alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w4



 






EXHIBIT 10.4




SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




          SECOND AMENDMENT dated as of July 29, 2005 (this “Amendment”) to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as
of August 16, 2004, as amended (the “Agreement”) by and between TRW Automotive Inc. (the “Company”)
and Neil E. Marchuk (“Executive”).




          WHEREAS, in order to extend the term of the Agreement, Executive and Company desire to amend
the Agreement as set forth below;




          In consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows:




          1. Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the
meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.




          2. Amendment to Section 1.b. of the Agreement. Section 1.b. of the Agreement shall be
amended in its entirety to read as follows:





b. Subject to the provisions of Section 7 of this Agreement, Executive shall
be employed by the Company for a period commencing on the Effective Date and
ending on December 31, 2008 (the “Employment Term”) on the terms and subject
to the conditions set forth in this Agreement; provided, however,
that commencing with January 1, 2009 and on each January 1 thereafter (each
an “Extension Date”), the Employment Term shall be automatically extended
for an additional one-year period, unless the Company or Executive provides
the other party hereto 60 days prior written notice before the next
Extension Date that the Employment Term shall not be so extended.



          3. No Other Amendments; Effectiveness. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the
Agreement is ratified and confirmed in all respects. This Amendment shall be effective as of the
date hereof.




          4. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of laws principles thereof.




          5. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be
an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same
instrument.




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



	 	 	 
	TRW Automotive Inc.
	 	Neil E. Marchuk
	 	 	 
	/s/ David L. Bialosky
	 	/s/ Neil E. Marchuk
	 
	 	 





By: David L. Bialosky





			
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President

General Counsel and Secretary
Corvair L. FAISON, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN NATIONAL CAN COMPANY, Employer. Gallagher Bassett Services, Carrier, Defendants.

No. 461P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Ben E. Roney, for Corvair L. Faison.

George H. Pender, Raleigh, for Can Company, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of August 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Appalachian Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Tracy R. Newton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Danny F. Dukes., Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

By:



| |  |                                                     
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Tracy R. Newton                                 
| |  | Tracy R. Newton                                     
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
| |  | April 3, 2009                                       
| | 
| |  | /s/ Danny F. Dukes                                  
| |  | Danny F. Dukes                                      
| |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | April 3, 2009
STATE v. FARMER.

No. COA05-1121.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Catawba (03CRS61072)

Case without published opinion. No error.
PEDEN GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff v. Carol BENNETT, d/b/a Brighton Stables, Defendant and Peden General Contractors, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff v. Ceco Building Systems, A Division of Robertson-Ceco Corporation; and J. Devereux Joslin, P.E., Third Party Defendants and Carol Bennett, d/b/a Brighton Stables, Cross-Claimant v. Ceco Building Systems, A Division of Robertson-Ceco Corporation, Cross-Defendant.

No. 499P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Carol Bennett, Pro Se.

W. Sidney Aldridge, Raleigh, for Peden General Contractors.

James L. Gale, Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Raleigh, for Ceco Building Systems.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of September 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review (writ of certiorari) of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                  DONNELLEY ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED
 
                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                 (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   YEARS ENDED
                                                                  DECEMBER 31,
                                                                  -------------
                                                                   1995   1996
                                                                  ------ ------
<S>                                                               <C>    <C>
PRO FORMA BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Net Income....................................................... $  303 $  625
  Pro forma Common Shares outstanding(1).........................  5,005  5,005
                                                                  ====== ======
  Pro forma Earnings per share .................................. $ 0.06 $ 0.12
                                                                  ====== ======
PRO FORMA FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Net Income....................................................... $  303 $  625
  Pro forma Common Shares outstanding(1).........................  5,005  5,005
  Common Share equivalents applicable to stock options...........    --     --
                                                                  ------ ------
  Pro forma Common Share and Common Share equivalents............  5,005  5,005
                                                                  ====== ======
  Pro forma Earnings per share--fully diluted(2)................. $ 0.06 $ 0.12
                                                                  ====== ======
</TABLE>
--------
(1) Pro forma Common Shares outstanding assumes the 5,000,000 common shares
    outstanding upon the completion of the Offering and the 5,000 restricted
    common shares issued to a key executive were outstanding for both years.
(2) This calculation is submitted in accordance with Item 601(b) 11 of
    regulation S-K although it is not required by APB Opinion No. 15 because
    it results in dilution of less than 3%.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

d0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139353 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139353 

