alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-2.htm









Exhibit 10.2







As of January 27, 2012







Mr. Nicholas D. Trbovich, Jr.


28 Tanglewood Drive, West


Orchard Park, NY 14127







Dear Mr. Nicholas D. Trbovich, Jr.:







You and Servotronics, Inc. (the “Company”) are parties to an Amended Employment Agreement, dated July 1, 2005 and ratified on June 30, 2006 pursuant to which you are employed by the Company.  This letter confirms such Amended Employment Agreement and subsequent ratification and subsequent Amendments dated August 4, 2006, July 6, 2007, July 9, 2008, December 31, 2008, July 2, 2009, February 22, 2010, July 2, 2010, July 22, 2010, April 3, 2011, August 12, 2011 and any and all other relevant amendments (the “Amended Agreement”).







This letter will also confirm your agreement and that of the Company by action of the Board of Directors on January 27, 2012 to Amend Paragraph 1 of the Amended Agreement to delete “December 31, 2017” and insert in its place “December 31, 2018” subject to your acceptance which will be indicated by your signature below.







If the foregoing meets with your approval and you are willing to become bound hereby, will you please sign and return to the undersigned the enclosed copy of this letter.







Very truly yours,







SERVOTRONICS, INC.







Bernadine E. Kucinski,


Assistant Corporate Secretary.


 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED


 



	
/s/Nicholas D. Trbovich, Jr.

	 	 	
As of January 27, 2012

	 
	
Nicholas D. Trbovich, Jr.

	 	 	
Date
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1054
ZARA ELLIS SADLER, PhD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARBARA CLAIRE TILLEY, PhD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:05-cv-03234-DCN) Submitted: March 29, 2006 Decided: April 11, 2006 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zara Ellis Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Zara Ellis Sadler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (2000), and denying her motion to amend her complaint. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the district court should have permitted Sadler to amend her complaint as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) because no responsive pleading had been filed. Thus, even though Sadler sought leave to amend, she actually did not need to do so. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1068 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993); Smith v. Blackledge , 451 F.2d 1201, 1202-03 (4th Cir. 1971). We therefore vacate the district court’s order dismissing Sadler’s action and denying Sadler’s motion to amend her complaint, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00217-CV

IN RE HARI B. ANCHA

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d). Real-partyin-interest’s motion for sanctions is denied.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed August 15, 2013

[OT06]
Supreme Court of Kentucky

2023-SC-0167-T

DAVID ARMSTRONG, ET AL MOVANTS 

V. 

ON MOTION TO TRANSFER

COURT OF APPEALS NO. 2023-CA-0409

CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT NO. 22-CI-00457

CAMPBELL COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL 

PLANNING AND ZONING 

COMMISSION AND ITS MEMBERS, ET 

AL

RESPONDENTS 

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

The Motion to Transfer filed by David Armstrong, Jenelle Armstrong, 

Christina and Pete Neises, Kathleen Vickers, Michael Metzger, Anna Zinkhon 

Margaret Coomer, Sandy Snell, Noel Roberts, Terese and Henry Meeks, Michael 

Heringer, and Margaret Heringer is DENIED.

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: August 24, 2023.

__ _____________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.01

                SCHEDULE II -- VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

                 YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003, 2002, AND 2001
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                             BALANCE AT    CHARGED TO                   WRITE-OFFS   BALANCE
                                             BEGINNING     COSTS AND                      NET OF      AT END
                                              OF YEAR       EXPENSES     OTHER          RECOVERIES   OF YEAR
                                            ------------   ----------   --------        ----------   --------
<S>                                         <C>            <C>          <C>             <C>          <C>
ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS
  2003...................................     $ 10,698      $  2,248    $     --         $ 7,569     $  5,377
  2002...................................       24,225         5,115          --          18,642       10,698
  2001...................................        4,477        29,990       3,913(1)       14,155       24,225
VALUATION ALLOWANCE FOR DEFERRED TAX
  ASSETS
  2003...................................     $348,793      $ 73,510    $     --         $    --     $422,303
  2002...................................      323,619       (28,137)     53,311(1)(2)        --      348,793
  2001...................................       74,611       294,944     (45,936)(1)(2)       --      323,619
</Table>

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

(1) Balances acquired from acquisitions.

