alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.07D**

**FOURTHEXTENSION AND MODIFICATIONOFEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

THIS FOURTH EXTENSION ANDMODIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Extension”) is entered into as of March14, 2005 by and between California Coastal Communities, Inc., a Delaware corporation(“Employer”), and SANDRA G. SCIUTTO (“Executive”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Executive andEmployer have entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of May 1, 1998,an Extension and Modification of Employment Agreement dated December 7, 1999,a Second Extension and Modification of Employment Agreement datedApril 30, 2001, and a Third Extension and Modification of EmploymentAgreement dated March 17, 2003 (collectively, the “Employment Agreement”),through which Executive has provided various executive capacities to Employerand Employer has obtained various executive services by Executive; and

WHEREAS, Employer desiresto obtain the benefit of continued service from Executive by extending theEmployment Agreement, and Executive desires to render continued services toEmployer by extending the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms andconditions of this Extension;

NOW, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises and covenantsherein contained, the parties agree as follows:

# SECTION 1.           CONTINUINGEFFECTIVENESS OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT.  Except to the extent of any modification madepursuant to the terms of this Extension, the Employment Agreement shallcontinue to remain in full force and effect following the date hereof.

# SECTION 2.           EXTENSION OFTERM.  Employer and Executivehereby agree to extend the term of the Employment Agreementuntil April 30, 2007.

# SECTION 3.           BASE SALARY.  Effective January 1, 2005 and until theexpiration of the term set forth in Section 2 above, Employer agrees topay Executive a base salary of at least One Hundred and Eighty-Five ThousandDollars ($185,000) per year in semi-monthly installments on the samedates the other senior officers of Employer are paid.

# SECTION 4.           BONUS.  From the date hereof and until the expirationof the term set forth in Section 2 above, Employer agrees to provideExecutive with the opportunity to earn an annual incentive bonus of NinetyThousand Dollars ($90,000) based upon achieving performance targets which willbe mutually agreed upon.

##  

##  

## 1

## 

##  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theparties have executed this Extension as of the date first above written.

 

| “EMPLOYER”                  |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
| CALIFORNIA  COASTAL COMMUNITIES, INC. |
|                                  |
| By                               | /s/ RAYMOND J.  PACINI |
|                                  | Raymond J.  Pacini |
|                                  | Chief Executive  Officer |
|                                  |   |
| “EXECUTIVE”                 |
|                                  |
|                                  | /s/ SANDRA G.  SCIUTTO |
| Sandra G.  Sciutto                    |

 

 

2

----
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5280

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to the distribution of the drug dextromethorphan, 

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5280 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dextromethorphan 

3 Distribution Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; RESTRICTIONS 

5 ON DISTRIBUTION OF DEXTROMETHORPHAN. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter V of the 

7 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 

8 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 503A the 

9 following: 

10 ‘‘SEC. 503B. RESTRICTIONS ON DISTRIBUTION OF 

11 DEXTROMETHORPHAN. 

12 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the 

13 date of the enactment of the Dextromethorphan Distribu14 tion Act of 2006, the Secretary shall issue a final rule 

15 to prohibit the distribution of unfinished 

16 dextromethorphan to any person other than a person reg17 istered under section 510, subject to subsection (b). 

18 ‘‘(b) FURTHER RESTRICTIONS.—Subsection (a) does 

19 not restrict the authority of the Secretary under section 

20 201.122 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations. 

21 ‘‘(c) UNFINISHED DEXTROMETHORPHAN.—For pur22 poses of this section, the term ‘‘unfinished 

23 dextromethorphan’’ means dextromethorphan that is not 

24 contained in a drug that is in finished dosage form.’’. 
3

•HR 5280 EH

1 (b) ENFORCEMENT.—Section 301 of the Federal 

2 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amend3 ed by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(ii) The distribution of unfinished 

5 dextromethorphan in violation of regulations under section 

6 503B.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 

2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5280

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

dextromethorphan, and for other purposes.Act with respect to the distribution of the drug
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of UnitedWisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, J.F. Robertson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |               /s/J.F.  Robertson |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | J. F. Robertson                                                                                        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                |
|   | Dated: May 15, 2006                                                                                    |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Cunny, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 835]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered November 24, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of SVs to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the evidence established each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134366 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134366 COA: 274292 Wayne CC: 99-012574-01 WILLIAM STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 11, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





