alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National
      City®
            
            Alan
      Jones
              Vice
      President
              Credit
      Administration
              One
      National City Center Suite 400S
              Indianapolis,
      TN 46255











December
19, 2008









Michael
Cox


CFO


Bioanalytical
Systems, Inc. 2701 Kent Avenue


West
Lafayette, Indiana 47906





RE:           National
City Bank, N.A. (NCB or Bank) credit facilities to Bioanalytical Systems, Inc.
referred to as (Borrower).





Dear
Michael:





This
letter is to provide you with written notice that NCB hereby waives as of
September 30, 2008 the Borrower’s violation of Paragraph 5.3.3 of the Second
Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated October 24, 2007
regarding Tangible Net Worth. Furthermore, the Bank has approved the following
definition to replace Paragraph 5.3.3:





Maintain
its Tangible Net Worth at not less than Fourteen Million Dollars ($14,000,000)
as of September 30, 2008, and increasing as of each fiscal quarter end
thereafter by an amount equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of Borrower’s net income
(without reduction for any net losses) for such fiscal quarter.





This
waiver of the above referenced paragraph does not in any way waive any of the
Borrowers’ obligations and duties under the Loan Agreement or affect NCB’s
rights and remedies under the same for any covenant violations or other defaults
that have occurred in the past, exist now, or may arise in the
future.











Vice
President
# C_2013189EN.01002102.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Verus v OHIM — Performance Industries Manufacturing (VORTEX)

(Case T-104/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for registration of the Community word mark VORTEX - Earlier Community word mark VORTEX - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right of priority - Article 29 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial surrender - Article 50 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Infringement of the right to be heard - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 189/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Verus Eood (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented initially by S. Vykydal, then by F. Henkel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Performance Industries Manufacturing, Inc. (Odessa, Florida, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2011 (Case R 512/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Verus Eood and Performance Industries Manufacturing Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Verus Eood to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Verus Eood to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

1

---
Before the Third Division,

April 15, 1942

No. 47091.

#### Protest 50064-K of C. H. Powell Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The appraiser’s report which was admitted in evidence at the hearing disclosed that 300 bales of the peat moss consist of the horticultural grade. In accordance therewith and following *Peat Import Co.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was sustained as to the 300 bales in question.
exv10w18



 





Exhibit  10.18




K12 INC.

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     WHEREAS, K12 Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) entered into an employment
agreement, dated as of June 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”) with Howard D. Polsky (the
“Executive”); and



     WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to amend the Agreement to recognize Executive’s
subsequent appointment by the Board of Directors to be the Secretary of the Company, and for the
additional duties and responsibilities associated therewith as a public company, and to memorialize
and bring current certain changes to the Executive’s compensation approved by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors:



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Executive and the Company hereby agree
that effective as of July 1, 2007 (the “Effective Date”), the Agreement be, and it hereby
is, amended as follows (the “Amendment”):


1. Responsibilities. The second sentence of Section 1.1 of the Agreement is hereby
amended as follows:




          “Executive shall serve as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the
Company.”



2. Compensation. Section 2.2 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the
following is substituted in lieu thereof:




          “Executive shall receive, as a fixed base salary for the full time employment referred to in
Section 1 hereof and all other obligations of Executive hereunder, compensation at the rate of Two
Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars( $230,000) per year payable not less frequently than semi-monthly
in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll practices as in effect from time to
time(“Compensation”). Company agrees to review Executive’s Compensation annually for a potential
increase in the sole and absolute discretion of the Company based upon performance of Executive and
Company.”



3. Bonus. The second sentence of Section 2.3 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and the
following substituted in lieu thereof:




          “Depending upon the performance of Executive and Company, the Executive shall be eligible for
a target bonus of forty percent (40%) of Executive’s Compensation.”




 









 







To the extent not expressly amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. The
undersigned do hereby consent to the foregoing amendment effective as of July 1, 2007.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	K12 INC.

 	 
	 	/s/ Andrew Tisch
 	 
	 	Andrew Tisch 	 
	 	Chair, Compensation Committee 	 
	 
	 	EXECUTIVE 

 	 
	 	/s/ Howard D. Polsky
 	 
	 	Howard D. Polsky
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20003 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
GUADALUPE BARRON , Defendant

- Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 14

- 40011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
GUADALUPE BARRON , also known as Lupe,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11

- CR

- 31

- 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 22, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20003 Document: 00513053742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2015No. 14

- 20003 c/w No. 14

- 40011
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Guadalupe Barron pleaded guilty, in two separate criminal matters, to possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine

. He appeals his concurrent sentence s of 118 months of imprisonment , arguing that the district court clearly erred by applying a 5% reduction from the gross weight for packaging , instead of a 5.3 % or higher reduction. We review the district court’s application and interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Goluba , 672 F.3d 304, 306 (5th Cir. 2012). A district court’s finding on drug quantity is a fact ual finding we review for clear error. United States
v. Davis , 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996). If the district court’s assessment of the evidence is plausible in light of the record as a whole, we may not reverse even if we would have weighed the evidenc e differently if sitting as the trier of fact. See Davis , 76 F.3d at 84. Here, the district court adopted the drug quantity set forth in the presentence report (PSR) after considering Barron’s arguments in favor of a higher percentage reduction for packa ging

. Barron, however, presented no evidence rebutting the drug quantity or the 5% packaging reduction set forth
in the PSR. Given the absence of contrary evidence concerning the proper drug quantity, the district court was free to adopt the PSR’ s estima ted weight and use that weight for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Puig

–

Infante , 19 F.3d 929, 943 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’ s decision to apply a 5%

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

2 Case: 14-20003 Document: 00513053742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2015No. 14

- 20003 c/w No. 14

- 40011
reduction at most to the gross weight of the marijuana to account for packaging

was p lausible in light of the record. See Davis , 76 F.3d at 84. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 14-20003 Document: 00513053742 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/22/2015
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBroadwind Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew J. Gadow, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Matthew J. Gadow       |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Matthew J. Gadow           |   |
| Chief Financial Officer    |   |
|                       |   |
| Date: August 14, 2008 |   |

 

 

----
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 Sonoma  Valley  Bancorp (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  We, Mel
Switzer,  Jr., Chief  Executive  Officer and Mary Quade Dieter,  Chief Financial
Officer, of the Company certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
our knowledge and belief:

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

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


Dated: May 13, 2004          /s/ Mel Switzer Jr.
      --------------------   ---------------------------------------------------
                             Mel Switzer, Jr.,
                             Chief Executive Officer
                             (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: May 13, 2004          /s/ Mary Quade Dieter
      -------------------    ---------------------------------------------------
                             Mary Quade Dieter,
                             Executive Vice President
                             Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                             (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Ernest U. MIMS-SMITH, Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Jr. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 97-2268.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

Ernest U. Mims-Smith, in proper person.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Doquyen T. Nguyen, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner’s release from the custody of the Department of Corrections has now rendered our review of the lower court’s denial of his petition for writ of mandamus in this cause moot. *See Godwin v. State,*593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992); *Martinez v. Singletary,*691 So.2d 537, 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Freedman & Slater, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7706.

Invoice dated Manchester, England, July 17, 1946.

Certified July 26, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 14, 1946.

Entry No. 713097.

(Decided June 13, 1949)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Joshua M. Davidson*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*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.

Upon 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 entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
June 5, 1961

No. 65783.

#### Arnart Imports, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/33655.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                      88,356,091
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,818,613
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 90,550,508
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           198,940,445
<PP&E>                                     108,562,187
<DEPRECIATION>                              45,566,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             275,512,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      156,373,305
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       222,211
<OTHER-SE>                                 116,264,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               275,512,877
<SALES>                                    723,800,624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           728,673,446
<CGS>                                      546,451,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              692,262,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,427,603)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             37,838,161
<INCOME-TAX>                                15,007,773
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                22,830,388
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 91 (Friday, May 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 26413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10133]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PXI Systems Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 25, 2008, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Ranatec Instrument 
AB, Fl[ouml]jelbergsgatan, M[ouml]lndal, SWEDEN; One Stop Systems, 
Inc., Escondido, CA; and BAE Systems, San Diego, CA have been added as 
parties to this venture. Also, MEN Micro, Inc., Ambler, PA has 
withdrawn as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends 
to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 8, 
2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on February 25, 2008 (73 FR 10066).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E8-10133 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
No. 96-6993.

#### Spike *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
# C_2014175EN.01001701.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/17

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission

(Case C-223/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 - Referral to the General Court of the European Union))

2014/C 175/20

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Clausen and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ 2013 L 33, p. 14)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Refer Case C-223/13 back to the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Refer Case C-223/13 back to the General Court of the European Union.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.06.2013

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 9912)

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc., or New York et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3608, etc.

(Decided February 15, 1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Golburn*for the plaintiffs.

*William S. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the Schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the issues in *Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697 and that the record in said ease may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed in the Schedule hereto annexed less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, packed ready for delivery, and that the foreign values of such or similar merchandise were no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these eases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

In tbe incorporated case, I held that a charge of 15 per centum paid by the American importer to a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market was a *'bona fde*buying commission and, as such, did not enter into the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.