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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2
                         SHARE SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT

Equalnet Communications Corp. ("Equalnet"), a Texas corporation, as issuer, and
Kevin Pirolo as subscribing shareholder ("Subscriber"), hereby enters into this
Share Subscription Agreement effective January 21, 1999. Subject to the approval
of the Board of Directors of Equalnet, and subject to the preparation of
definitive documentation acceptable to the respective legal counsel for issuer
and subscribing shareholder, the parties agree as follows:

1. Subscriber agrees to subscribe for the purchase of $2,000,000 of registered
$0.01 par value common stock of Equalnet Communications Corp. (the "Common
Stock") valued at a purchase price equal to ninety (90%) percent of the average
closing price of the shares of the Common Stock for the ten (10) trading days
prior to the date of the confirmation of the plan of Reorganization of EqualNet
Corporation in its pending bankruptcy proceeding in Cause Number 98-39561-H5-11
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

2. This subscription is subject to the confirmation of the plan of
Reorganization of EqualNet Corporation in its pending bankruptcy proceeding in
Cause Number 98-39561-H5-11 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on or prior to June 30, 1999, and the continued listing of the
shares of Equalnet on the Nasdaq National Market at the time of the confirmation
of such plan.

3. Payment for such shares shall be at such time as may be mutually agreed to by
the parties, which in any event shall be prior to the issuance and delivery of
such shares.

4. Subscriber declares that he is subscribing for said shares as an investment
for his own account and has no present intent to divide, resell or otherwise
distribute them.

5. Unless Equalnet is notified in writing at its corporate office address of
1250 Wood Branch Park Drive, Houston, Texas 77079, such shares will be issued in
the name as set forth in paragraph 1 above.

6. The signature of the authorized representative of Equalnet below indicates
receipt of this Subscription for presentation to the Board of Directors for
approval, but does not indicate that the Board of Directors has either acted
upon or approved the share issuance contemplated herein.

Dated January 21, 1999.

SUBSCRIBER

/s/ Kevin Pirolo
---------------------------
Kevin Pirolo

Equalnet Communications Crop.

By: /s/ Mark A. Willis
--------------------------
   Mark A. Willis, Chairman

                                 ATTACHMENT 4
66806 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of the Public Debt

Proposed Collection: Comment

Request

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of

the Public Debt within the Department

of the Treasury is soliciting comments

concerning the Subscription For

Purchase and Issue of U.S. Treasury

Securities, State and Local Government

Series.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before January 11, 2001,

to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S.

Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg,

WV 26106–1328.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the form and instructions

should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe,

Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third

Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106–1328,

(304) 480–6553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title:

Subscription For Purchase And Issue Of

U.S. Treasury Securities—State And

Local Government Series.

OMB Number: 1535–0092.

Form Number: PD F 4144

Abstract: The information is

requested to establish accounts for the

owners of securities of State and Local

Government Series.

Current Actions: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Affected Public: State or Local

Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

5,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 30

minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 2500.

Request for Comments

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval. All comments will become a

matter of public record. Comments are

invited on: (a) Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology; and (e) estimates of capital

or start-up costs and costs of operation,

maintenance, and purchase of services

to provide information.

Dated: November 1, 2000.

Vicki S. Thorpe,

Manager, Graphics, Printing and Records

Branch.

[FR Doc. 00–28488 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–39–P
# Appendix 6 Detailed Risk Modeling ResultsSource CategoryFacility NEI IDFacility NameAddressCity StateEpichlorohydrin ElastomersProductionNEI11153ZEON CHEMICALS L P 1301 WEST 7TH STREETHATTIESBURG MSTable 1 - Facility Identification Information1 of 1CancerMIRCancerIncidenceNoncancerMax HITargetOrganCancerMIRNoncancerMax HITargetOrganNEI111531.24E-051.01E-04 1.34E-01 Respiratory 1.24E-05 5.00E-01 Respiratory 100%1 BOLD indicates a cancer risk great than 1 in a million or a noncancer risk greater than 12 Facility cancer risk represent MIR at census block locations using Draft 2005 NATAFacility NEI IDSource Category Chronic Risk1Table 2 – Maximum Predicted HEM-3 Chronic RisksFacility-Wide Chronic Risk1, 2SC % ofFacility-wideCancer Risk1 of 1

# REL AEGL1 AEGL2 ERPG1 ERPG2

NEI11153 Epichlorohydrin 1.64E-01 9.67E-03 2.34E-03 9.67E-03 2.34E-03

NEI11153 Ethylene oxide 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.89E-03 0.00E+00 2.89E-03

NEI11153 Toluene 1.34E-01 6.61E-03 1.10E-03 2.61E-02 4.39E-03

Note: BOLD indicates acute risks greater than 1 Facility NEI ID Pollutant Table 3 – Maximum Predicted Acute Risks (HEM-AERMOD)

1 

# Some maximum acute impacts may be at onsite locations. Maximum Hazard Quotient 1



# 1 of 1
#### PAREDES v. MARTINEZ.

No. 12644.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 20, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1954.

