alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4.2


 


AMENDMENT
TWO


TO


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment Two to the Employment
Agreement (“Second Amendment”) is made as of
the 4th day of November, 2004 between VITA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”) and
STEVEN D. RUBIN (the “Employee”).


 


RECITALS


 


1.                                       The
Company and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement on January 16,
1997 (“Employment Agreement”) whereby the
Company hired the Employee to serve as an executive and operating officer of
the Company.


 


2.                                       The
Company and Employee amended the Employment Agreement in 1999 extending the
term of the Employment Agreement and providing for annual renewals after
expiration of the initial term of the Employment Agreement.


 


3.                                       The
Company and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement further extending
the term of the Employment Agreement.


 


CLAUSES


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of
the above premises and mutual agreements hereinafter set forth, the Employee
and the Company agree as follows:


 


1.                                       Capitalized Terms.  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings as set forth in the Employment Agreement.


 


2.                                       Term.  Section 3 of the Employment Agreement is
hereby deleted and replaced by the following new Section 3:


 


“3.                                 TERM.  The term hereof
shall commence on the date of this Agreement and shall continue until December 31,
2006 (the “Initial Term”).  Thereafter, this Agreement shall be extended
for an additional one-year term commencing on the day immediately following the
expiration of the Initial Term (the “Renewal
Term”); provided, however, that, if the Company
desires to terminate Employee’s employment under this Agreement at the end of
the Initial Term, the Company may terminate the Employee’s employment by giving
written notice of such decision to Employee at least ninety (90) days prior to
the expiration of the Initial Term.”


 


3.                                       Ratification.  In all other respects, the Employment
Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment, is hereby ratified and
confirmed.


 





















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employee and the Company
have executed and delivered this First Amendment as of the date first shown
above.


 


 


	
  EMPLOYEE:

  	
  COMPANY:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  STEPHEN D.
  RUBIN

  	
  VITA FOOD
  PRODUCTS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ STEPHEN
  D RUBIN

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Address:

  	
  2222 West
  Lake Street

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Chicago,
  Illinois 60612
#### In the Matter of Lucy Cruz, Appellant, v Maria Echaveste et al., Respondents.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J.), entered on August 26, 1991, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements. In view of the income affidavit filed by the mother of the respondent, Pedro Espada, we remand for the taking of additional testimony as to the residence of the said respondent. No opinion. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 12.1

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges



|                                                      |  |                         |   |  |            |  
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | - |  | ---------- | -
|                                                      |  | Year Ended December 31, |  
|                                                      |  | 2006                    |   |  | 2005       |  
|Income from continuing operations, before taxes       |  | 40,270,275              |   |  | 44,231,318 |  
|Fixed charges, as adjusted                            |  | 67,433,125              |   |  | 49,708,865 |  
|                                                      |  |                         |   |  |            |  
|                                                      |  | 107,703,400             |   |  | 93,940,183 |  
|                                                      |  |                         |   |  |            |  
|Fixed charges:                                        |  |                         |   |  |            |  
|                                                      |  |                        
|Interest expense including amortization of debt costs |  | 49,880,714              |   |  | 33,855,699 |  
|Capitalized interest                                  |  | 3,872,940               |   |  | 1,573,991  |  
|Interest factor on rent (1/3 rent expense)            |  | 17,552,411              |   |  | 15,853,166 |  
|Total fixed charges                                   |  | 71,306,065              |   |  | 51,282,856 |  
|Less capitalized interest                             |  | (3,872,940              | ) |  | (1,573,991 | )
|                                                      |  |                         |   |  |            |  
|Fixed charges, as adjusted                            |  | 67,433,125              |   |  | 49,708,865 |  
|                                                      |  |                         |   |  |            |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                    |  | 1.5                     |   |  | 1.8        |  
|                                                      |  |                         |   |  |            |
# Carter - Appalachian Regional Commission

- A.C.T.I.O.N. Coalition Inc.: Growing Achievable Pathways to Employment in Johnson County Nestled in Northeast Tennessee, Johnson and Carter counties have strengths and challenges similar to many other Appalachian communities. Their location offers rich culture and easy access to outdoor adventures in “mountain and lake country.” However, the mountainous geography has also resulted in limited access to transportation, housing, and other critical services, all while the local [&#8230;]The post A.C.T.I.O.N. Coalition Inc.: Growing Achievable Pathways to Employment in Johnson County appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- First Tennessee Development District Executive Director Chris Craig &#160;Email c&#99;&#114;&#97;&#x69;&#x67;&#x40;ft&#100;&#100;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x67;The post First Tennessee Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railways and Motor Coach Employees of America (AFL-CIO), Petitioner, and Hendrickson Bus Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

October 20, 1959.

