alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.4**

** **

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE**

**TUESDAY MORNING CORPORATION**

**2004 LONG-TERM EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN**

 

**               **THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE TUESDAY MORNINGCORPORATION 2004 LONG-TERM EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN (this “Amendment”) is made andadopted by Tuesday Morning Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),effective as of July 28, 2005.

**PRELIMINARYSTATEMENTS**

                A.            The stockholders of the Company have approved, and theCompany has adopted, the Tuesday Morning Corporation 2004 Long-Term EquityIncentive Plan (the “2004 Plan”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have themeanings ascribed to them in the 2004 Plan.

                B.            The compensation committee of the board of directors ofthe Company desires to exercise its power to modify the 2004 Plan by defining “FairMarket Value” under the 2004 Plan in a manner that is consistent with certainguidance given by the Internal Revenue Service regarding what would be deemed areasonable methodology for determining the “fair market value” of stock underlyingan option to purchase stock with respect to all options granted on or after July28, 2005.

**AMENDMENT**

                NOW, THEREFORE, the 2004 Plan ishereby amended as follows:

                1.  Section 2(o)(i) is hereby amended to read asfollows in its entirety:

“(i)  the mean between the highest and lowestselling prices of the Common Stock on the date of determination or, if therehave been no sales on the date of determination but there were sales on dateswithin a reasonable period both before and after the determination date, theweighted average of the means between the highest and lowest sales on thenearest date before and the nearest date after the determination date; suchaverage is to be weighted inversely by the respective number of trading daysbetween the selling dates and the determination date.”

                2.  Section 2(o)(ii) is hereby amended to read asfollows in its entirety:

“(ii)  with respect to any security which is notlisted on any securities exchange or quoted in the NASDAQ System or theover-the-counter market, the fair value of such security as reasonablydetermined by the Board in good faith.”

                This Amendment, and the changesto the provisions of the 2004 Plan effected hereby, shall be effective as of July28, 2005 and shall apply to all option granted under the 2004 Plan on or afterJuly 28, 2005.  Except as expressly setforth herein, the 2004 Plan shall remain in full force and effect withoutfurther amendment or modification.

----

 

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company,acting by and through its officer hereunto duly authorized, has executed thisAmendment effective as of the date first written above.

 
|   | TUESDAY MORNING CORPORATION |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |                        |
|   | By:                         | /s/ Loren K. Jensen |
|   |                        | Loren K. Jensen  Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |

 

S-1

----
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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                Partnership. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Matthew A. Jones                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Matthew                A. Jones                                        |
| Title: | Chief                Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | April                11, 2008                                          |
A90A0265.

#### HITT v. LORD.

(391 SE2d 681)

Birdsong, Judge.

Roy Hitt appeals the grant of summary judgment to Frank Lord which awarded the return of $5,000 earnest money to Lord, the pur*656chaser, in a real estate deal that the parties agreed not to consummate apparently because a condition of the contract (rezoning) had not been fulfilled.

Decided February 26, 1990.

*Duffy & Feemster, Charles P. Daly,*for appellant.

*Noble L. Boykin, Jr.,*for appellee.

Appellant Hitt contends, inter alia, that an issue of fact exists whether he or purchaser Lord was intended to or required to have Hitt’s property rezoned; and that the rezoning was purchaser Lord’s duty which Lord failed to perform. *Held:*

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the purchaser for return of the earnest money. The evidence of record shows that the sales contract was executed subject to the controlling special stipulation: “1. Subject to rezoning. . . The contract is utterly silent as to whose duty it was to have the property rezoned. As a matter of fact, this deficiency rendered the contract too vague and indefinite to enforce *(Zappa v. Basden,*188 Ga. App. 472 (373 SE2d 246)), because it is undisputed this very uncertainty caused the contract ultimately to fall through. Appellant Hitt, the seller, attempts to assert that the parties agreed orally that it would be Lord’s duty to rezone, but this attempt to resort to parol evidence to ascertain the intent of a contract for sale of real property, only emphasizes its indefiniteness and proves its unenforceability. See *Chastain v. Allison,*122 Ga. App. 811 (178 SE2d 752); *Zappa,*supra.

