This letter is intended to
replace any other previous employment letters and/or contracts, between you and
ALDERWOODS GROUP INC.; and details your new salary increase, effective on the
February 4, 2003 payroll.

REPORTS TO:                         PAUL HOUSTON, PRESIDENT AND CEO
LOCATION:                           2225 SHEPPARD AVENUE EAST, SUITE 1100
                                    TORONTO, ONTARIO M2J 5C2

Please find listed below an outline of your employment terms;

     1)   BASE SALARY; your base salary is $190,000 CDN (paid bi-weekly)

     2)   ANNUAL INCENTIVE; you are entitled to participate at the annual
          executive level of 40% target and 80% maximum. Program details
          supplied to you.

     3)   STOCK OPTIONS; you will be entitled to participate in the stock option
          program. The details of this grant will be covered by a separate stock
          option agreement as determined and administrated by the Board of
          Directors.

     4)   BENEFITS PROGRAMS; you will be covered by the company's benefits
          programs, covering medical and dental plans.

     5)   ANNUAL MEDICAL; you are entitled to take a company paid annual
          medical.

     6)   RRSP PENSION; you will be eligible company's RRSP program in which you
          can make deposits and the company will match the value.

     7)   CAR ALLOWANCE; you will be entitled to $600.00 CDN/ month (paid
          bi-weekly ).

     8)   VACATION ENTITLEMENT; you are eligible for four (4) weeks vacation per
          year.

     9)   TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; if you should be terminated for any reason
          other than just cause, you will be entitled to receive twelve (12)
          months severance.

     10)  CHANGE OF CONTROL; if there is a change in control whereby 51% or more
          of the company's shares change hands and as a result your employment
          is terminated, you will receive 24 months severance.

Sincerely,                                              Acceptance:


-------------------------------                         ------------------------
Paul Houston, President and CEO                         Rick Scully
§ 1988.108 Role of Federal agencies. ( a ) ( 1 ) The complainant and the respondent will be parties in every proceeding and must be served with copies of all documents in the case. At the Assistant Secretary's discretion, the Assistant Secretary may participate as a party or as amicus curiae at any time at any stage of the proceeding. This right to participate includes, but is not limited to, the right to petition for review of a decision of an ALJ, including a decision approving or rejecting a settlement agreement between the complainant and the respondent.
( 2 ) Parties must send copies of documents to OSHA and to the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, only upon request of OSHA, or when OSHA is participating in the proceeding, or when service on OSHA and the Associate Solicitor is otherwise required by these rules.
( b ) The NHTSA, if interested in a proceeding, may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceeding, at NHTSA's discretion. At the request of NHTSA, copies of all documents in a case must be sent to NHTSA, whether or not it is participating in the proceeding.
#### § 1905.50 Effect of appeal of a hearing examiner's decision.

A hearing examiner's decision under this part shall not be operative pending a decision on appeal by the Assistant Secretary.
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2013

APPENDIX A

SCAQMD Network Depictions
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2013

A-1

Figure 1 SCAQMD Ozone Monitoring Locations
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2013

A-2

Figure 2 SCAQMD PM10 Monitoring Locations
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2013

A-3

Figure 3 SCAQMD Monitoring Locations for Nitrogen Dioxide
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2013

A-4

Figure 4 SCAQMD Monitoring Locations for Carbon Monoxide
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2013

A-5

Figure 5 SCAQMD Monitoring Locations for Sulfur Dioxide
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2013

A-6

Figure 6 SCAQMD Source and Ambient Particulate Lead Monitoring Locations
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2013

A-7

Figure 7 SCAQMD PAMS Monitoring Locations
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2013

A-8

Figure 8 SCAQMD PM2.5 Monitoring Locations B = BAM FEM

B1 = BAM
#### James M. Graham, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. A. B. Meader, as Trustee, *Defendant in Error.*

This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

*Evans Hale, Horatio Davis, Thomas*IF. *Fielding*and IF. *H. Ellis,*for Plaintiff in Error;

IF. IF. *Hampton,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted upon argument for- the respective parties, and having been referred to Division A, and the transcript of the record having been seen and inspected and the court being fully advised in the premises, it appears to the court *254that there is no error in the record; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the referee herein, to which this writ of error is directed, be and the same hereby is in all respedís affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-KSB OF KNICKERBOCKER VILLAGE INC., FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             415
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   467999
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (260000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1925722
<PP&E>                                        18360249
<DEPRECIATION>                              (10898301)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                10217412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2183942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        317048
<OTHER-SE>                                      943164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  10217412
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9578277
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9582072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 88000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              623879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3795)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     38000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (41795)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (41795)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00014-CV

WADI PETROLEUM, INC., DICE EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC., SOUTH BAY 

CORPORATION, LAMB OIL & GAS, INC., AND BETACO, LLC

v.

ETHAN MILLER

On Appeal from the

459th District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-18-002826

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the 

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged 50% against appellants and 50% against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 30, 2021
#### John Battles *et al. versus*Alpheus Fobes Junior.

*Eddy*and *E.*Whitman,

for the plaintiffs, cited *Foster*v. *533
      *Essex Bank,*16 Mass. R. 245; *Holden*v. *James,*11 Mass. R. 396.

*532In this action (of assumpsit), which was pending at the time when the Revised Statutes went into operation, and in which the statute of limitations had previously been pleaded, the plaintiff was not allowed to avoid the bar by bringing his case within the provision of the Revised Stat. c. 120, § 9, that if the debtor shall be absent from, and reside out of, the State, the time of his absence shall not be taken as a part of the time limited for the commencement of the action.

*533
      *W. Baylies,*for the defendant,

cited Revised Stat. c. 146, § 5. [See *Bickford*v. *Boston and Lowell Rail Road Corp.*21 Pick. 100: *Sawyer*v. *Bancroft,*21 Pick. 210; Gay v. *Richardson, ante,*417.]
DEPARTMENT OF 

iRANSPORTATiON 

' :KET OPERATIONS 

January 28, 2011 M FEB - 3 A »: UU 

REF: FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-1146 and Airspace Docket No. lO-ASO-25 

U.S. Dept of Transportation 

M-30 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 

This letter is to protest the widening and lowering to 500 Ft MSL the Restricted area 

around restricted areas R2906, R2907A & R2910. 

The present restricted areas are very rarely used as is so why is it necessary to increase 

their size and lowering the floor to 500 Ft MSL? I am all for a strong, properly trained 

military but it they need more room to practice, why can't they do it over the ocean which 

is only a few miles to the east and would take just a few minutes to fly there. 

I am based at Mount Royal Airpark (3FLO) which is located just to the East of the 

proposed restricted area. I fly a Piper Malibu, mostly IFR. It is nearly impossible to pick 

up an IFR clearance on the ground at 3 FLO so therefore I depart VFR when the weather 

cooperates and pick up my IFR clearance in the air. Since most of my trips are West and 

Northwest bound, I would not be able to do this since I caimot reach Jacksonville 

Approach when I am below 500 Ft and need to be at least 1,500 Ft in the air in order to 

talk to them. 

Flying VFR below 500 Ft to go west would be VERY dangerous due to the many towers 

and lack of altitude in case of an engine failure. Also, the FAR require us to fly at least 

500 Ft over sparsely populated areas and 1,000 Ft over populated areas and are requested 

to fly at least 2,000 Ft over National Parks, Forests and Preserves. 

By lowering and expanding the restricted areas, our property values in the airpark would 

be adversely affected. 

Thank you for your consideration and help in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

John Gostomski 

119 Airport Dr 

Crescent City, FL 32112
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Indiana�s forest resources in...**
 
1999
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.159: | A 13.163/14:
Item Number:0083-B-11 (online) | 0084-N-14(online)
CGP systemNumber:000570395
 
March 28, 2018
#### § 385.5 Procedures prescribed in other regulations.

Procedures set forth in this part do not supersede procedures applicable to matters on which decision has been assigned unless otherwise specifically provided herein: *Provided, however,* That any provisions in other regulations which provide for reconsideration of nonhearing determinations are not applicable to decisions made under authority assigned herein or to decisions made upon review thereof by the Reviewing Official.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 761

# Field Activity Logs

----

#### Home | Acronyms | Contents | Navigation | Photos and Maps | Logs | Metadata

----

### Field Activity Collection System (FACS) Logs

FACS logs are standardized forms used by the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program. For more information, see http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/main/facs.html. Click on the links below for a PDF or a TXT file of the 03CCH01 FACS log. A metadata record of the 03CCH01 field activity was created from these FACS forms and is available online at http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/a/a103ec/html/a-1-03-ec.meta.html. Digital FACS logs were generated post-survey by J. Subino by listening to the audio from the survey videos and from personal accounts of the crew members. These files can also be found in the logs folder.

