alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.42


                      RESCISSION OF PROVISION OF EXECUTIVE
                          SEVERANCE BENEFITS AGREEMENT

                                        

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.3 of that certain Executive Severance
Benefits Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of December 1, 1997, by and
between Award Software International, Inc. (the "Company") and the undersigned,
the undersigned has certain rights to accelerate the vesting of stock options
such that all of those option shares held by the undersigned which would not
otherwise be vested and exercisable on the date of the Executive's Covered
Termination (as that term is defined therein) shall become immediately vested
and exercisable as of such date.

     WHEREAS, neither the undersigned nor the Company intended to prohibit,
restrict or otherwise limit the Company's ability to structure transactions that
the Company may otherwise engage in.

     WHEREAS, the undersigned and the Company desire to rescind any rights
pursuant to Section 2.3 of the Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned and the Company hereby irrevocably and
unconditionally agree to rescind the rights under Section 2.3 of the Agreement,
which shall be deemed null and void ab initio.  The Optionee agrees to return
any documentation received in connection with the rights under Section 2.3 of
the Agreement to the Company.  Each of the undersigned and the Company
represents that he or it is not relying on any representation or promise of any
other person in executing this Rescission, or in making the rescission provided
for herein, and has assumed the risk of any misrepresentation, concealment or
mistake.  If either party should subsequently discover that a fact relied upon
by he or it in entering into this Rescission was untrue, or that a fact was
concealed from it, or that its understanding of the facts or of the law was
incorrect, such party shall not be entitled to any relief in connection
therewith, including, without limitation, any alleged right or claim to set
aside or rescind this Rescission.  This Rescission is intended to be and is
final and binding, regardless of any claims of misrepresentation, promise made
without the intention to perform, concealment of fact, mistake of fact or law,
or of any other circumstance.  This Rescission may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall
constitute one instrument.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Rescission as of
April ___, 1998.

OPTIONEE:                           AWARD SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL, INC.



                                    By:
-------------------------------        -------------------------------------
Name:                                  Name:
                                       Title:
# C_2004228EN.01001002.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-463/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 77/388/EEC - VAT - Article 11(A)(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Subsidy directly linked to the price - Regulation (EC) No 603/95 - Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)

(2004/C 228/19)

Language of the case: Swedish

In Case C-463/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and K. Simonsson) v Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Falk) supported by Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä) — application for a declaration that, by failing to levy value added tax on aid paid under Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder (OJ 1995 L 63, p. 1), the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Sixth Council Directive (77/388/1977) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

1

---
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Constructed Wetland, Contour Buffer Strips, Filter Strip, Integrated Pest Management, Sediment Basin, Tree/Shrub Establishment, Tree/Shrub Site Preparation, Water and Sediment Control Basin

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    The Form 10-K of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership for the period ended December 31,
2006 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership.
 Date: March 1, 2007
    By:
    /s/ C. Reynolds Thompson, IIIC. Reynolds Thompson, IIIChief Executive Officer of Colonial Properties Trust,
the general partner of Colonial Realty Limited Partnership
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS- NETWORK DIAGRAM October 2020

Forage Harvest Management (511)

Initial setting: All land uses where 

machine harvested forage crops are 

grown

D.1 (+) 

Quality/quantity of 

stored forage

D.7 (+) Soil cover 

on crop land uses

I. 2 (-) Overall 

costs to farmer

I.1 (+) Livestock 

nutrition and/or 

health 

D.3 (+) Disease,

 weed, and insect 

suppression

I.6 (-) Runoff 

and soil 

erosion

I.7 (+) Water quality

I.3 (+) Nutrient cycling 

and plant uptake

C.1 (+) Income and

income stability 

(individuals and

community) 

C.4 (+) Health 

of humans, 

domestic and 

wild animals 

C.2 (+) Maintain or 

enhance long-term soil

 productivity

D. 6 (+) Plant 

uptake of 

nutrients

C.5 (+) Aquatic 

ecosystem 

Quality 

Hay or other forage is cut and 

removed from field

D.2 (+) Plant 

regrowth, desired 

species composition, 

and maintain plant 

stand

D.5 (+/-) Wildlife

 habitat

I.4 (+) Soil quality

D. 4 Air quality

(-) Particulates

(-) Greenhouse gas

(-) National air quality

particulate standard

C.3 (+) Air quality 

of the

 airshed

Start

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

Pasture and Hay 

Planting (512)

Nutrient Management 

(590)

I.5 (+) Plant 

productivity and health
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS- NETWORK DIAGRAM October 2020
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Home Loan Trust 1996-1
$ 153,521,000 7.15% Asset Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 2001




           PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
              DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %

          ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-2001           0     276,965      62,961    1.58%    3,693,938    7.74%
 Feb-2001   2,984,832     276,965      55,039    1.42%    3,571,262    7.67%
 Mar-2001           0     259,180     105,469    2.66%    3,375,537    7.09%
 Apr-2001           0     259,180      47,290    1.24%    2,743,213    5.99%
 May-2001   3,696,251     259,180     116,454    3.15%    2,698,226    6.09%
 Jun-2001           0     237,157      43,452    1.23%    3,112,188    7.32%
 Jul-2001           0     237,157      34,379    1.00%    3,172,365    7.71%
 Aug-2001   3,718,298     237,157     119,355    3.61%    2,879,853    7.26%
 Sep-2001           0     215,002      18,457    0.58%    2,849,760    7.48%
 Oct-2001           0     215,002     109,558    3.58%    3,054,910    8.31%
 Nov-2001   3,312,592     215,002      15,658    0.53%    3,306,579    9.33%
 Dec-2001           0     195,265      56,182    1.97%    3,214,670    9.39%

