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


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.48

                       ADDENDUM TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS

     This Addendum to Stock Option Agreement (the "Addendum") is made and
entered into by and between Diversified Corporate Resources, Inc. a Texas
corporation (the "Company"), and J. Michael Moore (the "Optionee").

     WHEREAS, on December 27, 1996, the Company granted to Optionee two options
(collectively referred to as the "Options") to purchase 46,500 and 31,000 shares
of common stock of the Company, respectively; and

     WHEREAS, both of the Options are subject to a written agreement
(collectively referred to as the "Prior Agreements") between the Company and the
Optionee; and

     Whereas, the purpose of this Addendum is to amend both of the Prior
Agreements as herein set forth.

     For good and valuable consideration requested, the parties hereto agree as
follows:

     1. The expiration date of the respective Options is hereby extended from
December 31, 2001 until December 31, 2006.

     2. Except as amended hereby, the Prior Agreements are not amended or
revised and remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Addendum to be
executed the        day of September, 2001, but effective as of the 9th day of
             ------
August, 2001.

                                           Diversified Corporate Resources, Inc.


                                           By: /s/ James E. Filarski
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               James E. Filarski, President


                                               /s/ J. Michael Moore
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               J. Michael Moore
Exhibit 10.20

                                                                   April 4, 2002

Mr. Arthur E. Reiner
Chairman of the Board
Finlay Enterprises, Inc.
529 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York  10017

     Re:  Sale of Shares of Common Stock of Finlay Enterprises, Inc.

Dear Mr. Reiner:

     This letter confirms the agreement of Equity-Linked Investors-II ("ELI-II")
to sell to Finlay Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") an aggregate of 526,562
shares (the "Shares") of the common stock of the Company, on the terms set forth
herein.

     1. Simultaneously with the execution and delivery of this Agreement, (i)
the Company shall purchase from ELI-II, and ELI-II shall sell to the Company,
the Shares at a price of $l1.00 per share, or an aggregate price of $5,792,182
(the "Purchase Price"), and (ii) the Company shall deliver to ELI-II the
Purchase Price by wire transfer to an account designated by ELI-II, and ELI-II
will deliver to the Company one or more stock certificates representing the
Shares, with stock powers duly endorsed in blank attached thereto.

     2. ELI-II represents and warrants to the Company that (a) the Shares are
owned by ELI-II and represent all of the capital stock of the Company owned by
ELI-II or any affiliate thereof or of Rohit M. Desai, (b) the Shares are being
sold free and clear of all encumbrances, liens of any kind whatsoever
("Encumbrances"), other than the restrictions imposed by Federal and state
securities law, (c) ELI-II is authorized to enter into this Agreement and
consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and (d) it is fully familiar
with the financial condition of the Company and has had an adequate opportunity
to ask and have answered questions regarding the financial and business
condition of the Company.

     3. The Company represents that all necessary corporate actions have been
taken and approved, including by the board of directors, to authorize the
transaction contemplated herein.

<PAGE>

     4. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York
and may not be modified except by a writing executed by the parties hereto.

     Please confirm your agreement to the foregoing by executing the enclosed
copy of this letter where indicated.

                              Very truly yours,


                              EQUITY-LINKED INVESTORS-II

                              By Rohit M Desai Associates II as General Partner


                              By: /s/ Rohit M. Desai
                                  -----------------------
                                  Name: Rohit M. Desai
                                  Title: President

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

FINLAY ENTERPRISES, INC.



By: /s/ Bruce Zurlnick
    ----------------------------------------------
    Name:  Bruce Zurlnick
    Title: Sr. Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>53
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


                              STATE OF
                            INCORPORATION              RELATIONSHIP
                            -------------        ------------------------
BNA Holdings Inc.             Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

BNA International Inc.        Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

BNA Washington Inc.           Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

Institute of Management
  and Administration, Inc.    New York           100% owned by Registrant

Kennedy Information, Inc.     Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

The McArdle
  Printing Co., Inc.          Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

Pike & Fischer, Inc.          Delaware           100% owned by Registrant

STF Services Corporation      New York           100% owned by Registrant

Tax Management Inc.           Delaware           100% owned by Registrant
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1449. TIMOTHY DUNCAN v. STATE OF GEORGIA SEXUAL 

OFFENDER REGISTRATION REVIEW BOARD.

Timothy Duncan pled guilty to sexual battery against a child lessthan 16 years

of age and was designated a sexually dangerous predator in August 2013. In

September of 2013, Duncan sought and received a reevaluation of his status, and the

Georgia Sexual Offender Registration Review Board upheld its decision. Duncan

then appealed to the trial court, challenging his classification and the constitutionality

of the sex offender registration statute and the rules of the Review Board. The trial

court affirmed the Review Board’s decision.

1 Duncan filed a notice of appeal from

that ruling. We lack jurisdiction.

Appeals from decisions of superior courts reviewing decisions of the Sexual

Offender Registration Review Board shall be by application for discretionary appeal.

