alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w29



 





Exhibit 10.29




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



This Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) dated June 6, 2006, is between INPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Nevada corporation (“InPlay”), and Eric Vandewater (“Executive”).




RECITALS





	A.	 	Executive currently serves as the Chief Technology Officer of InPlay. InPlay desires to
assure itself of the continued availability of Executive.
	 
	B.	 	Executive and InPlay are parties to an Employment and Separation Agreement dated June 6,
2006.





AGREEMENT



In consideration of the mutual covenants, premises, terms, and conditions of the parties set forth
herein, and the performance of each, InPlay and Executive hereby agree as follows:




ARTICLE I

EMPLOYMENT



1.1 Employment. InPlay hereby employs Executive, and Executive hereby accepts such employment, to
serve as the Chief Technology Officer of InPlay and in such other capacities and for such other
duties and services as shall from time to time be mutually agreed upon by InPlay and the Executive.



1.2 Best Efforts of Executive. Executive shall devote the required business time, attention, and
efforts to the performance of Executive’s duties under this Agreement, and shall serve InPlay
faithfully and diligently while employed by InPlay.



1.3 Compensation.





(a) Base Salary. InPlay shall pay to Executive, as full compensation for the services
rendered by Executive, during Executive’s employment under this Agreement, as salary at a
rate of $200,000 per annum to be paid in equal bi-weekly installments.




(b) Fair Market Value Stock Options. InPlay shall grant to Executive, on or about the first
day of employment, 45,000 options to purchase shares of InPlay’s common stock. The options
shall vest on the following schedule: 15,000 on December 31, 2006; 15,000 on December 31,
2007; and 15,000 on December 31, 2008. Additional options may be granted upon approval by
board.




(c) Key Performance Bonus Plan. Inplay shall pay to Executive, during Executive’s employment
under this Agreement, a bonus based upon performance against Annual Key Performance
Indicators. The Executive may earn an annual bonus of up to $35,000 under this plan.



ARTICLE II

TERMINATION; RIGHTS ON TERMINATION



2.1 Definitions.





(a) “Termination” shall mean the termination of Executive’s status as an employee of InPlay or
any successor of InPlay.




(b) “Termination Occurrences” shall mean one of the following events:




	 	(i)	 	If InPlay changes the market direction of the Company and Executive
is asked to leave InPlay or the successor company.
	 
	 	(ii)	 	There is management reorganization within InPlay, or a successor
company, and the Executive is asked to leave the Company.




 









 









2.2 Compensation and Termination Provisions. If any of the events defined as Terminations
Occurrences occurs, Executive shall be entitled to: a) six (6) months (13 biweekly salary payments)
of severance pay at the Executive’s current rate of annual Base Salary; b) immediate 100% vesting
of all outstanding options granted; and c) 100% deemed earned Key Performance Bonus for that year.
#### Freddie Lee Clyde HARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-681.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 1, 1977.

Rehearings Denied Aug. 10, Sept. 21, 1977.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, James K. Green, Legal Intern and Frank B. Kessler, Chief, App. Div., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

AFFIRMED on authority of *Dobbert v. State,*328 So.2d 433 (Fla.1976) and *State v. Diggs,*336 So.2d 446 (Fla.4th DCA 1976). See also *Garrison v. State,*340 So.2d 1171 (Fla.4th DCA 1976).

MAGER, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
#### John H. Rhodes, Plaintiff in Error vs. W. P. Moseley, Defendant in Error.

1. Notice should be given to the party in interest, of an application to establish a lost paper.

2. An officer of the Court has no right to use the names of parties to an application of his own for such purpose.

For a statement of the facts, reference is made to the opinion of the Court.

*Archer Sf Papy*for Plaintiff in Error.

*W. Call*for Defendant in Error.

BALTZELL, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. The Sheriff of Leon County made an affidavit, alleging that a writ of fi. fa., issued by the Clerk of the Circuit Court to the Sheriff in favor of Wm. P. Moseley vs. John H. Rhodes—that the original, of which a copy was in his possession, has been lost or mislaid, a copy of which he attaches to his affidavit.

At the October Term, 1853, the following entry was made:

Wm. P. Moseley, Plaintiff, vs. John H. Rhodes, Defendant

~ T to es-

“ It appearing to the Court from the petition and accompanying papers filed by the Sheriff of Leon County in the case, that a pluries writ of Execution was issued from the Clerk’s Office, and that the said writ was lost or mislaid, &c.

