alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w13



 






Exhibit 10.13




February 2, 2006




James P. Berresse

President & Chief Executive Officer

Columbian Chemicals Company

1800 West Oak Commons Court

Marietta, Georgia




Dear Jim:




This letter amends and modifies that certain February 11, 2005 Employment Agreement signed by
Phelps Dodge Corporation and you with an Initial Term commencing February 11, 2005 (“Agreement”)
and which Initial Term ends on February 10, 2006. Unless defined otherwise for purposes of this
letter, capitalized terms set forth herein will have the same meaning as set forth in the
Agreement.



Although a definitive agreement has been entered into by Phelps Dodge to sell Columbian Chemicals
Company, it has been determined by Phelps Dodge that it is appropriate to extend the term of the
Agreement until June 30, 2006 (the “Renewal Term”). Section 2.(b) of the Agreement contemplates
that such a Renewal Term may be agreed to by the parties to this Agreement. In addition, pursuant
to Section 18.(e) the Agreement may be modified in a writing signed by you and an authorized
officer of Phelps Dodge. This letter is intended to amend and modify the Agreement as set forth
below and will be effective on the date agreed to by Phelps Dodge as indicated below.




	 	1.	 	In accordance with Section 2.(b) of the Agreement, the term of the Agreement is
extended until June 30, 2006 (the “Renewal Term”).
	 
	 	2.	 	The following sentence is added to the end of the last paragraph of Section 4 of the
Agreement: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 4 to the contrary, if you
are eligible for a payment under Section 4 under circumstances that involve the
termination of your employment for Good Reason and under such conditions that you should
be deemed to be a “key employee” as defined in Section 416(i) of the Internal Revenue Code
(and the regulations promulgated thereunder), then the payment of the Retention Bonus
under Section 4 will be paid on the six month anniversary date of your separation of
employment or otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code, as may be amended from time to time.”




 









 











All of the other terms of the Agreement not specifically modified or amended by this letter will
remain in effect as set forth in the Agreement.



If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions set forth in this letter, please indicate you
acceptance by signing and dating this letter below and returning this original to me. Once this
document has been returned with your signature, this amendment will be effective on the date of
Phelps Dodge’s agreement as indicated below.



	 	 	 
	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Phelps Dodge Corporation
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Nancy Mailhot
 

Nancy Mailhot

	 	 
	Vice President-Human Resources
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Agreed:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ James Berresse
      

James P. Berresse

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	2/3/06
      


	 	 
	Date
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Agreed:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Nancy F. Mailhot
      

Phelps Dodge Corporation

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	2/6/06
      


	 	 
	Date
Exhibit 4.1

                           ELITE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                             2004 STOCK OPTION PLAN


Section 2 of the 2004 Stock Option Plan of Elite Pharmaceuticals,  Inc is hereby
amended to read as follow:


"2.      SHARES SUBJECT TO PLAN.

         Options  may be  granted to  purchase  up to Four  Million  (4,000,000)
shares of the common  stock,  par value $0.01 per share (the "COMMON  STOCK") of
the Company.  Of the Options to purchase up to Four Million  (4,000,000) Shares,
Options to purchase up to Four Hundred Three  Thousand  Fifty  (403,050)  shares
shall be  initially  reserved  for  grant  of  options  to  holders  of  options
outstanding on the  effectiveness  of this Plan (June 22, 2004) of a like amount
at the discretion of the Board or Committee  subject to such holder's  surrender
of his/her outstanding options."
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We have issued our reports dated March 31, 2005, accompanying the consolidated financial
statements in the Annual Report of Horizon Offshore, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of the said reports in the Registration Statements of Horizon Offshore, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File
Nos. 333-47246, 333-62356 and 333-114341) and on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-62630, 333-98243 and
333-110167). /s/ Grant Thornton LLP Houston, Texas
March 31, 2005
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Peter G. Savas, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alseres Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) [Not Applicable];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.           DATE: November 14, 2007 /s/ Peter G. Savas   **Peter G. Savas**
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6255-6256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of Citizen Advocacy Panel, Brooklyn District

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy

[[Page 6256]]

Panel will be held in Brooklyn, New York.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, February 25, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen Cain at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-
488-3555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an operational meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held 
Friday, February 25, 2000, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Internal 
Revenue Service Brooklyn Building located at 625 Fulton Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11201. For more information or to confirm attendance, 
notification of intent to attend the meeting must be made with Eileen 
Cain. Mrs. Cain can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555. The 
public is invited to make oral comments from 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on 
Friday Feb. 25, 2000. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. 
If you would like to have the CAP consider a written statement, please 
call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555, or writeEileen Cain, CAP Office, 
P.O. Box R, Brooklyn, NY, 11201. The Agenda will include the following: 
various IRS issues. Note: Last minute changes to the agenda are 
possible and could prevent effective advance notice.