 COA: 289555 

Charlevoix CC: 03-081609-FH 

CHRISTOPHER DAVID THOMPSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2009 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Yossi Aloni,certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form10-K of SeaChange International, Inc.; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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: May 26, 2020  By: 
/s/ YOSSI ALONI
   Yossi Aloni   *Chief Executive Officer*   *(Principal Executive Officer)*
 
**
Johnny E. SETZER v. STATE of North Carolina and John McDivett, Sheriff of Burke County, and Gary Dellinger, District Attorney for Burke and Office of Attorney General for North Carolina.

No. 115P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2006.

Johnny Setzer, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Gary Dellinger, District Attorney, Pro Se.

John McDivett, Sheriff of Burke County, Pro Se.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 10th day of March 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Burke County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th day of March 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,085,743
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,098,055
<PP&E>                                         327,854
<DEPRECIATION>                                 164,712
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,627,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,573,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       17,832,342
<PREFERRED>                                  2,855,103
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                (19,633,040)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,627,624
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,566,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,624,999)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,624,999)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (33.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (33.44)


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1667/09 

KA 08-01267

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GREGORY HILL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M.

William Boller, A.J.), rendered May 14, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree. The

judgment was affirmed by an order of this Court entered February 11,

2010 in a memorandum decision (70 AD3d 1487), and defendant on July

21, 2010 was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the

order of this Court (15 NY3d 774), and the Court of Appeals on October

20, 2011 modified the order and remitted the case to this Court for

further proceedings in accordance with the opinion (___ NY3d ___). 

Now, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals and having

considered the issues raised but not determined on the appeal to this

Court,

It is hereby ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of 

Appeals, the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On a prior appeal in People v Hill (70 AD3d 1487),

we affirmed the judgment convicting defendant upon a jury verdict of

assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). The Court of

Appeals modified our order and remitted the case to this Court for

consideration of the suppression issues raised by defendant but not

determined by this Court (People v Hill, ___ NY3d ___ [Oct. 20,

2011]). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to

suppress his statements to the police because they were the fruit of

the alleged unlawful entry into his apartment. Even assuming,

arguendo, that the court erred in refusing to suppress those

statements, we conclude that the error is harmless (see People v

Watkins, 59 AD3d 1128, 1129, lv denied 12 NY3d 922; see generally 
-2- 1667 

KA 08-01267 

People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237). 

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 5.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Gaétan Mercier, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Virginia Mines 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; 

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

4. The company’s other certifying officer 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 company 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 company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the  period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls  and procedures 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; 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control  over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual  report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,  the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based  on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,  to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s  board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation  of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the company’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 company’s internal control over financial  reporting. 

Date: May 29, 2006

*/s/ Gaétan Mercier*  Gaétan Mercier  Chief Financial Officer
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward E. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ EDWARD E. COHEN    
|Edward E. Cohen        
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 8, 2008
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 5, 2013

h0529 

# Order

Clerk June 5, 2013

145783

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145783

COA: 310518

Wayne CC: 12

- 000948

- 01

- FC

CHARLES DAMON JONES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 13, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENI ED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH

, J., would grant leave to appeal.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Richard C. Ford, Chief Executive Officer of Puradyn
Filter Technologies Incorporated ("the Company") has executed this certification
in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
"Report").

         The undersigned certifies that: (1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and (2) the 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 certification as
of the 2nd day of April 2007.

                                          /s/ Joseph V. Vittoria
                                          ------------------------
                                          Name: Joseph V. Vittoria
                                          Title:  Chairman and
                                          Chief Executive Officer,
                                          principal executive officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 21-0640

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY CHINCHOLL,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is 

given an extension of time until June 27, 2022 to prepare, file and serve the 

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 25 2022

05/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0640