alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_2.htm













 






THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

















This Thirteenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2010, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Jose Luis Laparte ("Executive").

















Recitals













	
A)  

	
On June 3, 2004 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.













	
B)  

	
Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twelve prior occasions;













	
C)  

	
Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:






















Agreement








	
1.  

	
Section 2.1 of the Agreement which currently provides:












2.1           Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $408,000 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period.  Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.







is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2010, to provide as follows:







2.1           Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $416,160 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period.  Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.




 



	
2.  

	
All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.



























Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.






















EXECUTIVE                                                                                                EMPLOYER


PRICESMART, INC.







Jose Luis Laparte                                                                                 By:           







______________________                                                             Name:  Robert M. Gans                                           







Its:   Executive Vice President
(August 20, 1987)

#### In the Matter of David Harvey, Appellant, v George Wolf et al., Respondents, and Ellen Ancrum, Respondent-Respondent.

t. In a proceeding to validate a petition designating David Harvey as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987, for the *202public office of Suffolk County Legislator, 13th Legislative District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated August 4, 1987, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements and the proceeding is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a determination on the merits.

The petitioner submitted a designating petition to the Suffolk County Board of Elections on July 16, 1987. On or about July 20, 1987, the respondent Ancrum filed specific objections to the petition. The Board of Elections notified the petitioner on or about July 21, 1987, that the aforementioned objections had been filed. The Board did not, however, render a determination with respect to the objections by July 30, 1987, the last day upon which to commence a proceeding *(see,*Election Law § 16-102 [2]). On that day the petitioner instituted the instant proceeding to validate the designating petition by service by mail. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding as untimely. We reverse.

The statutory time limitation is not to be strictly applied where the Board of Elections does not reject a candidate’s designating petition until after the expiration of the 14-day statutory period. Rather, the proceeding should be entertained provided that the candidate acts with due diligence *(see, Matter of Pell v Coveney,*37 NY2d 494; *Matter of Carr v New York State Bd. of Elections,*104 AD2d 577; *Matter of Jones v Sachs,*133 AD2d 195; *Matter of Fortes v English,*133 AD2d 193). We conclude that the petitioner in the instant case so acted. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13A-14

Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, As Amended

(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Noel J. Guillama, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of The Quantum Group, Inc. for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal controls over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.





Date: March 21, 2007



/s/Noel J. Guillama

Noel J. Guillama

President and Chief Executive Officer
The Working Group on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety of the Subcommittee on Safety of Life at Sea will conduct an open meeting at 9 a.m. on Monday, January 31, 2000, in Room 6103, at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001. This meeting will discuss the upcoming 43RD Session of the Subcommittee on Stability and Load Lines and on Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF) and associated bodies of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) which will be held on September 11-15, 2000, at the IMO Headquarters in London, England. 

Items of discussion will include the following:

a. Review of results from last SLF meeting (SLF 42),

b. Harmonization of damage stability provisions in the IMO instruments,

c. Revision of technical regulations of the 1966 International Load Line Convention,

d. Revision of the High Speed Craft Code,

e. Development of the damage consequence diagrams for inclusion in damage control plan guidelines, and

f. Revisions to the Fishing Vessel Safety Code and Voluntary Guidelines

Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing: Mr. Paul Cojeen, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Commandant (G-MSE-2), Room 1308, 2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling (202) 267-2988.

Dated: January 5, 2000.

Stephen M. Miller,

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee.

[FR Doc. 00-984 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
Exhibit 23.1

C0NSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLILC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-130680,
333-138244, 333-141362) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-134392 and 333-143054) of MathStar, Inc. of our report dated
March 14, 2008 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this
Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Portland, OR
March 14, 2008

1

---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 06-15

IN RE: RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

O R D E R

Its is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 40(b) and (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the Court's Rules of Practice and

Procedure, that the following members of the Court's Bar are reappointed to the Court's Rules Advisory

Committee for a term as indicated:

Donnie R. Hachey, Esq., of Washington, District of Columbia, for a term ending August 26, 2017

Amy B. Kretkowski, Esq., of Iowa City, Iowa, for a term ending May 12, 2017

Landon E. Overby, of Providence, Rhode Island, for a term ending August 26, 2017

Paul M. Schoenhard, Esq., of Washington, District of Columbia, for a term ending August 26, 2017

Michael J. Sepanik, Esq., of New Orleans, Louisiana, for a term ending July 13, 2017.

DATED: July 22, 2015 FOR THE COURT:

 /s/Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

 

MISC. NO. 06-24

IN RE: RULES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 40(b) and (c)(1) of the Court's Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (Rules), that the following individual is appointed by the Board of Judges to serve as a 

member of the Court's Rules Advisory Committee for a term as indicated:

April Donahower, Esq., for a two-year term beginning on April 11, 2024, and ending April 

10, 2026, vice Christian A. McTarnaghan, Esq., who resigned; 

Further, it is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 40(b) and (c)(1) of the Court's Rules, that the 

following members of the Court's Bar are reappointed to the Court's Rules Advisory Committee 

for a term as indicated:

David S. Ames, Esq., for a two-year term beginning on March 21, 2024, and ending on 

March 20, 2026.

Jonathan G. Scruggs, Esq., for a two-year term beginning on March 21, 2024, and ending 

on March 20, 2026.

DATED: April 11, 2024 FOR THE COURT:

 /s/Tiffany M. Wagner

 TIFFANY M. WAGNER

 Clerk of the Court
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3333]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on April 17, 2001, I find that Attala, Holmes, and Lee Counties in the State of Mississippi constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by Flooding and Severe Storms occurring between April 3-5, 2001. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on June 17, 2001 and for economic injury until the close of business on January 17, 2002 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308. In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties in Mississippi may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Carroll, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Humphreys, Itawamba, Leake, Leflore, Madison, Monroe, Montgomery, Neshoba, Pontotoc, Prentiss, Union, Winston and Yazoo. The interest rates are: For Physical Damage:
*Percent*Homeowners with credit available elsewhere
6.625Homeowners without credit available elsewhere
3.312Businesses with credit available elsewhere
8.000Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
4.000Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere
7.125For Economic Injury:Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 333306. For economic injury the number is 9L4900. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008). Dated: April 18, 2001. Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 01-10146 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
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





The undersigned, Hai Sheng Chen, the
Chief Executive Officer of CHINA PRECISION STEEL, INC. (the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.      The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this statement this 14th day of
February, 2011.





/s/ Hai Sheng ChenHai
      Sheng ChenChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Precision Steel, Inc. and will be retained by China Precision Steel, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence P. DiSalvo, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), rendered April 17, 1986, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on 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). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
(85 South. 921)

#### CUMMINS et al. v. CAMPBELL.

(4 Div. 883.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 8, 1920.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County;

H. A. Pearce, Judge. Chapman & Lewis, of Dothan, for appellants.

J. S. McLendon, of Dothan, for appellee.

.PER CURIAM.

Case settled between the parties, and appeal dismissed on motion of ap* pellant.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service Board of Governors

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, David G. Hunter, at (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10266  Filed 4-20-01; 2:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ SHERYL TAYLOR, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

__________________________ 2013-3037

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. AT1221120255-W-1.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R The Department of the Treasury moves to recaption to name the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent, and for a 21-day extension of ti me for the MSPB to file its response brief.Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The employing agency is designated as the respondent when the Board Case: 13-3037 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 01/29/2013SHERYL TAYLOR V

. MSPB 2

reaches the merits of the under lying case. Here, the Board dismissed Taylor’s appeal for la ck of jurisdiction. Thus, the Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review. Accordingly, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above. The Board’s responsive brief is due within 21 days of the date of filing of this order.
F OR T HE C OURT
/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s21 Case: 13-3037 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 01/29/2013
# Handbooks

This page provides access to handbooks and manuals that have been approved for release to the public. 

You may also find USCIS policy and procedures within our Policy Manual and our Policy Memoranda pages.
                - The  Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Practice Manual  describes rules, procedures, and recommendations for appearing before the AAO.
                - The  M-274, Handbook for Employers , and  I-9 Central  provide guidance for completing Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

These handbooks contain the official policies of USCIS and assist immigration officers in rendering decisions. These handbooks are to be followed by USCIS officers in the performance of their duties but do not remove their discretion in making adjudicatory decisions. The handbooks do not create any substantive or procedural rights or benefits that are legally enforceable by any party against the United States, or its agencies or officers or any other person.

## Related Links

                - Electronic Reading Room
                - I-9 Central

07/21/2016

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30735

Summary Calendar

SMIT INTERNATIONAL (WEST AFRICA B.V.),

Plaintiff-Appellee

Cross-Appellant,

VERSUS

THE PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION,

Defendant-Appellant

Cross-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(CA 93 2268 J)

April 30, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On July 13, 1990, the USS Preserver

, a United States Navy tug

commanded by Lieutenant Commander Paul Nolte ("Nolte") entered the

bre akwater of the Panama Canal towing the 2,675-ton ex- U SS

Skipjack

, a decommissioned nuclear submarine, to be anchored inside

the breakwater. Nolte requested from the Panama Canal Commission

("PCC") a pilot and two tugs for assistance in the maneuvers. PCC2

assigned its pilot, Louis Pascavage, and one tug, the Smit Belgie

,

owned and operated by Smi t International (West Africa B.V.)

( "Smit"). Pascavage properly and effectively assumed control of

the USS Preserver and its tow and ord ered the S mit Belgie to put

one line on the stern of Skipjack and then move aft to take way off

of the tow. S kipjack had a vertical rudder extending above th e

deck; and Smit Belgie 's 200 foot of line was attached to the deck

of the submarine on the center line of its hull well forward of the

stern. After pulling the stern of S kipjack to starboard, the Smit

Belgie began the maneuver to fall in behind Skipjack

. When the two

line caught in the housing of the vertical rudder, the line became

taut and jerked the tug onto a submerged diving plane which

extended out from the hull of the submarine. S mit Belgie was holed

on her port side and sank.

Smit sued PCC in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana to recover the stipulated damages of

$1,725,000 which it sustaine d as a result of the sinking of its

tow. The case was tried before the United States District Judge

who found that PCC and Smit were each liable for 50% of the fault

for the casualty. Accordingly, the district court awarded judgment

in favor of Smit for $862,500, being one-half of its stipulated

damages. Both sides appealed.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply briefs, the

record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. For3

the reasons stated by the district judge in the Findings of Fact

a nd Conclusions of Law entered under date of May 30, 1995, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED