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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.32


                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO

                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), dated this
11th day of June, 2001, is made and entered into by and between Packard
BioScience Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Ben D. Kaplan
(the "Executive").

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an employment agreement,
dated March 4, 1997 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement to
extend the term of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and
for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive hereby amend the Employment
Agreement as follows:

1.    Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by adding the
      following language to the end of such Section 1:

      "; provided, however, that commencing on the date two years after the date
      of this Employment Agreement (the "Initial Renewal Date"), and on the
      first day of each calendar month thereafter (each such date and the
      Initial Renewal Date shall be hereinafter referred to as a "Renewal
      Date"), unless previously terminated, the Employment Period shall be
      automatically extended so as to terminate twenty-five (25) calendar months
      after such Renewal Date, unless at least sixty days prior to the Renewal
      Date the Company shall give notice to the Executive that the Employment
      Period shall not be so extended."

2.    Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall
      remain in full force and effect.

3.    The Company and the Executive acknowledge that this Agreement supersedes
      any other agreement between them with respect to the subject matter
      hereof, and that this Amendment shall be incorporated into and shall form
      an integral part of the Employment Agreement.

4.    This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which
      shall be deemed an original, and said counterparts shall constitute but
      one and the same instrument.
<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has executed this Amendment and, pursuant to
the authorization of its Board of Directors, the Company has caused this
Amendment to be executed on its behalf, all as of the date first above written.


EXECUTIVE

/s/ Ben D. Kaplan
-------------------
Ben D. Kaplan


PACKARD BIOSCIENCE COMPANY

/s/ Emery G. Olcott
-----------------------------------------------------
Emery G. Olcott, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Ora K. CLAY, as Executrix of the Estate of E. J. Clay, deceased, Petitioner, v. Kathleen BAIRD, Respondent.

No. 40797.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 26, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<S>                            <C>
<ARTICLE>          UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from FPL Group's and FPL's condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of June 30, 1999 and condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the six months ended
June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

<CIK>                               0000753308
<NAME>                         FPL Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                          PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>               $7,947
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>             $3,000
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                  $1,597
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                    $0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                            $762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         $13,306
<COMMON>                                    $2
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>               $2,922
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                     $2,231
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>          $5,155
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       $0
<PREFERRED>                               $226
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                    $2,493
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                          $0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                   $0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>              $0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>           $1,387
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                   $0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                 $0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                            $0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>          $4,045
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>          $13,306
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>               $3,026
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                      $134
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>              $2,683
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>              $2,683
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                   $343
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                         $41
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>            $392
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  $106
<NET-INCOME>                              $286
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                 $7
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>             $286
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  $178
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                   $0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                  $1,090
<EPS-BASIC>                            $1.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                            $1.67






</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 603

To amend section 3056 of title 18, United States Code, to limit secret

service protection of former Presidents when they are traveling to engage

in income-producing activities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1993

Mr. KANJORSKI (for himself, Mr. DEFAZIO, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 3056 of title 18, United States Code,

to limit secret service protection of former Presidents

when they are traveling to engage in income-producing

activities.

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

3 That section 3056 of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(e) Protection, other than on a reimbursable basis,

6 shall not be provided under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(4) to

7 an individual who is away from that individual’s domicile,

8 as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, if the
2

•HR 603 IH

1 former President, or any member of the former Presi2 dent’s family, directly or indirectly obtains income from

3 activities while so away.’’.

Æ
----

----

| 1.   | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended July 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: September 28, 2009 |                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |  /s/Sandison E. Weil                                 |
|                     |   Sandison E. Weil                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                     |   President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                         |
|                     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |

----
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 645

For the relief of Lucille White, Gerald J. White, Gary White, and Sara

White.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1993

Mr. KANJORSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Lucille White, Gerald J. White, Gary White,

and Sara White.

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

3 SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM.

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to Lucille

5 White of Laflin, Pennsylvania, and her children, Gerald

6 J. White, Gary White, and Sara White, out of any funds

7 not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $992,000 in full

8 and final satisfaction of the family’s claims against the

9 United States arising from the death of Gerald White, her

10 late husband and her children’s late father, as a result
2

•HR 645 IH

1 of a construction accident at Scranton, Pennsylvania, on

2 May 21, 1982, while Mr. White was working on a project

3 for the Department of Interior. This sum is equivalent to

4 the value of a settlement reached between Lucille White

5 and the United States in January 1985 which was later

6 vacated when the United States Attorney who had nego7 tiated the settlement was found incompetent and unau8 thorized to settle the matter.

9 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES.

