alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT NO. TWOTO THEEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

          THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of the 25th day of January, 2006 by and between COMMUNITY BANK (the "Corporation"), a federally chartered savings bank, and CHRIS P. KYRIAKIDES (the"Executive").

WITNESSETH:

          WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into an employment agreement dated April 1, 2001 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

          WHEREAS, pursuant to Amendment No. One to the Employment Agreement dated March 29, 2002 the Corporation and the Executive amended the Employment Agreement to set the Executive's compensation andthe expiration of the term of the Executive's employment under the Employment Agreement at March 31, 2004, subject to automatic extension as provided for in the Employment Agreement; and

          WHEREAS, the Corporation and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as described below.

          NOW, THEREFORE, to assure the Corporation of the Executive's continued dedication, the availability of his advice and counsel to the Board of Directors of the Corporation, and to induce theExecutive to remain and continue in the employ of the Corporation and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy whereof each party hereby acknowledges, the Corporation andthe Executive hereby agree that the Employment Agreement shall be amended, as follows:

          1. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and revised to read as follows:

          Executive Duties: Executive agrees that, during the term of his employment under this Agreement and in his capacity as Senior Vice President and President of Hampton Roads Region, he willdevote his full business time and energy to the business, affairs and interests of the Corporation and serve it diligently and to the best of his ability. The services and duties to be performed byExecutive shall be those appropriate to his office and title as currently and from time to time hereafter specified in the Corporation's By-laws or otherwise specified by its Board of Directors.

          2. Except as specifically amended above, all terms, conditions, covenants and other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as set forth therein.

          3. The execution, delivery and performance of this Amendment has been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of the Corporation.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. One to the Employment Agreement effective as of January 26, 2006.

|               |     | EXECUTIVE                                  |
|---------------|-----|--------------------------------------------|
| ATTEST:  |     | /s/ Chris P. KyriakidesChris P. Kyriakides |
|               |     | COMMUNITY BANK                             |
| ATTEST:  | By: | /s/ P. Douglas RichardPresident            |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00001-CV

In re Max Grossman

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relator Max Grossman has filed a petition for writ of injunction and an amended 

motion for emergency relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 52.10(a). The Court orders the 

respondent, Mark Wolfe, Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission, to file a 

response to the petition for writ of injunction on or before January 14, 2019. See id. R. 

52.8(b)(1). The intervenor, City of El Paso, may also file a response to the petition for writ of 

injunction on or before January 14, 2019. See id.

To preserve the status quo while the Court considers whether the petition for writ 

of injunction is necessary, pending further order of this Court, we temporarily order the 

following emergency relief: 

• Mark Wolfe, Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission, 

shall suspend Permit Number 8525, concerning the Proposed El Paso 

Multipurpose Performing Arts Center in El Paso County, Texas, issued on 

or about October 15, 2018; and
• the City of El Paso shall not conduct or permit others to conduct 

demolition of any buildings within the footprint of the project (as defined 

by the Rule 11 agreement entered on October 25, 2018).

See id. R. 52.10(b); see also In re Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, orig. 

proceeding) (explaining that Rule 52.10 allows appellate court to maintain status quo until it can 

address dispute raised by original proceeding). This order shall remain effective pending our 

resolution of the petition for writ of injunction. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). 

It is ordered on January 3, 2019.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Triana
EXHIBIT
31.1



Certification
by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant

to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I,
William A. Coskey, certify that:



1.
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ENGlobal Corporation;



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;



|Date:
    April     25, 2019 | /s/
    William A. Coskey  
|---------------------------- | ---------------------------
|                             | William
    A. Coskey      
|                             | Chief
    Executive Officer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000553

26-OCT-2015

10:08 AM
Brian LEWIS, et al., petitioners, v. William CLARKE.

No. 15-1500.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 28, 2016.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED BY SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Paul D.Melnuk, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of ThermadyneHoldings Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1) theaccompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filedwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 

Dated:  May 10, 2004

 
|   | By:    |   | /s/ Paul D.  Melnuk           |   |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |                          |   |
|   |   |   | Paul D.  Melnuk               |   |
|   |   |   | Chief  Executive Officer      |   |
|   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29



February 14, 1997



Mr. Avi Arad
Arad & Associates
1698 Post Road East
Westport, CT  06880

Dear Avi:

     In order to insure that there are no misunderstandings regarding the
royalty stream to Avi Arad & Associates it is in everyone's best interest to
clarify what I believe to be our existing understanding as well as the impact of
the contemplated Marvel transaction.

