alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-46.htm


Exhibit 10.46












August 26, 2010


EXTENSION N3 TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2003







By and between Siberian Energy Group Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Elena Pochapski (“Employee”) entered into this 26th day of August, 2010, and made effective as of July 1, 2010.







WHEREAS the Company and the Employee previously signed the Employment Agreement, which stated the term of employment to start on September 1, 2003 and to end on December 31, 2008 (the “Agreement”, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), and subsequent extensions for the year 2009 and for six months of 2010 till June 30, 2010;







AND WHEREAS the Company and the Employee wish to further extend the term of the employment agreement;







NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH, that the Company and the Employee agree as follows:







Point 4 “Term” of the employment Agreement to be revised and the term of the Agreement to be extended until December 31, 2010 (the “Extended Term”).







Point 5.1 “Compensation” of the employment Agreement to be revised and annual salary of the Employee to be stated as US$75,000.







Point 6 “Stock Option” of the employment Agreement is to be removed. A new Stock Option agreement will be signed between the Company and the Employee upon the resolution of the Board of directors of the Company.







All other provisions of the Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2003 shall remain in full force and effect until the expiration of the Extended Term.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.


 


 




	
EMPLOYEE

	
COMPANY


	  	  
	  	  
	
/s/ Elena Pochapski

	
/s/ David Zaikin


	
Elena Pochapski,

	
David Zaikin,


	
Address: 152 Mullen Drive,

	
Chairman and CEO


	
Thornhill, ON, L4J 2V3

	
Siberian Energy Group Inc.


	
Canada
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

HELFRIED E. SARTORI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DOUGLAS VARGO; DAVID GARRAGHTY;

GEORGE HINKLE; CLAUDE NOIROT;

DANIEL T. MAHON; JAMES KING;  No. 03-6131

RONALD J. ANGELONE; VERNON

SMITH, Dr.; KAREN WALLACE; STEVE

HARRIS; N. N. WHITE; N. N.

CHATHAM, Dr.; N. N. KAZI; FRED

ROACH,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.

(CA-02-990-AM)

Submitted: February 20, 2003

Decided: March 4, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion. 

COUNSEL

Helfried E. Sartori, Appellant Pro Se. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Helfried Sartori appeals the district court’s November 13, 2002

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider its October 11, 2002 order denying reconsideration of its dismissal of his

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) without prejudice. Sartori

timely filed one Rule 59(e) motion addressing the district court’s September 18, 2002 order dismissing his complaint, which tolled the

period for noting an appeal. See Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d

367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001). Rather than noting an appeal after the district court denied his first Rule 59(e) motion, on October 11, 2002,

Sartori filed a second Rule 59(e) motion. Because a second Rule 59(e)

motion will not again toll the period for noting an appeal, and Sartori

did not note his appeal until December 26, 2002, his appeal from the

district court’s September 18 dismissal order is untimely. See Charles

v. Daley, 799 F.2d 343, 347-48 (7th Cir. 1986) (collecting cases). We

therefore dismiss the appeal as to the September 18, 2002 order as

untimely. 

To the extent Sartori’s notice of appeal is timely as to the court’s

denial of his second Rule 59(e) motion on November 13, 2002, we

find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Sartori’s second

Rule 59(e) motion for the reasons stated by the district court. Sartori

v. Vargo, No. CA-02-990-AM (E.D. Va., filed Nov. 12, 2002; entered

Nov. 13, 2002). 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. 

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

2 SARTORI v. VARGO
STATE v. Archimede N. NKIAM.

No. 385PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Daniel M. Blau, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Nkiam, Archimede N.

*478Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robert H. Hale, Jr., Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Nkiam, Archimede N.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of December 2015 by Defendant to Dismiss Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,501,358
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         114,259
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,545,437
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 70,454,673
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       3,681,010
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         3,789,557
<LOANS>                                    153,918,968
<ALLOWANCE>                                    457,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             239,297,635
<DEPOSITS>                                 181,485,848
<SHORT-TERM>                                27,555,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,454,635
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,765
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,785,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             239,297,635
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             11,890,112
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,821,738
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               311,540
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            17,023,390
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           9,029,978
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,269,853
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,753,537
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   75,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,255,304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,061,719
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,784,669
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,784,669
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.48
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   986,405
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               490,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  108,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              457,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        457,000


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Margaret E. Smith, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No.1, ofCeleritek, Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: July 23, 2004     By: /s/ MARGARET E. SMITH     Name: Margaret E. Smith     Title: Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Company:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-
74375) on Form S-8 of Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Company of our report dated
January 19, 1999, except as to notes 22, 23, and 20 to the consolidated
financial statements, which are as of February 16, 1999 and March 10, 1999, and
March 29, 1999, respectively, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Company as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' or members'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report
on Form 10-K/A of Franchise Mortgage Acceptance Company.