10 Not more than 10 percent of the payment specified

11 in the first section of this Act shall be paid to or received

12 by any agent or attorney as consideration for any services

13 rendered in connection with such payment, including the

14 payment of court costs or other expenses, any contract to

15 the contrary notwithstanding. Violation of this section

16 shall be deemed a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of

17 not more than $1,000.

Æ
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

I, Kevin T. Dunphy,  Treasurer and Chief Financial  Officer of General  Devices,
Inc.,  (the  "Company"),  hereby  certify  that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB,  of the Company for the six month period
ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the
"Quarterly  Report"),  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information  contained in this Quarterly Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: August 14, 2006

/s/ Kevin T. Dunphy

Kevin T. Dunphy
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of U.S. Trust Corporation (Registration No. 33-63899)
pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan of U.S. Trust Corporation, (ii) the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of U.S. Trust Corporation (Registration No.
33-62371) pertaining to the 401(k) Plan and ESOP of United States Trust Company
of New York and Affiliated Companies, (iii) the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 of U.S. Trust Corporation (Registration No. 333-68589) pertaining to the
U.S. Trust Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (iv) the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 of U.S. Trust Corporation (Registration Nos. 333-61903,
333-63683, 333-16607, 333-72125) pertaining to the resale of 711,079 shares by
certain selling shareholders, of our report dated January 20, 1999, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of U.S. Trust Corporation and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and, for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 1998, which report is included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K.


                                        PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 10, 1999
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1461

THOMAS RAYMOND FIRRIOLO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, State of South 

Carolina, Employees, et al.; LIEUTENANT ELIZABETH CORLEY, (SLED) 

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, State of South Carolina; MARK 

KEEL, Chief of (S.L.E.D.), Law Enforcement Division, State of South Carolina; 

PAUL GRANT, Assistant Chief, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, State 

of South Carolina; CITY OF GREENVILLE, Employees; MR. BRAD RICE; MR. 

JEFF BOWEN; MR. GARY FENELL; MS. JODIE DUDASH; MR. BOBBIE 

SKINNER; MS. CYNTHA VILARDO; MS. TOMMY, of Greenville Cares (Jane 

Doe),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-03319-DCC)

Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 25, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Thomas Raymond Firriolo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Raymond Firriolo seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and 

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because it is 

possible that Firriolo could cure the defects in his complaint through amendment, the 

district court’s order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 

623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Firriolo to 

file an amended complaint. We deny Firriolo’s motions to appoint counsel, to order an 

investigation, and to subpoena records, as well as his recent motion for an extension of 

time to file additional supplemental briefs in this appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FLORIDA PROGRESS CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000357261
<NAME> FLORIDA PROGRESS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        3,632
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      1,032
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,016
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           399
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,413
<COMMON>                                         1,267
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                762
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   2,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              300
<PREFERRED>                                         34
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             2,177
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      153
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,720
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    6,413
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        2,904
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               107
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       2,392
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       2,499
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            405
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  12
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     417
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           134
<NET-INCOME>                                       283
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          1
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      282
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           160
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             520
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.87


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 21, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 21, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0116. TMX FINANCE LLC et al. v. MANNING GOLDSMITH III et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

STCV1700477
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains a summary of financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          73,263
<SECURITIES>                                   200,159
<RECEIVABLES>                                  327,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,187
<INVENTORY>                                    680,230
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,466,550
<PP&E>                                       1,051,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                 446,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,790,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,022,922
<BONDS>                                      1,297,105
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,060
<COMMON>                                        70,859
<OTHER-SE>                                     714,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,790,126
<SALES>                                      1,937,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,937,389
<CGS>                                        1,119,127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,887,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                40,427
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,117)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (424)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,696)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,696)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
#### William Albert MANSFIELD v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45705.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 9, 1970.

*775Guy C. Faggard, Lloyd Y. Sexton, Albert S. Johnston, III, Pascagoula; for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Samuel H. Wilkins, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice:

William Albert Mansfield, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County of the offense of receiving stolen goods.

This case is controlled by the companion case of Madere v. State, 227 So.2d 278 (Miss.1969), in which the Court held under similar facts that it was reversible error for the State to obtain an instruction that if the evidence shows the goods were found in defendant’s possession, and he showed no satisfactory explanation of such possession, “there arises a presumption or inference of fact that .the defendant received said goods knowing same to have been lately taken, stolen and carried away.”

Reversed and remanded.

RODGERS, JONES, BRADY and SMITH, JJ., concur.
#### Willie LEMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-791.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32(b)****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Viseon, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2005(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany./s/ Brian R. DayBrian R. Day. Chief Financial (Principal Financial Officer) September 30, 2005