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

                  AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED SECURITIES AGREEMENT

         This AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED SECURITIES AGREEMENT (this "AMENDMENT") is
entered into as of March 27, 1998, by and among John F. Brennan (the
"EXECUTIVE") and AnswerThink Consulting Group, Inc. (the "COMPANY").

                                    RECITALS

         A. The Executive has entered into a Restricted Securities Agreement
with the Company dated as of July 31, 1997 (the "RESTRICTED SECURITIES
AGREEMENT").

         B. The Company and the Executive desire to revise the Restricted
Securities Agreement in certain respects, all pursuant to the terms and
provisions of this Amendment.

         C. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings
assigned to such terms in the Restricted Securities Agreement.

                                    AGREEMENT

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and good
and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties agree as follows:

         1. AMENDMENTS TO THE RESTRICTED SECURITIES AGREEMENT. Section 1 of the
Restricted Securities Agreement shall be amended by deleting the text
"Restricted Shares will become vested upon a Sale of the Company or following a
Public Offering in accordance with this Section 1" and replacing in lieu thereof
"Restricted Shares will become vested upon the earliest of (i) March 27, 1998,
(ii) a Sale of the Company; or (iii) following a Public Offering in accordance
with this Section 1."

         2. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Amendment shall be March
27, 1998.

         3. COUNTERPARTS; FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION. This Amendment may be executed
in any number of separate counterparts and all of said counterparts taken
together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. A party's
signature appearing on this Amendment sent by facsimile transmission shall be
binding as evidence of that party's acceptance and agreement to the terms
hereof.

<PAGE>

              [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to
Restricted Securities Agreement to be executed as of the date first written
above.

EXECUTIVE:                                   ANSWERTHINK CONSULTING
                                             GROUP, INC.

                                             By: /s/ Ted A. Fernandez
                                                --------------------------------
John F. Brennan                                    Ted A. Fernandez, President

                                   * * * * * *
# C_2014421EN.01004801.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — Cerafogli v ECB

(Case F-26/12) (1)

1

((Civil service - ECB staff - Access of ECB staff to documents connected with their employment relationship - Rules applicable to requests from ECB staff - Pre-litigation procedure - Rule of correspondence - Plea of illegality raised for the first time in the action - Admissibility - Right to effective judicial protection - Consultation of the Staff Committee for the purpose of adopting rules applicable to requests from ECB staff for access to documents connected with their employment relationship))

2014/C 421/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, E. Carlini and S. Lambrinoc, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the ECB’s decision refusing to grant the applicant access to documents, and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 21 June 2011 whereby the Deputy Director-General of the Directorate General for Human Resources, Budget and Organisation of the European Central Bank partially rejected the request for access to certain documents submitted by Ms Cerafogli on 20 May 2011; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 21 June 2011 whereby the Deputy Director-General of the Directorate General for Human Resources, Budget and Organisation of the European Central Bank partially rejected the request for access to certain documents submitted by Ms Cerafogli on 20 May 2011;

| 2. | Orders the European Central Bank to pay Ms Cerafogli EUR 1  000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Central Bank to pay Ms Cerafogli EUR 1  000;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Declares that the European Central Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Ms Cerafogli. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that the European Central Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Ms Cerafogli.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 22.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7114

LEONARD CARTER, JR.

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

GREGORY HARRIS; A. PRICE; CURTIS B. WILLIAMS;

FRANK BROWN; LEMUEL WASHINGTON; VINCENT JAMES;

JAMES SELBY; THOMAS LOUIS DALE, JR.; LINELL R.

JONES; RALPH HAIRSTONE; DEMETRIS ODOM,

Plaintiffs,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; A. D. ROBINSON,

Warden; JOHN P. ALDERMAN, Chairman; P. W. BUCK

ROGERS, Director; E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Former

Chairman; JOHN B. METZER, III, Former Chairman; M. L. HILL, Operation Officer,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-99-112)
2

Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonard Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Carter appeals from a district court order dismissing

without prejudice his complaint alleging civil rights violations

under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999). The court dismissed

Carter’s complaint because he failed to pay his filing fee as

directed or otherwise aver that he could not pay such a fee. Because Carter may proceed with this action in the district court by

amending his complaint to provide the information requested by the

court, his appeal is interlocutory and not subject to appellate

review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,

10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Carter’s motions to appoint counsel, to produce documents, to proceed in forma pauperis,

for summary judgment, and “for trial by jury.” 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2012331EN.01002602.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/26

---

Action brought on 20 August 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Apro Tech (APRO)

(Case T-372/12)

(2012/C 331/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apro Tech Co., Ltd (Taichung Hsien, Taiwan)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2012 in Case R 196/2011-2, declaring that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the opponent’s action before OHIM should have been upheld and the decision of the Opposition Division granting Community trade mark No 8 253 551‘APRO’ (mixed) in full should have been annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2012 in Case R 196/2011-2, declaring that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the opponent’s action before OHIM should have been upheld and the decision of the Opposition Division granting Community trade mark No 8 253 551‘APRO’ (mixed) in full should have been annulled;

| — | order the defendant and the other party opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the other party opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Apro Tech Co., Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘APRO’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 8 253 551

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: national and Community figurative mark ‘B-PRO by Boomerang’ and Community word marks ‘PRO MOUNTAIN’ and ‘PRO OUTDOOR’ for goods in Class 12

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
**Exhibit 99.1**

March 22, 2002

 

 

  Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W. — Room 104

Washington, DC 20549

  Re:          Arthur Andersen LLP 

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

 

Our independent publicaccountant is Arthur Andersen LLP (“Andersen”).  In connection with the audit of the consolidated financialstatements of ResortQuest International, Inc., and subsidiaries (the “Company”)as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements ofincome, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flowsfor each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, Andersen hasissued a report to the stockholders and directors of the Company dated February19, 2002 (the “Report”).  The Report isincluded in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2001.

