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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.39

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made as of the 15th
day of December, 1999 (the "Effective Date of the Second Amendment") to the
Employment Agreement dated as of April 29, 1998, as amended by the First
Amendment To Employment Agreement (the "First Amendment") entered into on the
29th day of July, 1999, by and between ResortQuest International, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation formerly known as Vacation Properties International, Inc.
("RQI") and David C. Sullivan (the "Employee") (collectively the "Employment
Agreement").

                                   BACKGROUND

A. ResortQuest and Employee have previously entered into the Employment
Agreement and the First Amendment to Employment Agreement; and

B. ResortQuest and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as amended
by the First Amendment.

                             STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT

         For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties hereto agree as
follows:

1. The first sentence of paragraph 1(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby
amended to read as follows:

         "(a)  ResortQuest hereby employs Employee as an employee of
         ResortQuest."

2. Subparagraph 2(a) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

         "(a) Base Salary. The base salary payable to Employee shall be $150,000
         per year, payable on a regular basis in accordance with ResortQuest's
         standard procedures, but not less than monthly.

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

RESORTQUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.

By: /s/ John K. Lines
   -----------------------------------
      Name: John K. Lines

Title: Sr. Vice President, General Counsel
       & Secretary


          /s/ David C. Sullivan
          -----------------------------------
Employee: David C. Sullivan
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry R. Welch, in
      my
      capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:





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





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











***/s/
                Jerry R. Welch***Date:  
                August 14, 2007
            Jerry
                R. Welch
              Chief
                Executive Officer
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 Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
 AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
 ACTION: List of Applications Delayed more than 180 days.
 SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535. Key to “Reason for Delay” 1. Awaiting additional information from applicant. 2. Extensive public comment under review. 3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis. 4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of special permit applications. Meaning of Application Number Suffixes N—New application. M—Modification request. PM—Party to application with modification request. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2008. Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.
 Application No.
Applicant
Reason for delay
Estimated date of completion**MODIFICATION TO SPECIAL PERMITS**11579-M
Austin Powder Company Cleveland, OH
3,4
05-31-200810964-M
Kidde Aerospace & Defense Wilson, NC
4
05-31-2008**NEW SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS**14385-N
Kansas City Southern Railway Company Kansas City, MO
4
05-31-200814566-N
Nantong CIMC Tank Equipment Co. Ltd. Nantong City, China
3
05-31-2008


[FR Doc. E8-10220 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to August 21, 2018)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-17-615 Prokop v. Ritnour

A-17-1093 Castonguay v. Vandenbosch

A-17-1246 Casaday v. Winterstein

A-17-1324 In re Interest of Hannah C. & Rayna C.

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THEMEDICS
INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          89,189
<SECURITIES>                                    67,262
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,384
<INVENTORY>                                     54,468
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               280,079
<PP&E>                                          46,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 452,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,301
<BONDS>                                         82,543
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,682
<OTHER-SE>                                     198,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   452,466
<SALES>                                        214,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,290
<CGS>                                          109,316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   883
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,582
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,629
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,370
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,370
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
No. 42138.

#### Protests 161601-G, etc., of Bloomingdale Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items consist of filet •laGes or Normandy laces. The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore .sustained.
Exhibit 4.31



LOGO



Date:       22nd September 2004



Our ref: C&I/LC/TEAM1/CEB



CONFIDENTIAL



Kwong Lee Shun Trading Co. Ltd.

21/F., Citicorp Centre,

18 Whitfield Road,

Causeway Bay,

Hong Kong.



Attn.: Mr. John Sham/Mr. Samuel Leung



Dear Sirs,



BANKING FACILITIES : KWONG LEE SHUN TRADING CO. LTD.



We refer to our letter dated 24th September 2003 setting out the facilities made available to your company (the Company).



Following our recent discussions, we confirm that the facilities have been
renewed on unchanged basis except the following:



FIXED LOAN FACILITY 
EUR138,244.- (current outstanding)



The loan will be repayable by 2
quarterly instalments of EUR69,122.- each, commencing 22nd November 2004, subject always to the Banks right to receive repayment on demand.



All other terms and conditions under the Fixed Loan Facility remain unchanged.



If you have any queries, please contact our Manager, Credit & Marketing Mr. Kevin Choy, whose telephone number is 2821-1845.



We are pleased to be of service to you and take this opportunity to thank you again for your
custom.



Yours faithfully,

For and on behalf of

STANDARD CHARTERED
BANK (HONG KONG) LIMITED

LOGO



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/    JOSEPHINE TO                
|Josephine To                       
|Senior Credit Documentation Manager



JT/PY/mc



Standard Chartered Bank
(Hong Kong) Limited LOGO

Wholesale Bank

Credit Risk Control



11th Floor Standard Chartered Tower

388 Kwun Tong Road Kwun Tong Hong Kong
# C_2013026EN.01004803.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/48

---

Order of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Shahid Beheshti University v Council

(Case T-120/12) (1)

1

(Annulment action - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing funds - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Inadmissible)

