alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17


                                 AMENDMENT #1 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         AMENDMENT #1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as of January 7, 1999
("Amendment #1") by and between ABACUS DIRECT CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation having an office located at 8774 Yates Drive, Westminster, Colorado
80030 (the "Corporation"), and M. ANTHONY WHITE ("Executive").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Corporation and Executive are desirous of amending that
certain Employment Agreement dated as of August 6, 1996 (the "Employment
Agreement") to which each is a party on the terms hereinafter set forth.

         WHEREAS, the Corporation has determined that it is in its best
interests, and the best interests of its shareholders, to assure that the
Corporation will have the continued dedication of Executive, notwithstanding the
possibility, threat or occurrence of a change of control of the Corporation.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Corporation
and Executive hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

         1.       Section 9(a)(iii)(B) shall be amended in its entirety as 
         follows:

                  "In lieu of any further salary payments to Executive for
         periods subsequent to the Date of Termination (including any payments
         relating to any bonus or incentive compensation), the Corporation shall
         pay as severance pay to Executive, no later than the fifth (5th) day
         following the Date of Termination, a lump-sum severance payment in an
         amount equal to the sum of (x) twenty-four (24) months of the Base
         Salary then in effect and (y) an amount equal to two (2) times any
         incentive compensation earned in the most recently completed fiscal
         year of the Corporation."

         Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment #1, the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as the same was in effect
immediately prior to the effectiveness of this Amendment #1.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation and Executive have executed and
delivered this Amendment #1 to Employment Agreement on the date first above
written.



                                            ABACUS DIRECT CORPORATION

                                            By: /s/ CARLOS E. SALA
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Name:  Carlos E. Sala
                                               Title: CFO


                                            EXECUTIVE

                                               /s/ M. ANTHONY WHITE             
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                   M. Anthony White
# C_2014155EN.01000401.xml

| 23.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 155/04

| 1. | On 16 May 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Carphone Warehouse plc (‘Carphone’, the United Kingdom) and Dixons Retail plc (‘Dixons’, the United Kingdom) enter into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 16 May 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Carphone Warehouse plc (‘Carphone’, the United Kingdom) and Dixons Retail plc (‘Dixons’, the United Kingdom) enter into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
  —   for Carphone: specialist mobile telecommunications retailer,
  —   for Dixons: specialist electrical retailer. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Carphone: specialist mobile telecommunications retailer,

for Carphone

—   for Dixons: specialist electrical retailer.

for Dixons

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7259 — Carphone Warehouse/Dixons, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
#### Edgar Allen, Plaintiff, *v.*Fannie Brice, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 4, 1937.

*182
      *Bernard H. Sandler,*for the plaintiff.

*Julian T. Abeles,*for the defendant.

Lauer, J.

Defendant herein seeks judgment on the pleadings. Paragraph first of the complaint sets forth: “ the defendant engaged the plaintiff to act as her personal representative and manager in connection with certain negotiations for the engagement of the personal services of the defendant as an actress in a theatrical production entitled ‘ Ziegfeld Pollies.’ ” It appears from this language that the plaintiff herein was engaged not as a general manager who might incidentally secure employment for the person he represented, but rather that he was engaged for the specific purpose of obtaining employment for the defendant. It, therefore, is necessary, in order for the plaintiff to succeed, that he set forth his compliance with section 172 of the General Business Law in the complaint, which he has failed to do. The plaintiff has not cured the defect in his complaint by amplifying his duties through his bill of particulars. *(Peterson*v. *Eighmie,*175 App. Div. 113.) The complaint will, therefore, be dismissed, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry thereof and upon payment of ten dollars costs. Settle order.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2014

s0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

148037

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148037

COA: 305063

Muskegon CC: 05

- 052364

- FC

HYROSHA RENOD WILSON

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 24

, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE02901

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
08/11/2012 10:37 FAX 814 447 8747 CAS CS ~002/008