          ____________ ___________ ___________
  Totals   13,711,973   2,883,213     784,253

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00155- CV
City of Bee Cave, Texas, A ppellan t

v. AusPr o Enterprises, L.P ., Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 1-0 0389 2, H ONO RAB LE TIM SULAK , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant h as fi led an unopposed motion to dismiss its appea l, explaining that the parties have settled their dispute. We g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

____________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and H enson Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: September

13, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41193

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAMUEL REYES-ALVARADO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-365-1

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Samuel ReyesAlvarado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyes-Alvarado has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41193 Document: 00513159479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
No. 14-41193

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-41193 Document: 00513159479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.1

                              Employment Agreement
                                     Between
                         The Southern Banc Company, Inc.
                               and Gates B. Little

                                 2001 Amendment
                                 --------------

          WHEREAS, The Southern Banc Company, Inc. (the "Company") has entered
into an Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") with Gates B. Little (the
"Employee"); and

          WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") and the
Employee have determined that it is appropriate to amend the Agreement to
redefine the Employee's position with the Company.

          NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement shall be amended as follows, effective
immediately.

          1.  The first sentence in Section 1 sha1l be amended by replacing
              "Vice President" with "President and Chief Executive Officer."

          2.  Nothing contained herein sha1l be held to alter, vary or otherwise
              affect any of the terms, provisions or conditions of the Agreement
              other than as stated above.

          WHEREFORE, on this 19th day of April, 2001, the undersigned hereby
approve this 2001 Amendment to the Agreement.


                                  THE SOUTHERN BANC COMPANY, INC.

                                   By _________________________________
                                      Its  Secretary


                                      _________________________________
                                                        Gates B. Little
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLMORE McCAIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Submitted May 16, 1977

Decided June 9, 1977.

*498Before Judges Fritz, Ard and Pressler.

*Mr. Stanley C. Van Ness,*Public Defender, attorney for appellant *(Ms. Rosemary K. Reavey,*Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the letter brief).

*Mr. William F. Hyland,*Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney for respondent *(Mr. Benjamin D. Leibowitz,*Deputy Attorney General, on the letter brief).

Per Curiam.

The sole ground urged on defendant’s appeal is that his sentence of two to three years in State prison, imposed after his violation of at least one of the conditions of his prior probation and upon his guilty plea to that violation, was excessive. He seeks a return to probation.

We are not impressed with his claim that the admitted violation1 — his counsel acknowledged that “Mr. McCain *499really never did report to the probation department almost from the very commencement of the probationary term imposed” — is a “technical violation.” Reporting procedures present, as prime purposes, an opportunity for the authorities to detect other violations and, in the appropriate case, to help a defendant avoid them. Frustration of these purposes by a failure to report is, it seems to us, a quite substantial and serious violation. Additionally, protection of the public depends in part on maximum contact between the probation officer and the probationer.

Be this as it may, the fact of the matter is that probation upon a suspended sentence is a privilege the right to which must be earned anew each day until the probationary period expires. When a defendant “fails to meet the test or chance of freedom” he may be committed to prison. *In re*White, 18 *N. J.*449, 455 (1955). We see no reason why society should not expect one who has erred to conform meticulously to every condition on which his freedom depends, including such things as reporting to the probation department.

We discern no mistaken exercise of discretion in the revocation of probation or the sentence imposed. *State v. Moretti,*50 *N. J. Super.*223 (App. Div. 1958).

Affirmed.

1

Neither of *the*parties has provided us with the “copy of the substantive charge prepared by the Probation Department” referred to by defense counsel in his comments at sentencing.

His counsel, having conferred with McCain, reported to the court: “Mr. McCain advised me at the time he was placed on pro*499bation by Judge Donatelli that he was at that time using narcotics, and one of the terms of his probation was that drug dependency rules were to apply. Now Mr. McCain says that at that particular time he was quite sure that his urine would come out positive for narcotics use and he was simply afraid to report to the probation department.”

Beyond the fact of the conceded reporting violation, we note the drug use.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Aetna Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-52819 on Form S-3, No. 33-52819-01 on Form S-3, No. 333-07167 on Form S-3,
No. 333-07169 on Form S-3, No. 333-08427 on Form S-8, No. 333-08429 on Form S-8
and No. 333-08431 on Form S-8) of Aetna Inc. of our reports dated February 3,
1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Aetna Inc. and Subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related consolidated statements of
income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedules for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which reports appear
in or are incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K of Aetna Inc.


                                        /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Hartford, Connecticut
March 2, 1998
Exhibit 23.2

 

Consent of Independent Auditors

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-180597, No. 333-191702, and  No. 333-199754) and Form S-8 (No. 333-132175,  No. 333-179101, and No. 333-75378)  of Calavo Growers, Inc. of our report dated March 22, 2019, relating to the financial statements of FreshRealm, LLC included in Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Calavo Growers, Inc., filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

|                    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Moss Adams LLP      |   |
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| Los Angeles, California |   |
| April 1, 2019      |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTERS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,140
<SECURITIES>                                     2,821
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                       819
<INVENTORY>                                     12,342
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,037
<PP&E>                                           8,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,438
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,626
<SALES>                                         79,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,379
<CGS>                                           56,340
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,453)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,325
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004239EN.01000701.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/7

---

Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-326/04)

(2004/C 239/11)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and E. Tserepa-Lacombe, members of the Commission's Legal Service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1) | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 (1) implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1)

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 (1) implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2) | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for implementing the directive in national law expired on 19 July 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 180 of 19.7.2000, p. 22.

1

---