I, Jacinta Sit, President of Oxford Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") 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, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):



(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 Registrant.







|                                                              | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|By: /s/ Jacinta Sit                                           | 
|Jacinta Sit, President                                        | 
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) | 
|                                                              | 
|August 26, 2008                                               |
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5655 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5655

 To eliminate the annual numerical limitation on the number of aliens 
 who may be provided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the 
                    Immigration and Nationality Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2006

   Mr. Hyde introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To eliminate the annual numerical limitation on the number of aliens 
 who may be provided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the 
                    Immigration and Nationality Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Legal Employment Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF H-2B CAP.

    Section 214(g)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1184(g)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) The total number of aliens who may be issued visas or 
        otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year 
        under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) may not exceed 65,000.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 of Nuvim, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”),
      I, Richard P. Kundrat, 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, to the best of 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.








Date:
      November 14, 2005








/s/
                Richard P. KundratRichard
                P. Kundrat, President and
              Chief
                Executive Officer
[Nos. 52005-9-I; 52170-5-I.

Division One.

May 10, 2004.]

#### Kirk Whitcombe, et al., *Appellants,*v. Richard Kitz, et al., *Respondents.*Larry Henak, et al., *Respondents,*v. Kirk Whitcombe, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, Nos. 02-2-07411-1 and 95-2-02783-1, Linda Lau and James A. Doerty, JJ., entered January 22 and March 26, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,325]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 20, 2009, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Amphenol Backplane Systems, Nashua, New Hampshire. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Further investigation in this case would serve no purpose. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of March, 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-5915 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alfred DAVIS III, Appellant.

No. ED 106173

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: December 26, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Irene C. Karns, 503 E. Nifong, #212, Columbia, MO 65201.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Karen L. Kramer Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Davis, III, appeals from the judgment on his conviction for first-degree assault and armed criminal action, claiming there was insufficient evidence from which *404a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the offenses. We find no error and affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, Wilson Cheng, the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board
      of
      Directors and Treasurer of BESTWAY COACH EXPRESS INC. (the "Company"), DOES
      HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.
      The
      Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31, 2006
      (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
        this **** 26th
        day
        of July, 2006.





___**/s/
                Wilson Cheng**___________
              Wilson
                Cheng
              CEO,
                Chairman of the Board of Directors and
                Treasurer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      BESTWAY COACH EXPRESS INC. and will be retained by BESTWAY COACH EXPRESS INC.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
ex10-5.htm


    Exhibit
10.5

     

    
      GLOBAL
GOLD CORPORATION GUARANTEE

       

      THIS
GUARANTEE, made this 25th day
of February, 2010, by GLOBAL
GOLD CORPORATION, a Delaware USA corporation  with its
principal offices at 45 East Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, Connecticut,
USA  (hereinafter called the “Guarantor”), in favor
of  INDUSTRIAL
MINERALS SA, c/o Lenz & Staehelin, Rte de Chêne 30, 1208 Genève,
Switzerland   (hereinafter
called “Obligor”).

       

      W I T N E
S S E T H :

       

      1.  Guarantee of
Obligations.  Guarantor hereby guarantees to Obligor the
complete and punctual payment or performance of each and every indebtedness and
obligation (collectively, the “Obligations”), now existing or arising at any
time hereafter, of Obligee to Obligor between Obligor and MEGO GOLD, LLC, registered
offices at Suite #2, 2A Tamanian Street, Yerevan, Armenia, 0009
(hereinafter called “Obligee”) arising out of or
relating directly or indirectly to the “Gold Concentrate Supply Contract” dated
as of February 25th
2010  and the related “Security Agreement”  dated as of
February 25th 2010
(copies of both executed agreements are attached hereto and made a part
hereof.)

