alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.30


First Amendment to Intercreditor Agreementbetween Action Capital


Corporation (“Action”) and Wistar Morris (“Lender”) dated


June 11, 2010




WHEREAS, Action and Lender entered into that certain Intercreditor Agreement for certain accounts receivable of Lattice Government Services FKA Ricciardi Technologies Inc and Systems Management Engineering Inc. (“Borrower”) on June 11, 2010; and




WHEREAS, Action and Lender want to amend the agreement to change the bank account information for receipt of principal payments in Section 2 and more specifically describe the Lender Collateral by invoice number in Exhibit A;




NOW, THEREFORE, Lender and Action agree as follows:


Section 2. will be amended to change Lender’s bank account for receipt of principal payments to:




Wachovia Bank


3443 Orange Street


Roanoke, VA 24012


Beneficiary: First Clearing, LLC


ABA # [Redacted - Confidential]


Account #: [Redacted - Confidential]


FFC:   I. Wister Morris, Lattice A/C # [Redacted - Confidential]




Exhibit A attached hereto will be substituted for the Exhibit A attached to the original Intercreditor Agreement which identifies by invoice number the Lender Collateral.




All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.




“Action”

“Lender”Action Capital Corporation

I. Wistar MorrisBy:
/s/ Becky J. Cronister

/s/ I. Wistar MorrisBecky J. CronisterPresident“Borrower”Lattice Government Services Inc.By:
/s/ Kenneth E. KazierPresident









Exhibit “A”
       [Redacted - Confidential]
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 10, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 1865 Lower Tribunal No. 17

- 11486CC

________________ 

### Health and Wellness Evolution Co. a/a/o Earl Esperon , Appellant,

vs. 

### Infinity Auto Insurance Company ,

Appellee.

An a ppeal from the C ounty Court for Miami

- Dade County, Elijah A. Levitt , Judge. Douglas H. Stein, P.A. and Douglas H

. Stein , for appellant. Gladys Perez Villanueva, and Law Offices of Terry M. Torres & Associates, and David A. Villa rreal , for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J

.2

Appellant, Health and Wellness Evolution Company (“HWE”), as the assignee of Earl Esperon, challenges a final judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Infinity Auto Insurance C ompany (“Infinity”) , following a jury trial

. On appeal, HWE contends the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Infinity failed to present competent, substantial evidence establishing the insured was properly noticed for an examination under oath

. We affirm and write only to reiterate two longstanding evidentiary principles. The first is that documents received and relied upon in the regular course of business may become the business records of the r eceiving party so long as they carry adequate indicia of reliability

. See § 90.803(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022) ; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Gundersen , 204 So. 3d 530, 5 33

– 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)

. The second is that “‘ it is not necessary to call the person w ho actually prepared the document ’ in order to lay the foundation for the business records exception to the hearsay rule

. ” United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chiropractic Clinics of S. Fla.,
PL. , 345 So. 3d 952, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (quoting United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Affiliated Healthcare Ctrs., Inc. , 43 So. 3d 127, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010))

. Instead, “ [t]he record custodian or any qualified wi tness who has the requisite knowledge to testify as to how the record was made can lay the necessary foundation. ” Mann v. State , 787 So. 2d 130, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001 )

.3

Consistent with these principles , the records custodian testimony presented by the insurer in this case sufficiently established that both the challenged letter of representation and examination under oath notices qualified for admission under the business records except ion

. Accordingly, whether the letters provided Esperon with adequate notice evolved into a factual question properly resolved by the jury. See Comprehensive H ealth Ctr., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co. , 56 So. 3d 41 , 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“[N]otice to the attorney constitutes notice to the clien t.”); see also Gr a cia v. Sec. First Ins. Co. , 347 So. 3d 479, 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (“[C]redibility determinations and weighing the evidence are jury functions .

. . .”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). We therefore affirm. Affirmed.
e· 

• 31 

USCIB: 5.2/32 8 March 1954 

'f OP SEeftE'f - T:T, B. ~~ ONLY 

UNITED STATF.S CC?1MUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE BO.ARD 

AGENDA FOR 

One hundred first Meeting at 1430, on Friday, 

12.M'a.rch 1954, in the Projection Room, 

Administration Building, CIA, Washington, D. c. 

