alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<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>                             1,001,139
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  827,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,913
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,810
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (153,931)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    45,834
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (199,765)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (199,765)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)


</TABLE>
ex10_7.htm














EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT












This Eighteenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of February 1, 2010, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Thomas Martin ("Executive").












Recitals








	
A)  

	
On March 31, 1998 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.













	
B)  

	
Said Employment Agreement has been amended on seventeen 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 provides:







2.1           Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $251,736 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 February 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 $260,000 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.













	
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.







Thomas Martin                                                                           By:           







______________________                                                   Name:     Jose Luis Laparte 


                          Its:           President
Parlux Fragrances, Inc.


EXHIBIT 10.1

AMENDMENT TO

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 31st day of March, 2010 by and between Parlux Fragrances, Inc. (the “Company”) and Frank A. Buttacavoli (the “Executive” and, together with the Company, the “Parties”).

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend their Executive Employment Agreement dated June 5, 2009 (the "Agreement") on the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment (defined terms used in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement, unless redefined in this Amendment); 

WHEREAS, the terms of this Amendment have been reviewed and approved by the members of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Committee”).

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and for other valuable consideration the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

1.

Compensation Adjustment. Effective April 1, 2010, Executive shall be paid an Annual Base Salary of $360,000 for the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011. Effective April 1, 2011, Executive shall be paid an Annual Base Salary of $400,000 for the remainder of the Term, and for any extension of the Term pursuant to Section 2 of the Agreement. 

2.

Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of Florida without regard to the application of conflicts of laws.

3.

Entire Agreement. This Amendment, together with the Agreement, constitutes the only agreement between Company and the Executive regarding the Executive’s employment by the Company. This Amendment, together with the Agreement, supersedes any and all other agreements and understandings, written or oral, between the Company and the Executive regarding the subject matter hereof. A waiver by either party of any provision of this Agreement or any breach of such provision in an instance will not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of such provision for the future, or of any subsequent breach of such provision. The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, may be further amended, modified or changed only by further written agreement between the Company and the Executive, duly executed by both Parties. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect between the Parties.

[Signatures on Next Page]








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment under seal as of the date first above written.

			
	 
	PARLUX FRAGRANCES, INC.


	 
	 
	 

	 
	By: 

	/s/ Frederick E. Purches


	 
	 
	Frederick E. Purches, CEO and Chairman


	 
	 
	 

	 
	EXECUTIVE


	 
	 
	 

	 
	By: 

	/s/ Frank A. Buttacavoli


	 
	Name:

	Frank A. Buttacavoli


	 
	 
	 

















2
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Fe lton and Senior Judge Willis

BELINDA L. ANDERSON MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1350-05-1 PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 VIRGINIA BEACH (CITY OF) SCHOOL BOARD AND COMPMANAGEMENT, INC.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Sidney H. Kelsey, Jr., on brief), for appellant. (George J. Dancigers; Karen E. Daily; McKenry, Dancigers, Dawson & Lake, on brief), for appellees.

Belinda L. Anderson (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that she failed to prove total disability after February 11, 2004, as a result of her compensable April 9, 2003 injury by accident. Pursuant to Rule 5A:21(b), Virginia Beach (City of) School Board raises the additional quest ion of whether the com mission erred in finding that claimant proved she inju red her right elbow in her co mpensable April 9, 2003 injury by

accident. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for th e reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Anderson v. Virginia Beach (City of) School Board , VWC File No. 214-84-67 (May 4, 2005). We dispense with oral argumen t and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
#### WHITE et al. v. BENJAMIN et al.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

May 7, 1894.)

Appeal from equity term.

Action by Eliza W. White and Caroline White against Anna Byron Benjamin and others. There was a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (23 N. Y. Supp. 981), and defendants appeal. ' Affirmed.

Argued before SEDGWICK, C. J., and FREEDMAN, J.

L. S. Tenney, for appellants.

Whitlock & Simonds, for respondents.

FREEDMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment setting aside, as against the plaintiffs, a general assignment executed by the defendant Edward M. Benjamin for the benefit of creditors, and also setting aside, as against the plaintiffs, a judgment entered against him by his wife, and a certain conveyance made by him to his wife.

The case turns wholly upon a peculiar and highly complicated state of facts. They have been so fully analyzed and discussed in the extensive opinion filed by the learned trial judge that no useful purpose would be served by a repetition of them here. After a full consideration of the whole case, I am satisfied that no error was committed in the- reception of evidence which calls for reversal; that the findings of fact, in view of the probabilities and1 inferences fairly and properly deducible from certain clearly established facts, are supported by sufficient evidence; and that the findings of fact sustain the conclusions of law based thereon and the judgment entered. Even if, in a certain aspect of the case, Mr. Benjamin was indebted to his wife at the time of the assignment, it was only for a relatively small amount, and th’samount was fraudulently increased to a very large sum in order to consummate the fraud which was contemplated against the plaintiffs. The fraud committed was not merely a technical one, but fraud in fact. There, was not only an intent to hinder and to delay, but also an intent to defraud the plaintiffs. The fraud had been planned and partially organized for years, and, upon the proofs, Mrs. Benjamin is chargeable with participation in its final consummation, because she permitted her husband, as her attorney in fact, to act for her and himself as he did. Substantial justice has been done between the parties, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
#### Emma Avital, Respondent, v Eitan Avital, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered January 13, 1983, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), dated December 2, 1987, which directed a hearing on his motion to vacate a judgment entered upon his default and directed him to post a bond in the amount of $32,000.