(2) Balances will be credited to equity upon reduction of valuation allowances.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6345 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the work opportunity 

tax credit with respect to hiring veterans who are receiving educational 

assistance under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

or Defense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Ms. LEE of Nevada (for herself and Mrs. STEEL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

the work opportunity tax credit with respect to hiring 

veterans who are receiving educational assistance under 

laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

or Defense. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hire Student Veterans 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6345 IH

1 SEC. 2. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR HIRING VET2 ERANS RECEIVING EDUCATIONAL ASSIST3 ANCE UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE 

4 SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OR DE5 FENSE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 51(d)(3)(A) of the Inter7 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ 

8 at the end of clause (iii), by striking the period at the 

9 end of clause (iv) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by adding at 

10 the end the following new clause: 

11 ‘‘(v) attending an educational institu12 tion by means of educational assistance 

13 provided under chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, or 

14 34 of title 38, United States Code, or 

15 chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, United 

16 States Code.’’. 

17 (b) MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM EMPLOYMENT PE18 RIOD.—Section 51(i)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 

19 of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘(other than a qualified 

20 veteran described in subsection (d)(3)(A)(v))’’ after ‘‘In 

21 the case of an individual’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to individuals who begin work for 

24 the employer after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,593
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,548
<INVENTORY>                                     40,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,243
<PP&E>                                          41,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,507
<BONDS>                                        151,957
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     49,505
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                    (26,332)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,645
<SALES>                                         40,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,918
<CGS>                                           27,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,819
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,813)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,366 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,447)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,887
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,560)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30042

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEN A BARDELL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-218-1

Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ken A. Bardell appeals his sentence of 57 months of imprisonment

imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He argues that the

district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight. Bardell contends that his

conduct, throwing a loaded gun behind a bar where people were standing, did

not warrant the enhancement.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30042

2

We review the district court’s determination that a defendant’s conduct

constituted reckless endangerment under § 3C1.2 for clear error. See United

States v. Lugman, 130 F.3d 113, 115-16 (5th Cir. 1997). Section 3C1.2 provides

for a two-level increase in a defendant’s offense level if he “recklessly created a

substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course

of fleeing from a law enforcement officer.” Reckless refers to a situation in which

the defendant “was aware of the risk created by his conduct and the risk was of

such a nature and degree that to disregard that risk constituted a gross

deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in

such a situation.” § 2A1.4, comment. (n.1) (cross-referenced in § 3C1.2, comment.

(n.2).).

The applicability of § 3C1.2 is not limited “to situations resulting in actual

harm or manifesting extremely dangerous conduct by a defendant.” United

States v. Jimenez, 323 F. 3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2003); see also United States v.

Villanueva, 69 F. App’x 657 (5th Cir. 2003) (finding that a two-level

enhancement under § 3C1.2 was proper where the defendant threw a bag

containing methamphetamine onto a public sidewalk while fleeing from police

because anyone, including a child, could have picked up the methamphetamine

and ingested it). Bardell has not shown that the district court’s imposition of the

§ 3C1.2 enhancement was clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED.
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00097

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.W. AND B.D., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 196th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 78,887

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Chelsea Mosley

, appellant, has filed a motion seeking to dismiss her appeal. Pursuant to

Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

We dismiss this appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: October 1 6 , 2013

Date Decided: October 1 7 , 2013
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of M~Wave,
      Inc.
      for the three months ended June 30, 2007, I, Jim Mayer, Interim Chief Executive
      Officer of M~Wave, Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
      such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
      months ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of M~Wave, Inc.











Dated:  August
                14, 2007
            /s/  Jim
                MayerJim
                MayerInterim
                Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

Cl·iEMICAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION 

Memorandum 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

TO: 

FROM: 

THRU: 

November 6, 2014 

Transmission of Additional Background Materials for the December 2 through 5, 2014 

Session of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) Entitled "Integrated Bioactivity and 

Exposure Ranking: A Computational Approach for the Prioritization and Screening of 

Chemicals in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program" 

Fred Jenkins, Ph.D. 