·Mr. Allen w. Dulles, Chairman 

.PART I - Agenda Items 

Date of Initial 

Consideration 

Subject 

Numbers Subiect 

12 March 54 5.3/ 1. Approval of Final· Minutes 

of the lOOth Meeting. 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EQ. 3 •. 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

Submi t.ted by 

Secretariat. 

l2 March 54 14./ 2. Sale of -Electronic Fquip- Defense Member, 

ment to-USSR by the 

British*, 

12 Marph 54 29.3/ 

12 Feb 54 29.17/ \\\\ 

12 March ·54 .·29.11/ .; 

*Papers in preparation. 

USCIB: -5.2/32 - - 1 -

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 01-23-2015 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

~ _. fl ( ,_ 

{-1.. "]...'" . .., .. ..(__(. r f'<>P SECRBT 
•• 

USCIB: 5.2/32 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3.3(h) (2) 

: fJf SEefiE'i' - tJ. :; • EYE5 em;y 

PART II - BaCkground Information on Agenda It@ms 

Item No. Subiect and Sumroarv 

l~ APProval of Final Minutes ·or the lOQth Meeting. A. final 

version of the subject minutes will be distributed\\.in 

advance or the meeting. 

2. Sale of Electronic FJJuipment to USSR by the British. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Information on this item is being prepared by the De£e.nse 

Member. 

o iscussion were given e s ri ion aR J 

0004~l dateCI 17 February 1954 arid are now awaiting final 

approval. The Board Members agreed that the Director NSA1 s 

memoranda (which are contained as annexes to CIB # 00048) 

would be considered at this meeting. 

I f llie Director, NSA, 

submitted rec~mniendations on this subject to USCIB with 

a request for approval. In that the proposals involved 

a matter of major policy, the Executive Secretary submitted the~ to USCIBEC for consideration pursuant to the provisions 

of USCIB Directive No. 2. (USCIB 29.11/2). USCIBEC 

recommendations on the Director NSA1 s proposals were 

forwarded to all Board Members as USCIB 29.11/3 (2 March 54) 

and the matter was scheduled for consideration at this 

meeting. 

USCIB: 5 .2/32 

TO:P SEOJtEr
# CE2004088EN.01015801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/158 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/158

---

(2004/C 88 E/0167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3824/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Labels of origin for imports

Subject:

Counterfeiting and commercial piracy are causing immense harm to EU manufacturers. Dumping continues to be used by some States as a means of gaining access to EU markets for their products. In Italy, footwear manufacturers are among those hardest-hit by fraudulent imports. With a view to ensuring fair trade, more controls should be introduced, together with rules enabling products to be clearly identified. Furthermore, the Union should decide to introduce a label for EU products, such as ‘EU’, followed by the name of the Member State of origin.

Can the Commission state:

| — | why it does not insist upon a compulsory label of origin for products from non-EU countries? |
| --- | --- |

—

why it does not insist upon a compulsory label of origin for products from non-EU countries?

| — | why it does not consider equal customs duties to be a necessary part of reciprocity in world trade? |
| --- | --- |

—

why it does not consider equal customs duties to be a necessary part of reciprocity in world trade?

| — | why it does not make a label of origin compulsory for EU products as well, in order to ensure that consumers are properly informed? |
| --- | --- |

—

why it does not make a label of origin compulsory for EU products as well, in order to ensure that consumers are properly informed?

| — | how it intends to curb the flood of fraudulent imports and to remedy this situation, which is penalising large sections of various Member States' manufacturing industries? |
| --- | --- |

—

how it intends to curb the flood of fraudulent imports and to remedy this situation, which is penalising large sections of various Member States' manufacturing industries?

---
•

.

Bade

Ward %ism

si

IMO .1 •

•

f.

Wed 6

1

•

 42

6 August 1962

liZMORAND11/14 VOL Director. ilatioaal Itecesosisseate Wilco

Min= • absessy Meer km tie *1130 Ikea

D was a please,* isimummirto &mass wits you matters el & Bdor 1962 agresasert.

