alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Memorandum of Understanding No. 5
                       Minutes of the Presstek-Heidelberg
                     Meeting on March 6, 1996 in Heidelberg

Presstek and Heidelberg agreed on the following subjects:

1) Heidelberg's kit orders to Presstek according to the current "Rolling
Forecast" shall be firm and binding until December 31, 1997 in order to help
Presstek renegotiating prices with its suppliers.

2)  The future kit price shall be as follows:

         -from April 1, 1997                                  [     *      ]
         -from September 1, 1997                              [     *      ]
         -from March 1, 1998                                  [     *      ]
         -from September 1, 1998                              [     *      ]

3) The royalties on the kits already shipped by Presstek to Heidelberg are owed
and payment by Heidelberg will be made in three equal instalments on March 25,
April 25 and May 25, 1997.

4) From April 1, 1997 Presstek and Heidelberg agree on a fixed royalty in the
amount of [ * ] per kit. If Heidelberg's exclusive rights according to the
current Agreements are terminated, the aforementioned amount will be
renegotiated by the parties.

5) Heidelberg will pay the kit price as set forth in no. 2 and the fixed royalty
as set forth in no. 4 (e.g.  from  April 1, 1997 [ * ]) in total  within 45 days
from the date of Presstek's  invoice or from the date of shipment to Heidelberg,
whichever is later.  Presstek's invoice shall separately indicate said kit price
and fixed royalty.

6. Heidelberg shall give Presstek its approval for future engineering changes
which affect form, fit or function of the Quickmaster DI within a target period
of 30 days after having received the solution (software/hardware) to the
engineering change from Presstek. If necessary, e.g. in case of a mechanical
redesign by Heidelberg, the parties will agree on an adequate extension of this
target period.

7) All other current Agreements between Presstek and Heidelberg shall not be
affected and remain [ * ].

Heidelberg, March 7, 1997

s/ Marcel Kiessling s/ Dietmar Kurz      s/ Robert Howard s/ Richard A. Williams
-----------------------------------      ---------------------------------------
Marcel Kiessling Dietmar Kurz               Robert Howard Richard A. Williams
Heidelberger Druckmaschinen                 Presstek, Inc.
Aktiengesellschaft

* The portions of this document marked with an asterisk have been omitted and
confidential treatment of such omitted portions has been requested pursuant to
Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
#### Burnett ROTH, Appellant, v. ROSA BROS., INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 86-1541.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 15, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1987.

Lionel Barnet, Miami, for appellant.

Hoppe & Backmeyer and Mark L. Stokes, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Burnett Roth from an adverse final judgment entered against him in a legal malpractice action after a jury trial. The central contention raised on appeal is that no actionable legal negligence was established below against the defendant and that, accordingly, the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment and directed verdict in his favor. We entirely agree and reverse the final judgment under review based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

The gravamen of the plaintiff Rosa Bros., Inc.’s legal malpractice claim against the defendant Roth was that he, as plaintiff’s counsel, negligently advised the plaintiff to sign a lease agreement, in which the plaintiff and Banner Beef Co. were co-lessees, because the lease had an ambiguous option-to-purchase provision which, in fact, resulted in the plaintiff receiving a 44% interest in the leased premises upon the parties’ subsequent exercise of the option to purchase, instead of a 50% interest as the plaintiff desired. The fatal flaw in this theory of legal malpractice is that it has already been judicially determined — in a prior declaratory decree action brought to construe the ambiguous option-to-purchase provision of the subject lease — that the 44% interest in the aforesaid purchased premises which the plaintiff received fully comported with the intent of the parties to the subject lease. *Rosa Bros., Inc. v. Schlossman, 3*73 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). This being so, it could not possibly constitute legal malpractice for plaintiff’s counsel to advise the plaintiff, as he did, to sign a lease which, as subsequently enforced, fully comported with the intent of the parties to the lease, including the intent of the plaintiff. *See Weiner v. Moreno,*271 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

We have not overlooked the plaintiff’s insistent argument made throughout this litigation that it, in fact, intended to receive a 50% interest, not a 44% interest, in the purchased premises. The plaintiff, however, lost that argument in the prior declaratory decree action and may not revive it under the guise of a legal malpractice suit against his attorney. In other words, the plaintiff cannot now be heard to claim that its attorney was negligent in advising it to sign a lease which failed to carry out an intent which the courts have determined the plaintiff never had. The final judg*710ment under review is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment in favor of the defendant Burnett Roth.

