alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First amendment dated December 17, 2010 to Consulting Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.6 

 

 

 CONSULTING AGREEMENT 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 This First Amendment, to the Consulting Agreement (the
“First Amendment”), is made effective as of the latter date of execution by both parties (the “Amendment Effective Date”) and is entered into by and between Vical Incorporated (“Vical”), a Delaware Corporation, having a
place of business at 10390 Pacific Center Court, San Diego, CA 92121-4340 and Gary A. Lyons (the “Consultant”), an individual having a principal address of 1344 Stratford Court, Del Mar, CA 92014. 

Whereas, Vical and Consultant entered into a Consulting Agreement (the “Agreement”), effective August 1, 2010; 

Whereas, the Vical and Consultant wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term for six (6) months, that is until June 30,
2011. 
 Now, therefore, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

 Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby amended to be replaced in its entirety as follows: 

 

	 Term: 
	This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2011, unless renewed in a writing signed by both parties for an additional six (6) months. Either party shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement at any time with thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other party. 

 Except as
amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. 
 In witness whereof, the parties have executed this First Amendment to the Consulting Agreement as of the last day indicated below. 

 

							
	 VICAL INCORPORATED
	 	Gary A. Lyons
				
	 By:
	  	 /s/    JILL M.
BROADFOOT        
	 	 By:
	  	 /s/    GARY A.
LYONS        

	 Name:
	  	Jill M. Broadfoot	 	 Name:
	  	Gary A. Lyons
	 Title:
	  	Senior Vice President & CFO	 	 Date:
	  	12/17/2010
	 Date:
	  	12/17/2010
exv10w115






Exhibit 10.115




Select Medical Corporation

4714 Gettysburg Road

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055




March 8, 2011



Mr. Scott A. Romberger

Select Medical Corporation

4714 Gettysburg Road

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055



RE: Fourth Amendment to the Agreement in the Event of a Change of Control of SMC



Dear Mr. Romberger:




     The following confirms our desire to amend the letter agreement, dated as of March 1, 2000
between you and Select Medical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), as amended on
February 23, 2001, February 24, 2005 and December 18, 2008 (the “Letter Agreement”).



     In consideration of your past and continued service to the Company and the mutual covenants
and agreements contained in this fourth amendment to the Letter Agreement (the “Amendment”), the
Company and you hereby agree, intending to be legally bound, as follows:


1. Section 3(a)(iii) of the Letter Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to
read as follows and all references to Section 3(a)(iii) in the Letter Agreement are hereby deleted:




     “(iii) Intentionally Omitted.”


2. Section 5(d) of the Letter Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as
follows:





“(d) As a condition to payment of any amount required under Section 1 hereof, you
shall deliver to the Company a general release of liability of the Company and its
officers and directors in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Company, such that
such release is effective, with all revocation periods having expired unexercised,
by no later than the (i) 60th day after such termination, in the event
of a Post-Change of Control Termination and (ii) first business day of the seventh
month following such termination, in the event of a Pre-Change of Control
Termination.”


3. Section 5(g) of the Letter Agreement is hereby amended to add the following to the end thereof:





“This Agreement is intended to comply with Code Section 409A (to the extent
applicable) and the parties hereto agree to interpret, apply and administer this
Agreement in the least restrictive manner necessary to comply therewith and
without resulting in any increase in the amounts owed hereunder by the Company.”



 








 




4. Except as amended hereby, the Letter Agreement shall continue in effect in accordance with its
terms.




     Please indicate your acceptance of the above Amendment by signing below in the space
indicated.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	Very Truly Yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a 

Delaware Corporation	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Michael E. Tarvin
 

Name: Michael E. Tarvin
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: Executive Vice President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Scott A. Romberger	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Scott A. Romberger
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5313

AN ACT

To reserve a small percentage of the amounts made available 

to the Secretary of Agriculture for the farmland protection program to fund challenge grants to encourage the 

purchase of conservation easements and other interests 

in land to be held by a State agency, county, or other 

eligible entity, and for other purposes.
2

•HR 5313 EH

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 ‘‘Open Space and Farm5 land Preservation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL TITLE-HOLDING OPTION UNDER 

7 FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

8 (a) ADDITIONAL TITLE-HOLDING OPTION; RESERVA9 TION OF FUNDS.—Section 1238I of the Farm Security 

10 Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838i) is amended by adding at 

11 the end the following new subsection: 

12 ‘‘(d) OPTION FOR TITLE TO BE HELD BY ELIGIBLE

13 ENTITY.—

14 ‘‘(1) RESERVATION OF FUNDS; PURPOSE.—Of 

15 the funds made available under section 1241(a)(4) 

16 for a fiscal year to carry out this section, the Sec17 retary shall reserve not less than 15 percent to make 

18 grants to support cooperative efforts by an eligible 

19 State agency, a county, and one or more other eligi20 ble entities to purchase conservation easements and 

21 other interests in eligible land under subsection (a), 

22 the title to which will be held by an eligible entity 

23 rather than the United States. 

24 ‘‘(2) COST SHARING.—Notwithstanding sub25 section (c)(1), the share of the cost of purchasing a 
3

•HR 5313 EH

1 conservation easement or other interest in eligible 

2 land borne by the United States under this sub3 section shall not exceed 25 percent. The State agen4 cy involved in the purchase shall contribute 25 per5 cent of the purchase price, the county involved in the 

6 purchase shall contribute 25 percent of the purchase 

7 price, and the other eligible entities involved in the 

8 purchase shall contribute 25 percent of the purchase 

9 price. 

