alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(iii)

**TAYLOR DEVICES,INC.**

FIRST AMENDMENT TOEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

            ThisFIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made effective as of the 22nd day ofDecember, 2006 by and between TAYLOR DEVICES, INC. (the "*Company*"), a NewYork corporation having an office located at 90 Taylor Drive, North Tonawanda,New York 14120‐0748 and****RICHARD G. HILL, an individual residing at 204Seabrook Drive, Williamsville, New York 14221 (the"*Executive*").

                   WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have each agreed that it is in their bestinterests to amend the Employment Agreement by and between the Company and theExecutive entered into as of December 1, 2000 (the "*Agreement*") for thepurpose of establishing a definite expiration date of the Agreement;and

                   WHEREAS, to accomplish the foregoing, the Company and the Executive have agreedto enter into this First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the"*Amendment*"), as hereinafter set forth.

            NOW,THEREFORE**,** in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein andin the Agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows:
> 
1.              Paragraph 2(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the  following is substituted fully in its place and stead:

2. **TERM;****TERMS AND DUTIES.**

            (a) Unless earlier terminated, as provided in this Agreement, the term of thisAgreement shall commence on its effective date and shall expire on December 31,2009 (the "*Expiration Date*"); *provided however*, that, upon writtennotice given by either party to the other at least 30 days prior to theExpiration Date, this Agreement may be renewed by mutual agreement of theparties.  Prior to any renewal of this Agreement by the Company, the Boardof Directors of the Company (the "*Board*"), acting by a majority of itsdisinterested members, shall conduct a comprehensive evaluation and review ofthe performance of the Executive for purposes of determining whether to renewthe Agreement and the results thereof shall be included in the minutes ofmeeting for the Board.  Henceforward, *"Term"* shall include any andall extensions or renewals of this Agreement.
> 
2.             Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all other terms of the  Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, without modification, change  or amendment of any kind.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theCompany has caused this Amendment to be executed and its seal to be affixedhereunto by its duly authorized officer; and Executive has signed thisAmendment, as of the date and year first above written.

                                                                              **                                      **                                       

(CORPORATE SEAL)
NO. 07-03-0417-CR

NO. 07-03-0418-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

NOVEMBER 22, 2004

______________________________

JACK TREMAYNE SAPP, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDRESS COUNTY;

NO. 4516 & 4518; HONORABLE DAVID M. MCCOY, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this Court is appellant Jack Tremayne Sapp’s motion to dismiss his

appeals. Pursuant to Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the request

to withdraw the notices of appeal is signed by appellant. No decision of this Court having
2

been delivered to date, we grant the motion. No motions for rehearing will be entertained,

and our mandates will issue forthwith.

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice

Do not publish.
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of The Stephan Co. (the "Company) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Spindler,
      Chief Financial 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, 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 operationsOf
                the Company.





/s/
                Robert C. SpindlerRobert
                C. SpindlerChief
                Financial OfficerNovember
                19, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-271]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6519-1]


Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; the WICO 
Superfund Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a 
proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs 
concerning the WICO Superfund Site (Site) located in the Estate 
Liverpool section of St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands with the following 
settling party: the West Indian Company Limited. The settlement 
requires the settling party to pay $412,094.38 to the Hazardous 
Substance Superfund in reimbursement of past response costs incurred 
with respect to the Site. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue 
the settling party pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 
9607(a) for all costs incurred at the Site by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through February 11, 1999.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
document, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Agency 
will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency 
will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its 
consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or 
considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at the EPA, 
290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection 
at EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may be obtained from Elizabeth Leilani Davis, 
Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, New York/
Caribbean Superfund Branch, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New 
York 10007-1866. Comments should reference the WICO Superfund Site 
located in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, EPA Index No. CERCLA-02-99-
2021, and should be addressed to Elizabeth Leilani Davis, Assistant 
Regional Counsel, USEPA, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Leilani Davis, Assistant 
Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of 
Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 17th Floor, 290 
Broadway, New York, New York 10007. Telephone: (212) 637-3249.

