alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.22



ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT



This Addendum (the Addendum) is entered into as of January 1, 2005, by and among MARYLAND RADIATION THERAPY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) and KATIN RADIATION THERAPY, P.A., a Maryland professional corporation (the PA). This Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the Administrative Services
Agreement dated October 31, 1998 between the parties (the Agreement) to adjust the monthly Service Fee of $150,000.00 paid in 2004 to a monthly Service Fee of $179,000.00, and replaces the Addendum of that same Section dated January 1,
2004. From and after the date hereof, Section 3.1 shall read as follows:



3.1. Service Fee. For the services to be provided hereunder by MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the PA shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a monthly Service Fee of $179,000.00. The parties agree that the Service Fee
represents the fair market value of the services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES hereunder and that the parties shall meet annually to reevaluate the value of services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES and shall establish the fair market value thereof
for purposes of this Section 3.1.



|          |  |                                                      |  |                         
|--------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Accepted: |  | MARYLAND RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC.
|          |  |                                                     
|          |  | By:                                                  |  | /s/ David Koeninger     
|          |  |                                                      |  | David Koeninger         
|          |  |                                                      |  | Vice President & CFO    
|          | 
|Accepted: |  | KATIN RADIATION THERAPY, P.A.                       
|          |  |                                                     
|          |  | By:                                                  |  | /s/ Daniel E. Dosoretz  
|          |  |                                                      |  | Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.
|          |  |                                                      |  | Vice President
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Quarterly Report of Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: September 10, 2008                   /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Alex Stelmak
                                           Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
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

ADRIANA GUERRERO-HERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72942

Agency No. A086-966-728

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Adriana Guerrero-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement decision reinstating her prior

removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

FILED

JUL 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72942

questions of law and due process claims. Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t Homeland

Security, 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Guerrero-Hernandez’s contention, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) applies

to her expedited removal order. See Moralez-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484,

496 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“Any mode of departure - voluntary or

involuntary - while subject to an order of removal constitutes a removal for

reinstatement purposes.”).

The reinstatement of Guerrero-Hernandez’s removal order did not violate

her due process rights. See id. at 497 (“Reinstatement of a prior removal order -

regardless of the process afforded in the underlying order - does not offend due

process because reinstatement of a prior order does not change the alien’s rights or

remedies.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 96-8358 (A-675).

#### In re Medina.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
(Reap. Dec. 8434)

Entry No. 742212-1/2, etc.

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided May 10, 1955)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel, subject to the approval of the court,

> *4981. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals enumerated in the schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof consists of vitamin products imported from Holland.

> 2. That, on or about the dates of exportation of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade, for home consumption therein or for export to the United States; that such or similar imported merchandise was not at the aforesaid times freely offered in the United States for sale for domestic consumption therein; that cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of appraisement of the said merchandise; and that such cost of production is represented by the invoice unit prices less charges for air freight, ocean freight, insurance and consular fee, as invoiced.

> Reappraisement No. 238456-A is abandoned as to items invoiced as Calciferol.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals herein may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit prices, less charges for air freight, ocean freight, insurance, and consular fee, as invoiced, except reappraisement 238456-A having been abandoned as to items invoiced as calciferol, to that extent said appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc. (Mark Cross Co.) *v.*United States

No. 6168.

Invoices dated Walsall, England, May 9, 1942, etc.

Certified May 16, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 24, 1942, etc.

Entry No. 755828, etc.

(Decided June 15, 1945)

*Jordan & Klingaman (Edward F. Jordan*of counsel) for the plaintifi.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the issues in these appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*Suit No. 4481, C. A. D. 305, and that the "record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> *463It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise here involved, less the addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the cost of materials and fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10' per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general' character by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

50) ll-B-25 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:53 AM Sheet 50 of 276 
P.2 

II-B-25 

:2EJ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

"< DtlQ-iV 

MAV \.i 153? 

U, E B 'O I 

JU.M I 2 1991 j[! 

J . 

MEMORANDUM 

'\ A!R DOCXV.T 

SUBJECT: Wiscons>n Etectr^e Power Company (WEPCO) Prevention of 

ifX c T^K^ 6r1orat1o n (PSD") Applicability Decision 

Director 

Management Division, OAQPS (MD-15) 

David Kee, Director 

A1r and Radiation Division, Region V 

This 1s-an Interim response to your March 25, 1988 memorandum concerning 

WEPCO's Port Washington Power Plant "renovation." Since receiving your request, 

my staff has met with WEPCO (and their attorneys) and has had a number of 

teleconferences with your staff, the Office of General Counsel (OGC), and the 

Stationary Source Compliance Division. The issue of whether this proposal 

constitutes routine repair, maintenance, and replacement requires additional 

information before this question can be resolved. 

The status of this effort 1s that your staff will ask, through the State, 

for additional Information on costs, what 1s "normal" repair and replacement 

work 1n the power Industry, and which of the listed projects actually extend 

the useful lif e of the facility . We are doing the same through the Emissions 

Standards Division here In the Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards. 

The OGC 1s making the same request to WEPCO's attorney. We will all confer 

again on May 17 and, 1f all the Information Is available at that time, we will 

be in a better position to come to a conclusion. 

