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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.2

                 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Fourteenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered
into as of January 1, 2000, by and between Robert Half International Inc.
(formerly Boothe Financial Corporation), a Delaware corporation,
("Corporation") and Harold M. Messmer, Jr. ("Officer").

     1.   The Employment Agreement dated as of October 2, 1985, as amended,
between Corporation and Officer (the "Employment Agreement") is hereby
amended as follows:

     a.   Section 2.1(d) is amended to delete "30 days following a Change in
Control" and insert, in lieu thereof, "one year following a Change in
Control".

     b.   Section 4.1 is amended to delete "plus an equal amount in lieu of
bonus" and insert, in lieu thereof, "plus an amount equal to the annual cash
bonus paid (or to be paid) to Officer with respect to the last full calendar
year completed prior to the Termination".

     c.   Section 4.6 is amended to delete "the later to occur of (a)
Officer's 55th birthday or (b) the 20th anniversary of Officer's first day of
service with the Corporation as a director or full-time employee" and insert,
in lieu thereof, "January 1, 2000".

     2.  In all other respects, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified
and confirmed.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement
effective as of the day and year first written above.


                              ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC.


                              By /s/ M. Keith Waddell
                                ----------------------------
                                   M. Keith Waddell
                                   Vice Chairman


                               /s/ Harold M. Messmer, Jr.
                              ------------------------------
                                   Harold M. Messmer, Jr.
#### Jimmy G. GILCHRIST, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. George T. HAGAN, Warden of Allendale Correctional Institution; John Ozmint, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections; State of South Carolina; Henry Dargan Mcmaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 05-6474.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 26, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 14, 2005.

Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr., Appellant pro se.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*541Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy G. Gilchrist, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Gilchrist has not made the requisite showing. *See Gilchrist v. Hagan,*No. CA-04-21895-6 (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2005). Accordingly, we deny Gilchrist’s motions to expedite the appeal and for the appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Case No. 14,669.

#### UNITED STATES v. BROWN.

[1 Mason, 151.] 2

Circuit Court. D Massachusetts.

Oct. Term, 1816.

Purchasing Arms from Soldier — Stolen Arms.

On an indictment under the act of March 16, 1802, c. 9, § 19 [2 Stat. 136], for purchasing of a soldier “his arms,” it must be proved, that’the soldier was in the lawful possession of the arms, or had a special bailment of them, otherwise the indictment cannot be sustained. If the arms were stolen, the case is not within the act.

Indictment, against the defendant [George Brown] for purchasing a soldier’s arms, against the act of March 16, 1802, c. 9, § 19. Upon the trial, the evidence was that the defendant purchased a musket from a soldier, knowing him to be such, and that the soldier claimed the arms as his own. But it also appeared, that the musket was not lawfully in the possession of the soldier, but had been stolen by him from the arsenal of the United States, at Charlestown.

G. Blake, for the United States.

Wm. Austin, for defendant.

2

 [Reported by William P. Mason, Esq.]

STORY, Circuit Justice.

The act of congress declares, that every person, who shall purchase from a soldier his arms, uniform, clothing, or any part thereof, shall, on conviction, be’ liable to a limited fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court having cognizance of the offence. To bring the case within the statute, it is not necessary, that the arms should be strictly the absolute property of the soldier; for then the act would have no effect, as the arms used by the soldiers in the public service belong to the United States. It is sufficient, if the soldier have a special property therein by a bailment in the course- of the service; or have a lawful possession, using them as his own in the duties of the service. But if his possession be unlawful, or obtained by larceny, the arms are not in the sense of the act, “his arms.” It may be a blot in the act (and unfortunately there are many blots in our Criminal Code) but it is competent only for the legislature to cure the defect.

Verdict for plaintiff.
No. 53809.

protest 136075-K (Savannah).

#### Dixie Bottle & Beverage Company *v.*United States,

Johnson, Judge:

In this action the plaintiff contends that refund in duties should have been made because of losses by outage of approximately 150.29 *227gallons of tequila. The collector assessed duty upon the quantity of spirits delivered into warehouse.

At the trial it was disclosed that the spirits were repacked in warehouse from bottles containing four-fifths of a quart to half-pint bottles. During the repacking process the quantity in question was lost. All of the papers in the case were admitted in evidence. Counsel for the Government admitted that all of the regulations of the Treasury Department had been complied with. It was also agreed that the quantity of -150.29 gallons, although imported and entered for warehousing, was not withdrawn for consumption.

