alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10(o)






Exhibit 10(o)




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 is entered into as of this 22nd day of January, 2009 by and
between REGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and WILLIAM L. STAKELIN
(“Employee”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of December
28, 2007 (“Employment Agreement”), whereby the Company agreed to employ the Employee, and the
Employee agreed to serve, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company; and



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth
herein;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which the parties hereby
acknowledge, the parties agree as follows:



     1. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall
have the same meaning as set forth in the Employment Agreement.



     2. Change of Control Definition. The parties hereby agree that the definition of
“Change of Control” set forth in the third full paragraph, first sentence of Section 2.6(c) of the
Employment Agreement is hereby amended to remove the clause at the end of such sentence beginning
with the phrase “it being understood and agreed ...” and to replace such phrase in its entirety
with the following new phrase:




“it being understood and agreed that a “sale of all or substantially all” of the Company’s
assets shall be deemed to have occurred if at any time after the date hereof through the 24
month anniversary of the date of termination of Employee’s employment with the Company, one
or more transactions occur in which assets of the Company are sold, transferred or otherwise
disposed of to one or more persons and such sold, transferred or disposed assets in the
aggregate provided more than 50% of the station operating income generated by the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2008.”



     3. Continuing Agreement. Except for the changes set forth in this Amendment No.1,
the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect without modification.



     4. Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts by the Company
and Employee.



[Signatures follow on next page]














 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the date set forth
above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:



REGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John H. Wyant
 	 
	 	 	John H. Wyant, Chairman of the Compensation  	 
	 	 	Committee of the Board of Directors 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:

 	 
	 	/s/ William L. Stakelin
 	 
	 	William L. Stakelin 	 
	 	 	 
	 




2
Otis James WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4019

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.14





Exhibit 10.14





November 3, 2008



CONFIDENTIAL




Mr. William R. Thistle

c/o Psychemedics Corporation

125 Nagog Park, Suite 200

Acton, MA 01720



Dear Bill:



This letter sets forth an amendment to the letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) between
you and Psychemedics Corporation (the “Company”) dated March 28, 2005. The Letter Agreement is
hereby amended by adding after paragraph 13 thereof the following paragraph 14:




	 	14.	 	Section 409A.






(a) Anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, if at the time of your
separation from service within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, and the regulations thereunder (the “Code”), following a Change in Control
as defined in paragraph 13(b) above, you are a “specified employee” within the meaning of
Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code, then to the extent any payment or benefit that you
become entitled to under this Agreement would be considered deferred compensation subject to
the twenty percent (20%) additional tax imposed pursuant to Section 409A(a) of the Code as a
result of the application of Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code, such payment shall not be
payable and such benefit shall not be provided until the date that is the earlier of (i) six
(6) months and one (1) day after your separation from service, or (ii) your death.



 


 









 





Mr. William R. Thistle

November 3, 2008

Page 2





(b) This Agreement is intended to be in compliance with the provisions of Section 409A
of the Code. To the extent that any provision of this Agreement is ambiguous as to its
compliance with Section 409A of the Code, the provision




shall be read in such a manner so that all payments hereunder comply with said Section.
The parties agree that this Agreement may be amended, as reasonably requested by either
party, and as may be necessary to fully comply with Section 409A of the Code and all related
rules and regulations in order to preserve the payments and benefits provided hereunder
without additional cost to either party.




(c) Solely for the purposes of Section 409A of the Code, each installment payment of
Termination Pay shall be considered a separate payment.




(d) The Company makes no representation or warranty and shall have no liability to you
or any other person if any provisions of this Agreement are determined to constitute
deferred compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code but do not satisfy an exemption
from, or the conditions of, said Section.



If this letter correctly sets forth our understanding and agreement concerning the proposed
amendment, please indicate your acceptance by signing both copies of this letter and returning one
copy. The Letter Agreement shall then be amended as set forth above but shall otherwise remain in
full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,


PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	                                                    /s/ Raymond C. Kubacki, Jr.
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




Agreed to: November 3, 2008



/s/ William R. Thistle 
William R. Thistle
EX PARTE Tracy H. BESSELAAR

CR-16-0191

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 25, 2017 Reh. denied February 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Montgomery Cir. Ct. Reh. denied.
IN the INTEREST OF L.J.M., M.M., and D.M., children.

M.W., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-3836

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 2 

FEB 2 8 2011 

Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo 

Governor of the State ofNew York 

State Capitol 

Albany, NY 12224 

Dear Governor Cuomo: 

290 BROADWAY 

NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866 

On June 3, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the healthbased National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (S02) by establishing 

a new !-hour standard at a level of75 parts per billion (ppb). This new !-hour standard will 

protect public health by reducing people's exposure to high short-term (5-minutes to 24-hours) 

concentrations ofS02• An area meets the new standard when the 3-year average of the 99th 

percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb. 

Section 107(d)(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) describes the process EPA follows for 

designating areas as meeting or not meeting a new or revised NAAQS. Within one year of 

establishing a new or revised standard, each governor must recommend a designation of 

attainment, nonattaimnent or unclassifiable, with appropriate boundaries, for areas within their 

jurisdiction. Therefore, we ask that your state provide designation recommendations, including 

appropriate area boundaries, for all areas by June 3, 2011, with respect to the 1-hour so2 

NAAQS. 

