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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4


                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Employment Agreement (the "Amendment") is made and
entered into as of October 24, 2001 by and between Onyx Software Corporation, a
Washington corporation (the "Company"), and Kevin Corcoran ("Employee"). The
Amendment modifies the employment agreement previously executed between the
parties in conjunction with the Company's purchase of RevenueLab LLC (the
"Employment Agreement"), which is hereby incorporated by reference. In the event
of any conflict between the provisions of the Employment Agreement and this
Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall control. Capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Employment
Agreement.

In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the Company and Employee agree as follows:

1. Employee acknowledges and agrees that commencing on November 1, 2001, up to
fifteen percent (15%) of Employee's Base Salary may be re-classified as
Leveraged Compensation. Payment of this re-classified amount shall be pursuant
to the Company's Leveraged Compensation guidelines, which shall be administered
in the Company's sole discretion. Employee further agrees that such
re-classification shall not be deemed "Good Reason" for Employee's resignation
as contemplated under Section 4.4 of the Employment Agreement.

2. Except as expressly provided for under item #1 above, all other terms and
conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Agreement, in the case
of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of the day and year first
above written.


ONYX SOFTWARE CORPORATION                   EMPLOYEE


By: /s/Paul Dauber                          By: /s/ Kevin Corcoran
    --------------------------------            -------------------------------
    Paul Dauber                                 Kevin Corcoran


Its:  General Counsel
Exhibit
32.2







WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Quarterly Report of China 3C Group and its subsidiaries
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Weidong Huang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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 Company.







May 15,
2009





/s/ Weidong
Huang


Weidong
Huang


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)
#### Mildred S. SNYDER, Appellant, v. GULF AMERICAN CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-96.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 11, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1969.

Stephen H. Grimes, of Holland & Knight, Bartow, for appellant.

Leonard Rivkind, of Rosen & Rivkind, Miami Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

LILES, Chief Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, filed a complaint against appellee, defendant in the trial court, seeking an injunction and damages. The trial judge, on motion to dismiss, granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. Appellant then filed a motion for rehearing within ten days of this order. The order denying the motion for rehearing was entered several months later. Within thirty days from date the motion for rehearing was denied this notice of appeal was filed by appellant and a motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by appellee.

*406Appellee maintains that a motion for rehearing is not proper when directed to a dismissal with prejudice; that the motion to dismiss was a nullity; that as such could not toll the time for filing notice of appeal; and that the appeal is therefore untimely.

The motion for rehearing was filed under F.R.C.P. 1.530, 31 F.S.A. entitled “Motions for New Trials and Rehearing; Amendments to Judgments” which provides in part:

> “(a) Jury and Non-Jury Actions * * On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, including summary judgments, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony and enter a new judgment.

> (b) Time for Motion. A motion for a new trial or for rehearing shall be served not later than ten days after the rendition of verdict in a jury action or' the entry of judgment in a non-jury action * *

We are called upon to decide whether a motion for rehearing of an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal.

Appeal from a judgment is proper only when it is final and the trial court’s judicial labors are at an end. Therefore, when the trial court has pending a timely and proper motion for rehearing it has the power to alter said judgment and appeal is not authorized during this period. See F. A.R. 1.3 and F.A.R. 3.2, subd. b, 32 F.S.A.

We hold that a motion to rehear an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice is proper under F.R.C.P. 1.530 because it is directed to an otherwise appealable final judgment heard without a jury within the terms of the rule. This being a judgment, a motion filed within ten (10) days of its entry is proper and tolls the time for appeal. This was the procedure under the former equity rules, O’Steen v. Thomas, 1941, 146 Fla. 73, 200 So. 230, and is therefore encompassed by Rule 1.530 of our modern rules of procedure in which law and equity have been merged.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


              I, Robert  Fallah,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial
Officer of Command International Corporation (the "Company"),  certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.   Section1350,   as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) the  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  for the  fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2003,  (the "Report")  which this statement  accompanies,
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
Company.


