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

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.13(c)

                 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED MAY 14, 1996
                                    BY AND BETWEEN
                              RURAL CELLULAR CORPORATION
                                         AND
                                  WESLEY E. SCHULTZ


     THIS AMENDMENT entered into this 18th day of December, 1997, by and between
Rural Cellular Corporation ("RCC" or "Company") and Wesley E. Schultz (the
"Employee").

     WHEREAS, RCC and the Employee entered into a written Employment Agreement
on May 14, 1996 (the "Employment Agreement");

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14 of the Employment Agreement, RCC and the
Employee desire to amend the Employee's Employment Agreement to extend the term
of the Agreement and to increase certain payments to Employee in the event of a
change in control of RCC;

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is AGREED as follows:

     9.   The Employee's term of employment as set forth in Section 5 of the
Employment Agreement is hereby extended to December 31, 2000.

     10.  The amount to be paid to the Employee in the event of the involuntary
termination of his employment, absent Just Cause, in connection with, or within
twelve (12) months after, any change in control of RCC, as stated in Section
11(a) of the Employment Agreement, shall be equal to the product of 2.99 times
the Employee's "base amount" as defined in Section 280G(b)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") and the rgulations promulgated
thereunder.

     11.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.

     12.  All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement
remain in full force and effect.


                                   RURAL CELLULAR CORPORATION


                                   By: /s/   Richard P. Ekstrand
                                      --------------------------
                                      Richard P. Ekstrand
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer


                                   /s/ Wesley E. Schultz
                                   ---------------------
                                   Wesley E. Schulz
Original,

No. 5205.

#### Raymond George, *Adm’r v.*Commercial Credit Corporation *& a.*

Argued January 7, 1964.

Decided January 31, 1964.

*270*Shute*& *Engel {Mr. David C. Engel*orally), for plaintiff Raymond George, administrator of Baby Boy George.

*Bums, Bryant & Hinchey {Mr. Donald R. Bryant*orally), for defendant Commercial Credit Corporation.

*Sheehan, Phinney, Bass, Green & Bergevin*and *Kimon S. Zachos {Mr. Zachos*orally), for defendant Portsmouth Mobile Homes, Inc.

Lampron, J.

These actions for wrongful death of a nonviable foetus are pending in the Superior Court together with four related cases for injuries to the mother and for hospital expenses and consequential damages suffered by the father as a result of the same accident. Plaintiff takes the position that all of these cases should be tried together. He maintains that if the issue sought to be transferred should be decided adversely to him at that trial there would result undue prejudice and hardship.

No one questions the authority of the Trial Court to reserve and transfer to this court in advance of trial the question of whether damages may be recovered for the wrongful death of a nonviable foetus which was never born alive. RSA 491:17. See *Poliquin*v. *MacDonald,*101 N. H. 104; *Bennett*v. *Hymers,*101 N. H. 483. Plaintiff does not claim nor can we find an abuse of discretion by the Trial Court in its refusal to grant his request for such a transfer. *Perkins*v. *Associates,*100 N. H. 247.

*271This court has concurrent original authority to grant a writ of certiorari to effectuate a transfer and consideration of that issue in advance of trial. RSA 490:4. *Nelson*v. *Morse,*91 N. H. 177. Such relief is not granted as a matter of right. *Dinsmore*v. *Mayor and Aldermen,*76 N. H. 187, 191. This extraordinary summary power is exercised in the discretion of this court sparingly and only when the substantial ends of justice require such action. *Nashua*v. *Public Utilities Commission,*101 N. H. 503.

A writ of certiorari is not usually granted if the party seeking this redress has another remedy which is ample and convenient. *Leighton*v. *Railroad,*72 N. H. 224, 231; *Cloutier*v. *State Milk Control*Board, 92 N. H. 199. Nor is it granted when an appeal is available and there are no unusual circumstances requiring this court to exercise this summary power. *Waisman*v. Manchester, 96 N. H. 50, 54; *Nashua*v. *Public Utilities*Commission, supra;*Salem Cooperative Bank*v. *Southwick,*102 N. H. 1, 2.

