alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2




FOURTH AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of the 17th day of February, 2005, by and between Rural
Cellular Corporation (“RCC” or “Company”) and Wesley E. Schultz (the “Employee”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have heretofore entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of January 22, 1999, which was amended effective January 1, 2001, July 24, 2001, and
August 23, 2001 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”), which agreement is now in full force and
effect;



     WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement provides certain protections for the Employee in the event
of a change in control of the Company; and



     WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors has determined it is appropriate, and in the best
interests of the Company and its shareholders, to modify the Employment Agreement to reinforce and
encourage the Employee’s continued attention and dedication to his assigned duties without
distraction in potentially disturbing circumstances arising from the possibility of a change in
control;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements herein contained,
the Company and the Employee agree as follows:




	     1.  	     Section 11(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety,
to read as follows:






     (b)     If the Employee satisfies the requirements set forth in paragraph (a), the
Employee shall be paid an amount equal to the sum of (A) 299% of the Employee’s
average annual base salary for the three fiscal years immediately preceding the
date of the Employee’s termination of employment plus (B) 299% of the average of
the annual bonus and/or incentive payments (excluding “pay to stay” or similar
bonuses) paid to the Employee for the three fiscal years immediately preceding the
date of the Employee’s termination of employment.




     Said amount shall be paid to the Employee in one lump sum, within five days
after the Employee’s termination of employment.




	     2.  	     Section 11 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to add the
following:






     (h)     In the event of the occurrence of a Change in Control, the Company shall
pay all premiums remaining on any long-term care insurance policy then being
provided by the Company for the benefit of the Employee and his spouse, provided
that the Employee is employed by the Company on the date of the Change in Control.



 









 






	     3.  	     Except to the extent specifically amended by this Agreement, the Employment
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.





* * *







					
	ATTEST
	 	RURAL CELLULAR CORPORATION
	 
	By	/s/ Ann Newhall	 	By	/s/ Richard P. Ekstrand
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Secretary
	 	 	Richard P. Ekstrand

President and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	WITNESS	 	 
	 
	 
	/s/ Nancy A. Gilbertson	 		/s/ Wesley E. Schultz
	 
	 	 	 
	
	 	 	 	Wesley E. Schultz







2
#### HODGES v. STATE.

No. 20070.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1939.

M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; penalty assessed at a fine of $100.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing has been presented which would authorize a reversal of the conviction or require further discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We have issued our report  dated March 10, 2006  accompanying  the  consolidated
financial  statements of Synergy Brands, Inc. and subsidiaries  appearing in the
2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2005,  which is
incorporated by reference in the Registration  Statement No.  333-126539 on Form
S-3/A.  We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement of the aforementioned  report and to the use of our name as it appears
under the caption "Experts".

/s/ Holtz Rubenstein Reminick LLP
Holtz Rubenstein Reminick LLP
Melville, New York
Dated: April 12, 2006
CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
                        --------------------------------

I,  Mair  Faibish,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Synergy  Brands,  Inc.  ("the
Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1.   The Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the  Company  for the period
              ended  December 31, 2003 ("the  Report")  fully  complies with the
              requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange
              Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

         2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
              material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  results  of
              operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2004

                                             /s/ Mair Faibish
                                             --------------------
                                                 Mair Faibish
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


                                    EX-31-1
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1184 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1184

                   For the relief of Jung Ja Golden.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1993

Mr. Edwards of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Jung Ja Golden.

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

SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR JUNG JA GOLDEN.

    (a) In General.--Jung Ja Golden shall be classified as an immediate 
relative within the meaning of section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act for purposes of approval of a relative 
visa petition filed under section 204 of such Act by Jung Ja Golden and 
the filing of an application for an immigrant visa or for adjustment of 
status.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jung Ja Golden enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the petition and the application for 
issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of 
status are filed by Jung Ja Golden with appropriate fees within 2 years 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jung Ja Golden, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, for the 
following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas available 
under section 201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1251 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1251

   To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide that the United 
  States Postal Service may not carry out a change-of-address request 
unless it first receives a signed confirmation that the request was in 
              fact made by or on behalf of the addressee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2009

  Mr. Weiner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide that the United 
  States Postal Service may not carry out a change-of-address request 
unless it first receives a signed confirmation that the request was in 
              fact made by or on behalf of the addressee.

