alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_3.htm













 






FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

















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












Recitals








	
A)  

	
On June 1, 2001 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.













	
B)  

	
Said Employment Agreement has been amended on thirteen prior occasions;













	
C)  

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

















Agreement







1. Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides:








	
2.1  

	
Salary.  For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $240,000 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 $244,800 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.







John Hildebrandt                                                                           By:           







______________________                                                       Name:      Jose Luis Laparte 


                           Its:           President
cnamexexh.htm


 












 


[Translated from Chinese to English]







Loan Review Committee of Guangdong Development Bank Zhengzhou Branch (2009 International Trading) #003







Line of Credit Review Approval Notice


 

 


International Business Department:







The line of credit application from Henan Armco & Metawise Trading Co., Ltd. has been received. After the third group review, the reply is as follows:








	
1.  

	
(Approved) One-year line of credit for international trading is approved for RMB 50 million, exclusively financing the imports of minerals. The line for import letter of credit is RMB 50 million with percentage of guarantee money not lower than 20%, and the bank has the control of cargo; the line for import bill advance (including bill advances under letter of credit and import collection) shall not be higher than RMB50 million and the term for a single bill advance plus usance letter of credit shall not be longer than 4 months; the applied interest rate shall be subject to the head office of the bank; the bank has the control of cargo. The applicant shall pay to take cargo, and the legal person of the applicant, Mr. Kexuan Yao, shall take joint liabilities for warrandice.  It is required: (1) The letter of credit opened by the applicant shall have the bank as the designated recipient of cargo (except for the shipping document with blank headings); (2) The applicant shall purchased insurance policies for the transportation and storage of the cargo covered by this line of credit, with the bank as the immediate beneficiary; (3) The forwarder qualifications and warehouse safety shall be strictly reviewed and the forwarding procedures and storage status shall be under close watch in order to ensure the bank’s control of cargo and goods safety; (4) The International Business Department shall closely watch the goods categories, recent price fluctuation, and market demand during the opening of letter of credit, and increase percentage of guarantee money if needed to mitigate risk that the bank is exposed to.











  





  











  














	
2.  

	
(Not applied) the application is rejected.








	
3.  

	
(Approved) Miscellaneous:   Approval Number: 20090318








	
4.  

	
(Approved) Chief Leader: Chaofeng Kang












Seal


(Loan Review Committee of Guangdong Development Bank Zhengzhou Branch)


Date: 10-21-2010







Note: The applicant shall complete the procedure as stipulated above and get the Charge-Off Notice from the Loan Management Department of Zhengzhou Branch before it can record the expenditure to the account. If the applicant has not charged off within 90 days from the delivery date of this notice, the line of credit will automatically expire.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01



                   Consent of Independent Public Accountants

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by 
reference of our report on the June 30, 1998 consolidated financial statements 
of Comshare, Incorporated and subsidiaries dated September 18, 1998, included 
in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8 and S-3 
registration statements (File No. 33-6730, File No. 33-9755-3, File No. 
33-28437, File No. 33-27002, File No. 33-37564, File No. 33-85720, File No. 33-
87706, File No. 33-87708, File No. 33-86908 and File No. 33-65109).



                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                                         -----------------------
                                                           Arthur Andersen LLP





Detroit, Michigan
   September 25, 1998
EXHIBIT
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**





**18
      U.S.C. 1350,**





**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**





**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond P. Springer,
      in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.














***/s/
                Raymond P. Springer***Date:
                December 29, 2006
            Raymond
                P. Springer
              Chief
                Financial Officer
#### MEYERS et al., Appellants, v. STIX et al., Respondents.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

Action by George H. Meyers and another against Lena Stix and another. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the general term of the city court. 28 N. Y. Supp. 90.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

Charles Meyers, for appellants.

Samuel W. Weiss, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We see little or no difference between the facts as presented on the former trial (reported in 13 N. Y. Supp. 301) and upon this. On the former appeal we held that there was a trilateral agreement between the parties, and we see no reason to recede from that, upon the facts presented in this. We think, therefore, this judgment is proper, and should be affirmed, with costs.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02 - 10 - 00265 - CV

JEFFREY D. WESTBROOK APPELLANT

V. DAVID F. FONDREN, FR ANK D. HOKE, GARY L. JOHNSO N, JOHN PATRICK, RODNEY COOP ER, GARY WEST, DEBORAH F ORD, JAMES MOONEYHAM, JIM MY WEBB, PRI SCILLA MORALES, JIMMY BOWMAN, VICKIE BARROW, KELLI WARD, PATSY BELL, DANNY HORTON, ROY MONROE, AND SHERILYN TRENT APPELLEES