Plaintiff admits his right to transfer any adverse ruling on this issue to this court after trial in the Superior Court. RSA 490:9, 10. The disadvantages which the plaintiff alleges he will suffer if this procedure is followed do not so outweigh other considerations as to warrant the granting of a writ of certiorari. *Waisman*v. *Manchester,*supra;*Nashua*v. *Public Utilities Commission, supra.*

*Petition dismissed.*

All concurred.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

Convened January 5, 1993 

FIRST SESSION { 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Thursday, July 29, 1993 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J. STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett. Executive Clerk 
Calendar I Treaty I 

No. . Doc. No. _ 

1 

TREATIES 

Subject Reported 

By 
Calendar Message 

No. No. 

• 273 291 

• 274 410 

275 305 

288 306 

2 

NOMINATIONS 

Nominee, Office, And Pred~r 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Thomas W. Payzant, of California, to be 

~istant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education, vice John T. MacDonald, 

resigned. 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

Sheldon Hackney, of Pennsylvania, to be 

Chairperson of the National Endowment for 

the Humanities for a term of four years, 

vice Lynne Vincent Cheney, resigned. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Eleanor Acheson, of Massachusetts, to be an 

~istant Attorney General, vice Stephen 

J. Markman, resigned. 

Walter Dellinger, of North Carolina, to be 

an Assistant Attorney General, vice 

Timothv E. Flani£an resumed. 

Reported 

Bv 

Jul 14, 93 Mr. Kennedy. 

Committee on Labor and 

Human Resources, without 

printed report 

Do. 

Jul 15, 93 Mr. Biden, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

without printed report 

Jul 22, 93 Mr. Biden, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

without urinted reoort .. •S1gntf1es nomtnee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate.
#### § 100.2 What definitions apply to these regulations?

*Department* means the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

*Order* means Executive Order 12372, issued July 14, 1982, and amended April 8, 1983 and titled “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

*Secretary* means the Secretary of HHS or an official or employee of the Department acting for the Secretary under a delegation of authority.

*State* means any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 62427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8868]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Missile Defense Advisory Committee (MDAC)

AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency (MDA).

ACTION: Notice of Closed Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Missile Defense Advisory Committee will meet in closed 
session on November 28-29, 2006, in Washington, DC.
    The mission of the Missile Defense Advisory Committee is to provide 
the Department of Defense advice on all matters relating to missile 
defense, including system development, technology, program maturity and 
readiness of configurations of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 
(BMDS) to enter the acquisition process. At this meeting, the Committee 
will conduct classified discussions on capability-based acquisition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: COL David R. Wolf, Designated Federal 
Official (DFO) at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#056164736c612b726a6963456861642b686c69"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="492d283f202d673e26252f09242d2867242025">[email protected]</span></a>, phone/voice mail (703) 695-6438, 
or mail at 7100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20302-7100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. 
App. II), it has been determined that this Missile Defense Advisory 
Committee meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and 
that, accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: October 19, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Office, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 06-8868 Filed 10-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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

In
connection with the annual report of R&R Acquisition IX, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Arnold P. Kling,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                      
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report fully complies
 with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, as amended; and                  
| |     |                                                                                                                                                      
| | (2) | The information contained
 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
 condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 23, 2009

|                               |                
|------------------------------ | ---------------
|/s/                            | Arnold P. Kling
|                               |                
|Arnold P. Kling               
|President                     
|(Principal Executive
 Officer)

A signed original of this
certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

---
Form 8910

(Rev. January 2022)

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service 

Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit

▶ Attach to your tax return.

▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form8910 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-1998

Attachment 

Sequence No. 68

Name(s) shown on return Identifying number

Note:

• Use this form to claim the credit for certain alternative motor vehicles.