     First, as has been our practice, we will continue to document those items
which the company deeply discounts or "closes out." We have never accrued or
paid royalties on these items.

     Second, there are several Marvel items in the 1996 line which were
developed internally and for which no royalties are due. As we have previously
discussed, while the company saved the royalty component on these sales by
developing them internally, the items were not as exciting or successful as we
would hope. I have asked you and, in fact you have, become closely involved in
the development of the 1997 Marvel line. Subject to further review on both our
parts and except in very limited circumstances, it is the company's
understanding that you are due royalties on the 1997 Marvel line since you are
the primary developer/inventor.

     Third, we have adjusted the royalty rate on all Marvel items on which you
are due a royalty to 4% on a worldwide basis. As you are aware, our agreement to
this rate was apparently not communicated to our Accounting Department but all
adjustments have been properly recorded. Obviously, for non-Marvel items we will
continue to negotiate each item on a "stand alone", item by item basis.
<PAGE>
 
     Finally, I believe we are in agreement regarding the Battle Builder's
royalty adjustment. I realize how difficult this was for you because I know how
much you believe in this product, while I believe you are right, as you have
seen with our on-going negotiation with Warner Brothers in trying to get them to
participate in the support of the Batman Ride-On product on some financial basis
(tooling/advertising support or substantially reduced royalty) sometimes
licensors must participate in these marketing programs. I agree that your
support of Battle Builders will be no more than the $500,000 that you
participated in for 1996.

     As far as the future is concerned, we must document, under separate cover,
exactly what your new arrangement will be after the Marvel acquisition. I
understand your "cap" amount will change and therefore we should better define
the terms of your new deal. In order to confirm your agreement with all of the
above, please sign and return a copy of this letter for our files.

                                       Very truly yours,



                                       Joseph M. Ahearn
                                       President and
                                       Chief Executive Officer


AGREED TO:


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


DATE:_________________________
Francisco K. AVOKI, et ux., petitioners, v. Larry Eugene FEREBEE, Jr., et al.

No. 16-120.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7347

VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF

PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; STEVEN DEWALT, Warden,

Federal Correctional Institution Butner Satellite Camp,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District

Judge. (CA-00-103-5-1F)

Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 16, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raliegh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Eugene Lineberger appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Lineberger’s motion

to transmit the record from the district court, deny his motion for

appointment of counsel, and affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Lineberger v. United States, No. CA-00-103-5-1F (E.D.N.C.

Sept. 5, 2000). 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
# C_2010346EN.01003802.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/38

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 June 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-394/09) (1)

1

()

2010/C 346/68

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
Page 1 of 1 

secretary 

From: dlev@comcast.net 

Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 1 :44 PM 

To: secretary 

Subject: Proposed rules for trading off the centralized market COMMENT 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I have been a professional market maker in options for over 24 years, in both equities and 

commodities. In that time I have seen many changes which have made the market place a fairer, less 

costly and more transparent way to do business. And I applaud most of these initiatives. 

However, the present rules for block trading are non-transparent, uncompetetive and fly in the face of 

fair and open trading. The present rules give market access to some participants and not to others, and in 

many cases result in a trading price which is a gross distortion ofwhat the price would have been had 

more participants had access to the trade. 

I trade options on the ICE US futures exchange (formerly NYBOT). From time to time a block trade 

is reported which, illegally I feel, trades through a market egregiously. For example, a straddle may be 

quoted on the tradingfloor, with a given market of 14.50 bid 15.00 offered. Then, ten minutes later, a 

block trade is reported at 16.00, not only denying participation by those who provide liquidity on a daily 

basis, but also giving one participant an anti-competitive profit at the expense of an ignorant second 

party. Why would a buyer pay 16.00 in this example? Well, I don't know what goes on behind the 

scenes but suspect the answer involves an unscupulous broker or some illegal soft payment arrangement. 

Otherwise, there is no economic reason to make such a price dis-advantaged trade. 

