alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 20, 1996


Acrodyne Communications, Inc.
516 Township Line Road
Blue Bell, Pa.  19422

This letter supersedes our letter agreement of January 1996.

Gentlemen:

You have agreed that Colin Winthrop & Co., Inc. ("Colin Winthrop") may act as
financial consultant to Acrodyne communications, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
("Acrodyne") in connection with corporate finance transactions and other
financial service matters.  Colin Winthrop hereby agrees to make such time
available to the business of the Acrodyne as Acrodyne may reasonably request,
and to promote the best interests of Acrodyne without jeopardizing any
fiduciary duties owed to any of its other clients.

This agreement shall be effective on august 20, 1996 and shall expire on
November 19, 1996, subject to renewal as set forth below.  As full
compensation for all services rendered to Acrodyne pursuant to this agreement
during the period from August 20, 1996 until November 19, 1996, Acrodyne will
issue to Colin Winthrop warrants to purchase up to one hundred forty thousand
(140,000) shares of Acrodyne's common stock, par value $.01 per share,
exercisable at $4.50 per share on substantially the terms set forth in the
form of warrants previously given to us and Acrodyne will pay to Colin Winthrop
the sum of $58,400.00 upon the execution of this agreement.

Colin Winthrop agrees not to disclose to any third party any confidential plans
or other business information which is furnished by Acrodyne to Colin Winthrop.
This agreement has been executed and delivered in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and shall be governed by the laws of such state.  This agreement
shall be binding upon and enforceable against, the successors and permitted
assigns of each of the undersigned.  This agreement may not be assigned by a
party hereto without the prior written consent of the other party.

Colin Winthrop agrees that Acrodyne may renew this consulting agreement for no
more than two successive three month periods after the expiration of the
initial term, in Acrodyne's sole discretion, and that during each renewal term,
if any, the consideration to be paid by Acrodyne to Colin Winthrop during such
period shall be an amount of warrants as shall be mutually acceptable to Colin
Winthrop and Acrodyne:  provided however, that Acrodyne will not issue more
than an aggregate of 140,000 warrants @ $4.50 (including those issued during
the initial term hereof).  In addition, if Acrodyne dies renew the agreement,
Acrodyne agrees to pay Colin Winthrop the sum of $25,000.00 upon each of the
two potential renewal periods, so that the maximum amount paid if the two
renewal periods, so that the maximum amount if the two renewal periods are
renewed by Acrodyne is $50,000.00.

Please sign this letter at the place indicated below, whereupon it will
constitute our mutually binding agreement with respect to the matters
contained herein.

Very truly yours,

Colin Winthrop & Co., Inc.



By:_________________________
   Jack Skidell
   President


Agreed to and accepted
this 20th day of August, 1996:

Acrodyne Communications, Inc.


By: ________________________
A. Robert Mancuso
   President & CEO
Unassociated Document


     

    AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED MAY 29, 2007 

    BETWEEN AMERICAN MEDICAL ALERT CORP. AND FREDERIC
SIEGEL

     

    The
parties hereto hereby enter into this Amendment to the original Employment
Agreement dated May 29, 2007 whereby:

    


    1.
Section 4 (c) (iii) deleted from the Agreement and replaced with the
following:

    


    (iii) one
of the following number of shares based on the year-over-year growth of the
Company’s EBIT on a consolidated basis for each of the fiscal years ending
December 31, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. However, if within any year there is a
non-operational write-up or write-down which impacts the results of operations,
the effect of such non-operational write-up or write-down will be excluded when
calculating the EBIT year over year growth in the following year (i.e. If the
Company had EBIT of $3,000,000 for 2007, which includes a non-operational
write-down of $500,000, the following year growth would be based off $3,500,000
($3,000,000 of EBIT plus the addback of the $500,000 for the non-operational
expense).

     

    3,000
shares, if EBIT grows by 15% or more but less than 17.5%; 4,000 shares, if EBIT
grows by 17.5% or more but less then 20%; 5,250 shares, if EBIT grows by 20% or
more but less than 22.5%; 6,500 shares, if EBIT grows by 22.5% or more but less
than 25%; or 8,500 shares, if EBIT grows by 25% or more.