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

SECTION 1. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD RELATING TO CERTAIN CHANGE-OF-ADDRESS 
              REQUESTS.

    Section 404 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(f) Effective no later than 3 months after the date of the 
enactment of this subsection, the Postal Service shall implement 
procedures to ensure that no permanent change-of-address request shall 
be carried out unless the Postal Service first receives signed 
confirmation from the addressee (or duly authorized agent thereof) that 
the request was in fact made by (or on behalf of) such addressee.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6548]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: International Association of Firefighters, Local 4068, 160 
West Emery Street, Pahrump, Nevada 89048.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Rupp, Board Administrator, 232 
Energy Way, M/S 505, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630-
0522; Fax (702) 295-5300 or Email: nssab@nv.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

    1. Emergency Preparedness Working Group Update.
    2. Industrial Sites--Long-Term Monitoring at Closed Sites.
    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance 
of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every 
effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special 
needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, 
please contact Denise Rupp at least seven days in advance of the 
meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be 
filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Denise Rupp at the telephone number listed above. The request 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum 
of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Denise Rupp at the 
address listed above or at the following Web site: http://nv.energy.gov/nssab/MeetingMinutes.aspx.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 14, 2012.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-6548 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
*OPINION ISSUED NOVEMBER 15, 2007*

#### MICHELLE D. CLARKSON VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-222)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when her 2006 Nissan Sentra struck a hole while she was traveling on Old Crow Road, which is also known as County Route 119/36, in Beaver, Raleigh County. County Route 119/36 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to make an award in this claim for the reasons more fully set forth below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred on July 6,2007, at approximately *656:00 p.m. while claimant was traveling on County Route 119/36, which is a one-lane paved road that is located

about one mile from Route 19. The claimant stated that she was traveling to her mother’s house and the weather conditions were clear. As the claimant was driving around a sharp curve at a speed of approximately five miles per hour, she saw another vehicle traveling towards her in the opposite direction that was occupying more than half of the paved portion of the roadway. In order to avoid the oncoming vehicle, the claimant veered to her right side of the road, and the vehicle struck a large hole. There were jagged edges around the hole, and the hole was approximately six inches deep and two feet wide. The claimant testified that her vehicle had struck the same hole on another occasion about one year prior to this incident. Claimant sustained towing expenses and damage to a tire totaling $219.12. Claimant’s insurance deductible is $500.00.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have notice of the hole in question on County Route 119/36. Dale Hughart, County Administrator for respondent in Raleigh County, stated that County Route 119/36 is a low priority road, and the respondent did not receive any complaints regarding the condition of this road prior to the incident in question.

It is a well-established principle that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of motorists upon its highways. *Adkins v. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645, 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). To hold respondent liable, claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the road defect at issue and a reasonable amount of time to take corrective action. *Chapman*v. *Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986); *Pritt v. Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 8 (1985).

In the instant case, the evidence established that respondent had, at the least, constructive notice of the hole that claimant’s vehicle struck, and that the hole presented a hazard to the traveling public on County Route 119/36 in Raleigh County. The size of the hole leads the Court to conclude that respondent had notice of this hazardous condition, and respondent had an adequate amount of time to take corrective action. Thus, there is sufficient evidence of negligence upon which to base an award.

In accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated herein above, the

Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $219.12.

Award of $219.12
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30367]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

Board Votes to Close December 1, 2000, Meeting

    At its meeting on November 14, 2000, the Board of Governors of the 
United States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public 
observation its meeting scheduled for December 1, 2000, in Washington, 
D.C., via teleconference.
    Matter To Be Considered: 1. Postal Rate Commission Opinion and 
Recommended Decision in Docket No. R2000-1, Omnibus Rate Case.
    Persons Expected To Attend: Governors Ballard, Daniels, del Junco, 
Dyhrkopp, Fineman, Kessler, McWherter, Rider and Walsh, Postmaster 
General Henderson, Deputy Postmaster General Nolan, Secretary to the 
Board Hunter, and General Counsel Gibbons.
    General Counsel Certification: The General Counsel of the United 
States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly 
closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
    Contact Person for More Information: Requests for information about 
the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, David G. 
Hunter, at (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30367 Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
#### AMERICAN INS. UNION, Inc., v. KEITH.