At the time the protest in this case was filed, January 26, 1948, duty was properly assessable upon the quantity of tequila entered for warehousing. See *United States*v. *Siegfried Lowenthal Co.,*31 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 244. However, Congress enacted Public Law 612, approved June 8, 1948, which amended the Tariff Act of. 1930, by substituting new language for that originally used in paragraph 813, as follows:

> Par. 813. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 'duties imposed on beverages in this schedule which are subject also to internal revenue taxes shall be imposed only on the quantities subject to such taxes.

Public Law 612 further provided that the amendment was effective and applicable to any such merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse before the effective date of the amendment “with respect to which the liquidation of the entry or withdrawal, the exaction, or the decision as to the dutiable quantity has not become final by reason of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.” For the reason that the plaintiff had filed a protest under the provisions of section 514 (which automatically prevented the decision of the collector from becoming final and conclusive until his action had been reviewed and passed upon by the courts), the plaintiff is now entitled to a refund of duties collected upon the 150.29 gallons in question. See this court’s decision in the case of *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155, wherein it was held that duty is assessable only upon the quantities subject to the final assessment of internal revenue taxes.

For the reasons stated, judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff directing the collector to reliquidate the entry in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 612, and make refund of all duties taken upon quantities in excess of the quantities upon which internal revenue taxes were finally assessed, which, in the instant action, is agreed to be 150.29 gallons.
Exhibit 32.1

               CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                         COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         I, John B. Nano, am President and Chief Executive Officer of
Competitive Technologies, Inc. (the Company).

         This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection
with the filing of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended April 30, 2004 (the Report).

         I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

         1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
              or 78o(d)); 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
              covered by the Report.

Date: June 14, 2004                         /s/ John B. Nano
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            John B. Nano
                                            President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer of
                                            Competitive Technologies, Inc.


                                    Page 29
# C_2016098EN.01002001.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/20

---

Action brought on 18 December 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-684/15)

(2016/C 098/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Heller and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting every law, regulation and administrative provision necessary for compliance with Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 130(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting every law, regulation and administrative provision necessary for compliance with Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 130(1) of that directive;

1

| — | impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 6 700 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the transposition measures of Directive 2014/59/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 6 700 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in the case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the transposition measures of Directive 2014/59/EU;

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2014/59/EU expired on 31 December 2014.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8850]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-418-000]


Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 2, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC 
(Sea Robin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 4, to become effective 
June 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#db9d9e899894b5b7b2b5be88aeababb4a9af9bbdbea9b8f5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a3c3f283935141613141f290f0a0a15080e3a1c1f0819541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8850 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wayde Lynn KURT, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-30450.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

Earl Alan Hicks, Esq., USSP—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Amy Rubin, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*849Before: BROWNING, ALARCON, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

We affirm Wayde Kurt’s conviction for conversion of government property in excess of $1,000 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.

The price sheet was properly admitted into evidence under Rule 803(17). Special Agent Jennings had 15 years experience in purchasing equipment for the Secret Service and testified that he received the price sheet through the normal process and that the sheet was a document that he would rely on in the regular course of his business. The district court found that the document appeared to be routinely published and defense counsel was able to obtain the same information from the same company.

Admission of Special Agent Jennings’s testimony about the price of the device Kurt converted did not violate the Confrontation clause. The price sheet Special Agent Jennings relied upon is not a “testimonial” document and thus *Crawford v. Washington**1***does not bar its use.2 The testimony of a buyer’s agent that “this is the seller’s posted price” depends only upon the credibility of the buyer’s agent who claims to know the price on the price list. The posted price is not a representation of what an absent witness from the seller’s firm might say.

The district court did not err in refusing to give Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 5.9. Kurt did not claim to have consulted counsel until after he had committed the crime, so he could not have relied upon counsel’s advice when he committed it. Thus, Kurt did not qualify for the instruction.3

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. *Crawford v. Washington,*541 U.S. 36, 61, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).

2

. *See United States v. Bahena-Cardenas,*411 F.3d 1067, 1074-75 (9th Cir.2005).

3

. *See United States*v. *Ibarra-Alcarez,*830 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.1987).
No. 62109.

#### V. G. Nahrgang *v.*United States,

protest 295583-K (Detroit).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pure gum floating stock and that said merchandise is a sheeting, composed wholly of rubber, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Geology and ground-water resources of the Egbert-Pine Bluffs-Carpenter area, Laramie County, Wyoming

By: J. R. RappD. A. WarnerArthur Mitchell Morgan

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1140

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
No. 45234.

#### Protest 10269-K of Smith-Douglass Co., Inc. (Norfolk).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It appeared that the plaintiff failed to identify the exported bags with the imported material in accordance with the provisions of T. D. 39415. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
##### 



(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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  (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: January 13, 2006
    
    
    
    /s/ Dan CrowDan Crow
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)