alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.34





ADDENDUM
TO EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT





This
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AND
NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT (this "Addendum"), dated as
of February 18, 2008, is between The Sheridan Group, Inc., a Maryland
corporation (the "Employer"), and
Robert M. Moore (the "Employee")
(collectively, “the Parties”).





WHEREAS, the Parties entered
into an Employment and Non-Competition Agreement (the “Agreement”) on or about
April 1, 2007; and





WHEREAS, a question has arisen
between the Parties with respect to the application and duration of §§6(e), 7, 8
and 9 of the Agreement; and





WHEREAS, the Parties wish to
enter into this Addendum to clarify their intent and eliminate any ambiguity
with respect to §§6(e), 7, 8 and 9 of the Agreement; and





WHEREAS, it is the intent of
the Parties that all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue to
remain in full force and effect, subject to the clarification set forth in this
Addendum.





NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby
agreed as follows:





1.           The
above recitals are incorporated herein by reference, and are intended to be
binding upon the Parties.





2.           The
Parties acknowledge and agree that it is the mutual intent of the Parties that
the Employee’s rights and remedies upon termination set forth in §6(e) of the
Agreement apply to the termination at anytime of
Employee’s employment by the Employer (and/or the Employer’s successors and/or
assigns) without Cause pursuant to §6(c) or by the Employee with Good Reason
pursuant to §6(d).  Moreover, it is the Parties’ specific intent that
the Employee’s rights and remedies upon termination set forth in §6(e) will
survive the termination of the Agreement.





3.          
The Parties acknowledge and agree that it is the mutual intent of the Parties
that the Employee’s obligations to the Employer (and/or the Employer’s
successors and/or assigns) set forth in §7 (Inventions; Assignment); §8
(Confidential Information); and §9 (Non-Competition) of the Agreement apply to
the termination at any timeof Employee’s employment with Employer (and/or the Employer’s successors
and/or assigns). Moreover, it is the Parties’ specific intent that the
Employee’s obligations to the Employer set forth in §7, §8 and §9 will survive
the termination of the Agreement.





4.          
The Parties each acknowledge and agree that this Addendum is supported by the
consideration set forth in the Agreement, which the Parties acknowledge to be
good and valuable.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and
intending to be legally bound hereby, the Parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed as of the date and year first above
written.





THE SHERIDAN GROUP,
      INC.By:
            /s/JohnA.SaxtonJohn A. SaxtonPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/RobertM.MooreRobert M. Moore
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, John W. Peters, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated;  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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: August 8, 2007 /s/ John W. Peters John W. Peters Principal Financial Officer
33852.

#### SHEPHERD v. EPPS et al.

Marshall, Justice.

On August 24, 1977, orders granting motions for summary judgment of two of the four defendants were entered. On September 22, 1977, the plaintiff filed a "motion for rehearing” of the orders. On March 1, 1978, the "motion for rehearing” was denied. On March 31, 1978, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the March 1, 1978, orders "granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.”

1. Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is *323granted. The orders of August 24, 1977, granting summary judgments, were appealable orders. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (h) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226,238; 1975, pp. 757, 759). The March 1, 1978, orders appealed from did not, as the appellant contends, grant the summary judgments, but rather merely denied the "motion for rehearing,” which is not one of the four statutory motions which could extend the time of filing of the notice of appeal from the appealable judgments of August 24, 1977. *See Johnson v. Barnes,*237 Ga. 502 (1) (229 SE2d 70) (1976). The failure to file notice of appeal within the time required by statute is one of the statutory grounds for dismissal of the appeal. See Code Ann. § 6-809 (b) (1); *Kennedy v. Brown,*239 Ga. 286 (1) (236 SE2d 632) (1977) and cit.; *Adamson v. Adamson,*226 Ga. 719 (177 SE2d 241) (1970); *Ellis v. Continental Ins. Co.,*141 Ga. App. 809 (234 SE2d 377) (1977) and cits. It should be noted that the appellant can obtain appellate review of this grant of summary judgment as to less than all of the defendants by means of an appeal on rendition of the final judgment. *Culwell v. Lomas & Nettleton Co.,*242 Ga. 242, (1978) .

Submitted July 21, 1978

Decided October 4, 1978.

*Blackburn & Luck, Joseph I. Weinberg,*for appellant.

*William H. Whaley, Glenville Haldi, William D. Smith,*for appellees.

2. The appellees’ motion to assess damages under Code § 6-1801 because the appeal was for delay, is denied, the appeal not being from a judgment for a sum certain. *Hodges v. Hodges,*235 Ga. 848 (3) (221 SE2d 597) (1976).

*Appeal dismissed. Motion to assess damages denied.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# C_2016410EN.01003303.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/33

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-463/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/49)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
Before the First Division,

June 14, 1961

No. 65800.

#### S. H. Kress *&*Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/7207, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 50728.