The enclosed memorandum provides guidance to state and local air pollution control 

agencies and tribes on the timeline and process for designating areas under the revised so2 

standard. We plan to announce our intended designations no later than 120 days prior to 

promulgating final designations. Following the announcement of intended designations, states 

and tribes will have the opportunity to comment on any modifications EPA proposes to their 

recommendations. EPA intends to complete designations by no later than June 3, 2012. 

Establishing area designations is a key step in the process of providing the health 

protection intended by the CAA. Should you have questions regarding this matter, please do not 

hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact Raymond Werner, Chief Air Programs Branch, 

at 212-637-3706. 

Sincerely, 

'al'fi-1 9f. It""'~ udith A. Enck 

Regional Administrator 

lntemet Address (URL) • ht!p://www.epa.gov 

R..:yclediFI..:yc .. blt> •Printed will Vegetab!IJ 01 Sued Inks on ReeyciB<I Paper~ 30% Postconsumef) 
Enclosure 

Cc: Joe Martens, Acting Commissioner 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mike L. Kovar, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Fossil, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Fossil, Inc.



|                   |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Mike L. Kovar                                              
|                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Mike L. Kovar                                                  
|                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11
              Statement Regarding Computation of Earnings Per Share

                 DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Year Ended December 31
                                                   1996               1995               1994
<S>                                           <C>                <C>                <C>
Primary:
Weighted average common shares
     outstanding                                10,522,213          8,026,359          7,815,808
Assumed conversion of preferred
     shares to common shares                             *                  *            746,590
Net effect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants - based on the
     treasury stock method using the
     average market price                                *                  *          1,685,917
                                              ------------       ------------       ------------

Totals                                          10,522,213          8,026,359         10,248,315
                                              ============       ============       ============

Net (loss) income                             $(25,640,507)      $ (1,113,687)      $  9,550,867
                                              ============       ============       ============

Per share amount                              $      (2.44)      $      (0.14)      $       0.93
                                              ============       ============       ============

Fully diluted:
Weighted average common shares
     outstanding                                10,522,213          8,026,359          7,815,808
Assumed conversion of preferred
     shares to common shares                             *                  *            746,590




Net effect of dilutive stock options
     based on the treasury stock method
     using the year-end market price, if
     higher than average market price                    *                  *          1,947,297
                                              ------------       ------------       ------------


Totals                                          10,522,213          8,026,359         10,509,695
                                              ============       ============       ============

Net (loss) income                             $(25,640,507)      $ (1,113,687)      $  9,550,867
                                              ============       ============       ============

Per share amount                              $      (2.44)      $      (0.14)      $       0.91
                                              ============       ============       ============


<FN>
*  Conversion of stock options and preferred shares not assumed in the
   computations because their effect is antidilutive.
</TABLE>
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 07/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
No. 07-17-00075-CR

Christopher Ryan Peek

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§

From the 31st District Court 

 of Wheeler County

August 1, 2017

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated August 1, 2017, it is ordered, 

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that 

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
Exhibit 32.1

                                  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 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q of Immtech  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Eric L. Sorkin,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 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, as amended; 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/ Eric L. Sorkin
                                  ---------------------------------------
                                  Eric L. Sorkin
                                  President & Chief Executive Officer
                                  November 9, 2006
!   ! 

"#$

%%%%%%%%%%!#"%%%%%%%%%%

























	


	
 	



	


	
	

& 
	


		


'$(")*+


,$
)+"##	"$+*$)++#	)-#)+"+

#$)#)*+.#""##/+"$))#()0)

	


1

#2-+#	$/""'#$$)/#)#
"

$0)#"	1#)#
$'##(#	)$/""#/""3#+.

'$)))##&

"+"#/).4)*(+)"'(#)*+"#$#")))$/


5"+#'##'$$#




!&

 !

$# !# " $

 	



	 
 
  
  

 



	 
 
 

  !"# ! $ ! $%& 	 	


'(( )$)* ! ! '+,,

$%$$%%$* +(','


 -& ./

 0& 
  0& )

+11+ & 
 2& !& '''

 * +134(

1:18-cv-58

1/29/18
	

	1*

	




	

	



	
		
	



$"#
"

#!


'#	)(+ 

 


/#+#	)$$)	) $


 

 6#

"$$)	)3#)#/"()'$


./#"(*))#'$#)$#.

 

 .))/+$)	)37'))#6#

#	)$
"
 .'$

)*)(+'/#	"/#($""%


 

 6#

##)$8)( 6#

$# 	 $!
&




9+"#: "##	): "##	."#": 


)#)#/+"/#4#+$$"##


!&

"		





"	

		

))"##*#)*/)#	.&

,&,,
STATE EX REL. Isaac Jerome KING v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0174

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF RAPIDES**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator's application filed in the district court in or around September 2015 was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

GENOVESE, J., recused.
Cedric M. BUCKLON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2960

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 17, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from  this
statement of operations  dated June 30,1998 and is qualified in this entirety by
reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                            0000882362
<NAME>                                    Paracelsian, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1
<CURRENCY>                                              USD
       
<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                              137,857
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        15,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                         171,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    592,288
<PP&E>                                              288,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                       47,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,712,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               345,394
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            148,710
<OTHER-SE>                                        1,367,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,712,448
<SALES>                                              52,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     52,310
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,468,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,373,794)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1,373,794)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### Richard Maina KIHARA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1142

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 18, 2017

Decided: September 6, 2017

John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Madeline Henley, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Maina Kihara, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Kihara’s claims, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2017); *Mosere v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Kihara*(B.I.A. Jan. 4, 2017). 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.

*PETITION DENIED*