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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.28

                                 SECOND ADDENDUM


         This Second Addendum amends that certain Employment Agreement dated
September 2, 1996 by and between MICHAEL BARRIST and NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS,
INC., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Agreement"),as amended effective January
1, 1999 and this Addendum shall be effective as of July 1, 2003 (the "Effective
Date").

         For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.       "The Term of the Agreement shall be extended for a period of three (3)
         years, terminating on June 30, 2006, subject to any early termination
         provisions set forth in the Agreement."

2.       Paragraph B of Exhibit "A" of the Agreement is amended by deleting the
         text of such paragraph in its entirety and replacing it with the
         following:

         Annual Bonus: In addition to the Base Salary, so long as Employee
         satisfies the duties and obligations of his employment, including
         meeting individual annual goals and objectives and Company's overall
         performance, Employee shall be entitled to receive an Annual Bonus
         determined in a fair and equitable method consistent among similarly
         situated executive officers of the Company. Employee's Annual Bonus
         shall be in an amount up to one hundred percent (100%) of the Base
         Salary. The bonus shall be paid out of a bonus pool of funds
         established by the Company's compensation committee based on the
         Company's economic performance and other extenuating circumstances, if
         any, together with input from the Board of Directors of the Company.
         The bonus pool shall be calculated as follows:


          Results/Plan               Incentive as a Percent of Target
          ------------               --------------------------------
                                                     0
          Less than 90%
          90%                                       20%
          91% to 100%                   +8% for each point above 90
          100%                                     100%
          100% to 120%              +5% for each point from 100 to 120
          120% and above                           200%



<PAGE>


3.       In the event any term or condition of this Addendum is inconsistent
         with any term or condition of the Agreement, the terms of this Addendum
         will control. Except as stated above, all the terms and conditions of
         the Agreement, including all restrictions and covenants, shall remain
         in full force and effect and are incorporated herein by reference as
         though set forth at length.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum to become
effective on the Effective Date.

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.


By:____________________________            __________________________________
                                           Michael Barrist
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 00 732

- CV

Style: Marina Presley

v

. N.V. Masureel Veredeling

Date motion s filed * : September 9 , 2015

Type of motion s : Motion to e nlarge the period for payment of the clerk’s record

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion s are :

 Granted in part and dismissed in part

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

The clerk’s record was filed with this Court on September 10

, 2015. Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s motion

to enlarge the period for payment of the clerk’s record as moot.

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: October 6, 2015
Abatement Order filed November 29, 2016

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00810-CV

____________

DONALD GRETHER, PAUL A. HEINIG, REBECCA ANN, INC. AND 

PLANTATION HEALTH CARE, INC., Appellants

V.

SUNSET NURSING HOME, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 72817

ABATEMENT ORDER

Notice was filed on November 23, 2016, that appellant Paul A. Heinig is in 

bankruptcy. Tex. R. App. P. 8.1. According to the notice, on November 23, 2016,

appellant Heinig petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy protection in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas under case number 16-80379. 

A bankruptcy suspends the appeal from the date when the bankruptcy petition is 
2

filed until the appellate court reinstates the appeal in accordance with federal law. 

Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal abated.

When a case has been suspended by a bankruptcy filing, a party may move 

the appellate court to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the 

bankruptcy court. Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. If the bankruptcy court has lifted or terminated 

the stay, a certified copy of the order must be attached to the motion. Id. A party 

filing a motion to reinstate shall specify what further action, if any, is required from 

this court when the appeal is reinstated. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a).

For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, the 

appeal is abated and treated as a closed case until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50125 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERNEST FRANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CR-240(1)

- - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ernest Franklin appeals his sentences for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and aiding and abetting in its distribution. Franklin contends that the disparity between crack and powder cocaine guideline sentences violates equal protection and due process. This court has consistently rejected the argument that the disparity in sentencing with respect to cocaine powder and cocaine base constitutes a violation of equalNo. 96-50125 -2- protection, due process, or the Eighth Amendment. See e.g. , United States v. Wilson , 77 F.3d 105, 112 (5th Cir. 1996). We find that Franklin's appeal is frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
# C_2014258EN.01002901.xml

| 8.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/29

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7083 — John Wood Group/Siemens/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 258/03)

On 24 April 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7083. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7083. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
**Exhibit
      13.1**




**CARTHEW
      BAY TECHNOLOGIES INC.**




**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 Carthew Bay Technologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Michael Liik, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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/
                Michael LiikMichael
                LiikPresident
                and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember
                18, 2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.

# SUMMARY:

Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in New York, NY.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held April 15, 2015.

# ADDRESSES:

The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John P. O'Dea, 290 Broadway, New York, NY, 10007. Telephone (212) 298-2132 (not a toll free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007. The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103. A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the Government in Sunshine Act and that the meeting will not be open to the public.

Kirsten B. Wielobob,

Chief, Appeals.

[FR Doc. 2015-07451 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
From: Bob Smith [mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:34 PM

To: Brian Coffey

Cc: Michael Rivest; 'Christopher Bolduc'; Matthew Na rdotti; 'John Cymbalsky'; 'Richard Parker'; 'Wes
Patterson'; 'Rob Greeson'; 'Eric Petersen' Subject: RE: MVDT Scaling



### Brian:

Rob is on vacation until next T hursday, 12/29/11; so I am reporti ng his findings for the Federal Pacific 25 KV- 125 KV BIL, th ree phase designs.

