alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_3.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
      10.3

    
 

    


    COMPENSATION
      AGREEMENT

    


    This
      Compensation Agreement is dated as of November 8, 2007 among Shearson Financial
      Network, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Gregory Sichenzia
      (“Consultant”).

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company has requested the
      Consultant to provide the Company with legal services in connection with their
      business, and the Consultant has agreed to provide the Company with such legal
      services; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company wishes to
      compensate the Consultant with shares of its common stock for such services
      rendered;

    


    NOW
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the
      mutual covenants hereinafter stated, it is agreed as follows:

    


    1.           The
      Company will issue 1,400,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value
      $.001 per share, to the Consultant immediately following the filing of a
      registration statement on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      registering such shares, as set forth in Section 2 below. The shares to be
      issued shall represent consideration for legal services performed by the
      Consultant on behalf of the Company.

    


    2.           The
      above compensation shall be registered using a Form S-8.  The Company
      shall file such Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission within
      five
      business days of the execution of this agreement.

    


    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, this Compensation Agreement has been executed by the Parties
      as
      of the date first above written.

    


    
      	 	
              GREGORY
                SICHENZIA

            	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
              /s/Gregory
                Sichenzia

            	 	 
	 	
              Gregory
                Sichenzia

            	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 


    

    


    
      	 	
              SHEARSON
                FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC.

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
              By:

            	
              /s/
                Michael A. Barron

            
	 	 	
              Michael
                A. Barron

            
	 	 	
              Chief
                Executive Officer
No. 44403.

#### Protest 762930-G of Metropolitan Pottery Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the Rockingham-ware in question was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
exv10w15



 




EXHIBIT
10.15




SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.




SEVERANCE PLAN FOR DIRECTORS

May 2000



1. Purpose. The purpose of this Severance Plan for Directors of Southwest Airlines Co. is to improve the Company’s ability to attract and retain highly qualified individuals to serve as directors of the Company; to provide competitive remuneration for Board service; and to recognize service on the Board of Directors.



2. Effective Date. The effective date of the Plan shall be the date of its adoption by the Board of Directors.



3. Mandatory Retirement. Each member of the Board of Directors shall retire no later than the first Annual Meeting of the Shareholders after such Director’s 72nd birthday. The Bylaws of the Company shall reflect this policy.



4.
Severance benefits for Board Members. Upon retirement
from the Board of Directors, a Director who has served at least five
years as of the date of retirement shall be entitled to a cash
payment of $35,000 and a Director who has served at least ten years
shall be entitled to a cash payment of $75,000. Further, a Director who has served at least ten years as of the date of retirement shall be entitled to an
unlimited number of Nonrevenue Must Ride passes for the use of Director and his/her spouse for the remainder of the life of the Director. Use of such passes shall be subject to the regulations of the Company for nonrevenue travel.




     For purposes of this paragraph 4, service on the Board shall include service on the Board of Directors of Southwest Airlines Co. and service on the Board of Directors of Morris Air Corporation.
## ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 12-14-00205-CR OFFENSE: 3 Charles Edward Lusk v. The State 

## STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Smith 

# fess->sr

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 241st District Court 

### DATE: 4/30/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 241-0127-14



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Charles Edward Luskv. The State of STYLE: Texas 

# PKO £E Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: JUDGE: 

### T /- 

## f& CCA#: 

## CCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH: REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

# fc$7-/5 

# 118-/5"

PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
Before the Second Division,

August 22, 1938

No. 39239.

#### Protests 455531-G, etc., of Dave Herstein Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

*379Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed.
Before the First Division,

January 29, 1941

No. 45311.

#### Protests 792439-G, etc., of Ed. C. Geyer & Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 10,119.

#### The NEPTUNE.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 367] *1*

District Court, S. D. New York.

June, 1863.

Prize — Blockade—Coxdemxa.tion.

Vessel and cargo condemned as enemy property, and for a violation of the blockade.

In admiralty.

1

 [Reported by Samuel Blatchford, Esq.]

BETTS, District Judge.

This vessel was captured, as prize of war, April 19, 1863, on the Atlantic Ocean, off Charleston Harbor, S. C., by the United States sloop-of-war Housatonic. The vessel was, on her capture, appraised at the sum of $150, and left at Port Boyal, S. C., by the captors. The cargo was brought to this port for adjudication, and was here libelled, on the 5th of May thereafter. It was on the same day arrested by due process of attachment and monition, returnable May 26, and on that day the writ was duly returned in court, and a decree by default was thereupon rendered in court The ship’s papers show that the vessel was, on the 4th of April, 1863, registered at Charleston, in the Confederate States, in the custom-house of the enemy, as the sole property of Samuel D. Stoney, of that place, and that she there shipped a crew for Nassau, N. P., with a manifest and bills of lading, dated April 11, 1863, of a cargo of cotton and spirits of turpentine, from that port to Nassau, N. P. The master of the vessel deposes, on his preparatory examination, that the vessel sailed from Charleston with the Confederate colors, and had no others on board; that she was captured off Charleston Harbor, April 19, 1863, in the night; that he was a resident of Charleston, and was appointed to the command of the vessel by her owner, in that port; that he, the master, owned part of the cargo, and the owner of the vessel the residue; and that both of them knew that the port was under blockade at the time by the United States forces. No question is earnestly maintained, upon the pleadings and proofs, as to the guilt of the vessel and cargo. A regular default against both has been taken, and a decree of condemnation and forfeiture must be entered against both. Decree accordingly.
No. 96-287.