1 sow have a espy el your arameramihms 41111 oriudeatias

and heattees el tie NILO &eel 23 :sly 1962 eel I am pleased to meadaate a socarity epees while the oripmedeatimal essmapts set

feat& Per employos career pasperes it limb' be blibly doeiralge

ws accents amalgams to tie IMO veldt centimes is as adasiais•

treble metes as CUL omplorees issue their SWAIM Ile Stitch stadia.

seem. Wilk lees eossarrellee ire will cessider a renal tour to

mash* of tiros years subject to as astautat it mutsally airmail*

at the espiraties el that time.

3. aseedes, 1 .616E410e to .

seetwIty *Meer to 211 year

ammo a p a $ily seemity

deem and I feel will be a esserlielies to year seta

Hs is teArado OW% 42 years et age, beads as LL.l. dogma said

has ism to seem*, work in my allies sine 1911. rem year* et its

essartty emperisami bays loan is arse eseurIty bald.

is tiormikly issatliar with tint vbsi had a

sabetalatal part is tie dovelymeit

mi II km I ll

17

•

it
' • • oi •:•1-,..,2 • 

•

•; •• •

• ; •.; .

vac; atA

• • - .r

*a.... Qt.

. •

. 3ip_SECIEr • v

•

•

04:

.,r•••n•

. ..•

.

.

4. fliddem to pm osootorr000r Ifr vow oaks for dor so 24 Awn 1941.

Os a

to ammo 

g

Ow your art ay adlodalotrotho o* flo aosoesory adbolofsbotbo thomailsfies.

211111OUKTOR Or AIIITRAL 111Miamplia

9 AUC 19$ 2 .

most la min

' • 1' .

..s.., . . ....

. . ..

.. , ) • .) • • . 2...., 4 44

'. .• • • • .. .7:10%. '+3.4?q•

.. •• . ..:•" it44. • 1.1.4411F;

l•

.. . t.r. ig,:—.' i...41; * ' *- •

.4.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

LTC PROPERTIES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. § 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of LTC
Properties, Inc. (or Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (or Report), I,
Andre C. Dimitriadis, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Wendy L. Simpson,
Vice Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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 result of operations of the Company.



| |                                
| | -------------------------------
| | /s/ ANDRE C. DIMITRIADIS       
| |                                
| | Andre C. Dimitriadis           
| | Chairman of the Board and Chief
| | Executive Officer              
|
| | /s/ WENDY L. SIMPSON           
| |                                
| | Wendy L. Simpson               
| | Vice Chairman of the Board and 
| | Chief Financial Officer        

Date: March 12, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished
(but not filed) solely pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

85
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.8

                                   AMENDMENT
                                   ---------


This Amendment (the "Amendment") is dated as of the 19th day of June, 2001 and
amends the Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement"), dated as of March
27, 2000 by and between BarPoint.com, Inc. (the "Company") and Jeffrey Sass
("Sass").

WHEREAS, the Company and Sass seek to amend the terms of the Employment
Agreement as provided herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

1.   Section 1 of the Employment Agreement ("Employment Term") shall be deleted
                                             ---------------
in its entirety and replaced with the following:

     "1. Employment Term. The term of this Agreement ("Employment Period") shall
         ---------------
     commence on March 27, 2000 ("Commencement Date") and shall expire on March
     27, 2002 ("Expiration Date"), subject to the provisions of Section 5;
     provided, however, the Expiration Date shall be automatically extended for
     an additional year on each anniversary of the Commencement Date (each, an
     "Extension Date") unless by the 1st day in March immediately preceding an
     Extension Date Sass or the Company delivers written notice to the other of
     their intent to not renew the Employment Agreement."

2.   Section 3 of the Employment Agreement ("Compensation") is hereby amended to
                                             ------------
add a new subsection (g) which shall read as follows:

     "3(g). Payment by Restricted Stock. As of April 9, 2001, $30,000 of Mr.
            ---------------------------
     Sass's compensation for the 12 month period beginning April 9, 2001 shall
     be payable in restricted stock which shall be issued on April 9, 2001 in
     accordance with the terms of the Restricted Stock Agreement, by and between
     the Company and Sass, dated as of April 9, 2001."

