alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1

### AMENDMENT NUMBER 1  TO  SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment Number 1 to
Supplemental Retirement Agreement is made and entered into as of the 29th day  of March,
2004, by and between PATHMARK STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
and Eileen Scott  (the Executive), residing at 17 Wellington Drive, Basking
Ridge, New Jersey 07920.

WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive are parties to the Supplemental Retirement Agreement between the  Company
and the Executive dated as of March 1, 2000 (the Agreement);

WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive desire to make certain amendments to the Agreement, as  hereinafter set
forth;

NOW, THEREFORE, for good
and valuable consideration receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company  and the
Executive agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

(1)  Section 1 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following Section 1.2A to  read as
follows:

1.2A Applicable
Dollar Amount means $250,000; provided, however, that such amount shall be
increased to $480,000 on the earliest to occur of (i) January 1, 2007, (ii) death, (iii)
Disability, or (iv) a Change of Control, in each case so long as Executive is employed
by the Company on such date.


(2)  Section 1 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following Section 1.5A to  read as
follows:

1.5A Change of
Control means a Change of Control as defined in the Pathmark Stores, Inc. 2000
Employee Equity Plan as amended as of June 13, 2002.


(3) Section 2.a. of the
Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

a. Unreduced
Supplemental Retirement Benefit is equal to the sum of 30% of the  Executives
Average Final Compensation after completion of 10 years of Vesting Service, plus 1% of
the  Executives Average Final Compensation multiplied by each additional year of
Vesting Service in excess  of 10; provided, however, that in no event shall the Executives
Unreduced Supplemental Retirement  Benefit exceed the lesser of (i) 40% of her Average
Final Compensation, or (ii) the Applicable Dollar  Amount; and




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company and the Executive have caused this Amendment Number 1 to Supplemental  Retirement
Agreement to be executed effective as of the 29th day of  March, 2004.

|                                                  | PATHMARK STORES, INC.
|------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------
|ATTEST:                                          
|/s/ Marc A. Strassler
Marc A. Strassler
Secretary | By
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 135298 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

GWAN JUN KIM, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices Claimant-Appellant, 

v SC: 135298 

 COA: 277254 

Montcalm CC: 06-008269-AE 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC 

GROWTH, 

Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 21, 2007 

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

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

d0211 

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. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk
'" 

"" 

" 

~ 

~fA.'XIMlJ}..f DAII. Y S-HOUR OZONE COl\' CENTRA TlONS FOR Sn.ECTED MONITORS 

20 12-20 14 

~.. I I I ! ,, I . I I 

"
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 22675.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 15, 1943.

Shelburne H. Glover, of Texarkana, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for a violation of the liquor laws, with a fine of $100. The procedure is regular.

We find no bills of exception and no statement of fact in the record. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### MARTIN v. STATE.

No. 23772.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1947.

Justice, Moore *&*Justice; of Athens, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of $100 for the unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area.

The State’s testimony showed that as a result of a search of appellant’s premises, there was found at different places several quart bottles of whisky. Appellant denied possession of the whisky or any knowledge relative thereto.

In the development of the State’s case, the searching officer was permitted, over a proper objection, to testify before the jury to hearsay testimony to the effect that one Cummings had, prior to the search, told him where the whisky was located and that he,. Cummings, had bought whis-ky from the appellant.

Such testimony was clearly hearsay and should not have been introduced before the jury..

In addition, State’s counsel, in his closing, when arguing to the jury, said: “We could not bring J. D. Cummings into court and let him tell you that he purchased this whisky from C. O. Martin, as testified to by the witness, Dave McGee, for the reason that J. D. Cummings is now in the Veterans *Psychopatic*Hospital at Waco, Texas, but we did bring to the jury the best evidence we had, and that was the witness, Dave McGee, who told you that J. D. Cummings had told him that he purchased whisky from C. O. Martin, where he purchased it from him, and that be made a search of the premises of C. O. Martin and found the whisky right where J. D. Cummings told him it was.”

This argument shows how the hearsay testimony was prejudicially used against the appellant by the State.

For the error mentioned, the judgmeni 7⁄8 reversed and the cause remanded.

*600PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Public Accountants**

 

The Board of Directors 

TenFold Corporation:

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.333-79053 on Form S-8 of TenFold Corporation and in the registration statement No. 333-55910 on form S-8 of TenFold Corporation, of our report dated February 28, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of TenFold Corporation andsubsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, and related schedule, which reportappears in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of TenFold Corporation. 

 

/s/ Tanner+Co. 

 

 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

February 28, 2005
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-60318

Conference Calendar

__________________

SMART IMHANSIONAN IYANOBOR,

 Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

A41-542-100

- - - - - - - - - -

February 21, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Smart I. Iyanobor, a Nigerian citizen, asserts that the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion in

denying the motion to reopen the deportation proceedings. 

Iyanobor’s application did not establish eligibility for waiver

of inadmissibility. See I.N.S. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323

(1992); Osuchukwu v. I.N.S., 744 F.2d 1136, 1139 (5th Cir. 1984).