    Dated: January 29, 2000.
John J. Mannion,
Program Manager, Taxpayer Advocate Service.
[FR Doc. 00-2732 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
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 of Pathmark  Stores,  Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended  October 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Frank G.  Vitrano,
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the
Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the
information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  represents,  in all  material  respects,
the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A  signed  original  of
this  written  statement  required  by  Section  906,  or  other  document
authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the  signature  that appears in
typed form within the  electronic  version of this  written  statement  required  by
Section  906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| |                      | /s/ Frank G. Vitrano                                                  
| | -------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name:    Title:Date: | Frank G. VitranoPresident and Chief Financial Officer
December 7, 2004
EXHIBIT 10.24


SUMMARY OF


2006 SALES COMPENSATION PLAN


 


The registrant maintains
the Sales Compensation Plan to provide certain members of the registrant’s
sales staff the opportunity to receive cash awards based on the achievement of
performance objectives.  The Compensation
Committee (the “Committee”), on the recommendation of the Chief Executive
Officer, establishes the structure for calculating quarterly awards and
incentive bonuses in the Sales Compensation Plan, and separately sets threshold
targets based on the registrant’s financial performance and design win goals
for each participating employee.  Awards
are calculated based on individual commission and incentive dollar amounts as
set forth for each participant.  The
amount of each participant’s payout is then dependent on the achievement of the
adopted performance goals.  Payments are
made following the end of each quarter, after the degree of attainment of that
quarter’s performance goals has been determined by management of the
registrant.


 


The Committee approved
performance goals and individual commission and incentive amounts under the
Sales Compensation Plan for the 2006 fiscal year for Mr. Derek Obata, the
registrant’s Vice President of Worldwide Sales, in February 2006.
#### Constance Laverne MINOGUE, Adm’x, et al., Appellant, v. William Leroy THOMAS, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 8, 1954.

*897Raymond C. Stephenson, Louisville, for appellant.

Jasper Hagan, Louisville, for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Justice.

This is an appeal by Constance Laverne Minogue, administratrix of the estate of John Patrick Minogue, from a judgment finding for the appellee, William Leroy Thomas, in an action against him for the death of Mr. Minogue, whose death resulted from an intersection collision in Louisville about 1 a. m., October 4, 1952.

Mr. Minogue was a member of the motorcycle squad of the traffic division of the Louisville police, and was proceeding east-wardly on Broadway at the time' of his collision with the automobile of William Leroy Thomas, which had been traveling' westwardly on Broadway until it was turned southwardly on Fifteenth Street at the intersection of that street with Broadway. There is no dispute in the evidence that both vehicles had their headlights on, but Mr. Thomas did raise the question as to whether the police emergency or red light was flashing on Mr. Minogue’s motorcycle at the time of the collision. The traffic light at the intersection was green for both vehicles. The motorcycle collided with the right rear side and right back wheel of the automobile. There was a conflict of evidence as to the speed of the motorcycle, one witness estimating its speed at 25 miles an hour and another at 45 miles an hour.

Our reading of the transcript of the evidence convinces us that it clearly was a question for the jury to decide whether the driver of either vehicle was negligent, and we, consequently, conclude that the trial judge acted properly in refusing to grant a peremptory instruction in favor of the officer’s administratrix.

The appellant complains that the • court erred in refusing to permit the introduction of a photograph of the intersection which was taken some months after the occurrence of the collision in question, or to permit Capt. Chadowin of the traffic division to give his opinion as an expert motorcyclist as to whether the deceased had properly operated his motorcycle. We believe the trial judge clearly acted within his discretion in refusing to permit the introduction of either the photograph or the opinion evidence of the officer. Hartman v. Dyer, 298 Ky. 173, 182 S.W.2d 646; Goins v. Slusher, 282 Ky. 710, 140 S.W.2d 363; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bell, 276 Ky. 778, 125 S.W.2d 239.

