alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.24



ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT



This Addendum (the Addendum) is entered into effective as of January 1, 2006, by and between NEVADA
RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Nevada corporation (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) and MICHAEL J. KATIN, M.D., PROF. CORP, a Nevada professional corporation (the PA). This Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the
Administrative Services Agreement dated January 1, 2002 between the parties (the Agreement) to adjust the monthly Service Fee of $570,683.33 paid in 2005 to a monthly Service Fee of $595,683.33, and replaces the Addendum of that
same Section dated January 1, 2005. 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 PC shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a
monthly Service Fee of $595,683.33. 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: |  | NEVADA RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
|          |  |                                                   
|          |  | By:                                                |  | /s/ David Koeninger         
|          |  |                                                    |  | David Koeninger             
|          |  |                                                    |  | Vice President and CFO      
|          | 
|Accepted: |  | MICHAEL J. KATIN, M.D., PROF. CORP.               
|          |  |                                                   
|          |  | By:                                                |  | /s/ Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.
|          |  |                                                    |  | Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.    
|          |  |                                                    |  | Vice President
#### American Express Co., Finchley, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6527.

Entry No. 750533.

Invoice dated London, England, March 1, 1946.

Certified March 5, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 5, 1946.

(Decided November 18, 1946)

*Eugene R. Pichrell*for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): This appeal for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concerns the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of th'e United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch) 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on sntry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.
Exhibit 32.2

     Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of   WealthCraft   Systems  Inc.
("WealthCraft")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Xiao Zhen Li,
Chief Financial Officer of WealthCraft, 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, 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 Registrant.


                                           /s/ Xiao Zhen Li
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: Xiao Zhen Li
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer

                                           Date: November 13, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge and belief, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company 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 Form
10-KSB fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                         
|------------------ |  | ------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2007 |  | /s/ Frank W. Barker, Jr.
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer 

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA director delivers keynote speeches at Hampton University

By Chris Erbe

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Hampton UniversityROTCNROTCLeadership
No. 45292.

#### Protests 993589-G, etc., of Daggett Chocolate Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015118EN.01000201.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

(Case C-114/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old age and survivors’ insurance - Article 46a(3)(c) - Award of benefits - National rules against overlapping - Derogation - Concept of ‘voluntary insurance or continued optional insurance’ - National pension under a compulsory insurance scheme - Possibility of requesting an exemption from affiliation for a certain period - Scope of the statement issued by the competent institution of another Member State - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 47))

(2015/C 118/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Theodora Hendrika Bouman

Appellant:

Respondent: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46a(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as encompassing the part of the benefit resulting from a period of insurance during which the person concerned had the right to obtain an exemption from affiliation to the compulsory insurance scheme, in a situation where such affiliation, during the period in question, affects the extent of the social security benefit.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6398

ANTHONY TOWNSEND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RENOICE STANCIL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:12-hc-02086-BO)

Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Townsend, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Townsend seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Townsend has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny Townsend’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Interplay Entertainment Corp. and Subsidiaries

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-50254,  Form S-8 No. 333-60583,  Form S-3 No. 333-50252,  Form
S-3 No. 333-59088 and Form S-3 No. 333-60272) of Interplay  Entertainment  Corp.
and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 25, 2004 relating to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2003
annual report on Form 10-K of Interplay  Entertainment  Corp. (a  majority-owned
subsidiary  of Titus  Interactive  S.A.) and  Subsidiaries  for the years  ended
December 31, 2003 and 2002.


/S/ SQUAR, MILNER, REEHL & WILLIAMSON, LLP
April 26, 2004
#### L. Bamberger & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6850.

Entry No. N-722, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, December 27, 1945, etc.

Certified December 27, 1945, etc.

Entered at Newark, N. J., January 22, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 6, 1947)

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

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be Incorporated herein.

*375Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by-importer on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2527

JOHN R. CLEMENTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, United

States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District

Judge. (CA-94-1557-A)

Submitted: March 29, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John R. Clements, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, Margaret Ann

Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia;

Mary Anne Gibbons, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting

Defendant's motion for summary judgment on his employment discrimination claims. When the non-moving party bears the burden of

proof, summary judgment is appropriate when that party fails to

establish, by sworn evidence, an essential element of the case.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). We have reviewed the record and find that, despite explicit

warning, Appellant failed to present any sworn evidence in response

to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for the

Defendant. 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 47000.

#### Protests 971759-G, etc., of Butler Bros. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the .court dismissed the protests.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-63,222] 

                    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 21, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Brockway Mould, Inc., Brockport, Pennsylvania.                           ( print page 25775)    

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of April, 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

 [FR Doc. E8-10028 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of WealthCraft Systems Inc.
("WealthCraft") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Xiao Zhen Li, Chief
Financial Officer of WealthCraft, 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, 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 Registrant.


                                               /s/ Xiao Zhen Li
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name:  Xiao Zhen Li
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer

                                               Date:  May 15, 2008
# C_2015016EN.01003401.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Royalton Overseas v OHIM — S.C. Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF)

(Case T-556/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark KAISERHOFF - Earlier national word mark KAISERHOFF - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rules 20 and 50 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - ‘Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion’ - Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2015/C 016/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Royalton Overseas Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Năstase, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: S.C. Romarose Invest Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: R.-G. Dragomir and G.-L. Ilie, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2535/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between S.C. Romarose Invest Srl and Royalton Overseas Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2535/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between S.C. Romarose Invest Srl and Royalton Overseas Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 October 2012 (Case R 2535/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between S.C. Romarose Invest Srl and Royalton Overseas Ltd;

| 2) | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM;

| 3) | Orders S.C. Romarose Invest to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders S.C. Romarose Invest to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Royalton Overseas, including those necessarily incurred by Royalton Overseas for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

---
# C_2015294EN.01000301.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree

(Case C-422/13) (1)

1

((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 34(2)(a) - Concept of ‘area eligible for aid’ - Concept of ‘agricultural area’ - Area forming restored cover layer of a landfill site in after-care - Use for agricultural activities - Lawfulness))

(2015/C 294/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

Applicant:

Defendant: Uta Wree

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that an area which forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care constitutes an agricultural area within the meaning of that provision when it is actually used for permanent pasture.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

1

---