The petition for review is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 3.3

                               Amendment No. 1 to

                                    By-Laws

                                       of

                            SFX Entertainment, Inc.
                  (Organized under the General Corporation Law
                           of the State of Delaware)

         The By-Laws of SFX Entertainment, Inc. (the "Corporation") are hereby
amended, as of March 16, 1999, as follows:

1. The following is added as Section 9 under Article II - Directors:

         "9. NON-VOTING OBSERVERS. The Board of Directors may appoint
non-voting observers to the Board of Directors ("Non-voting Observers"), each
to hold such position until such person's successor is duly appointed, or until
such person's earlier resignation or removal. The Non-voting Observers shall
have no authority to exercise the powers of a director in the management of the
business and affairs of the Corporation. Each Non-voting Observer shall be
entitled to attend meetings of the Board of Directors but shall do so solely as
an observer. Notice of such meetings to a Non-voting Observer shall not be
required. Non-voting Observers shall not be entitled to vote and accordingly
and without limitation shall not: (1) count as a member of the Board of
Directors for the purpose of determining the number of directors necessary to
constitute a quorum, for the purpose of determining whether a quorum is present
or for any other purpose whatsoever, (2) be included in the calculation of
whether a voting majority exists for the purpose of determining an act of the
Board of Directors, (3) be included in the determination of whether all members
of the Board of Directors consent in writing to an action under Section 8 of
this Article or Section 141(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or (4)
be considered a duly authorized director of the Corporation for purposes of
Section 5.4 under Article Five of the Corporation's Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation." Any Non-voting Observer can be removed from such
position by The Board of Directors at any time for any reason.
#### BRAY v. STATE.

No. 22625.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 15, 1943.

*190Bert G. Ashby, of Dallas, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is the possession of whis-ky in a dry area for the purpose of sale. The punishment assessed is a fine of $1,000.

It appears from the record that appellant was arrested on the night of May 3, 1943, and placed in jail; that the next morning he was escorted from his cell in the jail to the judge’s office in the courthouse, where he entered a plea of guilty to the charge and the court assessed his punishment as above stated.

Appellant’s contention in this case is similar to that of Tischmacher v. State, 176 S.W.2d 188, this day decided; and for the reasons stated in our opinion in that case, we affirm 'the judgment of the trial court in this case.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20549 

 

We have made a review of the condensed consolidated financial statements of Superior UniformGroup, Inc. and subsidiary (“the Company”) as of September 30, 2004 and for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, andissued our report thereon dated October 20, 2004. We are aware that such financial statements and our above-mentioned report appearing in the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 are being incorporated by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-105906, effective June 6, 2003) and that such report pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 is not considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by anaccountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Paragraphs 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Tampa, Florida 

October 20, 2004
#### Peter Mangicavallo, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Peter Mangicavallo, Jr., an Infant, Respondent, v County of Nassau et al., Defendants, and Town of Hempstead, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Town of Hempstead appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), dated May 5, 1989, as denied its cross motion for summary *334judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Burstein at the Supreme Court. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P.

Attorneys and Counselors

2273794v1

10939.002 Andrew L. Johnson

Direct Dial: (713) 403-8205

ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com Austin

Dallas

Houston

Los Angeles

Saint Paul

September 4, 2015

Via Efile

Clerk of Court

Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

Re: Court of Appeals Number: 01-15- 00757-CV; Agri-Fine Corporation v. GLNX

Corporation; in the Court of A ppeals – First District of Texas

To whom it may concern:

Please be advised that this letter is being filed to electronically pay the $205.00 filing fee

to prosecute the above referenced appeal.

If you have any questions , please email or call.

Sincerely,

/s/ Karen Lovely

Karen Lovely

Assistant to Andrew L. Johnson

/kl ACCEPTED

01-15-00757-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

9/4/2015 3:01:30 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKS HERRY R ADACK

C HIEF J USTICE

T ERRY J ENNINGS

E VELYN K EYES

L AURA C ARTER H IGLEY

J ANE B LAND

M ICHAEL M ASSENGALE

H ARVEY B ROWN

R EBECA H UDDLE

R USSELL L LOYD

J USTICES 

## Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066 C HRISTOPHER A. P RINE

C LERK OF THE C OURT

J ANET W ILLIAMS

C HIEF S TAFF A TTORNEY

P HONE : 713-274-2700

F AX : 713-755-8131

www.txcourts.gov/1stcoa.aspx

September 3, 2015

Andrew McCluggage

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P.

1 Riverway Ste 1400

Houston, TX 77056-1934

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

William Richards Moye

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P.

One Riverway Ste 1600

Houston, TX 77056

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Kevin F. Risley

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P.

One Riverway, Ste 1a00

Houston, TX 77056

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Andrew Johnson

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP

One Riverway, Suite 1400

Houston, TX 77056

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 01-15-00757-CV Trial Court Case Number: 2014-01353

Style: Agri-Fine Corporation

v.

GLNX Corporation

As of the date of this NOTICE

, appellant(s) has not paid the required $205 filing fee to

prosecute this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees at time of filing, unless excused);

see also T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041

(Vernon Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court of appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in

the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,

Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX

. R. A PP

. P. app. A § B(1) (listing fees

in court of appeals).

This is NOTICE to the appellant that this appeal is subject to dismissal, if the filing fee has not

been paid within 20 days of this NOTICE. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3

(allowing involuntary dismissal).Sincerely,

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements (nos.
333-58649 and 333-58899) on Form S-8 of Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc.
of our report dated February 25, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and the
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the
December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Midwest Banc
Holdings, Inc.



| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | MCGLADREY &



 PULLEN, LLP

Schaumburg, Illinois
May 19, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of StockerYale, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Marianne Molleur, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Marianne Molleur   
|Marianne Molleur       
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|August 14, 2006
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37,709]

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at The Boeing Company, St. Louis, Missouri. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-37,709; The Boeing Company St. Louis, Missouri (October 10, 2000).

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 11th day of October, 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Acting Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-26720 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; The Development of Behavioral Methods for Drug Abuse Studies in the Mouse.                    

*Date:*                         November 29, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 am to 6:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Khursheed Asghar, PhD, Chief, Basic Sciences Review Branch, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158, Msc 9547, Bethesda, MD 29089-2954, (301) 443-2620.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 12, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-26855  Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M