**NOTE:**PDF files may be viewed using free Adobe Reader software. If unable to access the PDF files, please contact [email protected].

----

#### Home | Acronyms | Contents | Navigation | Photos and Maps | Logs | Metadata

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |            U.S. Geological Survey                                                URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/761/pubs761/html/logs.html            Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact                        Page Last Modified: Thursday, April 11, 2013, 10:02:21 AM
----

NOTICE

The 42nd edition of the Directory of Community Legislation in Force was published at the end of June 2004. It will be the last paper edition. In future, this Directory will only be available in electronic form on EUR-Lex, the website giving access to European legislation. A printable pdf version will also be available. The 42nd edition concerns legislation in force on 1 January 2004 and is only available in the official languages of that date.

Subscribers to the paper version of the Official Journal can get one free copy of this Directory for each language version to which they have subscribed. Subscribers should return the order form below, duly completed with their subscriber number (code printed on the left of each label, starting with O/ .......).

Non-subscribers can obtain the Directory from one of our sales offices (see overleaf) on payment of the cover price.

All Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) can be consulted free of charge online at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

Catalogue No: OA-23-03-000-EN-C

----
W *v"

(M/< Abtt AMU, cit/ic

Austin, T£MC 7*7//

Ocas MC AtoS-k*!

Ti,030-01

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

DEC 18 2015

AbelAcosta, Clerk

Pl£AS£ frHivAnO

ft i ft

6-rct-hyutS • my (VAvnt, <> Jfbi4£S ZtOejAttG £cMo(Af a*cl ZJTa** an fhswte a.+/Ac

M$tf./d m STILUS oitvfT a*/- B£AuMd*)Tr TJ£X4-f, 3:a*n om^-Hvu. To you aSITmu cjho uaf n*\/

/\p/)li(&H- QffDMey On CrtUS/l/VO. 00/1-71, 03&-ol. /frSb jzr*~v upward of- ui^o R\<_ A*y

Ca}e, /b*cl qfTO 2T clto/si'-l- ^ej~ AAy APpeiluk. t/olwu^euf br,i£s ow«i TranScr^fs^-K,

rfCa-X fch ^c /^nou (Y-you have any yuejj>t>«f, c-K, :zr /oofc /CertjAfo|-/o

5e<^cta-hs*-} wCrLC<>etj) HeA- IIcetf

Cc,
§ 18.609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. ( a ) *General rule.* For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.
( b ) *Time limit.* Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date.
( c ) *Effect of pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation.* Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule if: ( 1 ) The conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted, and that person has not been convicted of a subsequent crime which was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, or
( 2 ) The conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.
( d ) *Juvenile adjudications.* Evidence of juvenile adjudications is not admissible under this rule.
( e ) *Pendency of appeal.* The pendency of an appeal therefrom does not render evidence of a conviction inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible.
[55 FR 13219, Apr. 9, 1990; 55 FR 14033, Apr. 13, 1990]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         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 filing of the Form
10-K of The Lamson & Sessions Co. (the "Company") for the period ended January
3, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
February 20, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company
certifies that, to such officer's knowledge:

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

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.


February 20, 2004

                                          /s/ John B. Schulze
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          John B. Schulze
                                          Chairman of the Board, President and
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)
[No. 20284-4-III.

Division Three.

December 12, 2002.]

#### Mark Mayo, et al., *Appellants,*v. Thorne L. Tibbitts, et al., *Respondents.*N. James Morse, et al., *Respondents,*v. Mark Mayo, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 99-2-07114-4, James M. Murphy, J., entered May 24, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sterling Green, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 314]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered January 20, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Two men were murdered during an armed robbery of a large quantity of marihuana that was delivered to the defendant’s automotive repair shop. Following the murders, the defendant met with the police six times over a two-week period. The defendant contends on appeal that written and oral statements that he made to the police during this time should be suppressed.

*404The court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. Even assuming, as the defendant contends, that an attorney who spoke to the District Attorney’s office “entered the proceeding” on his behalf, it was not improper for the police to question the defendant based on the attorney’s statement that the defendant would cooperate with the police after receiving assurances that he would not be prosecuted for marihuana possession and that he would be protected *(see, People v Beam,*57 NY2d 241; *People v Brown,*244 AD2d 347; *People v Cusano,*111 AD2d 181, 182). Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.