### A division ofcheAmerlc~n ChemicalSocie~ 

# Inventory Expert Service Phone: 800/o3 I- 1884, 614-447-3870

Fax: 614-447-:~747 E-m~il: ~n~wers@~.or~ Web: www.cas.o r~/p re du~/clie nd

2540 O]ent~n~y River Ro~ Re, Box ~4] Columbu% Ohio 43~10.031409 / 11 / 2012 10:37 FA X 814 447 3 747 GAS G S 

### l4l 003/003 

# Inventory Expert 

# Service · A division of the American Chemical Society Phone: 800-631-1884, 

### 614-447**~3870**


### . Fax : 614-447-l747 E-mail: answers@cas.org Web:**www cas** **o~products/clisnt/**

CAS Xf 

### thia box
- is checked, CAS 

### baa made 

### correction(&) marked iu**~a4** 

### to your :rES 

### order. Please make**t~G Jl~e**  

### ao:rrection(s) to 

# yOw: Ptm 

### before auhmitting 

### it 

### to the EPA.

;!540**OJen~ngy** ltlve!' !toad P.O.BOl< 3343 Columbus , Ohio 43210-0334 USA
1

Tong, Stanley

From: Chay Thao <chay.thao@valleyair.org>

Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 1:44 PM

To: Tong, Stanley

Subject: Gas Turbine PM source testing condensible

Attachments: c14.pdf
EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  following  Registration
Statements of Apple Residential  Income Trust, Inc. of our report dated February
4, 1999, with respect to the consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of
Apple Residential  Income Trust, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1998:

 Registration Statement Number                     Description
 -----------------------------                     -----------

          333-64703              Form S-8, pertaining to the Company's 1996
                                   Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan

          333-64701              Form S-8, pertaining to the Company's 1996
                                   Incentive Plan


                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Richmond, Virginia
March 29, 1999
• REF Iri:AS~~'/&J 

o!P~~~~L- ~ -'--- - . J-L~~~ . . 

-~~ 

-~-Lh~~ ~~-~-~ 

~-

pproved for Release by NSA on 11-21-2013 pursuant to E.O. 

13526
#### Town of Geneva vs. Carpenter and others.

*Order dissolving injunction.*

An order dissolving an injunction as against non-residents named as defendants, over whom jurisdiction has not been acquired, and who do not appeal' to have any agents or attorneys in this state, would not injure the plaintiff, and will not he reversed.

APPEAL from the County Court of *Milwaukee*County.

The relief sought in this action was, that certain bonds and coupons issued by the plaintiff town might be adjudged void ; that the defendants *Carpenter*and *Mur-phey*might be ordered to surrender said bonds and coupons to plaintiff to be canceled, and that Lamson and Alward (who are named as defendants), their agents and attorneys, might be enjoined from further prosecuting . certain suits on said coupons, etc. Upon the complaint, an injunctional order was granted, for the purposes above mentioned, not only against *Carpenter*and Murphy, but also against Lamson and Alward. The complaint shows that the last two were not citizens of this state; and the record herein does not show any appearance by them. On motion of the defendant Murphey, plaintiff was required to show cause why the injunctional order should not be vacated; and at the hearing, the court ordered it to be set aside as to Lam-son and Alward, but permitted to stand as to the other defendants. The plaintiff appealed from this order.

Palmer, *Hooker &*Pitkin, for appellant.

*N. 8.*Murphey, *contra*

Cole, J.

The injunction was dissolved in this case only as it respects the defendants Lamson and Alward. They were non-residents, had not appeared in the cause, and in no way submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. What effect the injunction could *277possibly Rave in respect to them, under the circumstances, we are at a loss to discover. The state court never acquired jurisdiction over them, actually or constructively. And it appears to us, that the injunction, so far as they,were concerned, was simply null and void. If this were so, the plaintiff could not be prejudiced by its dissolution in respect to them. It is said that, as they had not appeared in the cause, and no modification of the injunction was asked in their behalf, the court should not have dissolved it so far as it purported to affect them. Probably the court thought that the injunction was. improperly granted in respect to those defendants, and therefore vacated it upon its own motion. But, as the injunction was inoperative and useless as to them, we cannot see what advantage it would be to the plaintiff to have it continued, or how it could be injured by its dissolution. These defendants are non-residents, and it does not appear that they have any agents or attorneys within the territorial limits of the state, upon whom the county court could exercise any control.

*By the Court.*— The order of the county court is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 29, 2014

s0122 

# Order

Clerk January 29, 2014

147700

UAW, UAW LOCAL 6000, MICHIGAN

CORRECTIONS ORGANIZATION SEIU

LOCAL 526, MICHIGAN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

SEIU LOCAL 517M, and MICHIGAN STATE

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AFSCME

LOCAL 5,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 147700

COA: 314781

NINO ERWIN GREEN, EDWARD D.

CALLAGHAN, ROBERT LABRANT,

GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, and ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it i s GRANTED. We direct the

Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of this Court

when it will hear oral argument in Mich Coalition of State Employee Unions v Michigan

(Docket No. 147758).
10Q

**                    IOMEGA      CORPORATION**

| 1. | Grant                of Option. |
|----|---------------------------------|

** ____________ **
** **
** **
** **

----

----

| 4. | Exercise                of Option. |
|----|------------------------------------|

** **

| 5. | Withholding. |
|----|--------------|

----

----

----
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                           Certification Pursuant To
                               18 U.S.C. SS. 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant To
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Famous Dave's of
America, Inc. does hereby certify that:

     a)   the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Famous Dave's of America, Inc. for
          the year ended December 28, 2003 (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 Famous
          Dave's of America, Inc.

Dated: March 29, 2004                   /s/ David Goronkin
                                        David Goronkin
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 29, 2004                   /s/ Diana Garvis Purcel
                                        Diana Garvis Purcel
                                        Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                        and Secretary
Exhibit 32.1





(a) Certification of Annual Report by Chief Executive Officer.





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 GraphOn Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Dilworth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Robert Dilworth________


Robert Dilworth




Chief Executive Officer




March 31, 2010












(b) Certification of Annual Report by Chief Financial Officer.







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 GraphOn Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Swain, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ William Swain________


William Swain




Chief Financial Officer




March 31, 2010
# C_2015218EN.01000301.xml

| 3.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 July 2015

(2015/C 218/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1066 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,82 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4604 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71030 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3480 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0507 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7950 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,265 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,85 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1927 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4766 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9925 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4573 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3963 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5778 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6597 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4963 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 245,07 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,6706 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8659 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5975 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 752,20 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1777 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 49,987 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 61,6618 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,420 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4850 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,5086 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,2829 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1066

JPY

Japanese yen

136,82

DKK

Danish krone

7,4604

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71030

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3480

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0507

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7950

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,265

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,85

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1927

RON

Romanian leu

4,4766

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9925

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4573

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3963

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5778

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6597

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4963

KRW

South Korean won

1 245,07

ZAR

South African rand

13,6706

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8659

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5975

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 752,20

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1777

PHP

Philippine peso

49,987

RUB

Russian rouble

61,6618

THB

Thai baht

37,420

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4850

MXN

Mexican peso

17,5086

INR

Indian rupee

70,2829

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Blossom vs. *Ludington,*imp.

*Appealable order.*

An order requiring a party to an action to submit to an examination as a witness for the opposite party, being a substitute for a bill of discovery, is a provisional remedy, and is appealable. Tay. Stats., 16S5, § 11.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Milwaukee*County.

*Carpenter &*Murphey, for plaintiff and respondent.

*Mariner <&*Smith, *contra.*

*284Lyoít, J.

The appeal herein is from an order of the circuit court requiring tbe appellant to submit to an examination as a witness. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, for the alleged reason that such order is not appealable.

In *Noonan v. Orton and*another, 28 Wis., 386, we held that an order requiring a party to give the adverse party an inspection and copies of certain papers and documents in the possession of the former, was a provisional remedy, and therefore ap-pealable. The reasoning which impelled us to that conclusion need not be repeated here. It is sufficient to say that it is equally applicable to the order from which the appeal in this action was taken; and the decision in that case is conclusive of the question presented by this motion, and decides it against the respondent. It must be held, therefore, that an order made pursuant to the statute (Tay. Stats., 1602, § 80), requiring a party to be examined as a witness, at the instance of the adverse party, is a provisional remedy in that it is a substitute for and performs the functions of a bill of discovery, and gives affirmative relief, when the exigencies - of the ■ case demand it, “ outside of and beyond those ordinary proceedings which relate merely to matters of practice and procedure, or which rest entirely in the discretion of the court.” An order which grants a provisional remedy is appealable. Tay. Stats., 1635, § 11.

*By the*Court.— The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
# C_2014431EN.01000203.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/2

---

Decisions adopted by the Court in its General Meeting on 14 October 2014

(2014/C 431/04)

At its General Meeting on 14 October 2014, the Court decided to assign Mr Lycourgos to the Second and Seventh Chambers.

Consequently, the composition of the Second and Seventh Chambers is as set out below.

Second Chamber

Ms Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber,

Mr Bonichot, Mr Arabadjiev, Mr Da Cruz Vilaça and Mr Lycourgos, Judges.

Seventh Chamber

Mr Bonichot, President of the Chamber,

Mr Arabadjiev, Mr Da Cruz Vilaça and Mr Lycourgos, Judges.

---