• Claim the credit for certain plug-in electric vehicles on Form 8936.

Part I Tentative Credit

Use a separate column for each vehicle. If you need more columns, use 

additional Forms 8910 and include the totals on lines 7 and 11. (a) Vehicle 1 (b) Vehicle 2 

1 Year, make, and model of vehicle . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Vehicle identification number (see instructions) . . . . . 2

3 Enter date vehicle was placed in service (MM/DD/YYYY) . . 3

4 Tentative credit (see instructions for amount to enter) . . . 4

Next: If you did NOT use your vehicle for business or investment purposes and did not have a credit from a partnership or 

S corporation, skip Part II and go to Part III. All others, go to Part II.

Part II Credit for Business/Investment Use Part of Vehicle 

5 Business/investment use percentage (see instructions) . . . 5 % %

6 Multiply line 4 by line 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

7 Add columns (a) and (b) on line 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

8 Alternative motor vehicle credit from partnerships and S corporations (see instructions) . 8

9 Business/investment use part of credit. Add lines 7 and 8. Partnerships and S corporations, 

stop here and report this amount on Schedule K. All others, report this amount on Form 3800, 

Part III, line 1r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Part III Credit for Personal Use Part of Vehicle 

10 If you skipped Part II, enter the amount from line 4. If you 

completed Part II, subtract line 6 from line 4 . . . . . . 10

11 Add columns (a) and (b) on line 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

12 Enter the amount from Form 1040, 1040-SR, or 1040-NR, line 18 . . . . . . . . 12

13 Personal credits from Form 1040, 1040-SR, or 1040-NR (see instructions) . . . . . 13

14 Subtract line 13 from line 12. If zero or less, enter -0- and stop here. You cannot claim the

personal use part of the credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

15 Personal use part of credit. Enter the smaller of line 11 or line 14 here and on Schedule 3

(Form 1040), line 6e. If line 14 is smaller than line 11, see instructions . . . . . . . 15

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 37720F Form 8910 (Rev. 1-2022)
Argued March 8,

decided March 28;

rehearing denied June 13, 1911.

#### ADAMS *v.*MacKENZIE.

[114 Pac. 460.]

Mechanics*' Liens — -Enforcement—Evidence—Burden of Proof.

In a suit by a contractor to enforce a mechanic’s lien, the burden of proof is upon him to show a substantial compliance with the contract, as modified and changed from time to time.

From Multnomah: John B. Cleland, Judge.

This is a suit by W. A. Adams against W. F. MacKenzie and Ida May MacKenzie to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. From a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

For appellant there was a brief over the names of *Mr. Myron E. Pogue, Mr. Andrew T. Lewis*and *Mr. William M. Kaiser,*with oral arguments by *Mr. Pogue*and *Mr. Lewis.*

For respondents there was a brief over the names of *Mr. Ephraim B. Seabrook, Mr. Miller Murdock*and *Mr. Joel M. Long,*with an oral argument by *Mr. Seabrook.*

*90Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien upon a dwelling house in the city of Portland. The principal defense urged is the failure by plaintiff to substantially perform his contract according to the plans and specifications. Many departures therefrom are admitted; but, as the contract itself provides for changes, we have treated all such variations as parts of the contract and within the pleadings. The testimony is very contradictory. Plaintiff and his expert witnesses contend that the contract, including changes, has been substantially complied with, and that defendants have really a better house than they contracted for, while defendants’ witnesses and experts contend that the building is a marvel of bad construction, about the worst that possibly could be imagined.

After reading and re-reading and carefully considering the testimony, we find that plaintiff has failed to show that he substantially complied with his contract, or that defendants waived noncompliance; and, while we think it probable that plaintiff is entitled to something more than he has received, we are compelled to leave'the parties to their action at law to settle their differences. We have considered the testimony for the plaintiff upon its merits, and without reference to technical objections urged by defendants, and these are, therefore, not discussed. The burden of proof was upon plaintiff to show substantial compliance with his contract, as modified and changed from time to time, and we think the preponderance of the evidence indicates the contrary. To discuss in detail the evidence, which comprises a volume of 500 typewritten pages, would serve no useful purpose, and therefore we simply state the result of our investigation.

