alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-31.htm






Exhibit 10.31

















SECOND AMENDMENT TO FOURTH AMENDED


AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This Second Amendment (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of January 1, 2015, between CytRx Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Employer”), and Steven A. Kriegsman (“Employee”) in order to amend as follows that certain Fourth Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, effective as of May 10, 2012, as previously amended by the First Amendment thereto dated as of March 4, 2014 (as so amended, the “Employment Agreement”), between Employer and Employee:


 


1. Change in Control.  Section 7.5 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by removing therefrom the first and second sentences and substituting the following:


 


“For purposes of this Section 7.5, a “Change in Control” shall mean any of a “change in ownership,” “change in effective control” and “change in ownership of a substantial portion of the assets” of Employer within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) (or any successor to such Section).  Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7.2, Section 7.3 or any other provision of this Agreement, if a Change in Control occurs during the Term, and if, during the Term and within two years after the date on which the Change in Control occurs, Employee’s employment is terminated by Employer without Cause or by Employee for Good Reason, then Employee will be entitled to the payments and benefits, at the same times, described in Section 7.2 for a termination by Employer without Cause, except that (i) Employee shall be entitled to continued participation, for a period of 36-months that commences on the date of termination, of Employee and each of his dependents in any Employer-sponsored health plan at the benefit level in effect from time to time and with COBRA benefits commencing thereafter, and (ii) the salary and bonus payments described in the last sentence of Section 7.2 shall instead be calculated using a 36-month “Severance Period” that commences on the date of termination and ends on the third anniversary of such termination date.  


 


If Employer's obligation to make the payments and provide the benefits described in this Section 7.5 is triggered, Employee will not be entitled to the payments or benefits described in Section 7.2 or Section 7.3, as applicable, that would otherwise be payable upon such termination of Employee's employment. For clarity, during the Term and after two years after a Change in Control, the provisions of Section 7.2 and Section 7.3 shall once more apply.”


 


2. No Other Changes to the Employment Agreement.  Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all of the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 



	
EMPLOYER:

	
EMPLOYEE:


	  	  
	
CytRx Corporation

	  
	  	  
	
By:    /s/ JOHN Y. CALOZ    


Name: John Y. Caloz


Title: Chief Financial Officer

	
 


/s/ STEVEN A. KRIEGSMAN


Steven A. Kriegsman
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                    |   |   |   |
| Dated: May 2, 2011 |   |   |   | By:    | /s/   Eddie Vakser |
|                    |   |   |   |   | Eddie VakserChief Executive Officer |

----
#### TRAVIS, Appellant, v. MONFORT et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Walter W. Travis, trustee in bankruptcy, etc., against Mary J. Monfort and others.

PER CURIAM.

Order reversed, with $10 oosts and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, on the ground that it appears that the examination of the defendants in the bankruptcy court did not cover all of the issues in this action.
ROLLAND ALLOTEY

,

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 15

- 2312

Opinion filed July 9, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

Rolland Allotey, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

T he petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

ROBERTS, C.J., THOMAS and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
###### **Exhibit 1.10**

###### ** **

###### **Annex1**

###### ** **

### **Changes and amendments N**o 9

#### **TOTHE CHARTER**

##### **OF “WIMM-BILL-DANN FOODS”**

**OPENJOINT STOCK COMPANY (State registration number: 1037700236738, located:Moscow, Yauzsky boulevard, 16/15, room 306)**

 

Be it resolved to make changes and amendmentsto WBD Foods OJSC Charter, stating redrafted item 2.8.11 of Article 2 asfollows:

 

“2.8.11. In Samara – fulltitle: Open Joint-Stock Company “Wimm-Bill-Dann Foods” affiliate in Samara;brief title: Samara affiliate of WBD Foods OJSC; located at: 443098, Samara city, Cheremshanskayastr. 199”.