Gerald Weatherly, Falfurrias, H. P. Guerra, Jr., Rio Grande City, for appellant.

Bismark Pope and Pope & Pope, Laredo, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

This is an election contest. Proceso Martinez, by a margin of six votes, was declared the duly elected Commissioner from Precinct No. 2 of Zapata County. E. E. Paredes contested the election and has appealed from an adverse judgment of the trial court.

. Appellant’s first point concerns the same witnesses, voters, voting district, and evidence discussed in the first point in the case of Solis v. Martinez, Tex.Civ.App., *264*S.W.2d 956. The statement of facts in the Solis case was without objection introduced as proof of appellant’s first point. Since the evidence is the same, the views we expressed in the Solis case also control in this case.

*959Appellant in bis second point assumes that the reason the election officials rejected the votes of Santiago Gonzales, Mrs. Santiago Gonzales, and Jose L. Torres, is because their absentee ballots were considered by the officials as not being in the hands of the canvassing board within the time required by Article 5.05, Subdivision 5, Vernon’s Election Code. However, in addition to the absentee vote requirements, the trial court found that appellant failed to prove that those persons were otherwise qualified voters. Since the appellant had the burden to prove their qualifications and failed to discharge it, we can not assume that their votes were rejected for the one and only reason appellant has assigned. Barker v. Wilson, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W. 543; Kempen v. Bruns, Tex.Civ. App., 195 S.W. 643; 16 Tex.Jur., Elections, § 145.

Error is asserted in counting five absentee ballots because the applications for ballots were made by telegram. It has been held on several occasions that the statutory requirements for a written application for an absentee ballot are directory and not mandatory. Fugate v. Johnston, Tex.Civ. App., 251 S.W.2d 792; Bray v. Peden, Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W.2d 469; State ex rel. Sharp v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 111; Lee v. Whitehead, Tex.Civ.App., 182 S.W.2d 744; Stratton v. Hall, Tex.Civ. App., 90 S.W.2d 865.

Three other absentee votes were challenged because the county clerk personally took ballots to voters at their homes. It is the irregularity that is complained about and not that there was, as expressed in Morris v. Dunn, Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W. 2d 562, 564, “any undue persuasion, fraud, undue influence, or intimidation in the procuring of the votes in question”. Morris v. Dunn is decisive of the situation presented, and the votes will be counted “where the will and desire of the voters can be ascertained from the ballots”.

The other points do not challenge enough votes to affect the declared results. The order of the trial court is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our report dated March 11, 2009, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of EvolvingSystems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the RegistrationStatements of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 323-122476,effective February 2, 2005, and File No. 333-112082, effective January 22,2004) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-144852, effective July 25, 2007, File No.333-141527, effective March 23, 2007, File No. 333-116085, effective June 2,2004, File No. 333-103655, effective March 7, 2003, File No. 333-89438,effective May 31, 2002, File No. 333-61446, effective May 23, 2001, File No.333-82473, effective July 8, 1999, File No. 333-60779, effective August 6, 1998,and File No. 333-58285, effective July 1, 1998).

 

GRANTTHORNTON LLP

 

Denver, Colorado

March 11,2009

 

----
exv10w12



 






Exhibit 10.12




ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT

AND NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT




     This Addendum to the Employment and Noncompetition Agreement (“Addendum”) between SCI
Executive Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”) and the undersigned executive of
the Company (the “Employee”), is executed as of December 1, 2005.



     The Company and the Employee have previously entered into an Employment and Noncompetition
Agreement (“Agreement”).



     This Addendum is intended to (i) supplement and modify such Agreement in order to comply with
applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code Section 409A, and (ii) extend the term of the
Agreement.