Motion No. 13442; No. 1727—7017.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

May 11, 1938.

*368For former opinion, see 114 S.W.2d 870.

C. S. Younger and L. E. Bilger, both of Columbus, Ohio, and John Davis, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

Marvin Roberson, of Fort Worth, and Speer & Minor, of Denton, for defendant in error.

TAYLOR, Commissioner.

Plaintiff in error’s motion for rehearing questions the correctness of the statement in the opinion that no exceptions were taken to the findings of fact, and states in this connection that in its amended motion for new trial it objected to material parts of the findings and conclusions and excepted to the court’s order overruling the motion. The order was excepted to and notice of appeal was duly given, but, as stated in the opinion on original hearing, no exceptions were taken to the findings and no request was made for additional findings. Plaintiff in error’s procedure was all that was necessary in order to secure consideration of all of ité assignments. The opinion discloses that all assignments were considered. We are not in agreement with plaintiff in error’s theory of the case urged both upon original hearing and in its motion for rehearing, that there was no issue of fact in the case. We adhere to the conclusion reached upon original hearing. The motion is overruled.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
AMENDMENT FIVE TO MARKETING AGREEMENT


This document is Amendment Five to the Marketing Agreement made and entered into
effective June 1, 1993,  (the  "Agreement"),  by and between  American  National
Insurance  Company  ("American  National")  a  Texas  corporation,   and  Legacy
Marketing Group ("LMG"), a California corporation.

In  consideration  of mutual covenants  contained  herein,  the parties agree as
follows:

3.   Section 3.1 of the  Agreement  is hereby  deleted in its  entirety  and the
     following new Section 3.1 shall be substituted therefor:

     "3.1 Subject to termination as hereinafter  provided,  this Agreement shall
     remain in force and effect  until the close of business on March 31,  1999,
     the initial term of this Agreement. This Agreement may be renewed by mutual
     agreement for successive terms of one (1) year unless  terminated by either
     party by prior  written  notice to the other at least  one  hundred  eighty
     (180) days prior to the end of the initial term or the renewal term."

4.   Except as  specifically  amended  hereby,  all terms and  provisions of the
     Marketing Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


LEGACY MARKETING GROUP                   AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE
                                         COMPANY


By: /s/ R. Preston Pitts                 By: /s/ James E. Pozzi
    ------------------------------           ------------------------------

Title: PRESIDENT                         Title: EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
       ---------------------------              ---------------------------

Witness: /s/ Stephanie Molteni           Witness: /s/ Sherry Zimmerman
         -------------------------                -------------------------

Date: 12/18/98                           Date: 12/22/98
      ----------------------------             ----------------------------
#### THOMAS v. STATE.

No. 21508.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 19, 1941.

No attorney for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft of cattle. The indictment embraced averments showing that appellant had theretofore been twice convicted of felonies less than capital. Because of repetition of offenses, the punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life.

The caption fails to show the date of the adjournment of the trial court. Under the decisions, this defect requires a dismissal of the appeal. Burleson v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 89, 102 S.W.2d 1063.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1346 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 490
103d CONGRESS
  2nd Session
                                H. R. 1346

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 5 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                June 23 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

               Reported by Mr. Baucus, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, 
           as the ``Almeric L. Christian Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Almeric L. Christian Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Almeric L. 
Christian Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.

                                                       Calendar No. 490

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1346

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, 
           as the ``Almeric L. Christian Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                June 23 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### MORELAND v. QUANTE.

No. 24572.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1939.

Hal S. Lattimore, of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error,

R. L. Graves, of Brownfield, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

The application for writ of error is refused, because no motion for rehearing was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals, 134 S. W.2d 316, and. it is not made to appear, either in the application for the writ or in the motion filed in the Court of Civil Appeals for leave to file a motion for rehearing after the expiration of the time fixed by Art. 1877, Revised Civil Statutes of 1925 that the Court of Civil Appeals abused its discretion in overruling the said motion for leave to file a motion for rehearing.