    Dated: December 20, 1999.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 00-271 Filed 1-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
SECOND AMENDMENT OF



Exhibit 10.2


SECOND AMENDMENT OF

UNITED NEWVENTURES LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

            The
United NewVentures Long Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), originally adopted
effective July 1, 2000, is hereby amended effective February __, 2006 in
the following respects:

               
1.    PAYMENT OF INCENTIVE AWARD. Notwithstanding any Plan
provision to the contrary, payment of an Incentive Award is subject to
the following:

 

                       
(a)    An Incentive Award may be paid either in cash or
in the form of non-equity securities of UAL Corporation ("Non-Equity Securities"),
as soon as practicable, but no later than 270 days, following the effective
date of the Company's confirmed plan of reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code ("Exit Date"), subject to liquidation to cover
tax withholdings. The total principal amount of all of the Non-Equity Securities
and cash issued for payment of the Incentive Awards will not be less than
the dollar amount of the Incentive Awards. Payment of Incentive Awards
may not be made in the form of equity.
                       
(b)    A Participant who is, or was, an officer of UAL Corporation
or United Air Lines, Inc. at any time from January 1, 2003 through the
date of payment of Incentive Awards either in cash or issuance of Non-Equity
Securities, is not entitled to receive payment of an Incentive Award under
the Plan.

                       
(c)    The total principal amount of all of the Non-Equity
Securities issued for payment of all of the Incentive Awards under Paragraph
(a), above, together with any cash payments of Incentive Awards, may not
exceed Eleven Million Dollars ($11,000,000).


               
2.     NO POSTPETITION AGREEMENT. This amendment to
the Plan shall not: (a) alter the pre-petition nature of the Plan for the
purposes of the Company's bankruptcy cases or for any other purpose; (b)
alter the validity, priority or amount of any claims that may have arisen
or may arise under the Plan, other than what the validity, priority, or
amount of such claims would have been had this amendment not been made;
(c) elevate any claims against the Company arising under the Plan to administrative
expense priority status solely by reason of this amendment; (d) constitute
a post-petition agreement or an assumption or adoption thereof; (e) be
construed in any way to mean that the Plan is an executory contract or
post-petition agreement; or (f) act as an assumption or adoption of the
Plan.
#### FAIRFIELD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al. v. STREETMAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. et al.

No. 2862.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

March 30, 1949.

Bowl'en Bond, of Teague,-for appellants.

Tyson, Dawson & Dawson, of Corsicana, and Bradley & Geren, of Groesbeck, for appellees.

TIREY, Justice.

■ On March 30, 1949, at 8:45 A.M., the Honorable H. F. Kirby, Judge of'the 77th Judicial District’ Court, Freestone County, Texas, granted a temporary restraining order to the Streetman Independent School District and others, enjoining an election now in progress from -being held by the Fairfield Independent School District and others.

The foregoing ■ restraining, order was granted without notice and the defendants have perfected their appeal' to this court and have asked‘that said temporary restraining order be vacated.

 It is the settled law in Texas that the holding of an election is a political function and that our courts have no power to inquire into the validity of an election until it is completed’. See Ex parte Barrett et al, 120 Tex. 311, 37 S.W.2d 741; City of Honey Springs v. Templeton, Co. Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 194 S.W.2d 620, 621. This being the law in Texas, it is our view that the temporary restraining order entered is void and that it -should be vacated.

Accordingly, the.order entered granting the temporary restraining order is hereby set aside .and vacated and this order of court is hereby ordered certified to the Honorable 77th Judicial District Court,' Freestone County, for observance.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000095676
<NAME>                        Meridian Medical Technologies
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1.00
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0
<CASH>                                         295,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,684,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   247,800
<INVENTORY>                                    8,541,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,859,000
<PP&E>                                         15,286,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 874,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 45,660,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,223,000
<BONDS>                                        15,739,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       294,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,404,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   45,660,000
<SALES>                                        10,723,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,723,000
<CGS>                                          6,388,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,852,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (186,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             676,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                993,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   354,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   639,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.16
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2


 


ACTION BY WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SHAREHOLDERS
OF


INTERNET SCIENCES, INC.


 


September 8, 2021


 


The undersigned, constituting
the majority shareholder(s) (the “Shareholders”) of Internet Sciences, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Corporation”),
do hereby consent to the corporate actions specified below pursuant to the Company's bylaws, Section 228 of the Delaware General Corporate
Law and and all other applicable laws of the State of Delaware.


