alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.21

                               [MAXUS LETTERHEAD]


                                  May 11, 1995



TO:  W. Mark Miller


         RE:     AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT


Dear Mark:

         As you know, a "Change in Control," for purposes of the Change in
Control Agreement between you and Maxus Energy Corporation ("Maxus") dated
December 1, 1991 (the "Agreement"), occurred on April 5, 1995.  In conjunction
with the Change in Control, Maxus has agreed to request executives to agree to
a post-Change in Control "standstill" period with respect to their agreements.
The purpose of the "standstill" period is to help facilitate an orderly
transition in the management of Maxus following the Change in Control.  As
consideration for your agreeing to a "standstill" period, Maxus will protect
any severance benefits that could be lost under the terms of the Agreement by
your continued employment during this "standstill" period.  Accordingly, Maxus
is hereby requesting that you agree to the following amendments to your
Agreement:

         1.      Maxus agrees to continue your employment at your current job,
at your current rate of base pay and with employee plan benefits at the levels
and on the terms currently provided to you until June 30, 1995, and you agree
not to terminate your employment prior to July 1, 1995.

         2.      If Maxus terminates your employment prior to July 1, 1995 for
any reason other than for "Cause", as defined in the Agreement, it will pay you
the severance compensation and benefits as set forth in the Agreement, without
reduction with respect to the period of your continued employment following the
date of the Change in Control.

         3.      If you terminate your employment prior to July 1, 1995, you
will not be entitled to any payments or benefits under the Agreement.

         4.      The "Period of Employment", as defined in the Agreement, will
be deemed for all purposes of the Agreement to commence on July 1, 1995.
<PAGE>   2
         5.      If you continue your employment with Maxus after June 30,
1995, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as originally
written, except as amended by the terms of this letter.

         If you agree to this letter amendment to your Agreement, please
promptly sign, date and return this letter to the undersigned.  The enclosed
copy is for your files.

                                                   Sincerely,

                                                   /s/ MARK J. GENTRY


                                                   Mark J. Gentry



AGREED TO THIS
19th DAY OF May, 1995


/s/ W. MARK MILLER    
-----------------------
W. Mark Miller
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

<S>                                                                      <C>
                             GOLDSTEIN & GANZ, P.C.

                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                                                                          Member of the American Institute
                                98 CUTTERMILL ROAD                        of Certified Public Accountants

                             GREAT NECK, NEW YORK 11021                   Member of The New York State
                                                                          Society of Certified Public
                                  ------------                            Accountants

                                (516) 487-0110

                          Facsimile (516) 487-2928
</TABLE>

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors
Medical Nutrition USA, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form POS AM (No. 333-126295) of Medical Nutrition USA, Inc. of our
report dated April 4, 2006, relating to the Consolidated Financial Statements
and Schedule and to the reference to our firm in this Form 10-KSB, dated April
14, 2006.




                                                /s/ Goldstein & Ganz, P.C.

                                                Goldstein & Ganz, P.C.

Great Neck, NY
April 14, 2006
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

| (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 material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Partnership. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Nancy J. McGurk                                     |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Nancy                J. McGurk                                         |
| Title: | Chief                Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | November                14, 2006                                       |
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1284 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1284

To designate the John L. Burton Trail in the Headwaters Forest Reserve, 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2005

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the John L. Burton Trail in the Headwaters Forest Reserve, 
                              California.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JOHN L. BURTON TRAIL.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``John L. Burton 
Trail Act''.
    (b) Designation of John L. Burton Trail.--Any trail authorized by 
the final management plan under section 501(i) of Public Law 105-33 
(111 Stat. 1613) for Headwaters Forest Reserve, California, that is 
constructed to provide access to the southern end of the Headwaters 
Grove near the existing Salmon Trailhead shall be known as the ``John 
L. Burton Trail''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                           Exibit 10(o)



                    MICROFLUIDICS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                                30 Ossipee Road
                                Newton, Ma 02164
December 31, I996

Irwin J Gruverman
16 Tanglewood Road
Needham, MA 02I94

Dear Mr. Gruverman:

This will confirm our Agreement concerning your compensation as Chairman and CEO
of MFIC, and charges you will incur in connection with your activities for G & G
Diagnostics Corporation.

You may maintain an office in our premises at 30 Ossipee Road and will pay MFIC
$800.00 per month for space, incidental administrative support, minor supplies
usage and limited use of telephone and copying resources. You will reimburse
MFIC for express charges, outside accounting help and materials and services
purchased through our system.

Subject to approval by the Board, we will pay you at a rate of $95,000 per year
beginning January 1, 1997. Of that amount, $30,000 will be paid in restricted
MFIC stock, at a price of $1.501 share, at this time. The balance will be paid
in cash, in 4 equal increments at the beginning of each quarter. You will
participate in a bonus pool, if any, for management employees. You agree that
MFIC will withhold money from your compensation to pay appropriate taxes. You
will be included in MFIC's insurance and medical programs as in past years, at
no cost to you, as part of your compensation.