 

----
# L_2008288EN.01000101.xml

| 30.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 288/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1063/2008

of 29 October 2008

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 October 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 October 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | IL | 106,4 |
| MA | 37,4 |
| MK | 22,0 |
| TR | 70,0 |
| ZZ | 59,0 |
| 0707 00 05 | JO | 168,2 |
| TR | 126,5 |
| ZZ | 147,4 |
| 0709 90 70 | MA | 45,3 |
| TR | 128,9 |
| ZZ | 87,1 |
| 0805 50 10 | AR | 81,6 |
| MA | 95,3 |
| TR | 92,3 |
| ZA | 95,0 |
| ZZ | 91,1 |
| 0806 10 10 | BR | 232,2 |
| TR | 129,5 |
| US | 266,7 |
| ZZ | 209,5 |
| 0808 10 80 | CA | 96,2 |
| CN | 90,8 |
| MK | 37,6 |
| NZ | 73,8 |
| US | 144,3 |
| ZA | 81,8 |
| ZZ | 87,4 |
| 0808 20 50 | CN | 60,3 |
| ZA | 94,6 |
| ZZ | 77,5 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

IL

106,4

MA

37,4

MK

22,0

TR

70,0

ZZ

59,0

0707 00 05

JO

168,2

TR

126,5

ZZ

147,4

0709 90 70

MA

45,3

TR

128,9

ZZ

87,1

0805 50 10

AR

81,6

MA

95,3

TR

92,3

ZA

95,0

ZZ

91,1

0806 10 10

BR

232,2

TR

129,5

US

266,7

ZZ

209,5

0808 10 80

CA

96,2

CN

90,8

MK

37,6

NZ

73,8

US

144,3

ZA

81,8

ZZ

87,4

0808 20 50

CN

60,3

ZA

94,6

ZZ

77,5

---

(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
  ZZ
  ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---
#### In the Matter of Ralph Alicea, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 690]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting possession of gang-related material after a search of his property revealed numerous photographs and letters containing known gang signs and terminology. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which was transferred to this Court.

Initially, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that he received inadequate employee assistance. The record establishes that the Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing in order for the assistant to complete, among other things, her interviews with approximately 50 inmates that petitioner had listed as potential witnesses. Upon reconvening, petitioner acknowledged that the assistance was complete and that he was ready to proceed with the hearing. Moreover, any alleged inadequacies in the assistance provided was remedied at the *1317hearing, and petitioner has demonstrated no prejudice resulting therefrom *(see Matter of Reid v Fischer,*80 AD3d 1035, 1035-1036 [2011]). We also find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the determination of guilt resulted from hearing officer bias, rather than the evidence presented at the hearing. The misbehavior report, confiscated items and testimony at the hearing, including petitioner’s admission that the items belonged to him, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Ortiz v Fischer,*91 AD3d 1006 [2012]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to either constitute harmless error or are without merit.

Mercure, J.P, Lahtinen, Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

QUINTIN HOLMES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-437

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28

U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Quintin

Holmes on May 17, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the

petition (DE 1) is DENIED. 

DISCUSSION

Quintin Holmes, a pro se prisoner, is challenging the prison

disciplinary proceeding (MCF 12-06-195) held by the Miami

Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) on June 12,

2013, where he was found guilty of Assault/Battery in violation of

B-212. He was sanctioned with the loss of 90 days earned credit

time and demotion to credit class 2. The Report of Conduct states

that “Offender Holmes, Q. DOC#188081 was observed fighting with

Offender Brewer, Marteail in front of the microwave and then in

cell 301/302.” DE 1-1 at 1. In his petition, Holmes raises two

grounds. 
First, he argues that he was acting in self-defense. However, 

[I]nmates do not have a constitutional right to raise

self-defense as a defense in the context of prison

disciplinary proceedings. As such, the [DHB] was under no

constitutional obligation to allow [the] claim that he

was merely defending himself to serve as a complete

defense to the charge of assault.

Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 848 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation

omitted). Thus, this ground does not present a basis for habeas

corpus relief.

Second, Holmes argues that he has been retaliated against for

filing grievances. 

After complaining to staff here at M.C.F. about

certain individuals stealing my things and, leaving

things in my room while I was at work, After complaining

about this for several months, I then became the focus of

what staff members call “Random Shake Downs”, and “Strip

Searches”, until I was written up on having “Gang

Material” in my room on a B-208, “Gang Material” which

was placed in my room by a another individual, the same

activity that I was reporting to staff about a month

prior to this situation.

DE 1 at 4-5. This argument has nothing to do with the disciplinary

charge that Holmes is challenging in this habeas corpus petition.

The issue here has to do with his Assault/Battery charge, not his

Gang Material case. Nothing that occurred in that other case is a

basis for finding that he is entitled to habeas corpus in this

case. Therefore this ground presents no basis for habeas corpus

relief here. 

2
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE 1) is

DENIED. 

DATED: June 10, 2013 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Rivera, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ferraro, J.), rendered December 22, 1982, convicting him of attempted burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

*195We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised upon 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.) Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and Eiber, JJ., concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU): Geneva, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Diversity Collections
                        Apple
                                    Brassica
                                    Buckwheat
                                    Celery
                                    Grape
                                    Hemp
                                    Onion
                                    Radish
                                    Squash
                                    Tart Cherry
                                    Tomato
                                    Other Seed CropsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Geneva, New York Plant Genetic Resources Unit (PGRU) Docs About PGRU Clonal Propagated Crops







Cryopreservation Processheadline bar 1 - Clonal Propagated Crops
               2 - Cryopreservation Process
                  3 - How to bud?  /ARSUserFiles/80600500/images/ImagesOtherlocations/AppleCollection.PNG << Previous

                        1
                        [2]
                        3

                     Next >>


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 31                  Rule 13a-14(d) Certification

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Michael L. Parker, a President and Director of Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K  containing  distribution  or servicing  reports filed in respect of periods
included  in the year  covered  by this  annual  report,  of  WASHINGTON  MUTUAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-MS1;

     2. Based on my knowledge,  the  information  in these  reports,  taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

     3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  distribution  or  servicing  information
required to be provided  to the  trustee by the  servicer  under the pooling and
servicing, or similar,  agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

     4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicer
under the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,  agreement  and based  upon my
knowledge and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,  and
except as disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its  obligations
under that agreement; and

     5. The  reports  disclose  all  significant  deficiencies  relating  to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an  independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting  a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers or
similar  procedure,  as set forth in the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following  unaffiliated  third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:

Bank United FSB, Cendant Mortgage Corp, First Chicago NBD,  Greenpoint  Mortgage
Company, Washington Mutual


Dated: March 15, 2004
                                     /s/ Michael L. Parker
                                         Michael L. Parker,
                                         President and Director
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3698 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3698

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 20, 2012

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve veterans service 
       organizations access to Federal surplus personal property.

    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 ``Formerly Owned Resources for 
Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act of 2012'' or the ``FOR VETS 
Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. VETERANS ACCESS TO FEDERAL EXCESS AND SURPLUS PERSONAL 
              PROPERTY.

    Section 549(c)(3) of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) in clause (viii), by adding ``or'' at the end; 
                and
                    (B) by striking clause (x); and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) for purposes of providing services to 
                veterans (as defined in section 101 of title 38), to an 
                organization whose--
                            ``(i) membership comprises substantially 
                        veterans; and
                            ``(ii) representatives are recognized by 
                        the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 
                        5902 of title 38.''.

            Passed the Senate December 19, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2009, fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of
Plumas Bancorp.
 Date: March 19, 2010
    /s/ Andrew RybackAndrew J. Ryback,Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Blake McFARLIN, Appellant.

No. 08-1003.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 19, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 12, 2009.

*343Anne E. Gardner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.

William Owen James, Jr., Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellant.

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Blake McFarlin appeals the 188-month prison sentence that the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). For reversal, McFarlin argues that the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender, because his prior Arkansas conviction for burglarizing a pharmacy, barber shop, and beauty shop should not have been classified as a “crime of violence” for purposes of triggering career-offender status. *See*U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 (defining career offender); 4B1.2(a) (defining “crime of violence”). As McFarlin acknowledges, we have repeatedly held that commercial burglary is a “crime of violence” within the meaning of section 4B1.2. *See United States v. Bell,*445 F.3d 1086, 1087-88 (8th Cir.2006); *United States v. Blahowski,*324 F.3d 592, 595 (8th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
#### KELLY, Respondent, v. CONNECTICUT MUT. LIFE INS. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1898.)

Action by Joseph Kelly against the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company.

No opinion. Motion denied. See 47 N. Y. Supp. 1138, and 50 N. Y. Supp. 139.