Date: August 14, 2003
                                                     /S/ Robert Fallah
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Robert Fallah
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Command International  Corporation
and will be retained by Command  International  Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### David LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 1, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal quashed.
Case 4:10-cv-00480-MM-DB Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00480-MM-DB Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00480-MM-DB Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00480-MM-DB Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00480-MM-DB Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00480-MM-DB Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00480-MM-DB Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00480-MM-DB Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 Page 8 of 8
No. 00-7331.

#### Moody *v.*Arizona.

Super. Ct. Ariz., Pima County. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of KPMG LLP

The
Board of Directors
NeoPharm, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos. 333-03725, 333-66365, and 333-104586 on Form S-8
and 333-109340 on Form S-3 of NeoPharm, Inc. of our reports dated February 20, 2004, except as to Note 11, which is as of March 7, 2004,
relating to the balance sheet of NeoPharm, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended
and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of NeoPharm, Inc.

Our
report refers to our audit of the adjustments that were applied to restate the 2001 financial statements, as more fully described in Note 5 to the financial statements.
However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2001 financial statements other than with respect to such adjustments.



Chicago,
Illinois
March 15, 2004

---

QuickLinks
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135659 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 135659 COA: 269813 Kent CC: 05-006876-FC BONNIE LOU SAVOY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 20, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

FARRAH KELLY, 

Plaintiff 

V. 

JOSHUA BELL, JUSTIN SNYDER, 

and CITY OF WILLIAMSPORT, 

Defendants 

and 

CHRISTOPHER SALISBURY and 

CITY OF WILLIAMSPORT, 

Consolidated Defendants 

No. 4:22cv1940 

(Judge Munley) 

........................................ : "A ".9RD0ER0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

AND NOW, to wit, this _l_ja-; of December 2024, upon consideration of 

Defendants Christopher Salisbury and City of Williamsport motion to dismiss, 

(Doc. 28), it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1) The motion is GRANTED as to Count 111 of Plaintiff Farrah Kelly's complaint 

against these defendants (Doc. 35); 

2) Defendants' motion is otherwise DENIED; and 

3) The issue of Defendant Salisbury's qualified immunity is deferred until the 

time of summary judgment. 

Case 4:22-cv-01940-JKM Document 37 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

Case 4:22-cv-01940-JKM Document 37 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0616 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANTHONY THOMAS DISHON,

Defendant and Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________

**ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE**  **CASES** Upon consideration of the Appellant’s motion to consolidate cases, having no objection from the State and with good cause appearing, Appellant’s motion to consolidate is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that Cause Nos. DA 21 - 0616 and DA 21 - 0617 be consolidated for the purposes of appeal under **Cause No. DA 21**  **- 0616**  .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 22 2022

11/22/2022
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/25 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2903 

To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy 

Act of 1977 to extend education grant programs for Alaska Native 

serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. SCHATZ, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) 

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

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 

and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to extend education 

grant programs for Alaska Native serving institutions 

and Native Hawaiian serving institutions, 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 ‘‘Parity for Alaska Na5 tive and Native Hawaiian Students in Agriculture Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2903 IS

1 SEC. 2. EDUCATION GRANTS TO ALASKA NATIVE SERVING 

2 INSTITUTIONS AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN SERV3 ING INSTITUTIONS. 

4 Section 1419B of the National Agricultural Research, 

5 Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 

6 3156) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)— 

8 (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

9 paragraph (4); 

10 (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the 

11 following: 

12 ‘‘(3) GRANT PERIOD.—A grant made under this 

13 subsection shall be for a period of not more than 3 

14 years.’’; and 

15 (C) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), 

16 by striking ‘‘$10,000,000 in fiscal years 2001 

17 through 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000 for 

18 fiscal year 2023 and $15,000,000 for each of 

19 fiscal years 2024 through 2028’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (b)— 

21 (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

22 paragraph (4); 