Reversed.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RAKEEM HILL,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D16-2419

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 26, 2016

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Roger Scott, Jr., Orlando, for Petitioner.

No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Rakeem Hill (“Hill”) was arrested on an outstanding warrant in which he was 

charged with eighty-eight counts of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, one 

count of possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver, one count of possession of 

cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon, and one count of possession of a weapon in commission of a felony. At his first 

appearance, Hill was denied bond on all counts by the presiding judge. Hill has now filed 

a petition for writ of habeas corpus, requesting that we quash the trial court’s “Order 
2

Denying Motion to Set Bond” and direct the trial court to either set bond or, alternatively, 

to “hold a hearing as to [Hill’s] motion to set bond.” We deny the petition without prejudice.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(a) provides, in part, that “[u]nless 

charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof 

of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime . . . shall 

be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions.” In his petition, Hill correctly notes 

that he has not been charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by up to life 

in prison. However, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.132(a), under 

certain circumstances, a person arrested for an offense to which he or she may be 

otherwise entitled to pretrial release may be detained without a bond. Our very limited 

record contains no transcript of the first appearance hearing, no motion to set bond, and 

no order denying a motion to set bond. Additionally, Hill’s present petition provides no 

indication as to whether the State filed a motion seeking pretrial detention or whether, at 

first appearance, the State requested a three-day extension to file such a motion, as it is 

permitted to do, pursuant to rule 3.132(a).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus, but do so without 

prejudice to Hill filing a motion with the trial court to set bond. If filed, the trial court is 

directed to hold an expedited hearing on the motion. This decision is also without 

prejudice for the State, if it has not already done so, to file a motion for pretrial detention, 

if appropriate under the present facts of the case. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.132(b).

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus DENIED, without prejudice.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131545 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: 131545 

 COA: 261096 

Alger CC: 04-001639-FH 

DAVID BRIAN JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
CERTIFICATION
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ THOMAS SANDGAARDThomas SandgaardPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**PRESIDENT
      AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of SouthPeak Interactive
      Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
      ending March 31, 2009 (the ‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Melanie Mroz, President and
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Andrea Gail Jones, Chief Financial
      Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Dated:
      May 15, 2009




By:
              /s/
                Melanie MrozMelanie MrozPresident and Chief Executive
                Officer


By:
                /s/
                  Andrea
                  Gail JonesAndrea
                    Gail JonesChief Financial Officerand
                  Treasurer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11221 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUSTAVO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-104-ALL

-------------------- Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gustavo Rodriguez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Joe ALPHONSO v. CEMENT PRODUCT SERVICES, INC., American Excess Underwriters, Inc. (Two Cases)

No. 87-C-0215.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Cement Product Serv., Inc.; American Excess Undw., Inc.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. CA-85-1010, CA-86-0889; Parish of Tangipahoa, City Court of Hammond, Nos. 8505-021, 8507-022.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 305.

Denied.
----

----

| (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      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| February      13, 2008 | /s/       Paul      Roszel                                  |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |           Paul Roszel                        |
|                   |           President, Chief Executive Officer |

----
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 7

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas King Hussein ibn Talal al-Hashem was born in

Amman on November 14, 1935;

Whereas he was proclaimed King of Jordan in August of

1952 at the age of 17 following the assassination of his

grandfather, King Abdullah and the abdication of his father, Talal;

Whereas King Hussein became the longest serving head of

state in the Middle East, working with every United

States President since Dwight D. Eisenhower;

Whereas under King Hussein, Jordan has instituted wideranging democratic reforms;

Whereas throughout his life, King Hussein survived multiple

assassination attempts, plots to overthrow his government and attacks on Jordan, invariably meeting such attacks with fierce courage and devotion to his Kingdom

and its people;