     This Agreement is modified effective as of December 31, 2005 as follows:




	 	1.	 	Notwithstanding the applicable provisions of this Agreement regarding timing of
distribution of payments, the following special rules shall apply in order for this
Agreement to comply with IRC §409A: (i) to the extent any distribution is to a
“specified employee” (as defined under IRC §409A) and to the extent such applicable
provisions of IRC §409A require a delay of such distributions by a six month period
after the date of such Employee’s separation of service with the Company, the
provisions of this Agreement shall be construed and interpreted as requiring a six
month delay in the commencement of such distributions thereunder, and (ii) in the event
there are any installment payments under this Agreement that are required to be delayed
by a six month period in order to comply with IRC §409A, the monthly installments that
would have been paid during such six month delay shall be accumulated and paid to the
Employee in a single lump sum within five business days after the end of such six month
delay, and (iii) the Company shall not have the discretion to prepay any installment
payments otherwise provided under this Agreement.
	 
	 	2.	 	To the extent of any compliance issues under Internal Revenue Code Section
409A, the Agreement shall be construed in such a manner so as to comply with the
requirements of such provision so as to avoid any adverse tax consequences to the
Employee.
	 
	 	3.	 	The term of the Agreement is hereby extended to December 31, 2006.





     EXECUTED as of the date first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SCI Executive Services, Inc.	 	 	 	Employee	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	   /s/ Curtis G. Briggs
 

	 	 	 	    /s/ Thomas L. Ryan
 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Curtis G. Briggs
	 	 	 	Name: Thomas L. Ryan	 	 
	Title:

	 	Vice President
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3626 

To extend the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 10 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2013 

Mr. COBLE (for himself and Mr. ISRAEL) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 10 

years. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS ACT 

4 OF 1988 FOR 10 YEARS. 

5 Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 

6 1988 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking ‘‘25’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘35’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 11

                     BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CORPORATION
                         COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(in thousands, except share information)


                             For the Three Months        For the Nine Months
                              Ended September 30         Ended September 30
                               1998        1997           1998        1997

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE
Net income                 $   11,827   $   12,532     $   43,144   $   39,153

Shares of Common Stock:
  Weighted average 
    shares outstanding     65,757,737   63,086,894     65,700,493   62,951,608
  Effect of contingent
    shares                     27,836      430,207         25,147      447,267
                           __________   __________     __________   __________
                           65,785,573   63,517,101     65,725,640   63,398,875

Basic earnings 
  per share (1)            $      .18   $      .20     $      .66   $      .62


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
Net income                 $   11,827   $   12,532     $   43,144   $   39,153

Shares of Common Stock:
  Weighted average
    shares outstanding     65,757,737   63,086,894     65,700,493   62,951,608
  Effect of options            27,258      123,285         67,025      122,620
  Effect of contingent
    shares                     27,836      430,207         25,147      447,267
                           __________   __________     __________   __________
                           65,812,831   63,640,386     65,792,665   63,521,495

Diluted earnings
  per share (1)            $      .18   $      .20     $      .66   $      .62




(1)  In 1997, we adopted Statement of Financial Accounting 
     Standards No. 128 (SFAS 128), "Earnings Per Share."  Earnings
     per share for 1997 have been restated to reflect SFAS 128.  The
     impact of the adoption was to reduce basic earnings per share
     by $.01.
### State ofUtah Department of Environmental Quality Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D. Executive Director DNISION OFAIR QUALITY Richard W. Sprott Director JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR. Governor GARY HERBERT Lieutenant Governor 

# Rec, d APR 

## I 2 

## 2005



# 8P ... AR

DAQP-034-05 April 7, 2005

Richard Long, Director Air and Radiation Program US EPA Region VIII 8P-AR 999 18th Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202-2466 DearMr. Long: My staffand I agree with your staffs list ofrules that shouldbe excluded from EPA's approval ofthe Utah rules recodification submittal ofSeptember 15, 1999. The list as we received it from your staffis enclosed with this letter. We submitted all Utah rules in September 1999 because, underthe old codification system, those that are not or should notbe part ofthe Utah State Implementation Plan were entangled within rules that are part ofit. Given the processing practices ofUtah's Division ofAdministrative Rules, there was no way to separate the parts that are in the Plan from those that are not when we submittedthe documentation to you. We agree that the following rules shouldbe excluded from EPA's approval ofthe recodification: R307-1-6. General Requirements: Exemption for Air and WaterPollution Control Equipment. Renumbered to R307-120. R307-121. General Requirements: Eligibility ofExpenditures for Purchase ofVehicles That Use Cleaner Burning Fuels or Conversion of Vehicles and Special-Fuel Mobile Equipment to Use Cleaner Burning Fuels for Corporate and Individual Income Tax Credits.

