alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO SEPARATION AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO SEPARATION AGREEMENT
(“Amendment”) is entered into this 28th day of February 2013 by and between Keith W. F. Bradley (“Associate”) and Ingram Micro Inc., a Delaware corporation (“IMI”), 

R E C I T A L S 
  

	A.	The Associate and IMI entered into that certain December 18, 2012 Separation Agreement (“Agreement”). 


 

	B.	The Associate and IMI now wish to amend the terms and conditions of the Agreement pursuant to the terms and condition of this Amendment. 


NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Paragraph 1 (Resignation of Officer Position and Subsequent Termination of Employment). 


Paragraph 1(a) shall be modified as follows: 
 The Separation Date, defined in Paragraph 1(a), line 4, as “March 1, 2013,” shall be changed to “March 6, 2013.” 

 

	2.	All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties shall have executed this Agreement as of the date(s) set forth below. 
  

							
		 		 		 	“Associate”
				
	Date: 2/28/2013 	 		 		 	 /s/ Keith W. F. Bradley

		 		 		 	Keith W. F. Bradley
				
		 		 		 	Address:
		 		 		 	Telephone:
				
		 		 		 	 INGRAM MICRO INC.
 a
Delaware Corporation

				
	Date: 4/17/2013 	 		 		 	 /s/ Larry C. Boyd

		 		 		 	Larry C. Boyd
		 		 		 	EVP, Secretary & General Counsel
##### 



Exhibit 13.2

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 on
Form 20-F of Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero)
PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia, Tbk. (the Company)
for the yearly period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Guntur Siregar, Director of Finance
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of 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
    results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Guntur Siregar




Name: Guntur Siregar


Title:   Director of Finance


Date:  February 9, 2004
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00465-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.M., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-00828

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant Roselynn Salazar Ojeda filed a notice of appeal on April 27, 2023. The Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure require a party to state the date of the judgment or order appealed 

from in the notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(2). Appellant’s notice of appeal does not state 

any date of the judgment or order from which she wishes to appeal or otherwise identify any 

judgment or order whatsoever. The clerk’s record shows her parental rights were terminated on 

March 23, 2022. Assuming appellant seeks to appeal that order, the notice of appeal was due April 

12, 2022, TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b), or a motion for an extension of time was due April 27, 2022. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant’s April 27, 2023 notice of appeal is therefore untimely. Because 

the notice of appeal is untimely, we ordered Appellant to show cause by May 26, 2023 why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We 
04-23-00465-CV

- 2 -

admonished Appellant that if she failed to show cause or respond as ordered, this appeal would be 

dismissed without further notice. See id.

Appellant has not filed a response. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

THEODORE WILLIAMSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3263

[April 4, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara Anne 

McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 93-6765CF10A.

Theodore Williamson, Jasper, pro se.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale 

Surber, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23



                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-34642) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Advanced Lighting
Technologies, Inc. 1995 Incentive Award Plan, in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-22159 ) pertaining to the Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-61222) pertaining to the Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc. 2001 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-45689 and
333-69641) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Advanced Lighting
Technologies, Inc. 1998 Incentive Award Plan, in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-45695) pertaining to the Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc.
1997 Billion Dollar Market Capitalization Incentive Award Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-58613) pertaining to the Company's
securities and securities of ADLT Trust I and in the Registration Statement
(Form S-4 No. 333-58621) pertaining to the Company's securities of our report
dated September 7, 2001, except for Note R, as to which the date is September
20, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Advanced
Lighting Technologies, Inc. as of June 30, 2001 and 2000, and for each of the
three years in the period ended June 30, 2001, included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2001.


                                                     /s/ Grant Thornton LLP



Cleveland, Ohio
September 7, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE VOLCANO CORPORATION §

STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION § No. 372, 2016

§

MELVIN LAX, MELISSA GORDON

, and § Court Below: Court of

MOHAMMED MU N AWAR, § Chancery of the State of

§ Delaware

Plaintiffs Below §

A ppellants, § C.A. No. 10485

- VCM

§

v. §

§

GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., KIERAN T. §

GALLAHUE, LESLEY H. HOWE, R. SCOTT §

HUENNEKENS, SIDDHARTHA KADIA, §

ALEXIS V. LUKIANOV, RONALD A. §

MATRICARIA, LESLIE V. NORWA LK, §

DANIEL J. WOLTERMAN, and VOLCANO §

CORPORATION

, §

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellees. §

Submitted: February 8 , 2017

Decided: February 9 , 2017

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ , Justices.

O R D E R

This 9th day of February 2017, it appears to the Court that the judgment of

the Court of Chancery should be affirmed for the reasons stated in its decision

dated June 30, 2016

. 1

1 In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litig. , 143 A.3d 727 (Del. Ch. 2016).2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery is he reby AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
**Exhibit 31.1**

***Certificate of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002***

 

I, Bjorn D. Jawerth, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of Summus, Inc. (USA) (“Summus”);

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present, in all materialrespects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Summus as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.

4.                Summus’ other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Summus and have:

a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to Summus, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;

b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of Summus’ disclosure control’s andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.  Disclosed in this report anychange in Summus’ internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Summus’ most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Summus’ internal control over financialreporting; and

5.                Summus’ other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Summus’auditors and the audit committee of Summus’ board of directors:

a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are  reasonably likely to adversely affect Summus’ ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in Summus’ internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:     August13, 2003

/s/ Bjorn D. JawerthBjorn D. Jawerth, Chairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Postal Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RM2015-2; Order No. 2425]

# AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

A technical meeting has been scheduled in Docket No. RM2015-2. The technical meeting will review modifications to Proposal Nine and their impact on the supporting financial workpapers.