The decree is affirmed. Affirmed.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of I.M.A., a child, * From the 318th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. FM-50853.

No. 11-14-00297-CV * November 19, 2015

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

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

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred 

by reason of this appeal are taxed against Appellant, Sue Martinez.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10253 Conference Calendar

MICHAEL ANTHONY DAVIS Plaintiff-Appellant

v. NFN BAKER, Mailroom Supervisor and Clerk, in her Individual and Off icial Capacities Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CV-886
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Anthony Davis, Texas prisoner # 872268, appeals the dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(b). Davis’s claim that a prison official violated his constitutional rights by opening Davis’s incoming legal mail outside his presence is not cognizable under § 1983. See Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir. 1993). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 24, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10253

2 Davis’s appeal lacks arguable merit, and it is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 T H C IR
. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal and the dismissal ofthe instant appeal count asstrikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Davis also accumulated a strike in Davis v. InmateTrust Fund, No. A-03-CA-732-SS and a strike in Davisv. Baker, No. 4:07-CV-068-A. Accordingly, Davis is nowbarred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Davis’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for oral argument are denied. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
§ 155.1300 Basis and purpose. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart implements provisions of section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, relating to Waivers for State Innovation, which the Secretary may authorize for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act requires the Secretary to issue regulations that provide for all of the following: ( 1 ) A process for public notice and comment at the State level, including public hearings, sufficient to ensure a meaningful level of public input.
( 2 ) A process for the submission of an application that ensures the disclosure of all of the following: ( i ) The provisions of law that the State involved seeks to waive.
( ii ) The specific plans of the State to ensure that the waiver will meet all requirements specified in section 1332.
( 3 ) A process for the provision of public notice and comment after a waiver application is received by the Secretary, that is sufficient to ensure a meaningful level of public input and that does not impose requirements that are in addition to, or duplicative of, requirements imposed under the Administrative Procedures Act, or requirements that are unreasonable or unnecessarily burdensome with respect to State compliance.
( 4 ) A process for the submission of reports to the Secretary by a State relating to the implementation of a waiver.
( 5 ) A process for the periodic evaluation by the Secretary of programs under waivers.
( b ) *Purpose.* This subpart sets forth certain procedural requirements for Waivers for State Innovation under section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act.
&runtr nf tqr luitt~ ttutrs 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION {Convened January 3, r969 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. V ALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Thursday, November 20, 1969 

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREE:\IENT 

Ordered, That at 1 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 21, 1969, the i:lcnate proceed to \ ote on the nomination of Clement 

F. Haynsworth, Jr., of South C<crolina, to be an Associate Justice of the iluprrmo Court of the United 8tates. 

NOMINATIONS 

Date of Calendar Message Name of nominee Office 

report No. No. ----------l-------------------------1-------------------l 

1969 

No\ 12 677 I 610 

SUPREME COURT OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

Clement F. llaynsworth, 

.Jr., of South Carolina. 

An Associate Justice of the 

Supreme Court of the 

United States. 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK 

In the Coast Guard 

(Nov. 18, 1969) 

Predooes>or 

[Reported favorably by 

Mr. Hruska, from 

the Committee on 

the J ucliciary, with 

individual views. 

(See Ex. Rept. 

91-12, 91st Cong., 

1st sess.)] 

The nominations beginning Walter E. l\lason, .Tr., to be commander, und euding Jack K. Stice, tu be lieu· 

tenant, which nominations were recei\eu by the Senate and appea1t>d m the Cougn·o~iunalllccmd ou No\·. l'i, 

1969. 

37-022-69-No. 109 U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFJC£t 19U