ISO North 1950 West • PO Box 144820 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820 • phone (801) 536-4000 • fax (801) 536-4099 T.D.D. (801) 536-4414 • www.deq.utah.govDAQP-034-05 April 7, 2005


### R307-122. General Requirements: Eligibility ofExpenditures for Purchase and Installation Costs ofFireplaces and Wood Stoves That Use Cleaner BurningFuels. R307-135. Enforcement Response Policy for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. R307-214. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. R307-215. Emission Standards: Acid Rain Requirements. R307-220. Emission Standards: Plan for DesignatedFacilities. R307-221. Emission Standards: Emission Controls for Existing Municipal SolidWaste Landfills. R307-320. Davis, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, and Ogden City: EmployerBased Trip Reduction Program. R307-332. Davis and SaltLake Counties and Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Stage II VaporRecovery Systems. R307-415. Permits: Operating Permit Requirements. R307-417. Permits: Acid Rain Sources. R307-l-8. Asbestos: Renumbered to R307-801. Ifyou have questions, you may contact Jan Miller ofmy staffat (801) 536-4042. I look forward to working with you and your stafftoward early approval ofthis exclusion.

RWS/JM/gw

2
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
Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2012 filed with Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jerry Treppel, Chairman of the Board of Directors and 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: September 14, 2012 |  | /s/ Jerry Treppel                                                | 
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                         |  | Jerry Treppel, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



This certification has been furnished solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Elite Pharmaceuticals Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: September 12, 2016

S16Y1601. IN THE MATTER OF C. MICHAEL ROSE.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of the

special master,1 who recommends that attorney C. Michael Rose (State Bar No.

614173) be disbarred for his misuse of funds that he held in trust. Rose

acknowledged service of the formal complaint, but he failed to file an answer

as required by Bar Rule 212 (a), and so, the special master found Rose in

default. By virtue of his default, Rose admitted that he agreed to close a real

estate transaction in April 2014; as a part of that closing, he was entrusted with

$3,549.08 by the seller and $113,162.63 by the buyer, which he deposited in

separate trust accounts; he failed to promptly pay off the seller’s mortgage; he

either misused the funds held in trust for the real estate transaction for the

benefit of other clients or commingled those funds with his own funds; he failed

to account for the funds; and although he eventually paid off the seller’s

1

 This Court appointed William Allen Myers as special master in this case.
mortgage, he did so only after the seller filed a lawsuit against him, and even

then, he had to deposit his own funds into his trust account to make the payment. 

The special master concluded that, by his conduct, Rose violated Rules

1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct,

Bar Rule 4-102 (d), the maximum sanction for which is disbarment. The special

master noted that Rose has no prior disciplinary history, but he also found that

the violations in this case were aggravated by Rose’s disregard of the

disciplinary process. We agree with the findings of the special master, and as to

mitigation, we would add that Rose failed to provide the special master (or this

Court) with any mitigating explanation of his conduct. Accordingly, we agree

with the special master that disbarment is appropriate. See generally In the

Matter of Wathen, 290 Ga. 438 (721 SE2d 899) (2012) (disbarring attorney for

violations of several Rules, including Rules 1.15 (I)-(II) and 8.4 (a) (4), where

attorney converted client funds to his own use and showed indifference to

making restitution, although attorney’s partners made restitution to client).

Compare In the Matter of Jones, 280 Ga. 302 (627 SE2d 24) (2006) (imposing

a one-year suspension for using firm’s escrow account funds to pay promissory

note for a separate business where no clients were harmed and where attorney

2
cooperated fully, made restitution, was deeply remorseful, and had no

disciplinary history).

It is hereby ordered that the name of C. Michael Rose be removed from

the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Rose is

reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred. All the Justices concur. 

3
#### Nellie M. ESSLER v. STATE.

No. 25927.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1952.

Nellie M. Essler, in pro. per.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant plead guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated, and the court assessed her punishment at 30 days in jail and $500 fine.

Accompanying the record is an affidavit in proper form, executed by the appellant, requesting the dismissal of the appeal. Appellant’s request is granted and the appeal is dismissed.