alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 5.2

 

**MORGAN BEAUMONT, INC**

**ADDENDUM TO**

**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

**THIS ADDENDUM** is made the 1st Day of July, 2006, by and between Morgan Beaumont, Inc (the "Company") and Daniel Davis (the "Executive") Company and Executive may be referred to collectively in the Addendum as the "Parties".

 

**Whereas,** Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated September 16, 2005 (the " Employment Agreement"); and

 

**NOW, THEREFORE,** in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the Parties agree as follows:

 

Extension of Employment Agreement until September 30th 2008.

 

Base Salary.        Executive's base annual salary will be $165,000, effective September 1st 2006 paid in accordance with the Company's normal payroll practices with such payroll deductions and withholdings as are required by law. 

 

Stock Options.    On the Commencement Date, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors shall grant Executive an additional 350,000 Options. These additional Options will vest 100,000 October 1, 2006 and 250,000 October 1, 2007. The strike price shall be forty one cents (.41) which was the closing price of the stock on June 30th. 

 

Other Benefits.  Executive will be eligible to receive

 

 (a)  four weeks vacation, accrual of which will being September 1st 2006.

and

(b) car allowance of $500.00 per month effective September 1st 2006.

 

All Other Terms and Conditions to remain in effect as stated in the Employment Agreement Dated September 16th 2005 as signed and executed by the Parties.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** the Company and Executive have executed this Agreement on the dates shown below, but effective as of September 1st, 2006.

 
| **MORGAN BEAUMONT, INC.** |                    | **EXECUTIVE** |    |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|---------------|---------|
| Name:                     | Clifford Wildes         |          | Name:   | Daniel Davis |   |
| Signed:                   | */s/ Clifford Wildes*** |          | Signed: | */s/ Daniel Davis* |   |
| Dated:                    | July 7, 2006            |          | Dated:  | July 7, 2006 |   |
#### WELSH v. BROWN.

June 13, 1837.

*Rule to show muse why the recognizance should not be amended.*

Where, through the mistake of the prothonotary, a recognizance for stay of execution is taken for six months, instead of *nine,*according to the act ot 16th June, 1838, relating to executions, the court will allow the defendant to give security in a new recognizance, for the nine months, without prejudice *to*any right which the plaintiff may have in regard to the recognizance already entered into, after the stay for nine months shall have expired.

THIS was a judgment for 203 dollars. The prothonotary took a recognizance for stay of execution for *six*instead of *nine*months, as provided in the act of 16th June, 1836, relating to executions. *(Stroud's Purd. tit. Execution.)*The six months, had now expired, and the defendant obtained this rule to show cause why the recognizance should not be amended so as to give the defendant the stay of nine months,

*1. JYorris,*for the rule.

*Brewster,*contra.

Per Curiam.—

We have no power to amend this recognizance. Nor is it necessary that we should now determine whether this recognizance is void under the statute, or whether the surety may be sued on it as a voluntary recognizance. But the defendant cannot be deprived of the time designated for a stay of execution *by*the act of assembly, through the mistake of the prothonotary, if he is willing to give the proper security. We therefore direct the following entry to be made of record, viz:

> “June 13, 1837. *Ordered,*that defendant have leave to give security in a new recognizance for the amount of the judgment, with interest and costs, for a stay of execution for nine months, to be computed from the return day of the original process. This order to be without prejudice to any right which the plaintiff may have in regard to the recognizance already entered into, after the said stay for nine months shall have expired.”