*Weinberg S Jacob owitz (Philip Sherman*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Kiernan Mulcahy (John F. Kiernan*of counsel), for Hendrickson Bus Co., Inc., respondent.

James J. Crisona, J.

Petitioner is a labor union. It entered into a collective bargaining agreement dated February 14, 1956 with the respondent Hendrickson Bus Co., Inc., which agreement was renewed and amended on February 14, 1957, and further *1080renewed on May 14, 1959. The agreement will expire on February 14, 1960.

On or about August 24, 1959, said respondent hired eight buses from Star Bus Lines, Inc., laid off eight of its own bus drivers and replaced them with an equal number employed by Star Bus Lines, Inc. Contending that this constituted a lockout within the meaning of paragraph 2 of the collective bargaining agreement pursuant to which the company undertook not to lockout the employees covered thereby ‘ ‘ for any reason during the term thereof,” petitioner has instituted this proceeding to compel arbitration as provided in the collective bargaining agreement.

Respondent Hendrickson Bus Co., Inc., contends, in opposition, that what occurred was not a *lockout;*that it merely laid off all of its employees except one due to a decrease of its working forces resulting from lack of operating buses and the necessity of renting buses with the operators therefor at a stipulated price per day, in order to temporarily continue the operation of its franchised routes; that this was merely a change of method of performing its operations which was in no way inhibited by the collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, not subject to arbitration.

Whether what has occurred here was a “ lockout ” prohibited by the agreement or a mere change of method in the performance of the bus company’s operations presents a question involving the interpretation of the provisions of the agreement, which under subdivision (a) of paragraph 14 thereof is an arbitrable issue. It is therein provided, in no uncertain terms, that: “Any dispute or disagreement arising between the parties in respect to the interpretation of this agreement * * * shall

be handled jointly by the parties. If the question cannot be settled in direct negotiations, it will be submitted for final and binding decision to a board created in the following way ’ ’.

The application is, accordingly, granted. (See *Matter of Acme Backing Corp.*[Dist. 65], 2 A D 2d 61, affd. 2 N Y 2d 963.)

Proceed on notice.
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89449-89450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28463]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 23-1164; FR ID 192423]

Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission announces the third meeting 
of the fifth term of its Disability

[[Page 89450]]

Advisory Committee (DAC or Committee).

DATES: Tuesday, January 30, 2024. The meeting will come to order at 
9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: The DAC meeting will be held in the Commission Meeting Room 
at FCC Headquarters, located at 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Mendelsohn, Designated Federal 
Officer, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 559-7304, or email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting is open to members of the 
general public. The meeting will be webcast with sign language 
interpreters and open captioning at: www.fcc.gov/live. In addition, a 
reserved amount of time will be available on the agenda for comments 
and inquiries from the public. Members of the public may comment or ask 
questions of presenters via [email protected]. Requests for other 
reasonable accommodations or for materials in accessible formats for 
people with disabilities should be submitted via email to: 
[email protected] or by calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530. Such requests should include a detailed 
description of the accommodation needed and a way for the FCC to 
contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the 
request. Requests should be made as early as possible; last minute 
requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.
    Proposed Agenda: At this meeting, the DAC is expected to (1) 
discuss a working group report and recommendation on the transmittal of 
audio description files to Internet Protocol programming; (ii) receive 
updates on two working group reports and recommendations on best 
practices for quality Telecommunications Relay Services for individuals 
with multiple disabilities, and best practices on the use of artificial 
intelligence to caption live video programming; and (iii) any other 
topics relevant to the DAC's work.

Federal Communications Commission.
Suzanne Singleton,
Chief, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2023-28463 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
Exhibit 21

LIFE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES:

         Americo Services, Inc.                               Missouri
         United Fidelity Life Insurance Company               Texas
         Great Southern Life Insurance Company                Texas
         The College Life Insurance Company of America        Texas
         National Farmers Union Life Insurance Company        Texas
         The Victory Life Insurance Company                   Kansas
         The Ohio State Life Insurance Company                Ohio
         Investors Guaranty Life Insurance Company            California
         Landmark Mortgage Company                            Missouri
         GSSW-REO Westwood Arlington, L.P.                    Texas
         GSSW-REO Westwood Briarwood, L.P.                    Kansas
         GSSW-REO Westwood Baytown, L.P.                      Kansas
         Dickinson Arms-REO L.P.                              Kansas
         GSSW-REO Land L.P.                                   Florida
         GSSW REO Landmark L.P.                               Alabama
         Windrush-REO L.P.                                    Texas
         Riverdale Square-REO L.P.                            Georgia
         GSSW-REO L.C.                                        Texas