# DATES:

April 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The technical meeting will be held in the Commission's hearing room at 901 New York Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A technical meeting will be held in this docket on Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), in the Commission's main conference room. The purpose of this meeting is to allow Commission staff to review                           ( print page 19371)                        modifications to Proposal Nine and their impact on supporting financial workpapers with United States Postal Service personnel.[1] 

The technical meeting is open to interested persons.

*It is ordered:*

1. A technical meeting is scheduled on April 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. EDT, in the Commission's main conference room to address Postal Service-initiated modifications to Proposal Nine and their impact on supporting financial workpapers.

                    2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

By the Commission.

Ruth Ann Abrams,

Acting Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             See Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-19 of Chairman's Information Request No. 3, February 23, 2015, question 1, where the Postal Service,                         *inter alia,*                         states: However, upon review generated by the need to respond to this question, the Postal Service would like to modify the proposal . . ..                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2015-08216 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Malacology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Vivek
R. Rao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Vivek R. Rao
-------------------------
Vivek R. Rao
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-18485,
333-18487, 333-18493, 333-29467, 333-33185, 333-36469, 333-90777, 333-90779, 333-90781 and
333-36586) of Covance Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2001, except for Notes 6 and 14 as to which the date is February 14, 2001, relating to the financial statements which
appear in this Form 10-K.

| | /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
| | ------------------------------
| | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP    
| | Florham Park, New Jersey      
| | March 12, 2001                

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32

                            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 Quarterly Report of Siteworks Building &
Development, Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Carl Nurse as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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.

                            By /s/ Carl Nurse
                               -------------------------------------------------
                            Carl Nurse
                            Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer

November 2, 2006
Han: Robert S. Calvert OPINION NO. WW 390 

Comptroller of Public Accounts 

Capitol Station Re: 

Austin, Texas 

If an applicant (an authorized licensed dealer) for 

lnltlal. reglstratlon of a 

motor vehicle In his or its 

own name truthfully affirms 

on oath that he purchased 

the vehicle "for the exalusive purpose of resale and 

not for use other than to 

demonstrate same to prospective purchasers thereof In 

an effort to effeot the resale thereof," would either 

of the taxes 

l(8) and Sec. 

lm osed by Sec. 

2 7 a) of Artlcle 

Dear Mr. Calvert: 7047k, VACS, be due? 

You request the opinion 

lng question: 

of this office on the follow- 

"If an applicant (an authorized licensed dealer) 

for Initial registration of a motor vehicle In his 

or Its own name truthfully affirms on oath that he 

purchased the vehicle 'for the exclusive purpose 

of resale and not for use other than to demonstrate 

same to prospective purchasers thereof In an effort 

to effect the resale thereof,' would either of the 

taxes Imposed by Sec. 1 (a) and Sec. 2(a) of Article 

7O&'k, VACS, be due?" 

question specifically applicable 

request the oplnlon we have lnthe word applicant "an authorized 

In order to make your 

to the facts upon which you 

serted In parenthesis after 

licensed dealer". 

Under the facts submitted by you, we hold that neither 

the sales tax nor use tax imposed by Sections 1 and 2 I%- 

. spectlvely of Article 7047k, Vernon's Civil Statutes, would 

be due on the demonstration cars of authorized licensed 

dealers until such cars are sold. Whether a sales or use 

tax would then accrue would depend upon the facts. 
Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 2, Opinion No. WW 390 

We do not pass upon the right, method and form 

of registration of such cara, by such auth6rlzed licensed 

dealers, as this question Is not before us. 

S U,M M A R.Y 

Demonstration cars of authorized licensed 

motor vehicle dealers are'not subject to 

either the sales tax or use tax Imposed 

by Sections l.and 2 tispectlvely of 

Article 7047k, V.C.S. until such cars 

are eold. 

We do not pas8 upon the right, method and 

form of registration of such cars, by such 

authorized licensed dealers, as this question 

Is not berore us. 

Yours very truly 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of,Texas 

,... 

LPL/fb 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Qeorge P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Ho&don Brownlee, Jr. 

Cecil C. Rotsch 

F. C. (Jack) Goodman 

REVIEWED FORTHEATTORNEY OENERAL 

By: W. V. GEPPERT
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7692

PAUL NAGY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HARLEY LAPPIN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-98-779-5-H)

No. 98-7693

In Re: PAUL NAGY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (98-779-5-H)

Submitted: March 23, 1999 Decided: June 15, 1999
2

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

No. 98-7692 affirmed and No. 98-7693 dismissed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Paul Nagy, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The district court refers in its opinion to Nagy’s pending

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) action challenging the forced

administration of medication. Because the Defendant in that case

is a federal, rather than a state, actor it is actually a Bivens

action that is pending in the district court. See Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971).

3

PER CURIAM:

In No. 98-7692, Paul Nagy appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Nagy v. Lapin, No. CA-98-779-5-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7,

1998).* In No. 98-7693, Nagy petitions this court for a writ of

mandamus directing the district court to act on his § 2241 petition. In light of the district court’s final order denying the

§ 2241 petition, we dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. We deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for oral argument, and deny as moot the motion to expedite. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

No. 98-7692 - AFFIRMED

No. 98-7693 - DISMISSED