alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 10.24

                          [BEC GROUP, INC. LETTERHEAD]


December 5, 1996

Martin E. Franklin
BEC Group, Inc.
555 Theodore Fremd Avenue
Suite B-302
Rye, New York 10580

Dear Martin:

After several discussions, I believe you and I came to the following
agreement regarding my departure from the company. I have listed these below:

         1)      Continue in current role through 3/29/97. Bonus for 1996 as
                 per current arrangement. No bonus program in 1997.

         2)      Accrued PTO paid 3/29/97

         3)      Resign effective 3/29/97 with $350,000 severance payment and
                 full vesting of 200,000 options issued at $5.05 on 5/3/96. All
                 options to be exercised no later than 9/30/98.

         4)      If the 200,000 options in #3 above are at a market price of
                 $5.55 or less on 9/30/98, BEC Group will pay to me $100,000
                 cash, if I have not previously exercised these options.

         5)      Available by phone to assist with any transition item or
                 questions until 3/29/98.

         6)      Sign confidentiality agreement, but no non-compete or general
                 release

         7)      We will agree on a low-key information release toward
                 year-end. You and I will agree on wording.

         8)      You will provide an excellent reference for me.


If you are in agreement, please send me a letter to this effect.


Sincerely,

/s/ BILL

William T. Sullivan
<PAGE>   2

                                BEC GROUP, INC.

                           555 THEODORE FREMD AVENUE
                                  SUITE B-302
                              RYE, NEW YORK 10580
                              TEL: (914) 967-9400
                             FAX: (914) 967-9405/7
                              E-MAIL: BECGroup.com

MARTIN E. FRANKLIN
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

January 2, 1997

Mr. Bill Sullivan
BEC Group, Inc.
1601 Valley View Lane
Dallas, TX 75234

Dear Bill:

Thank you for your letter dated December 5, 1996. The Compensation Committee
has approved the terms of your departure from the company in line with the
points outlined in your letter, with the following changes:

Point 4 becomes: " If the 200,000 options in #3 above are not at or above a
market price of $6.00 per share for at least 20 days prior to 9/30/98, BEC
Group will pay me $100,000 in cash on 10/l/98. If the shares trade at or above
$6.00 for at least 20 days prior to 9/30/98 no additional payment will be due."

Point 7 becomes: "BEC Group will issue a mutually acceptable press release on
3/29/97 announcing my departure from the company."

New Point 9: "I will be proposed as a continuing board nominee at the 1997
annual meeting, but will receive no compensation for providing director
services unless proposed for re-election again at the shareholders meeting in
1998."

Bill, I look forward to working with you during the first quarter of 1997 and
as a director thereafter.


Yours sincerely,


/s/ MARTIN E. FRANKLIN

Martin E. Franklin
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, James G. Jennings III, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of 21st Century Holding
Company;


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


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


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


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


         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
         about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
         of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such
         evaluations; and


         c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
         registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that was materially affected,
         or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's control
         over financial reporting; and;


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


         a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
         or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting.





Date: May 17, 2004.

/s/ J. G. Jennings, III
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2014039EN.01000601.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/6

---

Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — X v Minister van Financiën

(Case C-302/12) (1)

1

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 43 EC - Motor vehicles - Use in a Member State of a private motor vehicle registered in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State when it was first used on the national road network and also in the second Member State when it was registered - Vehicle used by the citizen concerned for both private use and for going, from the Member State of origin, to the place of work situated in the first Member State)

2014/C 39/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Appellant:

Respondent: Minister van Financiën

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 21 TFEU, 45 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — National legislation imposing a registration tax when a motor vehicle is first used on the national road network — Tax owed by a person residing in two Member States, including the Member State concerned, and using her motor vehicle there on a permanent basis — Vehicle registered in the other Member State — Exercise of powers of taxation by both Member States.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which a motor vehicle, which is registered and is already the subject of taxation as a result of its registration in another Member State, is the subject of a tax when it is first used on the national road network, where that vehicle is intended, essentially, to be actually used on a long-term basis in both those Member States or is, in fact, used in that manner, as long as that tax is not discriminatory.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-4684
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK D. POLEN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-96-9) Submitted: July 8, 1997 Decided: September 18, 1997 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Gallagher, CASSIDY, MYERS, COGAN, VOEGELIN & TENNANT, L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William D. Wilmoth, United States Atto rney, Lisa Grimes Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Davis S. Kris, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Also known as the "Child Support Recovery Act." 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant Mark Polen was convicted pursuant to his guilty plea of one count of willful failure to pay child support in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228 (1994). * On appeal, he challenges whether § 228 lies within Congress' constitutional power to regulate activities affecting commerce. Finding no error, we affirm. Polen and his wife were divorced in 1984, and he was orderedto pay child support. Polen failed to make the required child support payments, and by the time of sentencing in the present case heowed approximately $17,000. He filed a motion to dismiss the criminal information on the ground that § 228 is unconstitutional. The motion was denied, and Polen entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the constitutionality of the statute. This court recently held that § 228 does not exceed Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, nor does it violate the Tenth Amendment. See United States v. Johnson , 114 F.3d 476 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm Polen's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED3
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2216]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAAA.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, including consideration of 
personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of 
individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAAA.
    Date: June 14-15, 2007.
    Open: June 14, 2007, 7:30 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.
    Agenda: Personal qualifications and performance, and competence 
of individual.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, 9000 
Rockville Pike, Room 2C116, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Closed: June 14, 2007, 7:45 a.m. to 6:40 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate unit of Primate studies (LCTS) 
and Lab of Neuroimaging.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, 9000 
Rockville Pike, Room 2C116, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Closed: June 15, 2007, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Lab of Clinical and Translational 
Studies and two Tenure Track Investigators, Lab of Neurogenetics 
(LNG).
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, 9000 
Rockville Pike, Room 2C116, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Trish Scullion, Chief of Administrative Branch, 
National Institute of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse 
and Alcoholism, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3061, Rockville, MD 20852, 
301-443-6076.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 30, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2216 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Robert T. McGeer, *Appellant, v.*Charles A. Kernan, *Respondent.*