The best optimized MVDT Ventilated design at this level, that Rob could obtain, had losses that were 18% (not 10%) above the “equivalent ” 95 KV BIL design. The 10% was mentioned hurriedly as an estimate in one of our last MVDT meetings in Washington. Before we adopt the “increase of 10% in losses” rule for 125 KV BIL, I would like to see at least one of our other manufacturing members either c onfirm or correct Rob’s findings. Rob did not investigate the 35 KV, 150 KV BIL; but it would onl y be much, much higher than 10%: and if mandated @ 10% above 95 KV BIL, it probably would not be buildable as a MVDT Ventilated Design.

Regards,

Bob Smith, PE Product Manager

Federal Pacific 601 Old Airport Road Bristol, VA 24201

TEL: (276) 645-8836

FAX: (276) 645-8956
CELL: (276) 591-6143

Email: bsmith@federalpacific.com

The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain informa tion that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable la w. If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing, or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and completely delete the original message from your system.From: Brian Coffey [ mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com ]

Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:28 PM

To: John Cymbalsky; Richard Parker; Wes Patterson ; Rob Greeson; Bob Smith; Eric Petersen

Cc: Michael Rivest; Christopher Bolduc; Matthew Nardotti Subject: MVDT Scaling



### Team,

I’ve attached a draft write-up of the last Friday’s MVDT scali ng discussion, as I’ve remembered

it. Once we have reviewed and edited this draf t, we can distribute to the committee at-large. Have I omitted any email addresses from the call?

Best,

Brian

This communication is from Navigant Consulting Inc. E-mail text or attachments may contain information which is confidential and may also be privileged. Th is communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this communica tion in error, please return it with the title

"received in error" to NCISecurity@navigant.com , and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. In addition, this communication is subject to, and incorporates by reference, additional disclaimers found in Navigant Consulting's "Email Disclaimer" section at www.Navigant.com

.

Navigant Consulting, Inc. Company Registration Number: UK Ltd. 3641719 Registered in Delaware, USA Registered Office Address: 30 South Wacker Drive, Suit e 3400, Chicago, Illinois 60606
EDWARD BOOKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5850

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Terry P. Lewis, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Tayo Popoola, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00210-CV

COMM TRADE USA, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND 

O/B/O THE PARTNERSHIP AMONG COMM TRADE 

USA, INC., KEVIN S. HOOT AND KSH SERVICES, 

LLC, AND TIM DEARING,

Appellant

v.

KEVIN S. HOOT, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

KSH SERVICES, LLC,

Appellees

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-003124-CV-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Comm Trade USA, Inc., individually and on behalf of the Partnership 

among Comm Trade USA, Inc., Kevin S. Hoot and KSH Services, LLC, and Tim Dearing 

have filed an “Agreed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Settlement.” See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). It states that Appellant and Appellees have settled this litigation and have 
Comm Trade USA, Inc. v. Hoot Page 2

agreed to this motion. Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking 

relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is 

dismissed.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 7, 2016

[CV06]
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.10
 
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints George L. Lippe and Robert E. Sulentic the true and lawful
attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him
and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998, and to sign any or all amendments to such
Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorney or attorneys-in-fact, each of them with or without the
others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their
substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
                                       /s/ William P. Leiser
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           William P. Leiser
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LEROY ERVIN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D16-3088

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 9, 2016

Petition for Belated Appeal

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Leroy Ervin, Malone, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General 

Tallahassee, and, Kaylee Tatman

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed

with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the October 14, 2015,

judgment and sentence in Case No. 15-CF-461, in the Circuit Court in and for Seminole 

County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER, WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.44
 [ * ] denotes confidential information omitted and filed separately with the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
  MEMORANDUM
      Bonus Calculation
 Net Sales is
    
    
    
    Bonus Percentage is[      *      ]
    
    
    
    
    0
    %If
    
    [      *      ]
    
    then
    
    
    20
    %[      *      ]
    
    
    
    
    30
    %[      *      ]
    
    
    
    
    40
    %
        
 [ * ]
    
    denotes confidential information omitted and filed separately with the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




---



##### 



Payment of Bonus
 Eligibility
 (i)
    
    are not actively employed by the Company on the date of payment of the bonus;(ii)
    
    have given to or received from the Company notice of termination of your employment;(iii)
    
    are on garden leave;(iv)
    
    have been continuously absent from the office for more than four (4) weeks on sick
leave; or(v)
    
    are on unpaid leave of more than two (2) weeks with the Companys agreement.
 Entire Agreement
   Accepted and agreed:
    
    /s/ Martin Spiess

Martin SpiessDated:
    
    4/23/07
 
 [ * ]
    
    denotes confidential information omitted and filed separately with the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment under Rule 24b-2 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7092

HERMAN WHITE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:16-cv-00159-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman White, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Herman White seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his challenge to his state conviction for failing to 

complete and file the standardized forms directed by court 

order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because 

the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

June 8, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on August 12, 

2016. Because White failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED