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

                                                                  EXHIBIT  10.85

                         AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT

         This amendment ("Amendment") is dated as of January 1, 2005 by and
between Barington Capital Group, L.P., a New York limited partnership with an
address at 888 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10019 ("BCG"), and
L Q Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation with an address at 888 Seventh
Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10019 (the "Company").

                                    RECITALS:

         WHEREAS, the Company and BCG are parties to that certain Services
Agreement, dated as of November 18, 2004 (the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and BCG desire to amend the Agreement as set forth
herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants expressed
herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to
be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:

         1.   Section 1C of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following
              sentence to the end thereof:

              "The Company shall notify the Board of Directors of the Company
              when BCG is requested to commence material efforts in connection
              with any contemplated Transaction."

         2.   Section 3A of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the
              monthly fee payable by the Company to BCG from $8,000 to $15,000.

         3.   Section 3D of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the
              hourly fee payable by the Company to BCG for legal services from
              $125 per hour to $175 per hour.

         4.   This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof. The
              Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, is in full force and
              effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.

         5.   This Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in separate
              counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall
              be an original, but all such counterparts shall together
              constitute but one and the same instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed by their authorized representative as of the date set forth above.

                                 BARINGTON CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.

                                 By: LNA Capital Corp., General Partner


                                       By:
                                           ------------------------
                                           James A. Mitarotonda
                                           Chairman

                                 L Q CORPORATION, INC.


                                  By:
                                      -----------------------------
                                       Name:
                                       Title:
Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 1314
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-089-CR

DANIEL FRITZ	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 1 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Daniel Fritz attempts to appeal his conviction of assault—family violence.  After the jury found Appellant guilty, the court assessed Appellant’s punishment at 300 days’ confinement and a $500 fine, and placed him on community supervision for eighteen months.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

	Pursuant to rule 26.2 of the rules of appellate procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date sentence is imposed, or within 90 days after the date sentence is imposed if the defendant files a timely motion for new trial.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).  Appellant’s sentence was imposed on November 14, 2002.  He filed a timely motion for new trial on December 13, 2002.  Therefore, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due February 12, 2003.  On February 27, 2003, Appellant filed his notice of appeal, which was not accompanied by a motion for extension of time.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.           

	On March 18, 2003, we notified Appellant of the apparent untimeliness of the notice of appeal and stated we would dismiss the appeal unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.  Appellant’s response does not address the untimeliness of his notice of appeal.

	Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.  See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

									PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:	HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH 

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 17, 2003
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 11, 2012

  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 10, 2012 I 
had obligations that necessitated my attention in Champaign, Illinois 
and missed suspension votes on H.R. 6186, which directs FEMA to assess 
options, methods, and strategies for making voluntary community-based 
flood insurance policies available through the National Flood Insurance 
Program. H.R. 2139, which directs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 
and issue as legal tender $1 coins in commemoration of the centennial 
of the founding of the Lions Clubs International. And lastly, H.R. 
6122, which directs the Librarian of Congress to accept in the interest 
of the Library of Congress, its collections, or its service personal 
property valued at $25,000 or less, nonpersonal services, or voluntary 
and uncompensated personal services.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the above stated 
bills.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009102EN.01003901.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/39

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Hambura v Parliament

(Case F-4/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Selection procedure - Non-admission - Recruitment notice PE/95/S - Failure to use the application form in the Official Journal of the European Union - Admissibility - Prior administrative procedure)

2009/C 102/57

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Johannes Hambura (Soultzbach, France) (represented by: S. Hambura, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Personnel Directorate of 5 December 2007 not to accept the applicant’s application, annulment of competition PE/95/S, sector: doctor, and to recommence the competition process allowing the use of a downloaded application form.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Hambura to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Hambura to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008, p. 50.

1

---
IB 

Union Calendar No. 702 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4616 

[Report No. 115–906] 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide for 

a temporary moratorium on the employer mandate and to provide for 

a delay in the implementation of the excise tax on high cost employersponsored health coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2017 

Mr. NUNES (for himself and Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

AUGUST 28, 2018 

Additional sponsors: Mr. MESSER, Mr. MEADOWS, and Mr. SMITH of 

Nebraska 

AUGUST 28, 2018 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on December 12, 2017] 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4616 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to provide for a temporary moratorium on the employer 

mandate and to provide for a delay in the implementation of the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored 

health coverage. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4616 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Employer Relief Act 

5 of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON EMPLOYER MANDATE. 

7 Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

8 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 section: 

10 ‘‘(e) SUSPENSION.—This section shall not apply to any 

11 month beginning after December 31, 2014, and before Janu12 ary 1, 2019.’’. 

13 SEC. 3. DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF EXCISE TAX ON 

14 HIGH COST EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH 

15 COVERAGE. 

16 Section 9001(c) of the Patient Protection and Afford17 able Care Act is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2021’’ 

18 and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2022’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 702 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4616 

[Report No. 115–906] 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable 

high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. delay in the implementation of the excise tax on on the employer mandate and to provide for a Care Act to provide for a temporary moratorium 

AUGUST 28, 2018 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2008285EN.01005603.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/56

---

Action brought on 18 September 2008 — Behmer v Parliament

(Case F-76/08)

(2008/C 285/103)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2007 promotion procedure

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2007 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2007 promotion procedure;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PHIL GINGREY

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 537 on 
suspending the rules and passing S. 679--the Presidential Appointment 
Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011--I am not recorded because I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 538 on suspending the rules and passing 
H.R. 828--the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2011--I am not 
recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 539 on suspending the rules and passing 
H.R. 3803--the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act--I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted `'aye.''