Ordered that on the court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal from so much of the order as directed a *524hearing is treated as an application for leave to appeal, the application is referred to Justice Balletta, and leave to appeal is granted by Justice Balletta (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion to vacate the default judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, before another Supreme Court Justice for determination of the appellant’s motion for downward modification of the maintenance and child support provisions of the judgment of divorce and the respondent’s cross motion, *inter alia,*for a judgment in the principal amount of $2,797 representing maintenance and child support arrears.

The husband’s attorney was unable to appear for a hearing before Justice Zelman in the Supreme Court, Queens County, on the first adjourned date regarding the husband’s motion for a downward modification of the maintenance and child support obligations set forth in the judgment of divorce. He had been instructed, just five days before, by a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to commence a trial in an unrelated action to recover damages for personal injuries which had been on that court’s Trial Calendar in excess of *IV2*years. At the direction of the Kings County Justice, the attorney submitted an affirmation of actual engagement to Justice Zelman on the date of the hearing, which affirmation was in compliance with the court rules governing requests for adjournments due to counsel’s actual court engagement elsewhere (22 NYCRR 125.1 [e] [1]). Under these circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to reject the affirmation, to allow the hearing to proceed, and to permit a default judgment to be entered against the husband. Consequently, the court’s subsequent refusal to vacate the default was also improper *(see,*22 NYCRR 125.1; *Matter of Minter,*132 AD2d 701; *Matter of Poole v Mayer,*112 AD2d 853; *Citizens Sav. & Loan Assn. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*92 AD2d 907; *Cotter v City of New York,*48 AD2d 814).

In view of our determination, we need not address the remaining contentions raised by the husband. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Leon C., Appellant.

— In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Thorpe, J.), dated May 9, 1986, which, following a fact-finding order dated March 24, 1986, made after a hearing, found that appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of grand larceny in the third degree, and imposed a 12-month term of probation. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 24, 1986.

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

The evidence adduced at this hearing, including the circumstantial evidence, was legally sufficient to find that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of grand larceny in the third degree *(see, People v Borrero,*26 NY2d 430; *People v Wright,*68 AD2d 930). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established that the appellant committed acts sufficient to convict him of grand larceny in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt and that the court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence *(cf.,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Further, the court did not err in declining to draw an adverse inference due to the presentment agency’s failure to call the complainant. It appears that the complainant, a minor at the time of the hearing, did not reside in New York and was not under the control of the presentment agency *(see, People v Walker,*105 AD2d 720; *People v Griffin,*100 AD2d 659). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.02**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Adnan Raza, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of PDF Solutions, 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.

 

 

 

|    |    | /s/ Adnan Raza                                                  |   |
|--------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|    |    | Adnan Raza                                                      |   |
|    |    | *Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer* |   |
|    |    | *(Principal financial and accounting officer)*                  |   |
| June 9, 2020 |
EXHIBIT 12.1


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


     Bell Canada International Inc. (the  "Corporation") is filing with the U.S.
 Securities  and  Exchange Commission  on the date hereof, its annual report
on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended  December  31, 2002 (the "Report").

     I, Howard N. Hendrick, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
of the  Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted
pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

     (a)  the  Report  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (b)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Corporation.

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



Bell Canada International Inc.


By:(s) Howard N. Hendrick
   ---------------------------------------------
   Howard N. Hendrick
   Executive Vice-President and Chief
   Financial Officer


Date:  April 30, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 4.5
 
  
      
    
    Healthcare & Disability  You will be eligible to participate in Metal Storms group
Medical services (CareFirst PPO by BlueCross BlueShield, www.carefirst.com), Dental
services (UniCare GoldPremium, www.unicare.com), and Disability programs (i.e., short/long
disability insurance, including accidental death & dismemberment coverage). Metal Storms
policy provides for 100% of premiums for these benefit programs.
    
    401 K Program
    
    Life Insurance  Metal Storm provides group term life insurance to all eligible
employees. This policy is currently being reviewed and will likely be changed to be a
multiple of salary by the end of this calendar year.
    
    Four weeks of Recreational Leave, 10 Company Holidays and 8 Sick Days
    
    Company paid Parking
    
    Use of Company Provided Computer and Cell Phone (and/or PDA)




---



##### 




    
    Employment Agreement Regarding Intellectual Property and Confidentiality
    
    Employment Application
    
    Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9, with required documents)
    
    Fair Credit Reporting Act Disclosure
   /s/
PETER  D.  FAULKNER  9/27/2005
    7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             306
<SECURITIES>                                        12
<RECEIVABLES>                                      511
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1264
<PP&E>                                             728
<DEPRECIATION>                                     496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              745
<BONDS>                                             14
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1607
<SALES>                                           2842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2842
<CGS>                                             2631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   108
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    136
<INCOME-TAX>                                        54
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 82
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        82
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.35


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6350 

To amend title XIX of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

program under such title relating to lifespan respite care. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. LANGEVIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Public Health Service Act to 

reauthorize the program under such title relating to lifespan respite care. 

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 ‘‘Lifespan Respite Care 

5 Reauthorization Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF LIFESPAN RESPITE CARE 

7 PROGRAM. 

8 Section 2905 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 300ii–4) is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6350 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(6) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and 

7 ‘‘(7) such sums as may be necessary for each 

8 subsequent fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10198]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Sickle Cell Disease Advisory Committee.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Sickle Cell Disease Advisory Committee.
    Date: June 4, 2001.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: Discussion of program policies and issues.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Rockledge Center, 
Conference Room 9112, 9116, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 
20892.
    Contact Person: Charles M. Peterson, MD, Director, Blood 
Diseases Program, Division of Blood Diseases and Resources, National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH, Two Rockledge Center, Room 
10158, MSC 7950, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-
0050.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 18, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-10198 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M