 

In accordance with therequirements of the SEC, the Company has received the following writtenrepresentations from Andersen:

  

We have audited theconsolidated financial statements of ResortQuest International, Inc. andsubsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended and haveissued our report thereon dated February 19, 2002.  We represent that this audit was subject to our quality controlsystem for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonableassurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professionalstandards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnelworking on the audit and availability of national office consultation.  Availability of personnel at foreignaffiliates of Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

  Very truly yours,

 

 
| /s/ J. Mitchell Collins                            |
|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                               |
| Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
| ResortQuest International,  Inc.                   |

 

 

----
No. 96-5682.

#### Thomas *v.*Adams, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1670V

UNPUBLISHED

ASHLEY WIRGES,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 10, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Wa shington, DC, for

Petitioner.

Ronalda Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On October 29, 2019, Ashley Wirges f iled a petition for co mpensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensati on Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she su ffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine intramuscularly administered in her left shoulder on October 19, 2018

. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 10, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4( c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states t hat Petitioner “has satisfied the criteria set forth in the

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims ' website in accordance with the E-Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would cons titute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualificat ions and Aids to Interpretation, which affords petitioner the presumption of causat ion because petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in her left shoulder; her pain occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her pain and reduced r ange of motion were

limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain her symptoms.” Id. at 3-4.

In view of Respondent’s position a nd the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
#### Heir Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6935.

Entry No. 764881, etc.

Invoices dated Shepshed, England, April 24, 1946, etc.

Certified April 30, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 3, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 28, 1947)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the 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. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

A written stipulation of fact, submitting these cases, is sufficient to show that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
Terry Bursey, P. Geo.


28 Mill Road,
 P.O. Box 1420
 Red Lake, Ontario
 P0V 2M0
   CONSENT
 March 27, 2012
  Rubicon Minerals Corporation
 Suite 1540 – 800 West Pender Street,
 Vancouver, B.C.
 V6C 2V6
  And
  United States Securities and Exchange Commission
    Dear Sirs/Mesdames:
   I hereby consent to being named in the Annual Information Form of the Company, dated March 27, 2012 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the “AIF”) and to the use of the technical information prepared by me or under my supervision relating to the Company’s Red Lake properties, which information is contained in the AIF and incorporated by reference in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
   Sincerely,
    /s/“Terry Bursey”
 Terry Bursey, P. Geo.
 Regional Manager
 Rubicon Minerals Corporation
# C_2013164EN.01001202.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Raquel Gianni Da Silva v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

(Case C-189/13)

2013/C 164/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raquel Gianni Da Silva

Applicant:

Defendant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does European Union law preclude national legislation under which illegal entry by a third-country national who has not been subjected to the coercive measures provided for in Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment? (1)

1

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10546

Conference Calendar

 

JAMES E. WOODS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NAVARRO CTY, TEXAS, Corsicana,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

CONSOLIDATED WITH

No. 96-10825

- - - - - - - - - -

JAMES E. WOODS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, Nursing Department,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-614-H

USDC No. 3-95-CV-202

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 96-10546 & 96-10825

- 2 -

* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

PER CURIAM:*

In No. 96-10546, James Woods, #654107, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) (formerly § 1915(d)) of his civil rights complaint. 

Woods contends that he was wrongfully arrested and forced to

plead guilty to forgery and that his probation was revoked as a

result. We have reviewed the record and Woods’ brief and

conclude that his appeal is frivolous because his § 1983

complaint is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364

(1994). 

In No. 96-10825, Woods appeals from the district court’s

dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint against the

Dallas County Jail. Woods contends that he received inadequate

treatment from a nurse at the Dallas County Jail. We have

reviewed the record and Woods’ brief and conclude that this

appeal also is frivolous because Woods allegations do not rise to

the level of deliberate indifference. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 

We caution Woods that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. 

To avoid sanctions, Woods is further cautioned to review any
Nos. 96-10546 & 96-10825

- 3 -

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous. 

APPEALS DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00373-CR

Michael Wayne Montgomery

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 97th District Court

of Montague County (2012-0052M-CR)

July 10, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Lee Gabriel___________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20068]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 901]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status Abbott Manufacturing, Inc.; 
(Infant Formula, Adult Nutritional Products) Sturgis, Michigan

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the City of Battle Creek, Michigan, 
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 43, for authority to establish special-
purpose subzone status for export activity at the infant formula and 
adult nutritional products manufacturing plant of Abbott Manufacturing, 
Inc., in Sturgis, Michigan, was filed by the Board on March 12, 1996, 
and notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register 
(FTZ Docket 22-96, 61 FR 12059, 3-25-96); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
for export manufacturing is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the Abbott Manufacturing, Inc., plant in Sturgis, Michigan 
(Subzone 43C), at the location described in the application, subject to 
the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, and 
subject to the further requirement that all foreign origin dairy 
products and sugar admitted to the subzone shall be reexported.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of July 1997.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 97-20068 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
No. 48256.

#### Protests 93943-K, etc., of Herman A. Holz (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The hardness-testing machines found from the established facts to be similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *American Machine & Metals, Inc.*(29 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 183) were held dutiable as claimed.