50%-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES:

         Argus Health Systems, Inc.                           Delaware
         Hereford LLP                                         Missouri
         College Insurance Group                              Missouri
         Financial Assurance Life Insurance Company           Texas
         Annuity Service Corporation                          Texas
#### In the Matter of James A. Sacco, as Supervisor of the Town of Niagara, Respondent, v Barbara Maruca et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Niagara, Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Same Memorandum as in *Matter of Sacco v Maraca*([appeal No. 1] 175 AD2d 578 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report of Performance Food Group Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned 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 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.

By:   /s/ Robert C. Sledd
      -----------------------------------
      Robert C. Sledd
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
      March 6, 2006

By:   /s/ John D. Austin
      ------------------------------------------------
      John D. Austin
      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
      March 6, 2006
z 


it .. 

nISSInTRAVEL SERVICE (U.S.A.), l~pttF,!n~~p{)BVlQ 

DETROIT 

38777 W. SIX MILE RD. 

SUITE 304 Dear Secretary LaHood: 

LIVONIA, MI 48152 

On behalfofNissin Travel Service (U.S.A.), Inc., I am writing to express 

INDIANAPOLIS 

6415 CASTLEWAY W, DR, 

SUITE 109 

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46250 

PH: (317) 585-3550 

(888) 764-3939 

FAX: (317) 585-3551 

BIRMINGHAM 

3000 RIVERCHASE GALLERIA 

SUITE 790 

BIRMINGHAM, AL 35244 

PH: (205) 739-0056 

(877) 584·3939 

FAX: (205) 739·0054 

LOS ANGELES 1540 WEST 190TH ST. 

TORRANCE, CA 90501 

PH: (310) 782·1151 

(800) 783-6477 

FAX: (310) 782-9316 

our strong support for the application of Delta Air Lines for new nonstop service 

between Detroit and Haneda. 

Approval of Delta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, 

where many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. 

There are over 500 Japanese companies located in Michigan and hundreds more 

whose business models rely on access to Japan and it's market. The growth of our 

business ties with Japan has created demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Our 

business travelers look to the convenience offlying into Tokyo's downtown 

Haneda airport. 

Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that 

can support trans-pacific routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to 

Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to make it 

the airlines gateway to Asia. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural 

fit that would clearly benefit our business travelers . 

. . .Thank youJoLCOnsideratiruLoLthis1.equest. 

Best regards, 

~~Kazuki Nakamura 

Branch Manager 

Nissin Travel Service (U.S.A.), Inc. 

Indianapolis Branch
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET OF MARCH 31,1998 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      17,524,257
<SECURITIES>                                 8,722,257
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,298,407
<PP&E>                                       4,122,239
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,193,945
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,255,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,736,444
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,787
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,342,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,255,423
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,791,583
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,445,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,653,941)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,653,941)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,653,941)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Ricardo D. Gallup, Respondent, v Nicole O’Connor, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On appeal from an order awarding custody of respondent’s three-year-old daughter, who was born out of wedlock, to petitioner, the child’s father, respondent argues that Family Court abused its discretion by excusing the law guardian, appointed by the court pursuant to Family Court Act § 249 (a), on the second day of the two-day custody trial *(see, Matter of Evans v Evans,*127 AD2d 998, 999). In finding that respondent was unfit, the court went far beyond the standard necessary for an award of custody between parents. That standard, the best interest of the child, clearly was met by the evidence in this case *(see generally, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171-174). Although we conclude that Family Court erred in excusing the law guardian and continuing the trial in his absence, on this record we find that such error does not require reversal. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J.— Custody.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
19511

#### State v. Laulusa

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>                     This schedule contains summary information
                             extracted from the Consolidated Statements
                             of Operations and Consolidated Balance Sheets
                             of Covalent Group, Inc. and is qualified in its
                             entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0000856569
<NAME>                             Covalent Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1
       
<S>                                          <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<CASH>                                          922,010
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3,133,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              4,259,813
<PP&E>                                          727,493
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (203,699)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4,991,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,282,366
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         11,603
<OTHER-SE>                                    3,697,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4,991,961
<SALES>                                      10,352,483
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             10,352,483
<CGS>                                         6,330,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3,135,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 978,735
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (34,356)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           1,013,091
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (431,773)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    581,318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .05
        

</TABLE>