                          ____________________
```
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 NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, dated the date of this Certification (the Report), I, John J. Limbert, the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                     |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN J.
LIMBERT               
|                     |  |  |  | John J. Limbert                      
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



99
**Exhibit 32.2**
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
     In connection with the Quarterly Report ofiPayment, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”),I, Clay M. Whitson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:
     (a) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 as amended; and
     (b) the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
     This Certification is executed as of May 13,2004.
 /s/ CLAY M. WHITSON      Clay M. Whitson     *Chief Financial Officer*
23
# C_2010100EN.01004002.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/40

---

Order of the General Court of 8 February 2010 — Alisei v Commission

(Case T-481/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - External action and EDF - Termination of audit and adoption of final report - Measure of a purely contractual nature - Lack of jurisdiction - No direct concern - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility)

2010/C 100/63

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alisei (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, S. Gobbato, R. Rio and A. Neri, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel and L. Prete, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission letter of 19 August 2008 on the repayment of a part of the advances paid to the applicant in the context of certain development cooperation and humanitarian aid projects financed by the Community budget or by the European Development Fund (EDF) and, second, the compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the conduct of the Commission.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Alisei is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Alisei is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.

1

---
# Chemung - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board Executive Director Chelsea Robertson Email c&#114;&#111;&#x62;&#x65;r&#116;&#115;&#x6f;&#x6e;&#x40;s&#116;&#99;&#x70;&#x6c;an&#110;&#x69;&#x6e;&#x67;&#46;&#111;&#114;&#x67;The post Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# Davie - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Piedmont Triad Regional Council Executive Director Matthew L. Dolge Email &#109;&#x64;o&#108;&#x67;e&#64;&#x70;t&#x72;&#x63;&#46;&#x6f;r&#103;The post Piedmont Triad Regional Council appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 10.129


 


2005
Executive Officer and Director Compensation Summary


 


1.                                      Executive
Officer Compensation


 


Effective January 1, 2005, the following
executive officers’ base salaries were increased to the following amounts (such
amounts reflect base salary only and do not include perquisites benefits or
bonus opportunities).


 


	
  Officer

  	
   

  	
  Salary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Ed H. Bowman, Jr.

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  675,000

  	
   

  
	
  Thomas C.
  Walker

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  350,000

  	
   

  
	
  Barry L.
  Edwards

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  360,000

  	
   

  
	
  Kerry D.
  Walbridge

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  320,000

  	
   

  
	
  David
  Delgado

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  275,000

  	
   

  
	
  Ronald Zazworsky

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  285,000

  	
   

  
	
  Charles S.
  Gilbert

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  260,000

  	
   

  
	
  W. Bryan
  Hill

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  200,000

  	
   

  
	
  Ralph D.
  Burns

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  270,000

  	
   

  
	
  Stephen W. Davis

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  270,000

  	
   

  



 


2.                                      Director
Compensation


 


Directors who are employees of the Company do
not receive additional compensation for serving as Directors.  Each Director who is not an employee of the
Company receives a fee of $2,500 for attendance at each Board of Directors’
Meeting; and $1,250 for attendance at committee meetings (unless held on the
same day as a Board of Directors’ meeting), with the Committee Chairman
receiving $1,250 for separate, individual meetings.  Non-employee Directors also receive an annual
grant of shares of restricted stock (typically vesting in 20%/30%/50% annual
increments), the number of shares awarded currently is set to equal $40,000
divided by the average closing price of the Company’s Common Stock for the 10
days prior to the applicable annual meeting.


 


3.                                      Consulting
Agreement with Non-Employee Director


 


David Lowenstein, a non-employee Director,
entered into a consulting agreement with the Company in January 2000.  Under an addendum to this agreement, Mr. Lowenstein
is compensated for his non-Board related services at an hourly rate for work done
not related to acquisitions.  Effective December 28,
2004 this hourly rate was increased to $180.00 per hour.
#### ARTHUR M. WICKWIRE AND DOROTHY GALE WICKWIRE, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MONA P. CHURCH, DOUGLAS CHURCH AND H. M. CASSELL, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued February 7, 1949

Decided February 21, 1949.

*385
      *Mr. Worrall P. Motmtain, Jr.*argued the cause for defendants-appellants *(Messrs. Mills, Jeffers and Mountain,*attorneys).

*Mr. Harold A. Price*argued the cause for plaintiffs-respondents *(Mr. Ben D. White*on the brief; *Mr. Nelson C. Doland,*attorney).

Pee Curiam.

The appeal is from the provision of the decree adjudging that the use of the summer house on the lands *386in question as a dwelling is' in violation of the restrictive covenants embodied in the deeds affecting the premises. The issue was correctly decided by the Vice Chancellor; and the decree is accordingly affirmed for the reasons expressed in his opinion.

The complainants have not appealed from the provision of the decree adjudging that the occupancy of the garage as a dwelling is not in contravention of the covenants; and we therefore have not considered that question.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Heher, Wacheneeld, Burling, and Ackerson—6.

*For reversal:*None.
# C_2012200EN.01002002.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/20

---

Order of the General Court of 10 May 2012 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-571/08 RENV) (1)

1

2012/C 200/41

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
# C_2009006EN.01004602.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/46

---

Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-94/08)

(2009/C 6/94)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of a note by which the Commission announced its intention to recover a credit relating to procedural costs through a deduction from the invalidity pension paid to the applicant, and an application for damages for the non-pecuniary loss caused by that act.

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the note dated 28 March 2008 and also the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the note dated 28 March 2008 and also the contested decision;

| — | Annulment, in so far as necessary, of the decision to reject the claim dated 19 April 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment, in so far as necessary, of the decision to reject the claim dated 19 April 2008;

| — | Annulment, in so far as necessary, of the note dated 11 August 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment, in so far as necessary, of the note dated 11 August 2008;

| — | Order the European Commission to compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary loss caused by the acts annulment of which is sought by the present action, in the amount of EUR 10 000 or such higher or lesser amount as the Court considers appropriate and equitable; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary loss caused by the acts annulment of which is sought by the present action, in the amount of EUR 10 000 or such higher or lesser amount as the Court considers appropriate and equitable;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---