“ It is therefore ordered, that the said copy be established in lieu, of the original and be valid for all purposes for which the original writ of execution would have been.”

It has not been denied that the Court has power to establish lost papers, but the action complained of in this instance is that no notice was given.

Another irregularity is evident, that the Sheriff has no *13power to originate motions or present questions in the name of the parties, for the action of the Court. The parties themselves are alone competent to this duty.

The petition should be theirs and in the form of an application, with notice to the adverse party. We are satisfied that the irregularity escaped the attention of the learned Judge who presides in that Court.

The order will be set aside, with leave to the parties to renew their motion in a proper manner.
#### Collins *v.*The Phoenix Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., Appellant.

Argued May 3, 1933.

Before Trexleb, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stabteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*84*Frank J. Thomas,*ánd with him *Paul E. Thomas,*of *Thomas & Thomas,*for appellant.

*Arden D. Mook,*and with him *John I. Kent,*of *Kent & Mo ok,*for appellee.

July 14, 1933:

Opinion by

Parker, J.,

This case and that of Herbert Collins v. Home Insurance Company of New .York, 110 Pa. Superior Ct. 72, 167 A. 626, in which an opinion has been handed down this day, were tried before the same jury, separate verdicts rendered the same day, disposed of by the court below in one opinion, and argued together here. The controlling legal principles involved in both cases' are the same. For the reasons there given, the judgment entered in this case must be reversed.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed and here entered for the defendant.
Hiwassee River

River

Oaks

UV17

Hiwassee River

River

Oaks

UV17

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\maps\Chatuge_land_plan\Chatuge_land_plan_for_Web.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet /

Chatuge Reservoir

Land Management Plan

Tile: D3

Jul 24, 2008
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2226 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 

awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other financial 

assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any program, 

project, or activity carried out outside the United States, including the 

territories and possessions of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2012 

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

the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from awarding any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other financial assistance under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for any program, project, 

or activity carried out outside the United States, including the territories and possessions of the United States. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2226 IS

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING CERTAIN 

2 FOREIGN PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND AC3 TIVITIES. 

4 Section 103 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7403) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(l) PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING FOREIGN PRO7 GRAMS, PROJECTS, AND ACTIVITIES.—The Administrator 

8 shall not award any grant, contract, cooperative agree9 ment, or other financial assistance under this section for 

10 any program, project, or activity carried out outside the 

11 United States, including the territories and possessions of 

12 the United States.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2015056EN.01000201.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/2

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Judeţean Timiş v Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Judeţului Timiş

(Case C-304/13) (1)

1

((Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Direct support schemes - Conditions for the granting of the complementary national direct payments - Condition not provided for by EU legislation - Condition relating to the absence of debt falling due to the State budget and/or local budget on the date of submission of the application for aid - Not permissible))

(2015/C 056/02)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Centrul Judeţean Timiş

Appellant:

Respondents: Curtea de Conturi a României, Camera de Conturi a Judeţului Timiş

Respondents:

Intervener: Agenţia de Plăţi şi Intervenţie pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Bucureşti

Intervener:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 143c of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, and Article 132 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from the benefit of complementary national aid producers who, on the date of submission of the application for aid, have debts falling due to the State budget and/or local budget, where no condition relating to the absence of such debt has been subject to prior authorisation by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2221 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2221

  To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing a proposed rule 
  under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 relating to child labor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2012

 Mr. Thune (for himself, Mr. Moran, Mr. McCain, Mr. Tester, Mr. Rubio, 
 Mr. Paul, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Lee, 
 Mr. McConnell, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. 
Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coats, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, Mr. 
Enzi, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. 
  Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
   Lugar, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. 
  Alexander) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing a proposed rule 
  under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 relating to child labor.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving 
America's Family Farms Act''.
    (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) family farms often depend on the contributions of youth 
        for their successful operation;
            (2) regulations proposed to be adopted by the Department of 
        Labor will adversely impact the longstanding tradition of youth 
        working on farms to gain valuable skills and lessons on hard 
        work, character, and leadership;
            (3) the proposed regulations would be detrimental to the 
        opportunity for youth to gain experiential learning and hands-
        on skills for enrollment in vocational agricultural training;
            (4) the proposed regulations would obstruct the opportunity 
        for youth to find rewarding employment and earn money for a 
        college education or other meaningful purposes;
            (5) the proposed regulations will limit opportunities to 
        recruit young farmers to agriculture at a time when the average 
        age of farmers continues to rise; and
            (6) working on a farm has become a way of life for 
        thousands of youth across the rural United States.