       

      2.  Absolute, Unconditional
Guarantee.  This guarantee is an absolute, present, primary,
continuing, unlimited and unconditional guarantee of payment and performance,
and, without limitation.  If Obligee at any time fails to pay or
perform any of the Obligations, Guarantor shall immediately effect complete
payment and performance.  Obligor shall have the right in its sole
discretion to select the enforcement of the collateral under the Security
Agreement and/or this Guarantee in case of default by the Obligee to duly
perform any Obligation. Choice by the Obligor on enforcement of the Security
Agreement collateral shall not result in waiver and/or cancellation of the
rights vested to Obligor under this Guarantee. The payment by the Guarantor of
the whole amount owed to the Obligor by Obligee shall be sufficient ground for
termination of the Security Agreement.

       

      3.  Amendment.  No
right or benefit in favor of Obligor shall be deemed waived, no obligation or
liability of Guarantor hereunder shall be deemed modified, diminished, released,
compromised, extended, discharged or otherwise affected, and no provision or
term hereof may be amended, modified or otherwise changed except by an
instrument in writing, specifying the same, duly executed by
Obligor.

       

      4.  Assigns.  This
guarantee and all rights and obligations hereunder shall inure to the benefit of
and shall be binding on Obligor, Guarantor and their respective successors and
assigns.

       

                 5.  Incorporation of Gold
Concentrate Supply Contract Terms .    The parties
expressly incorporate by reference the provisions of the  Gold
Concentrate Supply Contract, including but not limited to those related to
choice of law and choice of forum.

      


      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Guarantee on or as of the
date first above mentioned.
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/06 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 06 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.46 N 76.63 WMeters AGL
exv10w8







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.8




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR

J. MICHAEL SCHROEDER





     This is a FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated May 28, 2008, between Great
Wolf Resorts, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Employer”) and J. Michael Schroeder, a natural person
resident of the State of Wisconsin as of the date hereof (“Employee”), the terms and conditions of
which are as follows:



     1. Employer and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as
of December 13, 2004 (the “Original Agreement”).



     2. Section 4.2(f)(6)(A)(2) of the Original Agreement is hereby modified by
deleting the words “ninety (90) day period” and replacing them with “one hundred
twenty (120) day period.”



     3. All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement are hereby
ratified and confirmed.




	 	 	Employer and Employee have hereby executed this FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT as of
the date above first written.





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Employer:  	 	Employee:	 	 
	GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC.	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/S/
	 	 	 	/S/	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name: R. Churchey
	 	 	 	J. Michael Schroeder	 	 
	 

	 	Title:   CEO
Jamie BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. SD 35339

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

FILED: November 5, 2018

Appellant's attorney: Scott N. Rosenblum and Jessica M. Hathaway, Saint Louis.

Respondent's attorneys: Joshua D. Hawley, Atty. Gen., and Daniel N. McPerson, Asst. Atty. Gen.

(Before Francis, Jr., P.J., Bates, J., and Scott, J.)

PER CURIAM.

*447Jamie Bell timely filed a *pro se* Rule 29.15 motion and counsel was appointed. Bell then retained different counsel who filed an untimely amended motion. Before either motion was ruled, our Supreme Court handed down ***Gittemeier v. State*** , 527 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. banc 2017), which declined to extend the abandonment doctrine to excuse an untimely amended motion by retained counsel. Following ***Gittemeier*** , the motion court declined to conduct an abandonment inquiry, found the claims in Bell's *pro se* motion were not cognizable, and denied relief.

Bell's sole point on appeal charges that the motion court abused its discretion and was fundamentally unfair in following ***Gittemeier*** .

Bell acknowledges cases like ***Thornton v. Denney*** , 467 S.W.3d 292, 298-99 (Mo. banc 2015), that support the motion court's action. However, he claims that our supreme court in ***State v. Bazell*** , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), and later decisions has applied a new statutory interpretation "going forward only in some cases" and taking into account whether a party should or should not receive the benefit or harm of a change in the law.

We disagree. Our supreme court's choice not to apply ***Bazell*** retroactively to final criminal cases where sentence has been executed and no appeal pends, *see****State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer*** , 530 S.W.3d 500, 503 (Mo. banc 2017), does not contradict the general principle that appellate statutory or rule interpretation applies to and governs cases then pending in trial courts.

***Gittemeier*** came down months before the motion court decided this case. Bell cites nothing in ***Bazell*** or elsewhere that authorizes trial judges to disregard controlling case law on issues then pending before them. Judgment affirmed.