alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.21 - ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Addendum (the "Addendum") is made effective as of the 12th  day of
December,  2001 and is intended  to amend a certain  Employment  Agreement  (the
"Agreement")  by and  between  Erie  Indemnity  Company  and Jan R.  Van  Gorder
effective as of December 16, 1997.

         WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is in the  best interest of
the Company  and its  Shareholders  to secure the  continued  employment  of the
Executive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS,  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Company  has   previously
considered  and agreed to extend  the term of the  Agreement  from its  original
term; and

         WHEREAS,  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Company at its meeting of
December  11, 2001 has again  agreed to extend the term of the  Agreement  for a
period of one (1) additional year as contained herein; and

         WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree
         as follows:

          1.  Paragraph 1 of the  Agreement  with  respect to the Term is hereby
          amended by extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2003.

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



ATTEST:                                 ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY


/s/  Stephen A. Milne                   By: /s/  F. William Hirt
     Stephen A. Milne                            F. William Hirt
     President & CEO                             Chairman of the Board


WITNESS:

/s/  Sheila M. Hirsch                       /s/  Jan R. Van Gorder
     Sheila M. Hirsch                            Jan R. Van Gorder
     Executive Secretary                         6796 Manchester Beach Road
                                                 Fairview, PA   16415


                                       36
No. 10-241.

#### Nathan A. Chapman, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1134, 131 S. Ct. 900,

178 L. Ed. 2d 747,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 344.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 593 F.3d 365.
No. 09-11190.

#### Charles Edward Owens, Petitioner v. Georgia.

562 U.S. 866, 131 S. Ct. 156,

178 L. Ed. 2d 93,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6512.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.

Same case below, 286 Ga. 821, 693 S.E.2d 490.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of R.H. Donnelley
Corporation; and
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report.
 Date: April 30, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Steven M. BlondySteven M. BlondyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
1999 Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.05 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 HOLOGIC, INC. 
 1999 AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 The following amendments to the Hologic, Inc. (the “Corporation”) 1999 Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) were approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in December 2003, subject to the
approval of the stockholders of the Corporation, which approval was obtained on March 1, 2004 at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Corporation held on such date: 
  
 1. Section 7, Paragraph (b) is amended by deleting the paragraph its entirety and replacing it with the following:

  
 “(b) Each Eligible Director serving as a Director on
March 1, 2004 shall automatically be granted a Nonqualified Option to acquire 8,000 shares of Common Stock on March 1, 2004, and each Eligible Director who has served as a Director for six months shall automatically be granted a Nonqualified Option
to acquire 8,000 shares of Common Stock on January 1 of each year thereafter, beginning with January 1, 2005, the option price for which shall be the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock on such date and the expiration of which shall be the tenth
anniversary thereof.” 
  
 2. Section 5, Paragraph (a) is
amended by adding the following new sentence to the end of such Paragraph: 
  
 “Subject to adjustment under subsection (b), the maximum aggregate number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock for which grants may be made to any employee during any fiscal year shall be 500,000
shares.” 
  
 Amendments effective as of March 1, 2004.
No. 10-6768.

#### Charles Michael Lau, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1071, 131 S. Ct. 663,

178 L. Ed. 2d 495,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9338.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.

Same case below, 38 So. 3d 153.
No. 10-7190.

#### Willie Lee Jefferson, Petitioner v. Gregory Smith, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1147, 131 S. Ct. 924,

178 L. Ed. 2d 770,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 587.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 643.
WILLIE FRED BAUCHAM

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 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. 1D 14-3503

Opinion filed December 18, 2014.

Amended Petition for Writ of Prohibition

-- Original Jurisdiction.

Willie Fred Baucham, pro se

, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee

, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied.

LEWIS, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2013108EN.01003602.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/36

---

Action brought on 19 February 2013 — Ludwig Schokolade v OHIM — Immergut (TrinkFix)

(Case T-105/13)

2013/C 108/86

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: S. Fischer and A. Brodkorb, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Immergut GmbH & Co. KG (Elsdorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2012 in Case R 34/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2012 in Case R 34/2012-1;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings before it. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings before it.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TrinkFix’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9 045 634

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Immergut GmbH & Co. KG

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word mark ‘Drinkfit’ for goods in Classes 29 and 32

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-6063.