Decree accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         155,218
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,218
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,101
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,218
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                92,771
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,472
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,299
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             47,299
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    12.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    12.53
        

</TABLE>
**-  Pacific West  
-  Davis, CA 
-  Western HNRC 
-  Obesity and Metabolism Research Unit 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search  UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">		You are here: 						Research / 																				**Research Project:**Eggs As a Source of Bioavailable Vitamin B12
**Location: Obesity and Metabolism Research Unit**
**2007 Annual Report**
**1a.Objectives (from AD-416)**													The objective of the research is to determine the bioavailability of vitamin B12 from chicken eggs.  The term bioavailability refers to the percentage of a nutrient, in this case vitamin B12, within a food that is actually absorbed into the body during the digestive process.  This is contrasted with the percentage of the nutrient that passes through the digestive tract and is excreted without being absorbed by the body.  The hypothesis to be tested is that a high percentage of the vitamin B12 in egg is bioavailable, thus indicating that eggs are a good source of dietary vitamin B12.						
**1b.Approach  (from AD-416)**													Egg enriched with vitamin B12 labeled with a radioactive tag (carbon 14) will be cooked and fed to healthy human volunteers.  The amount of the carbon-14 labeled vitamin B12 that is excreted in the stook (unabsorbed vitamin B12) will be compared with the amount of carbon-14 labeled vitamin B12 that appears in the blood and urine (absorbed vitamin B12).  From these measurements, the fraction or percentage of vitamin B12 absorbed (bioavailability) will be calculated.  The study will be carried out in 10 human volunteers and the mean bioavailability of vitamin B12 from egg will be calculated and reported.  Documents Trust with the American Egg Board. Log 32483.						
**3.Progress Report**													This report serves to document research conducted under a trust agreement between ARS and the American Egg Board.  Additional details of this research project can be found in the report for the parent CRIS 5306-51520-006-00D, Dietary Patterns, Mineral and Vitamin Metabolism.  The project under this agreement has not been initiated as the agreement with the American Egg Board was recently finalized and hiring of staff is in progress.						
    Project TeamAllen, Lindsay  
Project Annual Reports FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2007 
Related National Programs Human Nutrition(107)  							Last Modified: 05/02/2010 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2012 

To require that labels on children’s sleepwear that indicate the sleepwear 

is flame resistant to include the chemical name of the flame retardant 

used, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 16, 2011 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require that labels on children’s sleepwear that indicate 

the sleepwear is flame resistant to include the chemical 

name of the flame retardant used, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Children’s Sleepwear 

5 Labeling Act of 2011’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2012 IS

1 SEC. 2. LABELING OF FLAME-RESISTANT CHILDREN’S 

2 SLEEPWEAR. 

3 (a) CHILDREN’S SLEEPWEAR DEFINED.—In this sec4 tion, the term ‘‘children’s sleepwear’’ has the meaning 

5 given the term in section 1615.1(a) of title 16, Code of 

6 Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation). 

7 (b) CHILDREN’S SLEEPWEAR LABELING REQUIRE8 MENT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enact9 ment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commis10 sion shall prescribe a regulation under section 4 of the 

11 Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1193) that requires 

12 each manufacturer of children’s sleepwear that is flame 

13 resistant and uses a chemical treatment to achieve such 

14 flame resistance— 

15 (1) to include a label on such sleepwear that in16 dicates that such sleepwear is flame resistant; and 

17 (2) to include on such label the chemical name 

18 of the flame retardant used to make such sleepwear 

19 flame resistant. 

20 (c) RULEMAKING.—The regulation required by sub21 section (b) shall be prescribed in accordance with section 

22 553 of title 5, United States Code. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Before the First Division,

October 30, 1942

No. 47694.

#### Protests 54892-K, etc., of S. Lisk *&*Bro. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the monkeys in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 46499, the claim under paragraph 909 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9049)

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

Entry No. 795999.

(Decided January 9, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

*651It is provided by the rules of the court that, in such an instance, after the opposite party has had an opportunity to present evidence on the issues, the case may be decided by the court on the record before it.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the present appeal for a reappraisement and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAULETTE SMITH, individually and 

as Successor in Interest to Albert 

Dorsey, deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

EDWARD AGDEPPA, an individual, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a 

municipal entity; DOES, 1 through 10, 

Defendants.

No. 20-56254 

D.C. No. 