                                         KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 21, 1999
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-57,468] 

                    By application dated August 24, 2005, a State of Wisconsin agency representative requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The determination was signed on July 18, 2005, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50411).                 

The determination stated that electric power tool accessory production at the subject facility ceased in December 2004, that production shifted to other domestic locations, that the subject company imported during 2003 and 2004, and that subject company customers did not import during the relevant period. 

The State agent requested reconsideration to clarify the basis for the negative determination. 

Upon careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department has determined that there is basis to conduct further investigation to determine whether the subject workers are eligible to apply for worker adjustment assistance. 

## Conclusion 

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of September 2005. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-18544 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136557 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

GERALD WILSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136557 

 COA: 281228 

WCAC: 06-000037 

COMCAST CABLEVISION CORPORATION 

and FIDELITY & GUARANTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL 

COMPANY, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136970 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

STATE TREASURER,

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v 

GENE T. FAVORS, JR., 

 SC: 136970 

 CoA: 285728 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the 

filing fee as required by the order of July 29, 2008, the Clerk of the Court is hereby 

directed to close this file. 

jm 

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. 

September 11, 2008 

Clerk
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136593 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. KISHA VAN BUREN, Individually, and as Stephen J. Markman, Personal Representative of the Estate of Izeair Justices 

Kendall Bell, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136593 

 COA: 275435 

Oakland CC: 2003-052257-NO 

PANTHER CRANKSHAFTS,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 6, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

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

t0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2008051EN.01002802.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/28

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2007 — Miguel Torres SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bodegas Muga SA

(Case C-405/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for the figurative mark ‘Torre Muga’ - Opposition proceedings - Earlier international and national word mark ‘TORRES’ - Likelihood of confusion - Opposition rejected)

(2008/C 51/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Miguel Torres SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent), Bodegas Muga SA (represented by: F. Porcuna de la Rosa, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2006 in Case T-247/03 Torres v OHIM and Bodegas Muga, by which the Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 April 2003 (Case R 998/2001-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres SA and Bodegas Muga SA

Torres

OHIM

Bodegas Muga

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Miguel Torres SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Miguel Torres SA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Curtis Louis SANGSTER.

No. 84P15-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 25, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 23rd of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of November 2015."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136544 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 

Stephen J. Markman, COMPANY, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136544 

 COA: 282037 

Calhoun CC: 06-003964-NZ 

ROBERT HOSKINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

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

p0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
# CE2004084EN.01048401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/484 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/484

---

(2004/C 84 E/0561)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject:   Train warning signals

Subject:

| 1. | Will the Commission state if any European legislation requires Member State rail authorities to use train warning signals of a minimum or maximum volume? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission state if any European legislation requires Member State rail authorities to use train warning signals of a minimum or maximum volume?

| 2. | If not will the Commission state if it has any intention to introduce such a proposal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not will the Commission state if it has any intention to introduce such a proposal?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

(12 August 2003)

There is no European legislation which requires railway undertakings in a Member State to use train warning signals of a minimum or maximum volume.

The Commission does not have any plans to put forward such a proposal.

---
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000030629-FEB-201207:58 AM
# C_2008171EN.01000601.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn

(Case C-414/06) (1)

1

(Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Taking account of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State and belonging to a company which has its registered office in another Member State)

(2008/C 171/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Heilbronn

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Deduction from a German company's taxable profits of losses resulting from the activities of a permanent establishment in another Member State — Refusal of such deduction on the basis of a bilateral convention concluded with that other Member State for the purpose of preventing double taxation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC does not preclude a situation in which a company established in a Member State cannot deduct from its tax base losses relating to a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State, to the extent that, by virtue of a double taxation convention, the income of that establishment is taxed in the latter Member State where those losses can be taken into account in the taxation of the income of that permanent establishment in future accounting periods.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---