#### Klayman *&*Associates, P. C., et al. *v.*Baldwin Hardware Corp.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Foo Chow Importing Co. *v.*United States

No. 7742.

Entry No. 16604.

(Decided October 6, 1949)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George B. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David Nr Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Bichard H. Welsh,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for the reappraisement of bamboo ware and other merchandise imported from China and entered at the port of San Francisco on May 14, 1926. The goods were entered at the invoice unit prices, plus packing, plus an item of 153 Hong Kong dollars representing a (Chinese export tax, the latter amount being added under duress. The merchandise was appraised at the invoice unit prices, plus packing, plus 5 per centum.

This merchandise was before the court in reappraisement No. 133770-A, *Foo Chow Importing Co. (Hoyt, Shepston*& Sciaroni) v. *United States,*14 Cust. Ct. 358, Reap. Dec. 6113, wherein it was held that the appraisement by the local appraiser was premature and invalid since it was made prior to the final determination of the test case cited in the certificate of pending reappraisement. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the papers returned to the appraiser in order that a valid appraisement might be made.

Subsequently, the merchandise was again appraised and this appeal filed. At the trial it was stipulated between counsel for the parties herein that the proper export value under the Tariff Act of 1922 was the invoice unit prices, plus packing, and that the foreign value, as defined in the Tariff Act of 1922, was no higher.

' On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1922 to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the invoice unit prices, plus packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1

NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the Annual Report of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George Bernstein, as Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that:



| | 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 materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates and
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 16, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ George Bernstein   
|                         |  |  |  |     |  | George Bernstein       
|                         |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
(Reap. Dec. 9896)

#### Haddad & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5836.

(Decided January 10, 1961)

*James G. McGoldriok*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement upon stipulation reading as follows:

> (1) *That*the merchandise covered *by*the appeal to reappraisement herein, consists of footwear imported from Japan, and that such articles are identified in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof;

> (2) That export value, as defined in section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise herein;

> (3) That such statutory export value for the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement herein, is the invoiced unit price, ex-factory, net packing included;

> (4) That there is no higher foreign value for the herein merchandise.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as defined in section 402a (d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the articles identified in schedule “A,” attached hereto, and that such value is the invoiced unit price, ex-factory, net, packing included.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

*561Schedule A

The manufacturer and seller of the merchandise herein is:

Hayakawa Rubber Co., Ltd. Fukuyama, Japan

R59/15115 (Export Date: October 11, 1958)

Baltimore Collector’s No. 5810

Baltimore Entry No. 5836 (Dec. 1, 1958)

Rubber shoes — Sponge Sandals (Zori)

SR-0138 — children’s sizes — 64 dozen pair invoiced at US $1.65 per dozen paid, ex-factory, net, packed

SR-0139 — ladies sizes — 300 dozen paid — invoiced at US $2.40 per dozen pair, ex-factory, net, packed

SRr-0140 — men’s sizes — 60 dozen pair — invoiced at US $2.60 per dozen pair, ex-factory, net, packed
No. 40544.

#### Protest 900810-G of M. Zwiebel (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the savings banks in question are similar to-those the subject of Abstract 38680. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
No. 39256.

#### Protests 440134-G, etc., of Monroe D. Green (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Great Pacific Co.*(23 C. C. P. A. 319, T. D. 48192) the broken kernels of the milled rice in question were held dutiable at one-half of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 727 as claimed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIRCH TELECOM, INC. AS OF, AND FOR THE
YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-K OF BIRCH TELECOM, INC.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,053
<SECURITIES>                                    15,936
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                       456
<INVENTORY>                                      3,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,779
<PP&E>                                          70,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,393
<BONDS>                                        125,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           63,550
<PREFERRED>                                         16
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                    (67,778)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,971
<SALES>                                         60,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,538
<CGS>                                           46,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   561
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (61,804)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (61,804)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (61,804)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (13.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (13.25)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, CraigBurton, certify that:

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of USIP.Com, Inc.;

 

2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

 

3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly  report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the“Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of theEvaluation Date;

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterlyreport whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or inother factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent tothe date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions withregard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date: May11, 2004

 
|   |                    | /s/ Craig Burton |   |
|--------|-------------------------|------------------|--------|
|   | Craig Burton, President |

 

----
#### William H. Masson et al. *v.*United States

No. 6921.

Entry No. 8, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 1945, etc.

Certified June 1945, etc.

Entered at Baltimore, Md., July 3, 1945, etc.

(Decided February 26, 1947)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

*412Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-0735V Filed: November 3, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KEVEN OTTENI, *
* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder * Injury Related to Vaccine Administration SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA ”); Special Processing Unit AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)
* Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On June 22, 2016, Keven Otteni (“petiti oner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Com pensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et

seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges t hat he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA ”) as a result of an influenz a (“flu”) vaccine that was
administered to his left shoulder on October 25, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 3, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compen sation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states t hat “petitioner’s a lleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (‘SIRVA’), and it was caused by the flu vaccination that petit ioner received on October 25, 2015. Id. at 5.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t 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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Respondent further agrees that no other causes for petitioner’s shoulder injury were
identified and “the medical records show that he suffered the residual effects of his
condition for more than six months.” Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
#### STATE ex rel. Valrice COOPER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 97-KH-3129.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Cooper, Valrice; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 4-79-394.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

VICTORY, J., not on panel.