Moreover, Chatham County documents of record by which the purchaser ultimately tried to have the rezoning done himself, show that it was required to be petitioned by “Owner’s signature or Authorized Agent’s signature”; and, the owner Hitt did not make Lord his “agent” for petitioning for rezoning until after the original scheduled closing date. Thus, because appellant Hitt says it was agreed the purchaser Lord would seek rezoning, the questions thus arise whether Hitt failed in his apparent duty to make Lord his “agent” for the purpose of rezoning, and whether Lord acted with due diligence. The confusing issues raised by the evidence, and by Hitt’s arguments, prove the difficulty of attempting to resolve and enforce by parol evidence an indefinite real estate contract (see, e.g., *Chastain,*supra), and the legal necessity of refusing to enforce it upon such vague terms. The contract being void for vagueness, it was required that the purchaser’s earnest money be returned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Banke, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*
No. 57150.

protests 187557-K and 188738-K (New York).

#### L. Barbier *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protests were therefore overruled.
January 7, 1948

No. 52109.

Suit 4567.

#### United States *v.*Robert Reiner, Inc.

Reap. Dec. 6440 affirmed November 17, 1947. C. A. D. 370.
No. 49889.

#### Protests 100254-K, etc., of Nathan Institute, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 56907.

#### R. W. Smith a/c Robert H. Ray Company, Houston, Texas *v.*United States,

protest 139901-K (Galveston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It appeared that duty was assessed upon the basis of the invoiced value of a complete set of radar equipment, there being 12 boxes entered. It developed that two boxes containing parts of said set were not contained in the shipment and were later imported. Duty was also assessed upon the latter importation at the ad valorem rate upon the basis of the invoiced value of the parts imported. Thus, duty was again assessed upon the parts contained in the two boxes not a part of the original shipment. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and facts are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that all duties levied and collected upon the two cases of radar equipment not shipped as a part of the radar set, upon which duty was again collected when subsequently entered, should be refunded.
No. 58407.

protests 153520-K, 154491-K, and 155884-K (St. Louis).

#### J. F. Goldkamp & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the toilet paper in rolls the subject of *Douglas Paper Co.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 87, C. D. 1501), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form 10-K (of The TesseracT Group, Inc. of our report
dated September 27, 1999 relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
September 28, 1999
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO MEJIA TOVAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73005

Agency No. A200-247-102

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Mejia Tovar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUL 30 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-73005

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we review de novo

due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.

2003). We deny the petition for review. 

Mejia Tovar does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his

application for asylum was untimely. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mejia Tovar failed to

establish past persecution based on the threats he received, the shooting incident,

and the incident with the grenade. See Lim, 224 F.3d at 936; Hoxha v. Ashcroft,

319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner failed to present evidence that

compelled a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the

finding that Mejia Tovar failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future harm

because there is no evidence that anyone is still looking for him. See Nagoulko v.

INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (future fear was speculative). 

Accordingly, Mejia Tovar’s withholding of removal claim fails.

In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Mejia Tovar failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be

tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Silaya

v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 
3 12-73005

Finally, Mejia Tovar claims he was denied due process because the agency

failed to give him time to provide supplementary supporting documents and failed

to consider the evidence he submitted. This claim fails because he has not shown

how the documents he submitted or wanted to submit would have affected the

outcome. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must

show prejudice to establish a due process violation). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ANTHONY E. SUTTON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-2167 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 12, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and Keith W. Upson, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
No. 55105.