Designated Federal Official 

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel 

Office of Science Coordination and Policy 

Steven M. Knott, Director 

Exposure Assessment Coordination and Policy Division 

Office of Science Coordination and Policy 

David Dix, Ph.D., Director 

Office of Science Coordination and Policy 

Transmitted with this memo is a second copy of the white paper Appendix 5: Uterotrophic Study Design 

Radar Plots for the December 2 through 5, 2014 session of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) 

reviewing the topic: "Integrated Bioactivity and Exposure Ranking: A Computational Approach for the 

Prioritization and Screening of Chemicals in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program." This 

document does not contain any new information, but is presented in an alternative format that improves 

readability and clarity. Further, the document does not contain any information protected by copyright, 

protected under statute as Confidential Business Information (CBI) or protected from disclosure to foreign 

and multi-national pesticide producers under FIFRA Section 1 O(g). The attached document$ include the 

following: 

Document Title Date 

Appendix 5: Uterotrophic Study Design Radar Plots.doc November 6, 20 14
Exhibit
32.2




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 of MDU Communications International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2009 (the “Report”),
I, Carmen Ragusa, Jr., Vice President of Finance of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results
of operations of the Company.




/s/  CARMEN
      RAGUSA, JR.Carmen
      Ragusa, Jr.Vice
      President of FinanceMDU
      Communications International, Inc.December
      29, 2009Totowa,
      New Jersey





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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, James R. Lavelle, 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, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 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 Cotelligent, Inc.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ James R. Lavelle                             
|                      |  |     |  | James R. Lavelle                                 
|                      |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



23
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 1792** 

PAUL COLLINS YONGO ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
THE HONORABLE JOHN MCHUGH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Financial Management Service; J. HORNE, in his official capacity as a military pay technician; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Defendants

- Appellees ,
and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; THE HONORABLE ROBERT GATES; DEFENSE ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL SER VICES,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:10

- cv
- 00220

- F )

Submitted : September 24, 2013 Decided: October 1, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Paul Collins Yongo, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Ca rolina

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Paul Collins Yongo appeals the district court ’s order
dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Yongo v. McHugh , No.

5:10

- cv
- 00220

- F (E.D.N.C. May 23, 2013). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before th is court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Noah R. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Francisco LARA, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex-Beaumont, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-40760 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 22, 2017

Noah R. Robinson, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Noah R. Robinson, federal prisoner # 99857-024, is serving a life sentence for various offenses related to his role in a drug trafficking, racketeering, and murder-for-hire conspiracy, and he now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Relying on *Descamps v. United States,*— U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), and *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), he argues that he received illegal sentences. Robinson filed two motions in addition to his brief: a motion for leave to file exhibits and a motion for leave to file a supplemen*202tal brief. We review the district court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2005).

Generally a federal prisoner must seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if he wishes to challenge his conviction or sentence. *Id.*at 426. However, he may raise claims in a § 2241 petition where the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective and thus the claims fall within the savings clause of § 2255(e). *Id.*He must establish that his claims (1) are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (2) were foreclosed by circuit law at the time of his trial, direct appeal, or first § 2255 motion. *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). To meet the first prong, he must show “that based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision, he was convicted for conduct that did not constitute a crime.” *Jeffers v. Chandler,*253 F.3d 827, 831 (5th Cir. 2001).

Robinson does not argue that he was convicted of now-nonexistent offenses. Instead, he asserts that his sentences were illegal. However, a challenge to the legality of a sentence does not fall within the savings clause. *See Padilla,*416 F.3d at 426-27. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Robinson’s petition is affirmed, and his motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and a motion for leave to file exhibits are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ferdinand Baumgart, Appellant, against William Hunt, as Warden of Attica State Prison, Respondent.

Submitted April 12, 1943;

decided April 22, 1943.

*Ferdinand Baumgart,*in person, for motion.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Emil L. Cohen*of counsel), opposed.

Motion denied on the ground that the order is not one from which an appeal lies as of right or from which leave to appeal can be granted.