---------- FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

On July 28, 2010, this court received a notice of appeal from Appellant Jeffrey D. Westbrook, pro se. On October 22, 2010, we notified the parties that this court may lack jurisdiction because the trial court’s order in this case did not appear to be a final judgment. That is , the order disposing of Westbrook’s request for a preliminary injunction did not also dispose of Westbrook’s request for a declaratory judgment, which Westbrook indicated he wished to incorporate into this appeal in his letters filed on September 22, 2010 , October 13, 2010, and November 9, 2010. On October 1, 2010, the trial court indicated that no ruling could be made on Westbrook’s motion for declaratory judgment because it had never been set

for trial. Our October 22, 2010 letter informed the parties that they had until Monday, November 1, 2010, to furnish this court with a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal or it would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Westbrook responded to our letter, stating that “[t]he only thing to do is sever the declaratory judgment . . . and proceed with the preliminary injunction portion.” Therefore, to the extent Westbrook has attempted to appeal a claim for declaratory judgment that is not currently appealable, we dismiss that portion of his appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Compare Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2009) (stating that a person may appeal from an interlocutory order that refuses a3

temporary injun ction), with Lehman v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (“[T]he general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.”). The remainder of Westbrook’s appeal shall continue, and Westb rook’s appellate b rief is due in this court on Monday, January 24, 2011

.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 23, 2010
##### 



Exhibit 3.1
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO
THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED
AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP  OF EOP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
 THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT Amendment TO THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP OF EOP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST General Partner Partnership
 WHEREAS, Contribution Agreement Unit
Recipients Units
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1. Addition of Exhibit E-11 to the Agreement . Exhibit E-11 Exhibit A
 2. Addition to Exhibit E to the Agreement.
 




---



##### 



3. Defined Terms. Exhibit A
 4. Time Is of the Essence.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST,a Maryland real estate
investment trust, the General Partner of EOP Operating
Limited Partnership and on behalf of existing Limited
PartnersBy:
    
    /s/ Jeffrey S. ArnoldName:
    
    Jeffrey S. ArnoldTitle:
    
    Vice President  Legal




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Exhibit E-11
 (Chapman and Raiser  CA-Shorebreeze Agreement)
 Background
 Raiser Chapman Unit Recipients Units Fifth
Amendment Agreement Exhibit E-11
 Exhibit E-11
 Specific Agreement
 Unit Recipients Obligation to Restore Deficit Capital Accounts . DRO
Election Exhibit T-1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6359 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6359

  To amend title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
    1974 to provide for a guarantee by the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
   Corporation for qualified preretirement survivor annuities under 
          insolvent or terminated multiemployer pension plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2010

Mr. Maffei (for himself and Mr. Andrews) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
    1974 to provide for a guarantee by the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
   Corporation for qualified preretirement survivor annuities under 
          insolvent or terminated multiemployer pension plans.

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

SECTION 1. GUARANTEE FOR PRE-RETIREMENT SURVIVOR ANNUITIES UNDER 
              MULTIEMPLOYER PENSION PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 4022A(b) of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322a(b)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3) For purposes of subsection (a), a qualified preretirement 
survivor annuity (as defined in section 205(e)(1)) with respect to a 
participant under a multiemployer plan which becomes insolvent under 
section 4245(b) or 4281(d)(2) or is terminated shall not be treated as 
forfeitable solely because the participant has not died as of the date 
on which the plan became so insolvent or the termination date.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to multiemployer plan benefit payments becoming payable on 
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39141/39142

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JASON WADE GUDGELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 468

Filed: May 8, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and sentences of a unified term of twenty years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of five years, for aggravated assault, enhanced 

by use of a deadly weapon; and a consecutive unified term of five years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of one year, for battery on a police 

officer, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In docket number 39141, Jason Wade Gudgell pled guilty to aggravated assault, Idaho 

Code §§ 18-901(b), 18-905(a), enhanced by use of a deadly weapon during the commission of a 

crime, I.C. § 19-2520. The district court also found Gudgell to be a persistent violator and 

sentenced Gudgell to a unified term of twenty years, with five years determinate.1

 In docket 

 

1 Gudgell also pled guilty to operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent, I.C. § 

49-227, and he received a concurrent sentence of 180 days jail. However, Gudgell does not 

appeal the 180 day sentence. 
2

number 39142, Gudgell pled guilty to battery on a police officer, I.C. §§ 18-915(3), 18-903(b). 