Jack Swig will be an employee of MFIC. He will be available to G & G on a half-
time basis, and G & G will reimburse 50% of his salary, fringes, and tax costs
to MFIC on a quarterly basis, subject to a maximum cost to MFIC of $45,000.

MICROFLUIDICS INTERNATIONAL, Inc.

/s/Michael Lento              /s/ Irwin Gruverman
-----------------             -------------------
Michael Lento, President      Irwin Gruverman
                              Individually and as President of G&G
                              Diagnostics Corporation

/s/ Irwin Gruverman
-------------------
Irwin Gruverman, CEO
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

# Troop Support contracting officer follows Amazon model

By Jonathan Stack, DLA Energy Public Affairs

                PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania  –              YouTubeFacebook

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Troop Support
#### Edna C. EVANS, Appellant, v. Henry H. EVANS, Appellee.

No. 77-50.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 4, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1978.

John M. Cain, Orlando, for appellant.

Tanya M. Plaut, Orlando, for appellee.

*35DAUKSCH, Judge.

Upon a review of the evidence, we find the Court erred in awarding to the wife less than her share of the Lenkei note and mortgage. Notwithstanding the testimony of the accountant, the greater weight of the evidence clearly established that the husband’s mother owned one-half of that note and mortgage and the parties to this lawsuit owned the remaining one-half. Therefore, the appellant has a 25 percent interest in the aforementioned note and mortgage. That portion of the Amended Order on Petition for Enforcement of Final Judgment which declares the appellee’s interest in the Lenkei mortgage and note to be 40.277 percent must be modified. The appellant is entitled to and we hereby hold that she owns 25 percent of the Lenkei mortgage and note and all orders or judgments reflecting otherwise are hereby modified in accordance with this opinion.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

CRAWFORD, GRADY L., Associate Judge, concurs.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

concurring specially:

I agree with the result reached by the majority and would like to point out some additional reasons for doing so. In the original proceedings for dissolution of marriage the husband repeatedly and consistently took the position that he was the 50 percent owner of a certain note and mortgage owned jointly with his mother. His wife’s name was on the note and mortgage also and she claimed a one-half interest in his 50 percent. In the final judgment of dissolution the husband was awarded the wife’s interest as a special equity. This court reversed that award and directed that the wife was entitled to one-half of the husband’s interest. Then, for the very first time, the husband claimed that he only owned 40 percent of the note and mortgage. This turnabout was done in the face of previous contrary assertions by the husband contained in affidavits, depositions, and trial testimony.

In a hearing conducted on this issue after the appeal, the husband conceded that although his interest in the note and mortgage was previously treated as 40 percent for tax purposes, he at all times received 50 percent of the payments on the note and mortgage dating back to the execution of the note and mortgage in 1970. And he did not directly dispute testimony that his mother had made a gift to him of the additional 10 percent difference. In addition, the mother’s will was introduced into evidence which showed she believed the husband’s interest to be 50 percent; and the attorney who prepared the will and the note and mortgage testified that the mother intended that the husband have 50 percent. Because of this state of the record, I believe the husband should now be estopped from claiming a lesser interest in the note and mortgage than he claimed before the dissolution.
From: Mills, Alberta E.

To: Heggs, Angela

Subject: FW: Reps. Pompeo/Kinzinger Letter re: Comment Extension for Phalates

Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 4:19:14 PM

Attachments: 13MAR2015 - Phalate Comment Extension Letter to CPSC.pdf

More comments - phthalates

From: Levine, Jason

Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 4:15 PM

To: Ziemer, Michelle; Tsacoumis, Stephanie; Mills, Alberta E.

Cc: Boyle, Mary; Pollitzer, Patricia

Subject: FW: Reps. Pompeo/Kinzinger Letter re: Comment Extension for Phalates

Shelly – please add to the OLA database.

Alberta – please add to the rulemaking record for the phthalate rulemaking.

Everyone – have a good weekend!

Jason K. Levine

Director

Office of Legislative Affairs

CPSC

301-504-7853

From: Ringel, Aaron [ mailto:Aaron.Ringel@mail.house.gov ]

Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:35 PM

To: OLA e-mail; Levine, Jason

Cc: Essington, Michael

Subject: Reps. Pompeo/Kinzinger Letter re: Comment Extension for Phalates

Jason,

Please find attached a letter from Reps. Pompeo and Kinzinger to Chairman Kaye, CC

all commissioners, requesting that the CPSC extend the comment deadline for Docket #

CPSC-2014-0033, “Prohibition of Children’s Toys and Child Care Articles Containing

Specified Phthalates.” If you should have any questions regarding the request please do

not hesitate to contact myself or Michael Essington (cc’ed) with Rep. Kinzinger’s office.