If the rationale for block trading is that liquidity must be sought elsewhere that doesn't exist on the 

trading floor, then the present contract limit of 250 is way to small. There is no question that a trade of 

250 or 500 contracts can easily be accomadated in the trading pit. And even very large trades could 

benefit by the liquidity provided if more, not fewer potential participants have access to the trade. In 

fact, I really can't come up with a single reason why privately negotiated block trades improve the 

market place. 

So, in summary, I believe block trading should be abolished because it is by nature anti-competitive 

and non-transparent. 

Respectfully, David Levine 

.\'~ ~ 

.... C) 

f;,__ .. J 

/•""• 

1/5/2009
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
Community Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the quarterly report of
the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such
period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

|Dated: November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ P. Douglas RichardP. Douglas RichardChief Executive Officer
/s/ R. Jerry GilesR. Jerry GilesChief Financial Officer
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-87592, No. 33-60369, No. 33-60373 and No. 33-60371) of J. Ray
McDermott, S.A. of our report dated May 19, 1998, except for the fifth and sixth
paragraphs of Note 11, as to which the date is June 1, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of J. Ray McDermott, S.A. included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1998.



                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New Orleans, Louisiana
June 12, 1998
Stanley CHAIRS, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 16-6244.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District denied.
Note: This disposition is nonprecedenial. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-3007 

MONA PRADIER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Respondent. 

Morris E. Fischer, Law Office of Morris E. Fischer, of Bethesda, Maryland, for 

petitioner. 

Matthew H. Solomson, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With 

him on the brief were Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. 

Davidson, Director, Harold D. Lester, Jr., Assistant Director, and Daniel Rabinowitz, 

Trial Attorney. 

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2009-3007 

MONA PRADIER, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

 Respondent. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the Merit Systems Protection Board 

in CASE NO(S). DA0752070508-I-1 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (NEWMAN, PLAGER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED October 22, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Exhibit 10.23

DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENT WITH MR. MARCUS G. SMITH

On February 13, 2007, the Compensation Committee revised Mr. Marcus G. Smiths
compensation arrangement with the Company. Consistent with Company policy, Mr. Smith does not have an employment contract. Mr. Smiths compensation for 2007 will include a base salary of $225,000, and sales commissions based on certain national
sponsorship, marketing and advertising sales by Mr. Smith, at the following rates:



|                                             |  |     |  
|-------------------------------------------- |  | --- | -
|Performance Racing Network Advertising Sales |  | 7.5 | %
|Other Gross Marketing Sales of:              |  |     |  
|$0 to $10 million                            |  | 1.0 | %
|$10 million to $15 million                   |  | 1.5 | %
|$15 million to $20 million                   |  | 2.0 | %
|$20 million to $28.5 million                 |  | 2.5 | %
|Above $28.5 million                          |  | 3.0 | %

The commissions outlined above are consistent with Mr. Smiths position and the sales commission program of the
Company. The percentages set forth above are retroactive to $0 if specified sales targets are met. It is anticipated that in future years, Mr. Smiths annual compensation will continue to be determined by the Companys Compensation
Committee in accordance with its policies regarding executive officers and any commission bonuses will continue to be consistent with the Companys overall sales commission and bonus program.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000155 10-FEB-2015 09:37 AM

SCWC-13-0000155 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. JIMMY ROBINSON, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0000155; CR. NO. 11-1-1014) ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on January 12, 2015, is hereby accepted. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The case is temporarily remanded to the circuit court to hear and determine promptly a motion for withdrawal of counsel and appointment of new counsel. 2. Within 10 days from the date of this order, withdrawing counsel shall file in the circuit court a motion for withdrawal of counsel and appointment of new counsel.3. Within 15 days from the filing of a motion for withdrawal of counsel and appointment of new counsel, the circuit court shall hear the motion and shall enter a written order. 4. Within 10 days from the filing of an order on the motion for withdrawal of counsel and appointment of new counsel, the clerk of the circuit court shall supplement the appellate record with the additional filings. 5. Within 60 days from the filing of the order on the motion for withdrawal of counsel and appointment of new counsel, newly appointed counsel shall file, on behalf of petitioner, a supplemental brief in this certiorari proceeding. The brief shall not exceed twelve pages. 6. Within 15 days from the filing of petitioner’s supplemental brief, respondent may file a response. The response shall not exceed twelve pages. 7. Within 7 days from the filing of a response, if any, newly appointed counsel, on behalf of petitioner, may file a reply. The reply shall not exceed twelve pages. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, February 10, 2015. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2