alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                           CONTRACT AMENDING AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 27th day of February, 2003.

BETWEEN:

                              STANTEC INC. ("STN")

                                     - and -

                    ANTHONY P. FRANCESCHINI (the "Executive")

      WHEREAS STN and the Executive (the "Parties") entered into an Employment
Agreement dated January 1, 2003 (the "Contract"), a copy of which is attached
hereto as Schedule "A"; and

      WHEREAS the Parties have agreed to amend the Contract.

      NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

1.    The Contract is amended by replacing Section 3.5 (Termination by
      Executive) in its entirety with the following:

            "Subject to Section 3.4, the Executive may terminate this Agreement
            for any reason by giving STN a written notice of his intention to
            terminate this Agreement. The effective date of termination of this
            Agreement shall be the later of the date set out in the written
            notice as the termination date, or three (3) months after the date
            the Executive gives STN the written notice, provided however, that
            in either case STN shall cause to be paid the annual Base Salary and
            Annual Bonus actually earned by the Executive to the date of such
            termination."

2.    The amendment contemplated herein shall be effective as of the date first
      written above.

3.    Other than as amended by the terms of this Contract Amending Agreement,
      the parties hereto acknowledge and confirm that the Contract remains in
      full force and effect, and continues to bind the arrangements as between
      them.

4.    This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Alberta.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have executed this Contract Amending
Agreement as of the date first above written.

                                        STANTEC INC.

                                        Per: /s/ Ronald P. Triffo
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Ronald P. Triffo, Chairman

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED         )
In the presence of:                  )
                                     )
/s/ Debbie Heuer                     )  /s/ Anthony P. Franceschini
----------------------------            ----------------------------------------
Witness                                 ANTHONY P. FRANCESCHINI
Exhibit No. 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 Annual Report of Advanced Photonix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robin Risser, 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:





(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.





Date:  June 29, 2011/s/ Robin RisserRobin RisserChief Financial Officer








77
Exhibit 10.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


TO THE 


INSPIREMD, INC. 2013 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE
PLAN


 


 


This FIRST AMENDMENT TO
THE INSPIREMD, INC. 2013 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN (this “Amendment”), dated as of September 9, 2015,
is made and entered into by InspireMD, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Terms used in this
Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in
the InspireMD, Inc. 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Article
9 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the Plan at
any time and from time to time; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board
desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to Awards under the Plan
by an additional four million seven hundred thousand (4,700,000) shares, for an aggregate maximum total of nine million seven hundred
thousand (9,700,000) shares available under the Plan.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in accordance with Article 9 of the Plan, the Company hereby amends the Plan, effective as of the date hereof, as follows:


 


1.            Section 5.1 of the
Plan is hereby amended by deleting said section in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following new Section 5.1:


 


5.1           Number
Available for Awards. Subject to adjustment as provided in Articles 11 and 12, the maximum number of shares of
Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan is nine million seven hundred thousand (9,700,000)
shares, of which one hundred percent (100%) may be delivered pursuant to Incentive Stock Options. Subject to adjustment
pursuant to Articles 11 and 12, the maximum number of shares of Common Stock with respect to which Stock Options or SARs
may be granted to an Executive Officer during any calendar year is one million (1,000,000) shares of Common Stock. Shares to be
issued may be made available from authorized but unissued Common Stock, Common Stock held by the Company in its treasury, or Common
Stock purchased by the Company on the open market or otherwise. During the term of this Plan, the Company will at all times reserve
and keep available the number of shares of Common Stock that shall be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this Plan.


2.           Except as expressly
amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof.


 


* * * * * * * *


 


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank


Signature Page Follows.]


 






    

     

    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above.


 


	 	INSPIREMD, INC.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Craig Shore
	 	Name:	Craig Shore
	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative
	 	 	Officer, Treasurer and Secretary



 


 





 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Signature Page to


First Amendment to the 2013 Long-Term Incentive
Plan
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Cynthia R. Black, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 26, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Contrary to claimant’s contention on appeal, the evidence in the record, including claimant’s resignation letter and her claim for unemployment insurance benefits, supports the conclusion that claimant was rehired after being fired twice and then left voluntarily. However, dissatisfaction with one’s boss, not agreeing with him or not getting along with him do not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment *(see, Matter of Grossman [Levine]*51 AD2d 853; *Matter of Snapperman [Levine]*50 AD2d 1029). Claimant admitted that her reason for resigning was because she did not like her executive director’s management style and she disagreed with his firing *729of her supervisor. Under the circumstances, the determination disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld *(see, Matter of Serrano [Levine],*52 AD2d 1022). Finally, claimant was given ample opportunity to question all witnesses.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### BAILEY v. STATE.

No. 21195.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1940.

A. A. Kern, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a penalty of ten years in the penitentiary upon a trial before a jury in Dallas County on indictment charging him with the offense of robbery.

The record contains no hills of exception and no statement of facts. All proceedings ' appear to be regular. There is, therefore, nothing for this court to consider.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Thursday, July 21, 2011 Meeting July 21, 2011
Office of Justice Programs
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
10:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.

AgendaMeeting SummaryMeeting Attendance

At the July 21, 2011 Council meeting, members approved four recommendations for action.
The full text can be accessed here.

July 21, 2011 Meeting Materials

**Presenter/Member Bios:**

***Moving to Win-Win with Federal-Family Partnerships***

Lisa Lauxman
	Diana Denboba
	Grace Warren
	Brandon M.
	Susan Badeau***Practitioner***

Judge Trina Thompson**Presentations Handouts:**

Family/Federal Partnerships Get Results
	Family Voices
	National Family Caucus
	Mentoring Today
	Family and Youth Engagement across the Continuum at OJJDP**Legislative and Program Updates:**

DOL Announcements
  
Date Published: July 21, 2011
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov
# CE2004065EN.01015002.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/150 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/150

---

(2004/C 65 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2430/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   State aid to Italian farmers

Subject:

Will the Commission challenge the Council's decision to approve Italian State aid to Italian milk producers in the Court of Justice?