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barker, J.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN URGENT CARE & PRIMARY. ) 

CARE PHYSICIANS, P.C. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) No. 2:15-CV-11233-AC-AKM 

 v. ) 

 ) 

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS ) 

NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

This matter having come before the Court upon the stipulation of the parties, 

through their undersigned counsel, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in 

the premises; 

WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated a settlement, and pursuant to Fed R. 

Civ. Proc. 41(a), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of Plaintiff's individual claims with prejudice 

and without costs and the dismissal of Plaintiff's putative class claims without prejudice and 

without costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 19, 2015 s/Avern Cohn 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-11233-AC-MKM ECF No. 14 filed 06/19/15 PageID.75 Page 1 of 2
2 

STIPULATED AND AGREED: 

MICHIGAN URGENT CARE & 

PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS, P.C. 

s/Daniel A. Edelman 

By one of its attorneys 

Daniel Edelman 

Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC 

20 S. Clark St., Suite 1500 

Chicago, IL 60603 

312-739-4200 

Courtecl@edcombs.com

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS 

NORTH AMERICA, LLC 

s/Lawrence J. Murphy (with permission) 

By one of its attorneys 

Lawrence J. Murphy 

Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP 

660 Woodward Avenue 

2290 First National Building 

Detroit, MI 48226-3506 

313-465-7488 

lmurphy@honigman.com

Case 2:15-cv-11233-AC-MKM ECF No. 14 filed 06/19/15 PageID.76 Page 2 of 2
# C_2012039EN.01002001.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/20

---

Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Cham v Council of the European Union

(Case T-649/11)

(2012/C 39/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action to be admissible, and consequently: |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action to be admissible, and consequently:

| — | annul Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as those measures relate to the applicant, in that they add its name to the list of entities covered by Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 and Articles 3 and 4 of Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as those measures relate to the applicant, in that they add its name to the list of entities covered by Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 and Articles 3 and 4 of Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RODNEY O. HARRIS,

Petitioner, 

v.

DAVID BERGH,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:15-CV-11122

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner Rodney O. Harris, a state prisoner confined at the Thumb Correctional

Facility in Lapeer, Michigan, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

Petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas

corpus review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492

(6th Cir. 1995); see also Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania

v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). “‘[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a

matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right.’” Childs v.

Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987). A habeas petitioner may obtain

representation at any stage of the case “[w]henever the United States magistrate or the

court determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 

The Court determines that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel

at this time. 

-1-

2:15-cv-11122-GCS-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 114
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel”

[dkt. # 3]. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

April 24, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on 

Rodney Harris #227942, Thumb Correctional Facility,

3225 John Conley Drive, Lapeer, MI 48446.

s/Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk

-2-

2:15-cv-11122-GCS-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 04/24/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 115
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 07, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 07, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24A0812. BILLY W. BROMELL v. THEODORE JAMES SMOLENSKI.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On January 29, 2024, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than February 06, 2024. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
# C_2014045EN.01001202.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León v Anuntis Segundamano España SL

(Case C-413/12) (1)

1

(References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Action seeking an injunction brought by a regional consumer protection association - Jurisdiction of local courts - No remedy against a decision declining jurisdiction delivered at first instance - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

2014/C 45/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León

Applicant:

Defendant: Anuntis Segundamano España SL

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain — Interpretation of Articles 4, 12, 114 and 169 TFEU, Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) and of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms — Preventive action brought in the collective interest by a consumer protection organisation seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair terms — National rules of civil procedure conferring jurisdiction on the court of the place where the defendant has its address — National legislation excluding any appeal against an order declining jurisdiction

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national procedural rules under which actions for an injunction brought by consumer protection associations must be brought before the courts where the defendant is established or has its address and whereby no appeal lies against a decision declining territorial jurisdiction handed down by a court of first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

1

---