We are currently targeting a final response by the end of May. 

cc: R. Campbell 

S. Farrell 

D. Green 

E. LIlUs 

G. McCutchen 

D. Solomon
**Exhibit 23.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

Mannatech, Incorporated: 

We have issued our reports datedMarch 16, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and March 17, 2008, accompanying Schedule II included in the Annual Report of Mannatech, Incorporated and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Mannatech, Incorporated and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-72767, effective February 22, 1999, File No. 333-77227,effective April 28, 1999, File No. 333-94519, effective January 12, 2000, File No. 333-47752, effective October 11, 2000, and File No. 333-113975, effective March 26, 2004). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

March 17, 2008
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT L. LAWRENCE, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

8 USCMA 732, 25 CMR 236

No. 10,992

Decided February 21, 1958

*Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieb*and *Major Dwight R. Rowland*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels*and *Lieutenant Colonel James R. Thorn*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

HOMER FERGUSON, Judge:

An Air Force special court-martial convened at Athens, Greece, found the accused guilty of several offenses under the Code. Included among these offenses was a chai'ge of assaulting a Greek police officer while in the execution of civil law enforcement duties, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934. The president of the court-martial, in instructing on the elements of this offense, failed to charge the court that it must find that under the circumstances the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. This instructional deficiency constitutes prejudicial error and necessitates reversal of the findings of guilt of that offense. United States v Wil*733liams, 8 USCMA 325, 24 CMR 135; United States v Gittens, 8 USCMA 673, 25 CMR 177.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for submission to a board of review. The board may, in its discretion, reassess an appropriate sentence on the basis of the remaining approved' findings of guilt or it may order a rehearing as to Charge III.

Chief Judge QuiNN concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent. See my separate opinion in United States v Gittens, 8 USCMA 673, 25 CMR 177.
Exhibit 10.2  (00161106.DOC;1)


Exhibit 10.2




Wausau Paper Corp.

2008 Cash Incentive Compensation Plan

For

Executive Officers




Executive officers are entitled to receive incentive compensation with respect to each fiscal year upon achievement of targeted company or personal objectives.  Executive officers are entitled to receive incentive compensation based upon:




(1)

the level of achievement by the Company of targeted goals for earnings per share; 




(2)

for executive officers with direct segment operating responsibility, achievement of targeted segment operating profit targets; and




(3)

the level of achievement of specified quantifiable bottom-line oriented targets, and specific operational or strategic goals, including achievement of targeted (a) percentage of revenue from products introduced in the previous three years; (b) increase in operating efficiencies; (c) internal rate of return on approved capital spending; (d) improvements for volume growth and mix; (e) levels of working capital efficiencies; (f) volume and valuation relating to sales of timberlands; (g) objectives for cost reduction or containment; and (h) various objectives for organizational development, business resources, and customer service.




The following table sets forth, as a percentage of base salary, the maximum incentive compensation opportunity for executive officers.




								
	 	Percentage of Base Salary


	 	Earnings

	 	Segment Operating

	 	Individual

	 	Total


	 	Per Share(1)

	 	Profit(2)

	 	Objectives(3)

	 	Maximum


	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CEO

	120%

	 	–

	 	30%

	 	150%


	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Senior Vice President, Finance

	  95%

	 	–

	 	30%

	 	125%


	Executive Vice President, Administration

	  95%

	 	–

	 	30%

	 	125%


	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Senior Vice President, Specialty Products

	  35%

	 	60%

	 	30%

	 	125%


	Senior Vice President, Towel & Tissue

	  35%

	 	60%

	 	30%

	 	125%







(1) For purposes of this plan, “earnings per share” means earnings per share as reported in the Company’s audited financial statements, excluding the impact of stock incentive expenses or credits, decreased by amounts representing base gains from timberland sales, and adjusted for other extraordinary items (which may include, for example, facility closure charges, nonrecurring state tax benefits, or other similar items) as determined in the discretion of the Compensation Committee.  Incentive bonuses will be 0% of base salary if earnings are at the bottom of the targeted range of earnings per share and will increase on a pro rata basis to the officer’s maximum of percentage of base salary at the top of the targeted range.  




(2) Incentive bonuses will be 0% of base salary if operating profits are at the bottom of the targeted range for the officer’s respective operating segment’s targeted operating profit and will increase on a pro rata basis to the officer’s maximum percentage of 60% of base salary at the top of the targeted range.




(3) Individual performance objectives established at the beginning of the year by the Compensation Committee for the CEO and by the CEO for other executive officers.
# C_2014052EN.01003403.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2014 — SICOM v Commission

(Case T-279/12) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Food aid - Supply of colza oil to Guinea - Non-performance of the contract - Limitation period)

2014/C 52/63

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: SICOM Srl — Società industriale per il confezionamento degli olii meridionale (Cercola, Italy) (represented by: R. Manzi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under an arbitration clause seeking an order that the Commission pay the applicant a sum corresponding to penalties imposed in relation to quantities not delivered and delays in supply, deducted by the Commission from the final amount paid to the applicant for the delivery of refined colza oil for the benefit of the Republic of Guinea, in the context of a food aid operation carried out pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 664/2001 of 2 April 2001 on the supply of vegetable oil as food aid (OJ 2001 L 93, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders SICOM Srl — Società industriale per il confezionamento degli olii meridionale to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SICOM Srl — Società industriale per il confezionamento degli olii meridionale to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of ComCam International, Inc. (Registrant) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Don Gilbreath, chief executive officer and chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)     This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of Registrant

| | at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for the period covered by this Report.
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 16, 2006

/s/ Don Gilbreath

Don Gilbreath, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.