SEC. 2. RULE RELATING TO CHILD LABOR.

    The Secretary of Labor shall not finalize or enforce the proposed 
rule entitled ``Child Labor Regulations, Orders and Statements of 
Interpretation; Child Labor Violations--Civil Money Penalties'' 
(published at 76 Fed. Reg. 54836 (September 2, 2011)).
                                 <all>
```
J-S05031-22

2022 PA Super 138

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JERALD LATEITH BROWN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 897 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 19, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-22-CR-0003336-2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

CONCURRING OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: AUGUST 10, 2022

In this case, Appellant appealed the Judgment of Sentence and this 

Court remanded the case for the production of documents, a new suppression 

hearing and, depending on the decision of the suppression court, a new trial. 

After remand, the Commonwealth failed to take any action to prosecute this 

case within 365 days. Appellant filed a Rule 600 Motion, which the trial court 

denied.

The Majority Opinion affirms the decision of the trial based upon its 

reading of Rule 600(A)(2)(e). Rule 600(A)(2)(e) provides that “when an 

appellate court has remanded a case to the trial court, the new trial shall 

commence within 365 days from the date of the written notice from the 

appellate court to the parties that the record was remanded.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 

600(A)(2)(e) (emphasis added). The Majority concludes that since Rule 

600(A)(2)(e) only refers to “the new trial,” the time limitations set forth in 
J-S05031-22

- 2 -

Rule 600 do not apply to the Commonwealth in this case because the Superior 

Court did not remand for a new trial, but rather a new suppression hearing. 

Maj. Op. at 10. I am constrained to agree with this statutory construction of 

Rule 600(A)(2)(e) and join the Majority Opinion.

I, however, write separately to express my dismay that the 

Commonwealth, following our remand, took no action for more than a year to 

prosecute this case. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the 

Commonwealth has an obligation to proceed with due diligence at all times 

during the pendency of a case. See generally Commonwealth v. Harth, 

252 A.3d 600, 618 (Pa. 2021) (discussing Rule 600 and the Commonwealth’s 

due diligence requirement throughout a case).

I urge the Pennsylvania Criminal Procedural Rules Committee to 

evaluate whether it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to have no time 

requirement to prosecute a case when this Court remands a case for a 

proceeding other than a trial. I suggest that the Committee consider imposing 

the one-year time limitation on not only trials, but also any proceeding for 

which Superior Court remands a case.
#### Wright & Graham Co. (Corporation) *v.*United States

No. 6957.

Entry No. 736777.

Invoice dated Preston, England, December 11, 1941.

Certified December 12, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 3, 1942.

(Decided March 4, 1947)

*Lane & Wallace*for the plaintiff.

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

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
USGSHomeContactUSGSSearchUSGS

Data Series 450
No. 45367.

#### Protest 916879-G of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Bkown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to that passed upon in *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was therefore sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of Gender Sciences, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2003 ( the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



March 24, 2003                                  /s/ FRANCIS A. NEWMAN
                                                ------------------------
                                                Francis A. Newman
                                                Chief Executive Officer
**32.2           Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

	In connection with the Quarterly Report of Shallbetter Industries, Inc. (the "Company") onForm 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry Wong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

By: /S/ TERRY WONG 	Terry Wong, Chief Financial Officer

	Date: February 18, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63
OF TITLE 18,

UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) (the Act),
I, Mark M. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Orion Power Holdings, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (a) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                     
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 4, 2004 |  | /s/ Mark M. Jacobs                                  
|                       |  | Mark M. Jacobs                                      
|                       |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20559]


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

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Docket No. R97-1]


Notice of the U.S. Postal Service's Filing of Proposed Postal 
Rate, Fee, and Classification Changes and Order Instituting 
Proceedings; Notice of Extension of Deadline for Intervention

    Notice is hereby given that in Commission Docket No. R97-1 
published at 62 FR 39660, July 23, 1997, the date for intervention as 
of right under Commission rule 3001.20(c)(39 CFR 3001.20(c)) has been 
extended from August 6, 1997 to August 13, 1997.

(Authority: 39 U.S.C. 404(b), 3603, 3622-24, 3661, 3662)
Margaret P. Crenshaw,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20559 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M