2:19-cv-05370-

CAS-JC

ORDER

Filed March 1, 2024

Before: Consuelo M. Callahan, Morgan Christen, and 

Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

Order
2 SMITH V. AGDEPPA

ORDER

Judge Callahan and Judge Bress voted to deny the 

petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Christen voted to grant 

the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised 

of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a 

vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter 

failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused

active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. 

P. 35(a). Appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc, Dkt. 65, 

is DENIED.
#### STATE ex rel. Clinton GONZALES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 97-KH-3082.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Gonzales, Clinton; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 326-316; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97KW-2042.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6740

JEROID J. PRICE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

WAYNE MCCABE, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. 

(1:11-cv-01172-JMC) 

Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jeroid J. Price, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jeroid J. Price seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

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. 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). 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 Price 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 the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[111th Congress Public Law 134]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 3493]]

Public Law 111-134
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 170 North Main Street in Smithfield, Utah, as the ``W. Hazen Hillyard 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Jan. 29, 2010 -  [H.R. 3767]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. W. HAZEN HILLYARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 170 North Main Street in Smithfield, Utah, shall be known and 
designated as the ``W. Hazen Hillyard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``W. Hazen 
Hillyard Post Office Building''.

    Approved January 29, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3767:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Nov. 16, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-29744 and No. 333-01313) and on Form S-8 (No.
33-35816 and No. 333- 01685) of our report dated November 14, 1996 with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Water-Jel Technologies, Inc. and
Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended
August 31, 1996.

HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP

Melville, New York
December 12, 1996

                                       29
No. 44407.

#### Protests 914476-G, etc., of Columbia Cheese Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.
Order entered April 2 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01196
- CR RAMON M. PEREZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. F08
- 60337
- I



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s March 30, 2015 motion to extend time to file his brief. The motion references both March 31, 2015 and April 25, 2015 as dates for which he seeks the extension. Since appellant has not yet te ndered his brief, we will treat the motion as seeking an extension until April 25, 2015 to file the brief. As such, we GRANT the motion. We ORDER appellant to file his brief by MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015

. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to counsel for all parties.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
No. 46534.

#### Petition 6186-R of A. F. Cofod & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
# Low Country RC Maintenance Manual December 14, 2014 

## The safe operation of the UAS will be the responsibility of the Pilot i n Command (PIC). The following procedures are to be reviewed before each flight. The PIC will follow the manufacturers UAS aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. W hen unavailable, aircraft maintenance/component/overhaul, replacement, and inspection/maintenance requirements must be established and identified in the operator’ s manual. At a mi nim um , the following will be in cluded in the operators manual: a. Actuators / Servos b. Transmission (single rotor) c. M otors d. Propellers e. Electronic speed controller f. Batteries g. Mechanical dynamic components (single rotor) h. Remote command and control i. Ground control station (if used) j. Any other components as determined by the operator P rior to each flight , the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection reveals a con dition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station, if utilized, must be incl uded in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations mu st be properly documented in the aircraft records. An y UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a fl ight critical component, must undergo a functional test flight in accordance with the operator’ s manual. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight. The requirements and procedures for a fun ctional test flight and aircraft record entry must be added to the operator’ s manual. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of video filming (or similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 61. 51 (b), a minimum of twenty hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model of UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption and three take
- offs and three landings in the preceding 90 days. Training, proficiency, experience
- building, and take
- off a nd landing currency flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight time and 90 day currency. During training, proficiency, experience
- building, and take
- off and landing currenc y flights all persons not essential fo r flight operations are considered non
- participants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from non
- participants in accordance with 14 CFR 91.119.
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

# DLA 60th Anniversary Shout Out: Navy CAPT Justin Lewis, DLA Distribution Norfolk

By DLA Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
00:14VIDEO  | 00:14 |DLA 60th Anniversary Shout Out: Navy CAPT Justin Lewis, DLA Distribution Norfolk

DLA 60th Anniversary Shout Out: Navy CAPT Justin Lewis, DLA Distribution Norfolk, sends a shout out to DLA for the 60th Anniversary.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA 60th AnniversaryDLA 60th Anniversary DistributionLeadershipDLADDNV