#### Johnny I. Prather, Petitioner v. William F. Lee, Jr., Chief Judge, Superior Court of Georgia, Coweta County.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 854,

178 L. Ed. 2d 584,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9623.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

*585Former decision, 562 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 514, 178 L. Ed. 2d 380, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8556.
No. 10-6918.

#### DeLauren Gordon, Petitioner v. Gerald Hofbauer, Warden.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 667,

178 L. Ed. 2d 497,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9320.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,146
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                       536
<INVENTORY>                                     22,624
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,350
<PP&E>                                          42,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,817
<BONDS>                                            374
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           381
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,736
<SALES>                                        129,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,206
<CGS>                                          104,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    135
<INCOME-TAX>                                        59
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,356
<DISCONTINUED>                                     251
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,607
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.78
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2009, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 /S/ KEITH S. WALTERSKeith S. WaltersChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer May 11, 2009 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
No. 10-5548.

#### Vicente Flores-Cruz, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 928, 131 S. Ct. 316,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7343.

178 L. Ed. 2d 206,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

*207Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 393.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Section 1350 Certification of**

**the Chief Executive Officer**

I, James R. Bazet, the chief executive officer of CobraElectronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cobra ElectronicsCorporation and its subsidiaries.
# C_2014031EN.01001003.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/10

---

Action brought on 1 October 2013 — Société européenne des chaux et liants v ECHA

(Case T-540/13)

2014/C 31/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Société européenne des chaux et liants (Bourgoin-Jallieu, France) (represented by: J. Dezarnaud, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Uphold the applicant’s request to be fully relieved of the fine of which it has been notified. |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the applicant’s request to be fully relieved of the fine of which it has been notified.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant requests that it be relieved of the administrative charge imposed by Decision SME (2013) 1665 of the ECHA which found that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions for eligibility for the reduced fee envisaged for small-sized enterprises, in the light of its corrective declaration submitted after the initiation by the ECHA of the verification procedure relating to the size of the undertaking.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a certain number of pleas in law:

| — | the fact that the sanction adopted is disproportionate to the error which can be imputed to it; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fact that the sanction adopted is disproportionate to the error which can be imputed to it;

| — | the fact that it corrected its declaration when first requested by the ECHA; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fact that it corrected its declaration when first requested by the ECHA;

| — | the fact that it can be excused for misinterpreting an extremely technical document drafted in a language other than its own; |
| --- | --- |

—

the fact that it can be excused for misinterpreting an extremely technical document drafted in a language other than its own;

| — | the illogical nature of an automatic sanction. |
| --- | --- |

—

the illogical nature of an automatic sanction.

---
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search

		Submit


Project Connect








Case Studies						Print
																Related Pages
					Because Project Connect is a scalable, adaptable intervention, it has been implemented in different ways across the country. Read about how these communities adapted and implemented Project Connect and what they learned throughout the process.
Los Angeles

Detroit
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  April 1, 2020						Source: 	Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeProject Connect
Implementation Guideplus icon
Overview, Challenge, and Core Components
The Road Map – Key Action Steps
Sustainability, Lessons Learned, and Conclusion
Case Studiesminus icon
Detroit
Los Angeles
Tools


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
No. 10-6523.

#### Otis Fairley, Petitioner v. Steve W. Puckett.

562 U.S. 1033, 131 S. Ct. 575,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8786.

178 L. Ed. 2d 420,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32





Section 1350 Certifications





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Shearson American REIT, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:





To my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated: August 22, 2013

/s/ John WilliamsJohn WilliamsChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)







Dated: August 22, 2013

/s/ John WilliamsJohn WilliamsChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1717

CHARLES H. BOONE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CA-99-192)

Submitted: September 20, 2000 Decided: October 11, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles H. Boone, Appellant Pro Se. S. Douglas Murray, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John Francis

Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles H. Boone appeals from the district court’s order

granting the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary

judgment and affirming the denial of social security disability

insurance benefits. We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Boone v. Apfel, No. CA-99-192

(W.D. Va. May 23, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              99
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      956
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         74
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,577
<PP&E>                                           6,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,118
<BONDS>                                          2,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,101
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,061
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,677
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    250
<INCOME-TAX>                                        96
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                135
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.37<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.32<F3>
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR
ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
<F2>REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE.
<F3>RESTATED TO REFLECT THE COMPANY'S ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE."
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### -80 -79 -78 -77 -76

37 38 39 

## ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/15 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■

■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●