The appellant also complains that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that it was the duty of the officer to operate his motorcycle at a rate of speed not to exceed 35 miles an hour, and in giving an instruction on contributory negligence. We believe the instruction as to speed was proper, and we conclude that the instruction on contributory negligence was clearly justified.

The judgment is affirmed.
**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 March 31, 2005 for the three-month period ended March 31, 2005 in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and issued our report thereon datedApril 27, 2005. 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 March 31, 2005 are being incorporated by reference in the 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 an accountant or a report prepared or certified byan accountant within the meaning of Paragraphs 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

/s/ GrantThornton LLP 

 

Tampa, Florida 

April 27, 2005
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please submit the attached Grant Letter to Air Transport International, Inc. (Docket No. FAA-2012-1255) that allows ATI to the extent necessary to dispatch airplanes under instrument flight rules when conditional language in a one-time increment of the weather forecast states that the weather at the destination, alternate airport, or both airports could be below the authorized weather minimums when other time increments of the weather forecast state the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized weather minimums.
#### WEAVER v. STATE.

No. 26219.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1953.

R. H. Munsterman, Kiser & Tabor, by Frank B. Kiser, Jr., Levelland, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of possessing beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area on an information charging two1 separate offenses in separate counts. The punishment assessed was six months in jail and a fine of $500 in each count.

The statement of facts is in question and answer form and contains no index to any bills of exception. There are no formal bills of exception. Therefore, we find nothing presented which requires discussion. Art. 759a, Sec. 3, Vernon's C.C.P.; Greenwood v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 191.

We have carefully read the statement of facts and the evidence discloses that on February 9, 1952, nine cases of beer *391were found by the officers on appellant’s premises, as alleged in Count One, and later, on July 18, 19S2, three cases of beer were found on his premises, as alleged in Count Two. It was stipulated that on both dates above mentioned the, area in question was a dry territory. We are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

Appellant’s brief contains two propositions, ' neither of which is based upon a proper bill of exception.

Appellant’s contention that the beer was for his own use was submitted to* the jury. Appellant made no objection to the form of the charge, and the jury resolved the issue against him.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
**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 Form 10-QSB of Worldwide Biotech & Pharmaceutical
      Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Wenxia Guo, 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, to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





(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 result of operations of the
                Company.











August
      19, 2005      /s/
      Wexia Guo_____


Wenxia
      Guo


Chief
      Executive Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABISUK SINSAENG, AKA Apisuk Andy 

Sinsaeng, AKA Avisuk Andy Sinsaeng, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72975 

Agency No. A037-571-413 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2022

San Francisco, California

Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and MOSKOWITZ,**

District Judge. Dissent by Judge VANDYKE.

Abisuk Sinsaeng, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his motion 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 26 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

to terminate. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review de 

novo questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). 

We grant the petition for review and remand.

Sinsaeng was charged with removability because of his convictions under 

California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 136.1(b)(1) and CPC § 243.4. The IJ held that 

Sinsaeng was removable because his CPC § 136.1(b)(1) convictions were offenses

relating to obstruction of justice and his CPC § 243.4 and CPC § 136.1(b)(1) 

convictions were crimes of moral turpitude. On remand from this Court after a 

prior petition for review, the BIA held that Sinsaeng was removable because the

CPC § 136.1(b)(1) convictions were offenses relating to obstruction of justice 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), and thus aggravated felonies. The BIA did not 

address whether Sinsaeng was removable for crimes of moral turpitude. In 

Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, we recently held that CPC § 136.1(b)(1) is not an 

aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(S). No. 19-72779, 2022 WL 3350714, at *6 

(9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2022). Thus, the charge of removability that Sinsaeng was 

convicted of an offense relating to obstruction of justice cannot be sustained and 

his petition must be granted.

We remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this order. 

See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the 

decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If 
3 

we conclude that the BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we 

must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. 

For the reasons set forth in my dissent in Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, No. 19-

72779, 2022 WL 3350714 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2022), I dissent in this case as well.