#### Protests 102840-K, etc., of Mimosa American Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was agreed that from an analysis of merchandise analyzed by a Government chemist, synthetic resin was the component of chief value; that the articles in question are not laminated, nor made of laminated products; and that the synthetic resin did not act as a binding agent. Upon the agreed facts, it was held that the merchandise was excluded from classification under paragraph 1539 (b), following *Lee & Schiffer, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 183, C. D. 850). There being no provision in the act for manufactures composed wholly or in chief value of synthetic resin, the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558, was sustained: *(Rolls Razor, Inc.*v. *United States,*6 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 480, cited.)
No. 96-1090.

#### CSX Transportation, Inc. *v.*Sirbaugh.

Cir. Ct. Berkeley County, W. Va. Motion of Association of American *1140Railroads for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted. Cer-tiorari denied.
### Effect of stock reservoirs on runoff in the Cheyenne River basin above Angostura Dam

By: R. C. CullerHarold V. Peterson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir223

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Dunlap.Edward <edward.dunlap@orbitalatk.com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:38 PM

To: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Cc: Whitney.Diana

Subject: Re: Petition for Exemption: Orbital Sciences Corporation (FAA-2013-0779)

Dear Nia,

This to confirm that we have received approval for our simulator and no longer require this exemption request.  

Thank you for following up.

Best regards ,

Ed Dunlap

Orbital ATK

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 13, 2016, at 6:07 AM, "Nia.Daniels@faa.gov" <Nia.Daniels@faa.gov> wrote:

Mr. Dunlap,  

  

We have received your petition for an extension of Exemption No. 10918. You are currently qualified by

the FAA, and no longer need the exemption.  

  

As such, I am contacting you to withdraw your extension request from the docket. You can do so by

replying to this email, stating that you no longer need the exemption.

  

Thank you,  

  

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov

  

Notice: This e-mail is intended solely for use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain 

information that is proprietary, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader is not 

the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby 

notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. This 

communication may also contain data subject to U.S. export laws. If so, that data subject to the International 

Traffic in Arms Regulation cannot be disseminated, distributed or copied to foreign nationals, residing in the 

U.S. or abroad, absent the express prior approval of the U.S. Department of State. If you have received this 
2

communication in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the e-mail message and any 

physical copies made of the communication. Thank you. 

********** **********
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128098 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128098 COA: 259785 Roscommon CC: 98-003568-FH GARY LYNN WREG GLESWORTH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to app eal the January 7, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

Kelly, J., would hold th is case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

s1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
Exhibit 31.1

         I, Roger S. Mertz, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of SonomaWest Holdings,
Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this 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 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 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;

                  (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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal 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 the
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: February 12, 2004

  /s/ Roger S. Mertz
----------------------------------
Roger S. Mertz
Chairman of the Board



                                       -1-
#### John Wanamaker *v.*United States

No. 6823.

Entry No. 769552, etc.

Invoices dated Totenham, England, March 7, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 9, 1946, etc.

(Decided January 31, 1947)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

The two appeals listed above raise the question of whether or not a so-called British purchase tax should have been included by the appraiser as a part of the dutiable value of the merchandise. Counsel for the parties have agreed that the issues herein are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record therein has been admitted in evidence in this case.

Upon the agreed facts and the law applicable thereto, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importer on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of COMPAÑÍA
INTERNACIONAL DE TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Juan Ignacio
López Basavilbaso, Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                                      
|------ |  | -------------------------------------
|      
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/    Juan Ignacio López Basavilbaso
|       |  |                                      
|Name:  |  | Juan Ignacio López Basavilbaso       
|Title: |  | Director                             



April
16, 2004
# C_2012287EN.01002101.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 July 2012 — Minister of Finance v MDDP Sp. z o.o., Akademia Biznesu, Sp. komandytowa

(Case C-319/12)

2012/C 287/38

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister of Finance

Applicant:

Defendant: MDDP Sp. z o.o., Akademia Biznesu, Sp. komandytowa

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should point (i) of Article 132(1), Article 133 and Article 134 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) as amended, ‘Directive 2006/112’, be interpreted as precluding exemption from value added tax of educational services provided for commercial purposes by bodies not governed by public law which follows from Article 43(1)(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów und usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on taxation of goods and services) (Dz. U. No 54, 535, as amended) in conjunction with Item 7 of Annex 4 to that Law, in the version in force in 2010? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should point (i) of Article 132(1), Article 133 and Article 134 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) as amended, ‘Directive 2006/112’, be interpreted as precluding exemption from value added tax of educational services provided for commercial purposes by bodies not governed by public law which follows from Article 43(1)(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów und usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on taxation of goods and services) (Dz. U. No 54, 535, as amended) in conjunction with Item 7 of Annex 4 to that Law, in the version in force in 2010?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does this mean that due to the incompatibility of the exemption with the provisions of Directive 2006/112, Article 168 of the directive grants taxpayers both the right to apply the tax exemption and to deduct input VAT? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does this mean that due to the incompatibility of the exemption with the provisions of Directive 2006/112, Article 168 of the directive grants taxpayers both the right to apply the tax exemption and to deduct input VAT?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
No. 46431.

#### Protest 37223-K of Burns Lumber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protest was therefore Sustained.