alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_24.htm


    
Exhibit 10.24
    
      


      AMENDED EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

      


      Agreement
entered into as of this 26th day of October 2009, between Andrew Makrides
(“Employee”) and Bovie Medical Corporation, (“Employer”)

      


      WHEREAS, the parties have
heretofore entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated February
1, 2000, as the same has been amended pursuant to the Board Resolutions dated
January 23, 2002, January 6, 2004, November 15, 2006, and October 26, 2009;
and

      


      WHEREAS, the parties are
desirous of memorializing the effect of the aforementioned resolutions and
further amending said Agreement on the terms hereinafter set forth.

      


      NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and covenants herein contained,

      


      IT
IS HEREBY AGREED:

      


      
        	
                1.

              	
                Paragraph
      3 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
      follows:

              


      

      


      TERM:
The initial term of employment under this Agreement shall be effective as of the
1st day
of February, 2000, and shall continue until January 31, 2014 or until terminated
as hereinafter provided. After January 31, 2014, the term of this Agreement
shall be automatically extended for continuous terms of one year each unless the
Employer provides the Employee with written notice of termination at least nine
months prior to the date the Employer plans to terminate.

      


      
        	
                2.

              	
                Except
      as amended hereby, the Agreement is hereby ratified and
      approved.

              


      

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties
have set forth their signatures this 30th day of November, 2009.

       

      
        	 
      	
                BOVIE
      MEDICAL CORPORATION

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                By:

              	
                /s/
      Moshe Citronowicz

              
	 
      	 
      	
                Moshe
      Citronowicz

              
	 
      	 
      	
                Chief
      Operating Officer

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
                /s/
      Andrew Makrides

              
	 
      	 
      	
                Andrew
      Makrides
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0251 & A15A0252. ALISHIA BRISTOW SMITH v. SOPSN TRUST.

Alishia Bristow Smith, defendant in the dispossessory action below, appeals

from two orders of the superior court. This case began in magistrate court, and, after

an adverse ruling, Smith appealed to superior court. The superior court also ruled

against Smith. Although Smith sought review before this Court, both her direct

appeal and discretionary application were dismissed. See Case Nos. A14A1456

(dismissed April 24, 2014, for failure to follow discretionary appeal procedure);

A14D0358 (dismissed May 30, 2014, as untimely). While those earlier appellate

procedures were pending, the superior court entered an order directing Smith to pay

rent pending appeal. In A15A0251, Smith challenges that rent order. The superior

court also made our order dismissing her appeal a judgment of the court. In

A15A0252, Smith appears to be challenging that judgment on remitittur.1 We lack

jurisdiction to review these orders.

As to A15A0251, Smith’s challenge to the rent order is moot because she has

no appeal pending. See Franklin v. Shackelford, 174 Ga. App. 520 (330 SE2d 449)

(1985). And where the questions presented on appeal have become moot, an appeal

is subject to dismissal. See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (3). 

As to A15A0252, Smith may not appeal to us from the trial court’s judgment

1

In her notice of appeal and amended notice of appeal, Smith indicatesthatshe

is appealing fromthe order entered on May 22, 2014, and May 21, 2014, respectively. 

The only order entered on or around those dates is the trial court’s judgment on

remittitur. 

October 15, 2014
on remitittur. The superior court did not make any ruling in that judgment; it merely

made our decision a part of the record below. To the extent Smith wished to

challenge our decision, she was required to file a motion for reconsideration in this

Court or a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. 

For these reasons, both A15A0251 and A15A0252 are hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/15/2014
**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**

|   | 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                Corporation. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                May 22, 2006 |   | By:/s/                Allen V. Ambrose |
|-----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                              |   | Allen                V. Ambrose        |
|                              |   | President                              |
#### BOX V. THE STATE.

(Decided Feb. 13th, 1908.

Appeal from Houston Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

Affirmed.

Opinion by

Denson, J.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40407

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR HUGO ESPINOZA-LEON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-943-ALL

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

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Hector Hugo

Espinoza-Leon raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM BRUSH CREEK MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.'S QUARTERLY
REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                          939,105
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     41,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                980,970
<PP&E>                          10,086,363
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  11,381,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,023,192
<BONDS>                         0
<COMMON>                        51,343,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    11,381,164
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                8,392
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                4,064,924
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (4,056,532)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (4,056,532)
<DISCONTINUED>                  (0)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 (0)
<CHANGES>                       (0)
<NET-INCOME>                    (4,056,532)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.10)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,388,046
<CGS>                                        1,578,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,404,525
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,594,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,849,755)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.96)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 535 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.535

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
            the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven

                                 An Act

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands within 
         Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Fort Pulaski National Monument Lease 
Authorization Act''.
SEC. 2. LEASE AUTHORIZATION.
    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this 
section as the ``Secretary'') may lease to the Savannah Bar Pilots 
Association, or a successor organization, no more than 30,000 square 
feet of land and improvements within Fort Pulaski National Monument 
(referred to in this section as the ``Monument'') at the location on 
Cockspur Island that has been used continuously by the Savannah Bar 
Pilots Association since 1940.
    (b) Rental Fee and Proceeds.--
        (1) Rental fee.--For the lease authorized by this Act, the 
    Secretary shall require a rental fee based on fair market value 
    adjusted, as the Secretary deems appropriate, for amounts to be 
    expended by the lessee for property preservation, maintenance, or 
    repair and related expenses.
        (2) Proceeds.--Disposition of the proceeds from the rental fee 
    required pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be made in accordance with 
    section 3(k)(5) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(k)(5)).
    (c) Terms and Conditions.--A lease entered into under this 
section--
        (1) shall be for a term of no more than 10 years and, at the 
    Secretary's discretion, for successive terms of no more than 10 
    years at a time; and
        (2) shall include any terms and conditions the Secretary 
    determines to be necessary to protect the resources of the Monument 
    and the public interest.
    (d) Exemption From Applicable Law.--Except as provided in section 
2(b)(2) of this Act, the lease authorized by this Act shall not be 
subject to section 3(k) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-2(k)) or 
section 321 of Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 1302).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**Exhibit 32 (ii)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sonya E. Scott, ChiefFinancial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section ‘ 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section ‘ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Sonya E.  Scott      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Sonya E.  Scott          |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
|                     |
| November 13,  2003       |

 

1

----
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bi-Optic Ventures Inc.(the Company) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry Chew, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  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 Company.   Date:  

May 31, 2011  /s/ Harry Chew Harry Chew Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Director (Principal Executive Officer)   1
**EXHIBIT10.7(b)**

SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVEOFFICERS PARTY TO THE

CHANGE IN CONTROLAGREEMENT FILED AS EXHIBIT 10.7(a)

Each of the partiesidentified below is party to a change in control agreement (“CIC Agreement”)with Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. substantially in the form of Exhibit 10.7 tothe Current Report on Form 8-K of Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. filed onMay 18, 2005.
| **Name of  Executive** | ** ** | **Benefit Level Under  Section 6(a) of  of CIC Agreement** | ** ** | **Benefit Level Under  Section 8(a) of  of CIC Agreement** |
|------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Sheree L. Aronson      |       | One Time                                                   |       | One Year                                                   |
| Leonard R. Borrmann    |       | Two Times                                                  |       | Two Years                                                  |
| Robert F. Gallagher    |       | One Time                                                   |       | One Year                                                   |
| Francine D. Meza       |       | Two Times                                                  |       | Two Years                                                  |

 

----
#### William G. Baratta, Jr., Respondent, v Eden Roc NY, LLC, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 230]-

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated December 17, 2010, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff, while in the process of exiting his apartment building, which was owned by the defendant, allegedly slipped and fell on a mat situated outside the door to the building. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that, after he stepped on the mat with his right foot, the mat, which had been located in *803the same position for “[y]ears,” moved, causing him to lose his balance and fall.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, inter alia, that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant appeals, and we affirm.

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of establishing that it neither created the alleged dangerous condition, nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it *(see Pryzywalny v New York City Tr. Auth.,*69 AD3d 598, 598-599 [2010]; *Arzola v Boston Props. Ltd. Partnership,*63 AD3d 655, 655-656 [2009]; *Bruk v Razag, Inc.,*60 AD3d 715 [2009]).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see *Pryzywalny v New York City Tr. Auth.,*69 AD3d at 598-599; *Arzola v Boston Props. Ltd. Partnership,*63 AD3d at 655-656; *Bruk v Razag, Inc.,*60 AD3d at 715). According to the plaintiffs deposition testimony, submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, all four of the corners of the mat, which had been on the premises for “a very long time,” were turned up, and the mat would frequently move out of its position when he would step on it, causing him to have to reposition it. Since the defendant offered no evidence as to when the mat was last inspected prior to the accident, as opposed to the last time its superintendent walked over it, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged defective condition of the mat (see *Arzola v Boston Props. Ltd. Partnership,*63 AD3d at 655-656). Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, it failed to establish, prima facie, that the condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff’s accident was not hazardous (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

In view of the defendant’s failure to meet its prima facie burden, its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied, and we need not review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers (see *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
|EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In
connection with the Annual Report of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund I, L.P. (the
Fund) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Robert Moskovitz, Principal Financial Officer of LEAF Asset Management, Inc., the General
Partner of the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(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: March 30, 2004/s/ Robert K. Moskovitz
           Robert K. Moskovitz
           Tite:  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of LEAF Asset Management, Inc.
           (The General Partner)(Principal Executive Officer)
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---