3.   Section 5(d) of the Employment Agreement ("Change in Control") is hereby
                                                -----------------
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

     "5(d). Change in Control. This Agreement incorporates by reference the
            -----------------
     terms of that certain Change in Control Agreement, dated as of May 9, 2001
     by and between the Company and Sass."

4.   Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement is and remains
unmodified and in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Sass have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the date first stated above.

BARPOINT.COM, INC.

By:   /s/ Leigh M. Rothschild          /s/ Jeffrey Sass
     --------------------------       ---------------------
                                          JEFFREY SASS
Name: Leigh M. Rothschild

Title: Chairman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HANOVER
DIRECT, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND
STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY, EXCEPT FOR GROSS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND THE
ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS, BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                           2,853
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,541
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,415)
<INVENTORY>                                     86,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,902
<PP&E>                                          87,023
<DEPRECIATION>                                (31,223)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,586
<BONDS>                                         53,263
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,701
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,712
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,946)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   276,788
<SALES>                                        502,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               502,454
<CGS>                                          344,301
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  545,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,428)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (50,428)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01076501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/765 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/765

---

(2004/C 84 E/0860)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0181/04

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Network and information security

Subject:

In this time of ever-increasing threats to our information security, does the Commission see the value of an internationally recognised, independent method of evaluating and certifying the security of information communications technology (ICT) products? Does the Commission agree that the ‘Common Criteria’ provide such a method, and is it aware that the Common Criteria have been recognised by major countries in Europe, North America, and elsewhere, but that they have not yet been adopted by all Member States, and are not being considered by all Member States during the procurement of ICT products? Has the Commission considered how the European Network and Security Agency can promote further European uptake of the Common Criteria?

---
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50729 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f- A pp el l ee v. JAI M E C AM PO S- PE RE Z D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 8 - CR- 2 2 2 - ALL B e fo r e W IE N E R , S T E W A R T , a n dC L E M E N T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * Jai m e Cam pos - Pere z ( C am pos ) pl eade d gui l t y t o on e c ountof i l l egal r e e n tr ya n dw a s s e n te n c e dto 4 0 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. S ee8 U . S. C . § 1326. H e app eal s hi s s en t en ce on t h e basi s t h at th e di st ri ctcourti n corr ect l y assessed tw o cr im in a l h is to r yp o in ts fo rth e s e n te n c e o f “t im e s e rv e d ” im p o s e du p o n h is pri or c on vi ct i on f

or vi ol ati n g a n o contactorder. C am pos h as fai l ed to m ak e a show i n g of

cl ear err or i n t h e di st ri ct court’ s fact u alf i n di n g t h at hi s t i m e served

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50729

2 s e n te n c e w a s 6 1 d a y s . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. Ca ld w ell , 448 F . 3d287 , 290 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) . Hi s s e n t e n c e i s t h e r e f o r e A F F I RMED.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A2152. DIAZ v. THE STATE.

The Appellant’s brief was originally due in this case on August 11, 2014.

Counsel for the Appellant requested and was granted an extension of time to file a

brief. This Court ordered counsel to file the Appellant’s brief by August 25. On that

date, however, counsel filed a non-conforming pleading which the Clerk’s office

rejected. On August 26, counsel filed an untimely motion for a second extension of

time to file the Appellant’s brief. Counsel also filed an untimely motion to “undocket” the appeal based upon counsel’s belated discovery that the transcript of the

motion for a new trial hearing had not been prepared for inclusion in the appellate

record.

Ordinarily, this Court would dismiss this case for failure to comply with an

order of this Court. However, upon a review of the record before us, it appears that

unusual delays have already occurred in this case as the result of lost or belatedly

filed transcripts and pleadings. Therefore, in the interest of expediting this matter,

counsel’s request that the case be REMANDED to the trial court for the completion

of the record is hereby GRANTED. When the clerk has completed preparation of the

record, the clerk is directed to transmit the supplemented record to this Court for

re-docketing of the appeal. The Appellant need not file a second notice of appeal.

September 09, 2014
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/09/2014