 


WHEREAS, John Malone and Mark
T. Maybury have been nominated to serve on the Board of Directors of the Corporation;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that the undersigned majority Shareholders of the Corporation hereby elect John Malone and Mark T. Maybury as members of the Board of
Directors;


 


RESOLVED FURTHER, that the
officers of the Corporation are, and each acting alone is, hereby authorized to do and perform any and all such acts, including execution
of any and all documents and certificates, as said officers shall deem necessary or advisable, to carry out the purposes of the foregoing
resolutions.


 


RESOLVED FURTHER, that any
actions taken by such officers prior to the date of the foregoing resolutions adopted hereby that are within the authority conferred thereby
are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved as the acts and deeds of the Corporation.


 


This written consent shall be filed in the Minute
Book of the Corporation and become a part of the records of the Corporation as of the date first appearing above. This written consent
may be signed electronically, by counterpart, and by fax.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed
this Action by Written Consent as of the date first written above.


 


 


 

	 	/s/ Lynda Chervil	 
	 	Lynda Chervil	 
	 	Ownership: 62.7%
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131380 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131380 

 COA: 259720 

Monroe CC: 04-033590-FC 

RENODDA DARRELL HICKS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2006 

judgment 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. 

s0918 

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. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
Third District Court of Appeal 

State of Florida 

Opinion filed December 26, 2018. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

________________ 

No. 3D18-700 

Lower Tribunal No. 08-409-K 

________________ 

Bank of New York, etc., 

Appellant, 

vs. 

Peter W. Obermeyer, et al., 

Appellees. 

 An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, 

Bonnie J. Helms, Judge. 

 DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, and Shawn Taylor (Fort Lauderdale), for 

appellant. 

 Gregg Horowitz (Sarasota), for appellees. 

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ. 

 LOGUE, J. 
 2 

 In this foreclosure case, Bank of New York appeals the trial court’s order 

denying its verified Motion to Vacate Order of Sanctions filed pursuant to Florida 

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We affirm. 

Trial was set in this case on three different dates, April 28, 2014, July 10, 

2014, and December 12, 2014. Each time, the borrowers’ counsel drove from his 

office in Sarasota to the Key West courthouse in Monroe County. Each time, the 

Bank inexplicably failed to appear. The case was dismissed without prejudice on 

December 16, 2014, and that order was not appealed. 

Meanwhile, the borrowers moved for sanctions in the form of costs and 

attorney’s fees including the time expended by their counsel in driving from Sarasota 

to Key West for the trials that the Bank failed to attend. The Bank also failed to 

attend the hearing on that motion. Not surprisingly, the motion was granted. The 

Bank subsequently moved under rule 1.540(b) to vacate the sanctions order and 

costs, which the trial court denied. The Bank timely appeals. 

Having carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties, including the 

arguments in the Bank’s late-filed initial brief, we find nothing improper or illegal 

in the trial court’s decision to require the payment of the borrower’s counsel travel 

costs in addition to the usual costs and fees in these unusual circumstances. See Palm 

Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 132 So. 3d 858, 862 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2014) (quoting Eve’s Garden, Inc. v. Upshaw & Upshaw, Inc., 801 So. 2d 976, 
 3 

979 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Although travel time is generally not compensable, travel 

time may be awarded as part of a sanction under certain circumstances, such as 

where a party was aware that his actions could result in unnecessary litigation.”)); 

see, e.g., Consultech of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health, 876 So. 2d 731, 736 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (finding no abuse of discretion in an attorney’s fees award of 

travel time as a sanction for failure to attend a deposition). 

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6073
LARRY DONNELL GAITHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusNORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; GERRY COLEMAN; J. PHILLIP GRIFFIN, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-1032-5-H) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Donnell Gaither, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gaither v. North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services , No. CA95-1032-5-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
2-74613 on Form S-16 and No. 33-66474 on Form S-8 of EnergySouth, Inc. (the
"Company"), as successor to Mobile Gas Service Corporation, No. 333-02271 on
Form S-3, and No. 333-103713 on Form S-8 of the Company, of our report dated
November 25, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
for the year ended September 30, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
December 17, 2003