The district court sentenced Gudgell to a unified term of five years, with one year determinate, to 

run consecutive to his sentence in docket number 39141. Gudgell appeals, contending his 

sentences, both individually and in the aggregate, are excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 

1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Gudgell’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David Calkins,  the Chief Executive  Officer of Pacel Corp. (the  "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

1. the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q fo the Company for the period ended March
31,2003 (the "Report) fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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





August 29, 2003

BY: /s/David Calkins
   ----------------------
David Calkins, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 17, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00239-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.G, A MINOR CHILD 

On Appeal from the 507th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-52545 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

This is an appeal from an order signed January 2, 2018. Appellant filed a letter 

on April 17, 2018, stating that after the order on appeal was signed, the underlying 

case was transferred from Harris County to Chambers County. Appellant filed a 

notice of appeal in the Harris County case and in the Chambers County case. The 

appeal from Chambers County was assigned to the First Court of Appeals on April 

3, 2018. The appeal from Harris County was assigned to this court on April 5, 2018. 

As a result, the order on appeal in this court is the subject of an earlier-assigned 

appeal in the First Court of Appeals. 

Due to the earlier-filed appeal pending in the First Court of Appeals, we 
2

notified the parties on April 23, 2018, that we would dismiss this appeal on or after 

May 4, 2018, unless any party showed meritorious grounds for retention of the 

appeal. No response was filed. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v B. P. Tavern, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Battisti, J.), rendered June 14, 1985, convicting it of promoting gambling in the second degree and possession of a gambling device, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed *(see, People v Herman,*133 AD2d 377 [decided herewith]; *People v Bayer,*133 AD2d *374374 [decided herewith]). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6123 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the provision of rehabilitative services for veterans with traumatic brain injury, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 

Mr. WALZ (for himself, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. BILIRAKIS, and Mr. 

PASCRELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

provision of rehabilitative services for veterans with traumatic brain injury, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans’ Traumatic 

5 Brain Injury Rehabilitative Services’ Improvements Act of 

6 2010’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6123 IH

1 SEC. 2. REHABILITATIVE SERVICES FOR VETERANS WITH 

2 TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY. 

3 (a) REHABILITATION PLANS AND SERVICES.—Sec4 tion 1710C of title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting before the 

6 semicolon the following: ‘‘with the goal of maxi7 mizing the individual’s independence and quality of 

8 life’’; 

9 (2) in subsection (b)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

11 (i) by inserting after ‘‘improving’’ the 

12 following: ‘‘(and sustaining improvement 

13 in)’’; 

14 (ii) by inserting ‘‘behavioral,’’ after 

15 ‘‘cognitive’’; 

16 (iii) by inserting ‘‘and mental health’’ 

17 after ‘‘functioning’’; and 

18 (iv) by inserting ‘‘, quality of life,’’ 

19 after ‘‘independence’’; 

20 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘reha21 bilitative services and’’ before ‘‘rehabilitative 

22 components’’; and 

23 (C) in paragraph (3)— 

24 (i) by striking ‘‘treatments’’ the first 

25 place it appears and inserting ‘‘services’’; 

26 and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6123 IH

1 (ii) by striking ‘‘treatments and’’ the 

2 second place it appears; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub4 section: 

5 ‘‘(h) For purposes of this section, and sections 1710D 

6 and 1710E of this title, the term ‘rehabilitative services’ 

7 includes— 

8 ‘‘(1) rehabilitative services, as defined in section 

9 1701(8) of this title; 

10 ‘‘(2) services (which may be of ongoing dura11 tion) to sustain, and prevent loss of, functional gains 

12 that have been achieved; and 

13 ‘‘(3) any other services or supports that may 

14 contribute to maximizing an individual’s independ15 ence and quality of life.’’ 

16 (b) PROGRAM.—Section 1710D(a) of title 38, United 

17 States Code, is amended— 

18 (1) by inserting ‘‘and rehabilitative services’’ 

19 after ‘‘long-term care’’; and 

20 (2) by striking ‘‘treatment’’. 

21 (c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—Section 1710E(a) 

22 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting 

23 ‘‘, including rehabilitative services,’’ after ‘‘medical serv24 ices’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

K.C., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1773

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 20, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Barbara TwineThomas, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and C. Todd Chapman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and LUCAS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.