alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w05






Exhibit 10.05




     2009-2014 Free On-Line Electronic Tax Filing Agreement Amendment



     WHEREAS, the Alliance and the IRS entered into a three year agreement which was published in
the Federal Register (Vol. 67, No. 153, page 51621) on August 8, 2002 and executed on October 30,
2002, that set forth parameters to which industry members of the Alliance would offer online tax
preparation and filing services to taxpayers at no cost to taxpayers (“Services”);



     WHEREAS, the Alliance and the IRS entered into agreement to extend the term of the original
agreement, as modified, for an additional period of four years, from Oct. 30, 2005 until Oct. 30,
2009, on October 30, 2005;



     WHEREAS, both the Alliance and the IRS wish to extend this agreement to cover future filing
seasons;



     NOW THEREFORE, the Alliance and the IRS, hereby mutually agree to amend and extend the
agreement executed on October 30, 2002, as previously amended by the parties, subject to the
following changes and additional conditions:


I. On an annual basis, the parties will review the Free File Program and decide what, if any,
improvements need to be made for the next filing season. Any improvements agreed to by the parties
shall be reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding on Service Standards and Disputes (‘MOU’)
executed by the parties. Each prior MOU is revoked by promulgation of the most current version of a
MOU signed by both parties. The Fifth MOU will be the current version at the inception of this
Agreement.



II. IRS and the Executive Director annually revise the MOU between the parties that provides
structure for the roles.



III. The terms of this agreement are final and binding unless and until it is superseded by a
signed agreement between the parties. The IRS and the Alliance agree that this document and all
prior original and supplemental signed agreements (other than MOUs) between the IRS and the
Alliance remain in full force and effect unless the language of this latest document is
inconsistent with such prior written terms, in which case the terms and language of this document
shall control the actions of the parties in managing the program.



IV. This agreement will extend the term of the original agreement for an additional period of five
years from October 30, 2009 through October 30, 2014. The IRS may terminate this renewal agreement
(for the period October 30, 2009 through October 30, 2014) without cause, such termination to be
effective 24 months after the date of written notice of such termination being sent to the
Alliance.




1









 








	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ MARK ERNST
 


	 	5 Nov 09
	 	 
	Mark Ernst, Deputy Commissioner

	 	Date	 	 
	Internal Revenue Service
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ TIMOTHY D. HUGO

	 	11-5-09	 	 
	 

Timothy Hugo, Executive Director

	 	 Date	 	 
	Free File Alliance, LLC
	 	 	 	 






2
# C_2019182EN.01001901.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 22 February 2019 — FZ v DER Touristik GmbH

(Case C-153/19)

(2019/C 182/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FZ

Defendant: DER Touristik GmbH

Question referred

Do a traveller’s claims against a travel organiser, under a contract for travel, for a price reduction because of shortcomings in the flight on account of a flight delay constitute claims to further compensation under Article 12 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1), and can compensation granted as a result of the flight delay in application mutatis mutandis of Article 7 of the Regulation be deducted from those claims in accordance with Article 12 of that regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
#### SLAUSON, Appellant, v. RICHMOND LIGHT & R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Annie E. Slauson against the Richmond Light & Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with THOMAS and CARR, JJ., dissent.
#### Fortress Credit Corp. et al., Respondents, v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C., Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 890] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in *Fortress Credit Corp. v Dechert LLP*(89 AD3d 615 [2011]) — a case involving virtually identical facts and allegations — the complaint in this action fails to state claims for fraud, legal malpractice, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs have not distinguished this case from *Dechert*and there has been no change in the law to warrant reexamination of the issues *(see NAMA Holdings, LLC v Greenberg Traurig, LLP,*92 AD3d 614 [2012]; *compare George Campbell Painting v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA,*92 AD3d 104, 105-106 [2012]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6117

STEVEN WAYNE GOODMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus HARRY L. CARRICO, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Virginia, individually and in his officialcapacity; P. CLARKE KATTENBURG, P.C., individually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM D.PICKETT, individually and in his official capacity; THOMAS A. EDMONDS, Virginia State Bar, individually and in his official capacity;NOEL D. SENGEL, individually and in her official capacity; ROBERT BROOKS ALTIZER, individually and in his official capacity; JAMES A. BUTTS, III, individually and in his official capacity; JOHN A.C. KEITH, individually and inhis official capacity; EDWARD B. LOWRY, individually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM G. MURRAY, individually and in his official capacity; W. SCOTT STREET, III, individually and in his official capacity; SHARON MAITLANDMOON, individually and in her official capacity; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor, individually and in his official capacity; JAMES F. ALMAND, individually and in his official capacity; EDWARD M. HOLLAND, individually and in his official capacity; JAMES GILMORE, Attorney General, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-391-3)
Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Wayne Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Steven Wayne Goodman, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Goodman v. Carrico , No. CA-97-391-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 30, 1997). Although not explicitly addressed by the district court, Goodman’s First Amendment claim was also properly dismissedas frivolous. We deny Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel and to remand case and dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2402 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2402

            To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur IL.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2005

 Mr. English of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To suspend temporarily the duty on Desmodur IL.

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

SECTION 1. DESMODUR IL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.09.03      A specific toluene  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         diisocyanate                                                       31/2008
                         homopolymer (CAS
                         No. 26006-20-2)
                         dissolved in
                         organic solvents
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3911.90.45)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Form of Stock Certificate for Common Stock




 Exhibit 4.1 
 

 








 The Corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests the powers,
designations, preferences and relative participating, optional, or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. Such requests shall be made to
the Corporation’s Secretary at the principal office of the Corporation. 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the
inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

															
	TEN COM	  	—	  	as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	  	—  	  	 	  	Custodian	  	 
	TEN ENT	  	—	  	as tenants by the entireties	  		  		  	(Cust)	  		  	(Minor)
	JT TEN	  	—	  	as joint tenants with right of	  		  		  	under Uniform Gifts to Minors	  	
		  		  	survivorship and not as tenants	  		  		  	Act _______________________________________
		  		  	in common	  		  		  	                                (State)	  	
		  		  		  	UNIF TRF MIN ACT	  	—  	  	 	  	Custodian (until age _________)
		  		  		  		  		  	(Cust)	  		  	
		  		  		  		  		  	 	  	under Uniform Transfers
		  		  		  		  		  	(Minor)	  		  	
		  		  		  		  		  	    to Minors Act	  	 
		  		  		  		  		  		  	     (State)


 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
                                         
                                         
                   hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
  

			
	 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

	 	
	 	  	

  
  
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
  
  
  
  
 ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Shares of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the
within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
 Dated ________________________________________ 
  

					
		 	 
		 	NOTICE:	  	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
		 	  	CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.

 Signature(s) Guaranteed: 
 _______________________________________________________________________ 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD
BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, 
 STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN

 APPROVED MEDALLION SIGNATURE GUARANTEE PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. 
 KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN, MUTILATED OR DESTROYED, THE CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO
THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.
Exhibit 31.2

                      Certification of the Chief Financial
                    Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph McSherry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Optigenex 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 officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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;

(b) 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

(c) 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 that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

(5) The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the 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 control 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: February 7, 2006

/s/ Joseph McSherry,
--------------------
Joseph McSherry
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Optigenex Inc.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




Written
      Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


as
      Adopted by


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory J. Wessling,
      Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition as of December 31, 2006 and results of operations for
      the year ended December 31, 2006 of the Company and its
      subsidiaries.




/s/ Gregory
              J. WesslingGregory
              J. WesslingChairman of the Board and Chief Executive
              Officer (Principal Executive Officer)




April
      2,
      2007





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
exhibit101.htm


    Exhibit 10.1

    
 

    
      AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO

      AMENDED
AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      


       

      AMENDMENT
NO. 1, dated as of December 10, 2009, to the Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement dated as of December 11, 2008, (the “Employment Agreement”), by and
between Blyth, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Robert B.
Goergen (the “Executive”).

       

      WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement so as to
extend the duration of the Initial Term, as that term is defined in the
Agreement, until January 31, 2011, subject to the terms and conditions that are
presently set forth in the Employment Agreement.

       

      NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

       

      1. Section
1(j) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in its
entirety as follows:

       

      “Initial
Term” shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on the
earlier of (i) January 31, 2011 (the “Scheduled Initial Term”) and (ii) the
ninetieth (90th) day
after the date on which a written notice of termination of the Initial Term is
given by either the Executive or the Company (pursuant to a resolution adopted
by the Board).

       

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

       

      Blyth,
Inc.

      


      


      By:_____________________________

      Its:

      


      


      The
Executive:

      


      


      ________________________________

      Robert B.
Goergen
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kostinos Tezerezas, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dennis Edwards, Jr., J., at sentence; Peggy Bernheim, J., at suppression hearing), rendered on April 11, 1984, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). No opinion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between DIC Concrete Corporation et al., Respondents, and Dubor Associates et al., Appellants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.), entered September 20, 1984, which, *inter alia,*denied the cross motion of appellants to vacate an arbitration award, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing to 6% postjudgment interest for the period July 25,1984 to May 14,1985, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In accordance with an amendment and restatement of a limited partnership agreement (Agreement) dated January 1,1975, the appellants Dubor Associates *et al.*(appellants) delivered to. the petitioners-respondents DIG Concrete Corporation *et al.*(petitioners) a promissory note (Note) in the principal amount of $3,000,000. This Note represents the purchase of partnership interests by appellants, and its terms provided that it would be paid in installments over a five-year period. The partnership’s purpose was to, *inter alia,*construct and operate a 625-unit Mitchell-Lama housing project now known as Marcus Garvey Village.

Paragraph 13 of the partnership Agreement between the parties contained a broad arbitration clause. As a result of a dispute over the payment of this Note, in May 1983 petitioners served a demand for arbitration, which the appellants did not *621challenge. Thereafter, hearings were held, and, in May 1984 the arbitrators awarded petitioners $1,065,578, plus interest.

Subsequently, the petitioners moved to confirm the award, and appellants cross-moved to vacate it. Special Term granted the motion and denied the cross motion.

The petitioners concede, at page 4 of their respondents’ memorandum submitted to this court, that there is merit to that part of appellants’ appeal that contends that the judgment erroneously provides, in contravention of the arbitrator’s award, for postjudgment interest at the rate of 9% instead of 6% per annum for the period from July 25, 1984 to May 14, 1985. After examining the record, we agree that an error was made and modify the judgment accordingly.

We have examined the other points raised by the appellants, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Bloom and Fein, JJ.