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5.1). Because Duncan did not follow the proper procedure for

requesting appellate review in this case, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which

is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

1 Duncan filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, which transferred the

case to this Court after concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court

did not rule on the constitutional issues presented.

04/03/2015

April 03, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**AJATHA WERTS-KNOTTS,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL** 

**DISTRICT AND SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.),** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 151 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 21st day of January, 2016, the Petition for Lea ve to File Petition** 

**for Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **is** DENIED

**.**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
**MEMORANDUM**

**SUBJECT:** 4 - 11 - 1 2 Meeting on Processed C&D materials **FROM:** Marc Thomas

O ffice of Resource Conservation and Recovery **TO:** Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - RCRA - 2008 - 0329 On April 11 , 2012, EPA met with various industries who expressed concerns regarding how construction and demolition (C&D) materials are characterized in the Non - hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) Rule (March 21, 2011, 76 FR 15456). In particular, i ndustry participants urged EPA to codify

a categorical non - waste determination for processed C&D wood under the framework of the December 21 proposed rule ( 76 FR 80452) and summarized various best management practices that would constitute sufficient processing. EPA asked cl arify ing questions . Copies of meeting handouts are attached. In addition, a list of attendees is below . Meeting Attendees Kerry Kelly (Waste Management) Andrew Szurgot (Stratosphere, LLC) Fadi Mourad (DTE Energy) Rodney Christian (DTE Energy) Patrick C oughlin (St. Germian Collins) Gary Melow (Michigan Biomass Bob Cleaves (Biomass Power Assoc.) Jeffrey Pietrich (Washington Council Ernst & Young) Angela Morrison (CMRA) Max Lee (CMRA) Jim Berlow (EPA)
#### Thomas Leon HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-76-488.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 20, 1977.

ORDER VACATING AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AND DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE TULSA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. CRF-73-228, WITH DIRECTIONS

WHEREAS, the Clerk of this Court received and filed, on the 19th day of October, 1977, an Order of the Supreme Court of the United States, entered on October 13, 1977, remanding this cause for further proceedings consistent with, the Opinion of that Court entered on the 29th day of June, 1977;

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with *Harris v.*Oklahoma,-U.S.-, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977), the judgment and sentence entered in the District Court, Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-73-228, assessing punishment at thirty (30) years’ imprisonment, and affirmed in *Harris*v. *State,*Okl.Cr., 555 P.2d 76 (1976), is hereby VACATED AND SET ASIDE, for the reasons stated in *Harris v. Oklahoma,*supra; and said cause is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Department of Corrections and the Pardon and Parole Board of the State of Oklahoma is hereby directed to correct their records to show that the judgment and sentence entered in Tulsa County District Court Case No. CRF-73-228 has been VACATED, SET ASIDE and DISMISSED, in accordance with the views set forth in *Harris v. Oklahoma,*supra, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to all parties concerned, including the Department of Corrections and the Pardon and Parole Board of the State of Oklahoma. The Clerk of this Court is further directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States to evidence compliance with the Order of the United States Supreme Court, No. 76-5663.

WITNESS OUR HANDS, and the Seal of this Court, this 20th day of October, 1977.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, P. J.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.

TOM BRETT, J.
ACCEPTED

03-14-00701-CR

4839116

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/10/2015 10:16:52 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 03-14-00701-CR 

STATE OF TEXAS § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE 

vs. THIRD COURT 

BARRY PIZZO OF APPEALS 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

Now comes Barry Pizzo, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, 

and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellant's brief, pursuant 

to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows 

the following: 

1. This case is on appeal from the 207th Judicial District Court of Co mal 

County, Texas. 

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. Barry Pizzo, 

and numbered CR2013-146. 

3. Appellant was convicted of Two Counts of Tampering with Evidence. 

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of Life on 7th day of October, 

201 4. 

5. Notice of appeal was given on November 4, 2014. 

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/10/2015 10:16:52 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
6. The clerk's record was filed on February 5, 20 15; the reporter's record 

was filed on March 11,2015. 

7. The appellate brief is presently due on April 10.2015. 

8. Appellant requests an extension of time of 90 days from the present 

date, i.e. July 9, 2015. 

9. No extension to file the brief has been received in this cause. 

1 0. Defendant is currently incarcerated. 

11. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested 

extension: Atanacio Campos has a full trial schedule and other appeals that he 

needs to attend to. 

12. Appellant has communicated the Office of the Comal County 

Criminal District Attorney and they stated they had no objection to an extension of 

time in this cause. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this 

Court grant this Motion To Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such 

other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ATANACIO CAMPOS 

P.O. Box 310859 

New Braunfels, TX 78131 

Tel: (830) 620-1515 

Fax: (830) 620-5334 
atanacio@aol.com 

Attorney for Barry Pizzo 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on April 9, 201 5, a true and con·ect copy of the above 

and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Coma] 

County, bye-service to tharpj@co.comal..tx.us 
STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF COMAL 

§ 

§ 

§ 

AFFIDAVIT 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared 

Atanacio Campos, who after being duly sworn stated: 

"I am the attorney for the appellant in the above numbered and 

entitled cause. I have read the foregoing Motion To Extend Time to 

File Appellant's Brief and swear that all of the allegations of fact 

contained therein are true and correct." 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on -L-A+~ft:::;:.....:.... t /____:;_/ _{) __ 

2015, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office. 

Notary Public, State of Texas
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

UNION BANK, N.A., as successor-ininterest to the FDIC as Receiver for

Frontier Bank,

Appellant,

F.R. MCABEE, INCORPORATED,

A Washington corporation, FAR NORTH

VENTURES, LLC, a Washington limited

liability company, A. SUZANNE WARE,

an unmarried individual, G. PAUL WARE

an unmarried individual, JARED WARE

and NOELLE WARE, husband and wife,

LEVI WARE and STEPHANIE WARE

husband and wife, ADAM WARE and

KATHERINE WARE, husband and wife,

Respondents.

No. 70497-4-

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: April 13, 2015

Per Curiam — Following the Washington Supreme Court's decision in

Washington Federal v. Harvey. Wn.2d 340 P.3d 846, 2015 WL 114165

(2015), the parties in this appeal filed a stipulation to the reversal of the trial court's

judgments. The parties also stipulate that the trial court on remand shall determine

the amount of any award for attorney fees and costs incurred in the appellate

proceedings.

r-o o'> ••' > cn>

art 1*>" "'J

72* :-ri

-o

TO ...... , |

•—— "V>

GO -*-- " .„s

J-y~'^

3=» ^-- \' _rf* r.:: i"

CO - \<j

"" —< l:

JT* . .._.

O*'1
No. 70497-4-1/2

We lift the stay previously imposed, accept the parties' concession, reverse,

and remand for further proceedings.

FOR THE COURT:

iSeV=JC&</

jLt~<*<j(,
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Raymond Bernard Mondy, Appellant

No. 06-16-00100-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1500880). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss 

and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was error in the judgment of the 

court below. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render a judgment of acquittal.

We further order that the appellee, The State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JANUARY 24, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                       248
<INVENTORY>                                      9,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,503
<PP&E>                                         121,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,041
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,460
<BONDS>                                            116
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              330
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,087
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,550)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,327
<SALES>                                        140,048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,048
<CGS>                                          117,609
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  117,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    73
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    654
<INCOME-TAX>                                       133
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                521
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,542
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,063
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1252 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1252

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
6531 Van Nuys Boulevard in Van Nuys, California, as the ``Marilyn Monroe 
                             Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MARILYN MONROE POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6531 Van Nuys Boulevard in Van Nuys, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Marilyn Monroe Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Marilyn 
Monroe Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
•-«< ■♦•,

coVrt of criminalappeals

APR 09 2;

J^Q^I_ftJb£U-fiLo6stft AbriAe08t9.Ci«l<

ftk&_jU0jsy Ite felfefctlMiiao - OHM_!*_6\»£€&fy£f<>_-U.M^<2E|5^x^<>__Sfe.Q_3b__^VBB_

gfeafegts&r* oe fruSTVtt:ior> . "Iv^ 3u<rr <fcM^o -fo ?*>e, a 'parage, ~£ ftu?&fVPM

oxiu_fcqv^fuat -tr Uaxate cur fOo ?iaafetj£^ .

^WY/_jiQA/L

liOO felfi££r 4<W
Small towns in Ga need all the help they can get due to farming being the income for generations.  We do not need to fill prisons with people who grow this.  Signers of constitution grew it.

Nancy Sneed
NO. 12-08-00474-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

STEPHEN R. PORTER, § APPEAL FROM THE 124TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant pleaded guilty to the

offense of aggravated assault causing bodily injury, and punishment was imposed in open court on

June 19, 2008. In a criminal case when, as here, no motion for new trial is filed, the notice of appeal

must be filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See

TEX.R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Consequently, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on July 21, 2008. See

id. However, Appellant filed his notice of appeal on December 10, 2008. Recognizing that his

notice of appeal was untimely, Appellant also filed a motion for an extension of time to file the

notice of appeal. An appellate court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if, within fifteen

days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files in the trial court his notice of

appeal and files in the appellate court a motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

10.5(b). TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Because Appellant's notice of appeal and motion for extension of

time were not filed on or before August 5, 2008 (fifteen days after July 21, 2008), this court has no

authority to extend the time for filing his notice of appeal.

Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, which leaves us without jurisdiction over the

appeal. Furthermore, this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except

as provided by rule 26.3. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per
2

curiam); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Consequently, Appellant's

motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal is overruled, and this appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. 

Opinion delivered December 10, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00374-CR

DAVID ALLEN RUSSELL

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

199th District Court of Collin County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 199-81326-2012

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 9, 2015