10 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITION ON USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—

11 Federal funds made available under this subsection 

12 may not be used by grant recipients for administra13 tive purposes.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2006. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 

2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5313

AN ACT

To reserve a small percentage of the amounts made 

ty, and for other purposes.by a State agency, county, or other eligible entieasements and other interests in land to be held grants to encourage the purchase of conservation farmland protection program to fund challenge available to the Secretary of Agriculture for the
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Meeting of the Plant Operations and Fire Protection Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations & Fire Protection will hold a meeting on March 31, 2009, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room T2-B3.

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: March 31, 2009-8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

The Subcommittee will discuss the Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Tennessee Valley Authority, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.

                    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Maitri Banerjee (telephone 301-415-6973) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 6, 2008, (73FR 58268-58269).                

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

Dated: March 5, 2009. 

Cayetano Santos,

Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

[FR Doc. E9-5263 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VANCE CHEYNEY HENDRICKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (4:01-cr-00042-H; 4:04-cv-00079-H) Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 18, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vance Cheyney Hendrickson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Vance Cheyney Hendrickson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hendrickson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Dana Leah Puckett HUTTON, as Executrix of the Estate of Robert James Hutton, Jr., Plaintiff, v. The DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY, Employer, Hyco International, Inc., n/k/a Weber-Hydraulik, Inc., Hyco Canada ULC, n/k/a Weber Hydraulik Hyco Canada, Hyco Alabama, LLC, Old Republic Insurance, Carrier, and Recovery Services International, Inc., Administrator, Defendants.

No. COA18-1148

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

DISMISSED IN PART. AFFIRMED IN PART.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

RLM Communications, Inc. 

Under Contract No. W91247-12-D-0012 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60324 

Kyle R. Still, Esq. 

Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq. 

Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP 

Raleigh, NC 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Julie A. Glascott, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 9 March 2016 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60324, Appeal ofRLM Communications, Inc., 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Daniel R. ROBERTS, Appellant.

WD 79601

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: January 30, 2018

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Margaret M. Johnston, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division IV: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, and Cynthia L. Martin and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Daniel Roberts appeals from his judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, by the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri, of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree and two counts of child molestation in the first degree. On appeal, Mr. Roberts argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence testimony regarding uncharged bad acts resulting in prejudice. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose T. Perez, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 878]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered February 10, 2000, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606).

*641Assigned counsel’s contention relating to *pro se*supplemental briefs is not properly before this Court on direct appeal. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
A.L.C., Appellant, v. W.J.C., Respondent.

No. ED 105303

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: February 6, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Nathaniel G. Diekman, James J. Leightner, 230 S. Bemiston, Suite 600, Clayton, MO 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: William J. Cooseman, Respondent Acting Pro Se, 6909 Wellsford Court Dr., St. Louis, MO 63129, Jennifer Graves Borcherding, Guardian Ad Litem, 8131 Manchester Rd., Brentwood, MO 63144.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

*119A.L.C. appeals various portions of the trial court's judgment in favor of W.J.C. relating to his motion to modify. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7162

AARON LANCE STEPHEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GERALD BAKER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SANTOS; CORRECTIONAL 

OFFICER ISSAC; JUAN ISIDRO COLLADO,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-ct-03161-M)

Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 16, 2024

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron Lance Stephen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7162 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Lance Stephen appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Stephen failed to amend his complaint by the deadline 

provided by the court. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

dismissing the complaint without prejudice after Stephen had been warned of the 

consequences of failing to timely comply with the court’s order. See Ballard v. Carlson,

882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding district court’s dismissal following explicit and 

reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Stephen v. Baker, No. 5:22-ct-03161-M (E.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2023). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7162 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Stephen P. DeSantis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TCI Solutions, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the period presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 13, 2005

/s/ Stephen P. DeSantis

Stephen P. DeSantis 

Executive Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2
  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-Q
  1.
    This Report fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and2.
    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of
    operations of the Company.  Date: October 29, 2009

By:   /s/ Mary Jane RobertsonMary
    Jane Robertson
    Executive Vice President,
    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
    63
##### 



REVOLVING NOTE
(Wachovia Bank, National Association)
 $2,000,000
    
    St. Louis, Missouri
September 26, 2006




---



##### 



ORAL AGREEMENTS OR COMMITMENTS TO LOAN MONEY, EXTEND CREDIT OR TO FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING
REPAYMENT OF A DEBT INCLUDING PROMISES TO EXTEND OR RENEW SUCH DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE, REGARDLESS
OF THE LEGAL THEORY UPON WHICH IT IS BASED, THAT IS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE CREDIT AGREEMENT. TO
PROTECT YOU (BORROWERS) AND US (LENDER) FROM MISUNDERSTANDING OR DISAPPOINTMENT, ANY AGREEMENTS WE
REACH COVERING SUCH MATTERS ARE CONTAINED IN THE CREDIT AGREEMENT AND THE LOAN DOCUMENTS REFERRED
TO THEREIN, WHICH ARE THE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN US, EXCEPT AS
WE MAY LATER AGREE IN WRITING TO MODIFY IT.
 BORROWERS:SYNERGETICS, INC.BY:
    
    /s/ Pamela G. BooneNAME: Pamela G. BooneTITLE: Chief Financial OfficerandSYNERGETICS USA, INC.BY:
    
    /s/ Pamela G. BooneNAME: Pamela G. BooneTITLE: Chief Financial Officer
 2