    


    Except as
hereinabove set forth, the terms and provisions of the aforementioned Employment
Agreement executed by and between the parties shall remain in full force and
effect.

    


    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused the Amendment to the Employment
Agreement to be executed on March 30, 2009.

    


    
      
        	 	EMPLOYEE:	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Frederic Siegel	 
	 	 	Frederic Siegel	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 


      

    

    
      
        	 	      
                COMPANY:

                 

                AMERICAN
      MEDICAL ALERT CORP

              	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Richard
      Rallo	 
	 	 	Richard
      Rallo
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASIDNGTON, DC
Michael Pelzer and Pegasus Parachuting Services Complainant, 

### v. FAA Docket No. 16
- 16
- 05 The State of Michigan Respondent.
NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, Section 16.ll(a), the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to May 19,2017. An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Directo , Office of Airport Compliance

and anagement Analysis 

# 3-J ?

- 17 Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 17 , 2017 , I FedX a true copy ofthe Notice of Exten s ion o fTime to May 19 , 2017, for FAA Docket 16- 1 6-05 addressed to: Counsel for Complai nants Richard J. Durden Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 27987 Richmond Hill Road Conifer, CO 80433 Res pondent Mike Trout Executive Administrator, Office of Aeronautics Mi chigan Department ofT ransportation 2700 Port Lansing Road Lans ing , MI 48906 Copy to : FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance Divis io n (AC0
- 100) FAA Regional AGL

**'--"' ~'IY•""•'·vtl**  rts Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis
#### Smith *v.*State.

Opinion delivered April 14, 1930.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Robert F. Smith,*Assistant, for appellee.

McIíaney, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of selling liquor, and sentenced to one year in the penitentiary. No brief has been filed in her behalf. The first three assignments of error in the motion for a new trial challenge the sufficiency of the évidence. We have read all the evidence given as abstracted 'by the Attorney General’s Assistant, and find it ample to support the verdict. It appears that two indictments, one in August and one in November, were returned against appellant, both charging the crime of selling liquor, and that appellant objected to a trial on the November indictment. The court required the State to elect, and it elected to try on the August indictment, so she is in no position to com*593plain. She also moved for a continuance, because certain of her witnesses for whom attachments were issued could not be had. The motion did not comply with the requirements of the statute, § 1270, C. & M. Digest, and the court was therefore justified in overruling the motion.

Another assignment is that the court erred in permitting the State’s witness, Gover, deputy sheriff, to testify that he had information that appellant had liquor at her home, and found a small quantity by a search; also similar testimony given by the sheriff. We think the testimony was competent as tending to show the nature of the business in which appellant was engaged. *Herren*v. *State,*169 Ark. 636; *Lynn*v. *State,*169 Ark. 880.

The last assignment relates to certain instructions, which we find unobjectionable. We do not set them out and comment on them separately, as it could serve no useful purpose. The court fully and fairly instructed the jury, and the evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature: Project No.: 0172 .09.005.412 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: 304m 2012 Annual Review 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECOR D

Incoming

Outgoing Date: 0 1/25 /1 2 Time: 8: 50 am

pm

Company Name: Iowa Department of Natural Resources ERG Staff Name: Elizabeth Sabol

Contact Name: Adam Schieders, Wendy Heeb Contact Phone Number: ( 515)281

- 7409

General Subject: Meat and Poultry Facility Discharges



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I contacted Adam Schieders of the Iowa DEP on January 25, 2012 and was unable to leave a message. I called

the following days:

January 30, 2012

– left a message;

February 3, 2012; and

February 7, 2012

– left a message.

Mr. Schieders retur ned my call on February 7, 2012 and left a message asking me to return his call with the

facility name and NPDES ID. I was able to leave the requested message on February 13, 2012.