23 (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the 

24 following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 2903 IS

1 ‘‘(3) GRANT PERIOD.—A grant made under this 

2 subsection shall be for a period of not more than 3 

3 years.’’; and 

4 (C) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), 

5 by striking ‘‘$10,000,000 for each of fiscal 

6 years 2001 through 2023’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘$10,000,000 for fiscal year 2023 and 

8 $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 

9 through 2028’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,535
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,860
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,535)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (2,175)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,175)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,175)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48338-48339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

September 4, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Special Request

    In order to conduct the survey described below during September-
October 1997, the Department of the Treasury is requesting that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this 
information collection by September 16, 1997. To obtain a copy of this 
study, please contact the Internal Revenue Service Clearance Officer at 
the address listed below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1349.
    Project Number: SOI-36.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: 1997 Refund Release Application Customer Satisfaction 
Survey.
    Description: The Internal Revenue Service has developed the 
automated

[[Page 48339]]

Refund Release Telephone Application. The application allows taxpayers 
to provide vital information about their individual tax account in 
order for the IRS to release a refund check. The process is completed 
interactively, without customer service representatives (CSR) 
involvement. The purpose of the survey is to assess the level of ease 
and satisfaction with using the Refund Trace application.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 882.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 1 minute.
    Frequency of Response: Other (one-time only).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 15 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-24317 Filed 9-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# L_2018017DE.01006502.xml

| 23.1.2018 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 17/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2018

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 17/65

---

Berichtigung der Regelung Nr. 138 der Wirtschaftskommission für Europa der Vereinten Nationen (UNECE) — Einheitliche Bestimmungen für die Genehmigung geräuscharmer Straßenfahrzeuge hinsichtlich ihrer verringerten Hörbarkeit [2017/71]

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 9 vom 13. Januar 2017
  )

Seite 37, Absatz 6.2.1.2 Buchstabe b:

Anstatt:

„mindestens zwei der drei Terzbänder nach Absatz 6.2.8 Tabelle 2 umfassen.“

muss es heißen:

„mindestens zwei der Terzbänder nach Absatz 6.2.8 Tabelle 2 umfassen.“

---
Case 04-26858-TPA Doc 70 Filed 08/15/06 Entered 08/16/06 11:53:05 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
Case 04-26858-TPA Doc 70 Filed 08/15/06 Entered 08/16/06 11:53:05 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
Case 04-26858-TPA Doc 70 Filed 08/15/06 Entered 08/16/06 11:53:05 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
#### PRESTO MFG. CO. et al. v. Andrew J. SHELBY.

No. 46047.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 1, 1971.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes; William Larry Latham; John B. Clark, Jackson, for appellants.

Pyles & Tucker, Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5007-5008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2527]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also

[[Page 5008]]

be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also 
involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also 
includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies 
with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act, including whether the 
acquisition of the nonbanking company can ``reasonably be expected to 
produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased 
competition, or gains in efficiency, that outweigh possible adverse 
effects, such as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair 
competition, conflicts of interests, or unsound banking practices'' (12 
U.S.C.      1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will 
be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 27, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1413:
    1. First Equity Corp., Skokie, Illinois; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 1st Equity 
Bank, Skokie, Illinois, a de novo bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 28, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-2527 Filed 1-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
```
#### Roy WELCH v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45775.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 30, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 13s 1970.

H. T. Carter, Dudley H. Carter, Columbus, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Timmie Hancock, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Case 4:10-cv-00054-MM-DB Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 7
Case 4:10-cv-00054-MM-DB Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 7
Case 4:10-cv-00054-MM-DB Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 7
Case 4:10-cv-00054-MM-DB Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 7
Case 4:10-cv-00054-MM-DB Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 5 of 7
Case 4:10-cv-00054-MM-DB Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 6 of 7
Case 4:10-cv-00054-MM-DB Document 5 Filed 01/29/10 Page 7 of 7