Whereas despite decades of conflict with the State of Israel,

King Hussein invariably maintained a dialogue with the

Jewish state, and ultimately signed a full-fledged peace

treaty with Israel on October 26, 1994;

Whereas King Hussein has established a model for ArabIsraeli coexistence in Jordan’s ties with the State of

Israel, including deepening political and cultural rela-
2

SCON 7 ES

tions, growing trade and economic ties and other major

accomplishments;

Whereas King Hussein contributed to the cause of peace in

the Middle East with tireless energy, rising from his sick

bed at the last to assist in the Wye Plantation talks between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority;

Whereas King Hussein fought cancer with the same courage

he displayed in tirelessly promoting and making invaluable contributions to peace in the Middle East;

Whereas on February 7, 1999, King Hussein succumbed to

cancer in Amman, Jordan: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) extends its deepest sympathy and condo4 lences to the family of King Hussein and to all the

5 people of Jordan in this difficult time;

6 (2) expresses admiration for King Hussein’s en7 lightened leadership and gratitude for his support

8 for peace throughout the Middle East;

9 (3) expresses its support and best wishes for

10 the new government of Jordan under King Abdullah;

11 (4) reaffirms the United States commitment to

12 strengthening the vital relationship between our two

13 governments and peoples.
3

SCON 7 ES

1 SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate is directed to

2 transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family

3 of the deceased.

Passed the Senate February 8, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 7

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the life and legacy of King Hussein ibn

Talal al-Hashem.
dzsi-ex101_6.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of December 1, 2020 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between DZS Inc. (f/k/a Dasan Zhone Solutions, Inc.) (the “Company”), and Thomas Cancro (the “Executive”), collectively, the “Parties.”

Whereas, the Company and Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated December 2, 2019, and 

Whereas, the Parties desire to amend Paragraph 3(d) of the Agreement in the manner reflected herein, and

Whereas, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has approved the Amendment of the Agreement in the manner reflected herein, 

Now Therefore, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and conditions herein, the Parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date: 

1.Housing and Automobile Allowance.   Paragraph 3(d) of the Agreement is hereby deleted 

and replaced in its entirety with the following (with all capitalized terms having the meaning originally ascribed thereto in the Agreement): 

 

“3. (d)Housing and Automobile Allowance.  During the term of Executive’s employment and until fifteen (15) months from the effective date of this agreement, the Company shall pay for or reimburse Executive in accordance with the Company’s written expense reimbursement policies and procedures for reasonable housing and automobile expenses in the San Francisco Bay area or Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex per month.”

 

2.Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more facsimile, electronic or original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and both of which together shall constitute the same instrument. 

 

3.Ratification. All terms and provisions of the Agreement not amended hereby, either expressly or by necessary implication, shall remain in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, all references to the term “Agreement” in this Amendment or the original Agreement shall include the terms contained in this Amendment. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement effective as of the Amendment Effective Date. 

 

 


		
	
DZS INC.
	
EXECUTIVE

	
 
	
 

	
By:       /s/ Charlie Vogt     
	
/s/ Thomas Cancro

	
Charlie Vogt
	
Thomas Cancro

	
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Public #14-2005 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General
Partner, certify, 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 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/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            November
      16, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KATHLEEN GRANAHAN KANE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 414 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of November, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Movant Stan J. Caterbone’s “Request to Appear Pro Se and to File an Amicus

Curiae Brief” in support of petitioner is DENIED

.
#### Edward DRADY, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-2766.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 22, 1988.

Richard F. Hayes, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Ginsburg, Co. Atty., and Lee Kraftchick, Asst. Co. Atty., for appellee.

Before HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Town of Indian River Shores v. Coll,*378 So.2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); *see also United States v. Thompson,*749 F.2d 189 (5th Cir.1984).
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports dated April 12, 1999, related to the consolidated balance sheet of VSI
Enterprises, Inc. and subsidiaries ("the Company") as of December 31, 1997 and
the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
the year then ended, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements (Files Nos. 33-44036,
33-44035, 33-55094, 33-56856, 33-72512, 33-81314, 333-728, 33-85754, 333-15123,
333-18237, 333-18239, 333-30597, 333-44407, 333-48635 and 333-83035).



/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
January 10, 2000