Best,

**Aaron E. Ringel | Legislative Director**

Office of Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas)

436 Cannon HOB | Washington DC, 20515Office (202) 225-6216 | Fax (202) 225-3489

aaron.ringel@mail.house.gov

For News and Email Updates, Please Visit:

Website │ Twitter │ Facebook │ YouTube
<PAGE>

 Exhibit 99.1

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment to Employment Agreement (this "AMENDMENT"), dated as of
April 2, 2003, is made and entered into among eResource Capital Group, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation ("COMPANY") and Michael D. Pruitt, an individual resident
of the State of North Carolina ("EXECUTIVE").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, Company and Executive entered into that certain Employment
Agreement (the "AGREEMENT") dated as of November 7, 2002;

         WHEREAS, the Agreement provided for the extension of a Line of Credit
from the Company to the Executive in order to pay taxes resulting from stock
ownership in the Company (the "LOC");

         WHEREAS, the LOC has never been borrowed against by Executive; and

         WHEREAS, COMPANY AND EXECUTIVE HAVE AGREED TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT IN
ORDER TO DELETE THE PROVISION REGARDING THE LOC.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreement contained herein and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, Company and Executive, intending to be legally bound,
hereby agree as follows.

1.       DELETION OF SECTION 1.8. Section 1.8 of the Agreement entitled "Line
of Credit" shall be deleted in its entirety.

2.       GENERAL. The Agreement and this Amendment constitute the entire
understanding and agreement between Executive and Company with respect to the
subject matter hereof and supersede all prior understandings and agreements
between any of the parties with respect thereto, whether oral or written,
express or implied. Except as amended herein, the Agreement shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect and the Company and Executive hereby
ratify, approve and confirm same in all respects. This Amendment shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware
without regard to the conflict of laws provisions thereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as of
the date set forth above.

COMPANY:                                             EXECUTIVE:

eRESOURCE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

By:_______________________________________           ___________________________
   Melinda Morris Zanoni                             MICHAEL D. PRUITT
   Its: Executive Vice President
#### Tressler’s Estate.

*Appeals*— Interlocutory *decree*— Decree *on citation*— Order *of inquest in*partition— *Quashing appeal.*

Neither a citation to an executor to file an inventory nor an order of inquest in partition is a final decree from which an appeal lies.

Argued April 18, 1910.

May 16, 1910:

Appeal, No. 212, Jan. T., 1909, by J. L. Tressler, from decrees of O. C. Centre Co., making absolute rule on executor to file an inventory and making absolute rule for an inquest in partition in Estate of Daniel J. Tressler.

Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Rule on executor to file inventory.

Rule for order of inquest in partition. Before Orvis, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

*Errors assigned*were the decrees making absolute the rules in question.

*James A. B. Miller,*with him *John G. Love,*for appellants.

*W. D. Zerby,*with him *S. D. Gettig*and *John J. Bower,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The appellee, as the widow of Daniel J. Tressler, after having filed her election to take against his will, presented two petitions to the court below. The one was for a citation to the executor to file an inventory and the other was for a citation directed to all parties interested in the real estate of the deceased to show cause why an inquest in partition should not be awarded for the pur*282pose of fixing and setting out petitioner’s dower. On each of these petitions a rule issued to show cause why its prayer should not be granted. An answer was made to each rule, averring that, for ten years before the death of the decedent, he and the appellee had lived apart under articles of separation, by the terms of which she had relinquished all interest in his estate. Upon hearing on the petitions, answers and testimony taken, each rule was subsequently made absolute, and on one appeal the appellant seeks to have reviewed what was done by the court below in two separate and independent proceedings. As his appeal must be quashed, we need not further consider this. Neither a citation to file an inventory nor an order of inquest in partition is a final decree from which an appeal lies: Allen’s Est., 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 32; Palethorp’s Est., 160 Pa. 316; Christy’s App., 110 Pa. 538; Wistar’s App., 115 Pa. 241.

Appeal quashed.
Exhibit 23.03








                               Consent of KPMG LLP


The Stockholders
Prism Communication Services, Inc.:

We consent to the inclusion of our report dated November 22, 1999,  with respect
to the consolidated  balance sheets of Prism Communications  Services,  Inc. and
subsidiaries as of September 30, 1998 (Predecessor) and 1999 (Successor) and the
related  consolidated  statements of operations,  stockholder's  equity and cash
flows for the period from  November 6, 1997  (inception)  to September  30, 1998
(Predecessor),   the  period  from   October  1,  1998  to  February   26,  1999
(Predecessor)  and the period  from  February  27,  1999 to  September  30, 1999
(Successor),  which report appears in Exhibit 99.03 of the Comdisco, Inc. Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1999.


/s/ KPMG LLP



New York, New York
December 22, 1999
                                      -48-