On February 13, 2012, I was able to contact Wendy Heeb (515

- 281

- 7804) who stated that the facility is a

complex sl aughter house, with no nitrate/nitrogen permit limi tations. Ms. Weeb stated that the facility permit is

old and has not been renewed because the class of the receiving water is still being determined. Because of the

ELGs, the new permit will have a total n itrogen limitation.
Franklin Lee JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4649

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
exv10w31






Exhibit 10.31




LICENSING AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT




     This Amendment (the “Amendment”), dated as of March 16, 2009, is entered into by and between
Immersive Media Company (“Licensor”) and T3 Motion, Inc. (the “Licensee”). The Licensor and the
Licensee may collectively or singularly be referred to hereafter as the “Parties” or the “Party.”



Recitals




     WHEREAS, the Licensor and the Licensee entered into that certain GeoImmersiveTM Image Data &
Software Licensing Agreement on March 31, 2008 with an effective date of May 8, 2008 (“Original
Licensing Agreement”).



     WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend certain of the terms of the Original Licensing Agreement
as set forth in this Amendment.



Agreement




     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants set forth herein, and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:




	1.	 	The definition of “Initial Term” shall mean the period that ends on the two (2) year
anniversary of the date that post-production data of South Korea is approved in writing by
both Parties for a product launch.






	2.	 	Section 11.3 of the Original Licensing Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in
its entirety as follows:
	 
	 	 	“Either party may notify the other party that the term of this Agreement will not be
automatically extended at the end of the Initial Term or Renewal Period but will terminate
at the end of such period by delivering an unconditional written notice to the
non-terminating party not more than 90 days and less than 60 days before the end of such
period stating that the terminating party is irrevocably electing to not renew the term of
this Agreement.”





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	IMMERSIVE MEDIA CORPORATION

	 	 	 	T3 MOTION, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

By: David Anderson

	 	 	 	 

By: Ki Nam
	 	 
	Its: Chief Financial Officer

	 	 	 	Its: Chief Executive Officer
PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, Appellant, v. Barbara REYNOLDS, Brigham Reed Clark, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-706

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 11.1
                        Litchfield Financial Corporation
                         Computation of Earnings Per Share

                                       Three months ended    Six months ended
                                     --------------------- ---------------------
                                             June 30,            June 30,
                                     --------------------- ---------------------
                                        1997       1996       1997       1996
                                     ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

    Net income.......................$1,880,000 $1,564,000 $3,025,000 $2,362,000
                                     ========== ========== ========== ==========

    Net income per common share......$      .32 $      .27 $      .52 $      .41
                                     ========== ========== ========== ==========

    Weighted average number of  
        common shares outstanding.....5,560,167  5,442,768  5,503,423  5,439,459
    Weighted average number of common
       stock equivalents outstanding:
       Stock options..................  357,744    265,423    357,757    259,407
                                      ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------

    Fully-diluted weighted average 
        common and common equivalent 
        shares outstanding (1)........5,917,911  5,708,191  5,861,180  5,698,866
                                      =========  =========  =========  =========



    ----------------------
    (1)  Primary  weighted  average  number  of common  stock  equivalents  were
      5,888,994  and  5,840,526 for the three and six months ended June 30, 1997
      and  5,708,160  and  5,672,999 for the three and six months ended June 30,
      1996. The difference  between primary and fully diluted shares outstanding
      did not have a material effect on the calculation of earnings per share.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,338
<SECURITIES>                                    63,763
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,875
<PP&E>                                          18,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,214
<BONDS>                                         15,589
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,257
<OTHER-SE>                                    (153,998)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,260
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (14,207)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,934)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,934)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,934)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.27)
        


</TABLE>
Michael MOORE and Maxine Moore, Appellants, v. Sivakumar RAMAN, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-886

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lawrence David CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2516

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Paul Erickson vs. Civil Service Commission & others.1

No. 97-P-1397.

January 21, 1999.

*Police,*Authority of police chief. *Municipal Corporations,*Police, Selectmen, Regulations, Property. ■

1

The Board of Selectmen of East Longmeadow.