2013/C 26/97

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Shahid Beheshti University (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M Thouvenin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Liudvinaviciute Cordeiro and A. Varnav, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), as far as those acts concern the applicant, and the decision contained in the Council’s letter sent to the applicant on 5 December 2011.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Shahid Behesti University is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Shahid Behesti University is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
No. 55625.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 161580-K and 168554-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1977 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide that overthe-road bus drivers are covered under the maximum hours requirements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2011 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 

that over-the-road bus drivers are covered under the 

maximum hours requirements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Driver Fatigue Preven5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 

7 OF 1938. 

8 Section 13(b)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

9 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(b)(1)) is amended by inserting be10 fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘except a driver of an 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1977 IS

1 ‘over-the-road bus’ as defined in section 3038(a)(3) of the 

2 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public 

3 Law 105–178; 49 U.S.C. 5310 note)’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We have issued our reports datedSeptember 10, 2007 accompanying the 2007 consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year (52 weeks) ended June 30, 2007. We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-140507, effective February 7, 2007; File No. 333-124247, effectiveApril 22, 2005; File No. 333-61372, effective May 22, 2001; File No. 333-61374, effective May 22, 2001; File No. 033-64701, effective December 1, 1995). 

Grant Thornton, LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

September 10, 2007
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




Grubb & Ellis Company

1551 North Tustin Avenue

Suite 300

Santa Ana, California 92705




As of January 25, 2008




Grubb & Ellis Realty Advisors, Inc.

500 West Monroe Street

Suite 2800

Chicago, Illinois 60661




	 	 	 	 	 
	Re:

	 	Redemption of Shares of Common Stock of
	 	 
	 

	 	Grubb & Ellis Realty Advisors, Inc. (the “Company”)	 	 
	 

	 	held by Grubb & Ellis Company (“GBE”)	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 





Ladies and Gentlemen:




     As you are aware, GBE currently owns an aggregate of 5,667,719 shares of common stock, par
value $.0001 per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”).



     Subject to and simultaneously upon the closing of the business combination as contemplated by
the Company’s preliminary proxy statement (the “Preliminary Proxy Statement”) as last filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2007 (pursuant to which, among other things,
GAV is to acquire from GBE the “Properties”, as the term is defined in the Preliminary Proxy
Statement), GBE expressly agrees that the Company shall have the right to redeem from GBE an
aggregate of 4,395,788 shares of its Common Stock, for the par value thereof, resulting in
aggregate payment of $439.58 by the Company to GBE for the redemption of such 4,395,788 shares of
Common Stock (the “Redemption”).



     After giving effect to the Redemption, GBE will own 1,271,931 shares of Common Stock which
will represent 5% of the issued and outstanding Common Stock of the Company upon the closing of the
business combination.



     Please acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing, including your agreement to effect the
Redemption as hereinabove described, by counter-executing a copy of this letter where indicated
below. This letter agreement may be executed in one or more original, facsimile or electronic counterparts, all of which when taken
together shall constitute one instrument.



 









 





Grubb & Ellis Realty Advisors, Inc.

As of January 25, 2008

Page 2




     This letter agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Delaware, without giving effect to its conflicts of laws provisions.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,


GRUBB & ELLIS COMPANY



 	 
	 	By:  	 	/s/ Scott D. Peters
 	 
	 	Name:  	Scott D. Peters 	 
	 	Title:  	Chief Executive Officer
and President 	 
	 



Agreed to and Accepted by:




GRUBB & ELLIS REALTY

ADVISORS, INC.




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Richard W. Pehlke
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Richard W. Pehlke	 	 
	Title:

	 	Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7162

GAYLON RICHARD COX , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. C. RATLEDGE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. ( 5:14

- hc

- 0206 9

- BO )

Submitted : March 17, 2020 Decided: March 30, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , DIAZ , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion

.
Gaylon Richard Cox, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gaylon Richard Cox , a fede ral prisoner, appeals the district court’s order d ismissing
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (201 8 ) petition in which his sought to challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018)

. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his sen tence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law changed and was deemed to appl y retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect. United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. However, we modify the dismissal order, Cox v. Ratledge , No. 5:14

- hc

- 02069

- BO (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2019) , to reflect dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and affirm the dismissal as modified , 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
EXHIBIT
                                  10.22<PAGE>



Amendment to the 
Stock Option Agreement


      This Amendment to the Stock Option Agreement, made as
of the 23rd day of April, 1998, is between Staff Builders,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the 'Corporation') and Stephen
Savitsky (the 'Optionee').

      WHEREAS, the Corporation and Optionee entered into a
Stock Option Agreement dated July 1, 1997 (the 'Agreement');
and 

      WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement
so as to reduce the number of shares as to which the option
is granted;

      NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as
follows:

      Schedule A of the Agreement is hereby amended so that
        the number of shares as to which the option is
        granted shall be 197,000.

      Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms,
conditions, agreements, representations and warranties
contained in the agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. 
      
      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Amendment as of the date and year first written above.
      
                                    STAFF BUILDERS, INC.:
      
      
                                    BY:/s/David Savitsky
      
                                    GRANTEE:
      
      
                                    /s/ Stephen Savitsky
                                    Stephen Savitsky
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SCOTT LEWIS RENDELMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. James K. Bredar, District Judge. 

(8:07-cr-00331-JKB-1; 8:12-cv-00859-JKB)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Lewis Rendelman, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Stacy Dawson Belf, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Gregory P. Bailey, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Scott Lewis Rendelman seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Rendelman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED