alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1



 


 


ADDENDUM TO


SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS ADDENDUM TO SECOND
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Addendum”) is made as of the 28th day of July, 2021 by and between
UNIVERSAL SECURITY INSTRUMENTS, INC., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”) and HARVEY B. GROSSBLATT (the
 “Executive”).


 


INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT


 


The Company and Executive
entered into a Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of July 18, 2005, as amended (the “Original Agreement”).
The parties desire to extend the term of the Original Agreement for an additional one-year term.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


A.       All
capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Addendum shall have the meanings set forth in the Original Agreement.


 


B.       The
first sentence of Section 1(b) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended in it entirety to read as follows:


 


Subject to Section 7, the Company shall employ the Executive
pursuant to the terms hereof for the period commencing as of the date hereof and ending on July 31, 2022.


 


C.       In
all other respects, the Original Agreement, as amended hereby, shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
have executed this Addendum as of the day and year first above written.


 


 


	 	UNIVERSAL SECURITY INSTRUMENTS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ 
	 	 	[James B. Huff, Vice President

                                                                    
/s/

	 	 	Harvey B. Grossblatt
Case: 1:02-cv-01537 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/19/02 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:23
Case: 1:02-cv-01537 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/19/02 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:24
Case: 1:02-cv-01537 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/19/02 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:25
Case: 1:02-cv-01537 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/19/02 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:26
Case: 1:02-cv-01537 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/19/02 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:27
Case: 1:02-cv-01537 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/19/02 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:28
Case: 1:02-cv-01537 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/19/02 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:29
Case: 1:02-cv-01537 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/19/02 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:30
Case: 1:02-cv-01537 Document #: 8 Filed: 04/19/02 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:31
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 30 

Celebrating February 2, 2011, as the 25th anniversary of ‘‘National Women 

and Girls in Sports Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 27, 2011 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. MURRAY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Celebrating February 2, 2011, as the 25th anniversary of 

‘‘National Women and Girls in Sports Day’’. 

Whereas women’s athletics are one of the most effective avenues available for the women of the United States to develop self-discipline, initiative, confidence, and leadership 

skills; 

Whereas sports and fitness activities contribute to emotional 

and physical well-being; 

Whereas women need strong bodies as well as strong minds; 

Whereas the history of women in sports is rich and long, but 

there has been little national recognition of the significance of the athletic achievements of women; 

Whereas there is a need to restore women to leadership positions in athletics to ensure a fair representation of the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 30 IS 

abilities of women and to provide role models for young 

female athletes; 

Whereas the bonds built between women through athletics 

help to break down the social barriers of racism and prejudice; 

Whereas the communication and cooperation skills learned 

through athletic experience play a key role in the contributions of an athlete to her home, workplace, and society; 

Whereas women’s athletics has produced such winners as Flo 

Hyman, whose spirit, talent, and accomplishments distinguished her above others and who exhibited the true 

meaning of fairness, determination, and team play; 

Whereas parents feel that sports are equally important for 

boys and girls and that sports and fitness activities provide important benefits to girls who participate; 

Whereas early motor-skill training and enjoyable experiences 

of physical activity strongly influence life-long habits of 

physical fitness; 

Whereas the performances of female athletes in the Olympic 

Games are a source of inspiration and pride to the people 

of the United States; 

Whereas the athletic opportunities for male students at the 

collegiate and high school levels remain significantly 

greater than those for female students; and 

Whereas the number of funded research projects focusing on 

the specific needs of women athletes is limited and the 

information provided by these projects is imperative to 

the health and performance of future women athletes: 

Now, therefore, be it 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 30 IS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) celebrates February 2, 2011, as the 25th 

3 anniversary of ‘‘National Women and Girls in Sports 

4 Day’’; and 

5 (2) encourages State and local jurisdictions, ap6 propriate Federal agencies, and the people of the 

7 United States to observe ‘‘National Women and 

8 Girls in Sports Day’’ with appropriate ceremonies 

9 and activities. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Order entered January 4, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 12
- 00922
- CR
DANIEL EDWARD MURRAY, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 80173
- 06 

### O RDER This appeal is REINSTATED

. We VACATE our order of November 30, 2012 requiring the trial court to make findings of fact regarding wh y appellant’s brief was not filed.
We GRANT appellant = s December 24, 2012 motion to reinstate the appeal. Appellant = s brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court on December 24, 2012 is DEEMED timely filed as of
the date of this order.
The State’s brief shall be due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### Raymond M. WEINSTEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CADMAN TOWERS, INC., Luis Pineda, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-3768-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 21, 2009.

*530Raymond M. Weinstein, Brooklyn, NY, pro se Appellant.

Jack Cohen, Law Offices of Charles J. Siegel, New York, NY, for appellees.

PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR and Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiff-appellant Raymond Weinstein brought suit against Cadman Towers, Inc., and Luis Pineda, a building manager, for unlawful discrimination under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (“FHAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601*et seq.*Following an August 8, 2007, memorandum and order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Carol B. Amon, *Judge),*the clerk of that court entered judgment denying Raymond Weinstein’s motion for summary judgment and granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

Weinstein appeals. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment *de novo,*construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. *See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). We must determine whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *Id.*

The district court properly denied Weinstein’s motion to represent John Holub’s estate *pro se*because Weinstein admitted in his brief that Holub’s brother was a beneficiary to Holub’s estate. “[A]n administratrix or executrix of an estate may not proceed *pro se*when the estate has beneficiaries or creditors other than the litigant.” *Pridgen v. Andresen,*113 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir.1997).

To the extent Weinstein claims that he himself was discriminated against, he has not introduced any evidence of intent sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ eviction proceedings were brought on the basis of a discriminatory animus based on his known association with Holub, and he has not alleged that he himself was disabled.

We have carefully reviewed Weinstein’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, there is no basis on which to challenge the judgment of the district court.

*531For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district coui't is hereby AFFIRMED.
41294 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / UA: Reg Flex Agenda 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 

20 CFR Ch. II 

Semiannual Agenda of Regulations 

Under Development or Review 

AGENCY: Railroad Retirement Board. 

ACTION: Semiannual regulatory agenda. 

SUMMARY: This agenda contains a list of 

regulations that the Board is developing 

or proposes to develop in the next 12 

months and regulations that are 

scheduled to be reviewed in that period. 

ADDRESSES: 844 North Rush Street, 

Chicago, IL 60611–1275. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General 

Counsel, Office of General Counsel, 

Railroad Retirement Board, (312) 751– 

4945, Fax (312) 751–7102, TDD (312) 

751–4701. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations that are routine in nature or 

which pertain solely to internal Agency 

management have not been included in 

the agenda. 

Dated: March 17, 2021. 

By Authority of the Board. 

Stephanie Hillyard, 

Secretary to the Board. 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD—FINAL RULE STAGE

Sequence No. Title Regulation 

Identifier No. 

226 .................... Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the 

Railroad Retirement Board (Section 610 Review).

3220–AB73 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 

(RRB) 

Final Rule Stage 

226. Enforcement of Nondiscrimination 

on the Basis of Handicap in Programs 

or Activities Conducted by the Railroad 

Retirement Board (Section 610 Review) 

Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794 

Abstract: We propose to amend our 

regulations at 20 CFR 365 to update 

terminology to refer to individuals with 

a disability. This amendment replaces 

the term ‘‘handicap’’ with the term 

‘‘disability’’ to match the statutory 

language in the Rehabilitation Act 

Amendment of 1992, Public Law 102– 

569, 106 Stat. 4344. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Direct Final Rule 10/00/21 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: No. 

Agency Contact: Marguerite P. 

Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, 

Railroad Retirement Board, Office of 

General Counsel, 844 North Rush Street, 

Room 811, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: 

312 751–4945, TDD Phone: 312 751– 

4701, Fax: 312 751–7102. 

RIN: 3220–AB73 

[FR Doc. 2021–14884 Filed 7–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7905–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS18
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 885 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 885

    To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to 
 reauthorize a provision relating to additional contract authority for 
                    States with Indian reservations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2011

 Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Mr. Udall of New Mexico) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to 
 reauthorize a provision relating to additional contract authority for 
                    States with Indian reservations.

    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 ``Indian School Bus Route Safety 
Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR STATES 
              WITH INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

    Section 1214(d)(5)(A) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (23 U.S.C. 202 note; 112 Stat. 206; 119 Stat. 1460) is amended 
by striking ``$1,800,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' 
and inserting ``$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 
2017''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Anil Keshev PATEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72893.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Nicholas John Mundy, Esquire, Nicholas J. Mundy, Esq., Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.

Oil, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Anil Keshev Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absen-tia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Arrieta v. INS,*117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam) and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Patel’s motion to reopen to rescind his deportation order because the hearing notice was sent by certified mail to the address last provided by Patel and he failed to rebut the presumption of effective service. *See id.*at 431 (“[Njotice by certi-*254fled mail sent to an alien’s last known address can be sufficient under the Act, even if no one signed for it.”); *see also*8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) & (a)(1)(F) (1994).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2019305EN.01006901.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/69

---

Action brought on 23 July 2019 — Sky v EUIPO — Safran Electronics & Defense (SKYNAUTE by SAGEM)

(Case T-523/19)

(2019/C 305/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Zalewska, lawyer, and A. Brackenbury, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Safran Electronics & Defense (Boulogne-Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SKYNAUTE by SAGEM — Application for registration No 14 821 334

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2019 in Case R 919/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the applicant’s application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the applicant’s application;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of this application and the proceedings before the Office. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of this application and the proceedings before the Office.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Charles DALEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-7713.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

Robert James Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.

Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief, Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Charles Daley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Daley,*No. 3:02-cr-00251-REP-2 (E.D.Va. Aug. 11, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE SCHEDULE FILED BY THE HACKENSACK WATER COMPANY.

October 17, 1960.

*Mr. Samuel W. Zerman, Mr. Alfred W. Kiefer*and *Mr. Christian Bollermann*for the petitioners.

*Mr. David D. Furman,*Attorney General, and *Mr. Richard F. Green*for the respondents.

Granted.
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:7025
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:7026
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:7027
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:7028
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:7029
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:7030
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7031
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:7032
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:7033
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:7034
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:7035
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:7036
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:7037
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:7038
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:7039
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:7040
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:7041
Case: 1:03-cv-01768 Document #: 257 Filed: 09/27/10 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:7042
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<CIK>                            0001031002
<NAME>                           MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                            8,333
<SECURITIES>                                364,074,290
<RECEIVABLES>                                 7,204,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            371,286,991
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              371,286,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         7,212,701
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                 309,278,400
<COMMON>                                     54,795,890
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                371,286,991
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              7,253,513
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               7,253,513
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           7,253,513
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  7,253,513
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LOUIS A. MURRAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2024-0200

May 1, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Michelle D. Sisco, Judge.

Louis A. Murray, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.