#### Joseph Poli Company *v.*United States,

protests 152999-K and 153000-K (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. - 10-Q

Exhibit
21



|Name of Entity                    | Jurisdiction of Organization | Ownership Interest
|--------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------
|                                  |                              |                   
|Eagle Bancorp, Inc. – Registrant  |                              | Maryland          
|EagleBank                         |                              | Maryland          
|Eagle Insurance Services, LLC     |                              | Maryland          
|Fidelity Mortgage, Inc.           |                              | Maryland          
|Bethesda Leasing LLC              |                              | Maryland          
|VHB Real Estate LLC               |                              | Virginia          
|Landroval Municipal Finance, Inc. |                              | Washington D.C.   
|Eagle Commercial Ventures, LLC    |                              | Maryland          



69
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 American Apparel Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on March 31, 2011, as amended by Amendment No. 1 as filed with the SEC on May 2, 2011, Amendment No. 2 as filed with the SEC on May 3, 2011, and this Amendment No.
3 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (together, the Report), I, John Luttrell, Chief Financial Officer of American Apparel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.

(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 and for the period covered by the Report.



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 17, 2011                                                  
|                                                                    
|/s/ John Luttrell                                                   
|John Luttrell Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting
Officer)
|
Before the Third Division,

June 9, 1964

No. 68623.

protest 62/18889 (San Francisco).

#### Alroy Packing Co. and W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “peeled pumpkin seeds, or pumpkin seed kernels which have been peeled” similar in all material respects to those the subject of *George Beurhaus Co.*and *Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 269, C.D. 1612), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

I, Gao Ren, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of China Linen Textile Industry, Ltd.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 report; 

3.

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

4.

The company'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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:

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

b.  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals; 

c.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluations; and

d.  Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting: and 

5.

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

a.  All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company'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 company’s internal controls over financial reporting.
No. 66172.

#### Geo. S. Bush *& Co.,*Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/9001-S, etc. (Seattle).

*350Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 23.2














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS











We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No 333-190459), S-8 (No 333-175139) of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-164507) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. 2008 Stock and Annual Incentive Plan; Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-164494) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Live Nation, Inc. Stock Bonus Plan; Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-164302) pertaining to the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, as Amended and Restated of Live Nation, Inc.; Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-157664) pertaining to the Employee Stock Bonus Plan of Live Nation, Inc.; Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-149901) pertaining to the Employee Stock Bonus Plan of Live Nation, Inc.; and  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-132949) pertaining to the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan of Live Nation, Inc. of our report dated June 27, 2014 relating to the financial statements of Venta de Boletos por Computadora, S.A. de C.V.,  which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.








PricewaterhouseCoopers S.C.








/s/: Maximino Manuel Sañudo Bolaños


Maximino Manuel Sañudo Bolaños


Mexico City, Mexico


June 27, 2014
**EXHIBIT      21.1**

**BOARDWALK      PIPELINE PARTNERS, LP**

**Subsidiaries      of the Registrant**

**December      31, 2006**

| **Name                of Subsidiary**          |   | **Organized                Under Laws of** |   | **Business                Names** |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                                           |   |                                       |   |                              |
| Boardwalk                Operating GP, LLC     |   | Delaware                                   |   |                              |
| Boardwalk                Pipelines, LP         |   | Delaware                                   |   |                              |
| Texas                Gas Transmission, LLC     |   | Delaware                                   |   | Texas                Gas          |
| Gulf                South Pipeline Company, LP |   | Delaware                                   |   | Gulf                South         |
| GS                Pipeline Company, LLC        |   | Delaware                                   |   |                              |
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration
Statement No. 333-95781 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company
Separate Account One on Form N-4, of our report dated March 26, 2003 of
Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company relating to the statutory
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 and of
our report dated February 21, 2003 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance
Company Separate Account One relating to the financial statements as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2002, appearing in the Statement of
Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and
to the reference to us under the headings "Experts" in such Statement of
Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
EXHIBIT 13.1 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 Transitional Report of China Linen Textile Industry, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended July 9, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gao Ren, President and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Gao RenGao Ren, President and Chairman July 10, 2008