In April, 1992, the selectmen of East Longmeadow (selectmen) directed the chief of police (chief) of the town, who was appointed pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 97, the so-called “weak chief” statute, to deploy new cruisers to patrol officers. The chief had previously promulgated a vehicle maintenance policy which provided that the newest vehicle would be assigned to himself. Each side claimed vehicle longevity as the basis for its position, with the selectmen also advancing the issue of officer safety. When a new cruiser was delivered to the police department in July, 1992, the chief assigned the vehicle to himself. Following discussions, both sides held firm. The selectmen imposed a one-day suspension on the chief, without pay, for failure to obey a lawful order. The chief appealed to the Civil Service Commission (commission), *907which upheld the suspension. He then appealed to the Superior Court, where a judge annulled the decision and remanded with an order to vacate the suspension. The selectmen appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court.

*Wendy H. Sibbison*for Board of Selectmen of East Longmeadow.

*Austin M. Joyce*for the plaintiff.

General Laws c. 41, § 97, provides, in relevant part, as follows: “The selectmen may make suitable regulations governing the police department and the officers thereof. The chief of police shall be in immediate control of all town property used by the department, and of the police officers, who shall obey his orders.” In *Chief of Police of Westford*v. *Westford,*365 Mass. 526 (1974), the court recognized that general control of the police department in towns accepting the provisions of G. L. c. 41, § 97, rests with the selectmen. In that case, the court upheld the authority of the selectmen to set the scheduling and assignments of police officers through the process of collective bargaining, provided such regulation “maintain[s] some minimum level of generality ... [to avoid] . . . conflict with the statute’s reservation of ‘immediate control’ to the chief of police.” *Id.*at 531-532. The statute makes no distinction between the property and the personnel of a police department in its allocation of authority between the selectmen and the chief, but expressly treats them similarly. We see no basis, therefore, to view the authority of the selectmen under § 97 to regulate the use of department property differently from their authority to regulate the officers.

The selectmen’s directive as to the deployment of new cruisers is sufficiently general as to fall within their policy making authority, leaving the day-to-day management of the department to the chief. The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed. A new judgment is to enter affirming the decision of the commission.

*So ordered.*
Antonio BALDINO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FIJI AT the OASIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s)

CASE NO.: 3D17-0955

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02328]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Delegation of Authority

    Notice is hereby given that the Director, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC), has delegated to the Chief Operating 
Officer, CDC, without the authority to redelegate, the authority vested 
in the Secretary of HHS by section 212(1) of the Department of Defense 
and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 
2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (FY 19 HHS Appropriations 
Act) Public Law 115-245, division B, title II, or substantially similar 
authorities vested in the Secretary in the future by Congress, in order 
to carry out international health activities.
    Section 212(1) of the FY19 HHS Appropriations Act permits the 
Secretary of HHS to exercise authority equivalent to that available to 
the Secretary of State under 22 U.S.C 2669(c) to award personal 
services contracts for work performed in foreign countries. The 
authority delegated herein includes the authority to determine the 
necessity of negotiating, executing, and performing such contracts 
without regard to statutory provisions as related to the negotiation, 
making, and performance of contracts and performance of work in the 
United States.
    The authority under section 212(1) is immediately revoked in the 
event that any subsequent fiscal year HHS appropriations act does not 
contain the provision currently in section 212(1) or substantially 
similar authority.
    The Chief Operating Officer, CDC, shall consult with the Secretary 
of State and relevant Chief of Mission to ensure that this authority is 
exercised in a manner consistent with section 207 of the Foreign 
Service Act of 1980 and other applicable statutes administered by the 
Department of State.
    This delegation supersedes the delegation of similar name, approved 
by the Director, CDC, on March 17, 2020.
    This delegation became effective on January 31, 2022. The Director, 
CDC, affirms and ratifies any actions taken that involve the exercise 
of the authority delegated herein prior to the effective date of this 
delegation.

Sherri A. Berger,
Chief of Staff, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-02328 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P