If not, what are the ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying the decision (see Article 88(2), third paragraph of the Treaty)?

If the same ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist in other Member States or new Member States, will the Commission approve corresponding State aid in those cases?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

(12 September 2003)

The Commission does not intend to challenge the Council decision.

As to the exceptional circumstances recognised by the Council, the Commission would refer to the text of the Council Decision 2003/530/EC (1).

1

The Commission considers that the Council decision in question can not be invoked as a precedent for eventual future implementation problems of the milk quota levy in Italy or in other Member States.

---

(1)  2003/530/EC: Council Decision of 16 July 2003 on the compatibility with the Common market of an aid that the Italian Republic intends to grant to its milk producers, OJ L 184, 23.7.2003.

1

---
Management Compensation Arrangement














Exhibit
10.1




ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND
COMPANY




Management
Compensation Arrangements




Base
Salary and Cash Bonuses




During
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, the executive officers of
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (the “Company”) who were named in the Summary
Compensation Table included in the Company’s most recent proxy statement
received the base salaries included in that table. These officers and the
Company’s other officers are eligible for annual increases in their base
salaries which have typically not exceeded 5% in any given year. No officer of
the Company receives a cash bonus under the Company’s current compensation
policies.




Long-Term
Incentive Compensation Program




Under the
Company’s long-term incentive compensation program, officers and certain other
employees of the Company have the opportunity to receive annual incentive
compensation awards in the form of stock options and restricted stock under the
Company’s 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan. The stock option awards are based
upon each participant reaching annual individual performance objectives as
determined by the person’s supervisor(s) or, in the case of the Chief Executive,
by the Board of Directors. The restricted stock awards are based on the Company
achieving target levels of total business return, based on change in equity
value calculated as a multiple of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization) less debt, plus dividends, measured on a
three-year rolling average. The amount of these awards are based on a
combination of the participant’s position within the Company and base salary.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Evan J. Warshawsky , certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Ronco Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading 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 present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or cause such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2005.

/s/   Evan J. Warshawsky
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS**
 
 Pursuant
        of 18 U.S.C. 63 1350, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Conmed
        Healthcare Management , Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that this Form
        10-QSB and the financial statements thereto fully comply with the requirements
        of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
        and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB and the financial statements
        thereto fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of the Company.
 
 May
        15,
        2007
 By
        /s/
        Richard W. Turner
 Richard
        W. Turner
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
  **A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
        provided to and will be retained by Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. and
        will
        be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.**
#### PARKER et al. v. CHAMBERS et al.

No. 3980.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Feb. 26, 1942.

S. M. Adams, of Nacogdoches, for appellants.

Joe J. Fisher, of Jasper, and Charles McMillan, of San Augustine, for appellees.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

In the lower court appellees, O. S., C. A., and E. A. Chambers and W. E. Dickerson, recovered judgment' against appellants, F. K. Parker and Gladys Parker, for the sum of $220.67, with foreclosure of a material-men’s lien on the real estate described in their petition. For cause of action, they alleged a balance due of $220.67 for material furnished by them to appellants for the erection of a three story brick building on the real estate which they alleged to be of the reasonable value of $15,000, and they further alleged the due creation of their materialmen’s lien against the real estate. Appellants answered by plea to the jurisdiction of the district court, the nonjoinder of a senior lien holder, and certain credits, offsets, payments, etc.

Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction is on the ground that the district court did not have jurisdiction of the damages prayed for in the sum of $220.67, nor did the district court have jurisdiction to foreclose the materialmen’s lien, it “not being a contract lien.” The law is that our district courts have exclusive jurisdiction of suits for the enforcement of materialmen’s liens upon land. Crowell v. Mickolasch, Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W. 234; Noyes v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W. 649 ; 29 Tex.Jur. 603, and authorities therein cited.

Appellants prayed that they “be dismissed with their costs,” on the ground that the J. D. Whitton estate was a necessary party, on allegations that it held a senior and superior lien on the real estate described in appellees’ petition, and on which they asserted their lien. This prayer was properly denied. A senior lien holder is not a necessary party in an action by a junior lien-holder to foreclose his lien. 32 Tex.Jur. 21, Ringle v. Waggoner, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W. 236; Art. 5459, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. The fact that the evidence, there being no plea on this issue, may have disclosed certain lien holders junior *946and inferior to appellees’ lien was not sufficient to abate appellees’ cause of action.

The record does not support appellants’ assignment that the lower court failed and refused to dispose of their “cross action or affirmative plea against appellees.” Appellants plead no cross action against appellees, nor did they pray for affirmative relief against them. They simply plead settlement and payment of all sums due by them to appellees, and their prayer was that they “go hence with their costs, without day, and for such other and further relief as they may be entitled to, in law and in equity.” The judgment of the court in favor of appellees necessarily disposed of all issues made by the pleadings.

The judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          1,136,695
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,416,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,553,061
<PP&E>                                         30,466,047
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 48,323,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,611,108
<BONDS>                                        23,309,967
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                        96,104
<COMMON>                                           49,812
<OTHER-SE>                                     22,256,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   48,323,496
<SALES>                                         4,849,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,849,281
<CGS>                                           1,108,734
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,091,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                259,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (693,327)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (693,327)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        


</TABLE>