alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.18

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment"), made as of this 4th
day of November, 2003, by and between Cronos Containers Inc., a California
corporation (the "Employer"), and John M. Foy (the "Employee"),


                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                               - - - - - - - - - -


WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of
April 1, 1999, as amended on December 1, 1999, on December 1, 2000, on December
1, 2001, on October 15, 2002, and on November 5, 2002 (hereinafter, the
"Employment Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to paragraph "First" of the Employment Agreement, Employer
agreed to employ Employee, and Employee agreed to serve in the employ of the
Employer, on an exclusive and full-time basis, as the Senior Vice President of
Employer, through November 30, 2004, subject to earlier termination pursuant to
the provisions of the Employment Agreement; and

WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire to extend the term of the Employment
Agreement;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and
other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:

      1. Extension of Term of Employment Agreement. Employer agrees to employ
the Employee, and the Employee agrees to serve in the employ of the Employer, on
an exclusive and full-time basis, in the position identified for Employee in the
Employment Agreement, subject to the supervision and direction of that person or
persons set forth in the Employment Agreement, through November 30, 2005, unless
such period is sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs
"FIFTH," "SIXTH," or "SIXTEENTH" of the Employment Agreement.

      2. Continuance in Force of Employment Agreement. Other than as
specifically amended hereby, the terms and provisions of the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

                                                                              E1



<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 10.18

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer and the Employee have signed this Amendment,
effective as of the date and year first above written.

                        "EMPLOYER"

                        CRONOS CONTAINERS INC.


                        By /s/ DENNIS J TIETZ
                           ---------------------------
                        Its Director

                        "EMPLOYEE"


                        /s/ JOHN M FOY
                        ------------------------------
                        John M. Foy

                                                                              E2
# C_2008064EN.01003203.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-345/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 64/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.7.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Benjie Tyrone MANESS, Defendant.

No. COA15-497.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6745

EARL ELWOOD ALLEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-00196-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Elwood Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Earl Elwood Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Allen that failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning, Allen failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Allen has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         112,660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,586,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 14,186,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,856,444
<PP&E>                                      11,114,595
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,446,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,432,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,686,226
<BONDS>                                     14,168,003
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,294
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,314,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,432,810
<SALES>                                     14,051,503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,051,503
<CGS>                                       11,247,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,247,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,155,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             419,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (795,743)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (302,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (493,743)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (493,743)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
RAY v. FORGY.

No. COA08-721.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Burke (04CVS1291).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 24, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11477

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00506-CR-CAP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

VICTOR MANUEL LOZANO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 24, 2008)

Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Lozano appeals the 135-month prison sentence that was imposed on
2

him for possession of and conspiracy to possess at least 500 grams of

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), & 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He contends that the

sentence is substantively unreasonable because of what he terms as the

unwarranted disparity between his sentence and that of two co-defendants who

received sentences of sixty months. He also points to his youth and immaturity.

Lozano was not similarly situated with his two co-defendants. He trafficked

drugs, driving an automobile containing over six kilograms of methamphetamine

while his infant son was in it. Unlike Lozano, the two co-defendants did not

possess more than a personal use quantity of drugs (one had two grams of cocaine

in his possession). The difference in circumstances and evidence allowed them to 

negotiate plea agreements to the one charge each of violating the Travel Act, 18

U.S.C. § 1952, which carried a maximum sentence of 60 months. The drug

charges to which Lozano pleaded guilty carried a sentence of from ten years to life. 

The district court sentenced him to the bottom of his advisory guidelines range

(135 to 168 months). 

 Review of a sentence for reasonableness is deferential and only for abuse of

discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597 (2007). We will

reverse a sentence under this deferential abuse-of-discretion standard only if "the
3

district court has made a clear error of judgment . . . ." United States v. Pugh, 515

F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244,

1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc)). Neither the lower sentence his co-defendants

received nor the fact that Lozano was nineteen years of age at the time convinces

us that the district court made a clear error of judgment in sentencing him to 135

months, which not only was within but also was at the bottom of the guidelines

range. See Talley, 431 F.3d at 787-88 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting that although we do

not apply a presumption of reasonableness to a within-guidelines sentence, we

"ordinarily . . . would expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be

reasonable."). 

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Alfred BUTLER, Jr.

No. COA16-412

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

NO ERROR.
State of North Carolina v. Robert Arthur Pace

No. COA 15-1338

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.
V

WIS J^c,

To whom it may concern, 10/19/2015

Im writing this letter requesting a extension Regarding Luis Franco DOB: 06/07/1978 his deadline was

today 10/19/2015. We are still in the process of paying our lawyer to have him write out the letter to go

to a higher court for appeal please give us more time a extension to get everything resolved right now I

am the only one working and we are giving little by little to our lawyer to proceed this case please if we

can have an extension this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for all you help.

n^i\ f^e/klo ou.T3-Ooqoi*-0^ attorneymichaelgross r Oh Ute*' 1HU *^M ' _. LUIS FRANCO DOB: 06/07/1978

"IV j&- ^ t^y&t&r a

j^WW for^nW^^^1^

FILED IN RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ©OUHTOFCRIMINAL APPEAL!

OCT 23 2015 0CT 232ri

Abel Acosta, Clerk
State of North Carolina v. Henry Datwane Hunt

379P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Henry Datwane Hunt.

Steven Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Greg Newman, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of October 2016 by Defendant 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 8th of December 2016."
In re: Redmond

86A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

*519Edwin A. Pressly, Attorney at Law, Statesville, Elizabeth M. Haddix, Attorney at Law, Pittsboro, Mark Dorosin, Attorney at Law, for Nicols, Linda (Administratrix), et al.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina.

Johanna Schoen, for Johanna Schoen, Ph.D.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of August 2016 by Johanna Schoen, Ph.D. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
# C_2013252EN.01002801.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/28

---

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics v Council

(Case T-459/07) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines - Expiry of anti-dumping measures - Review - Like product - Data used to determine the injury - Analogue country - Community interest - Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)

2013/C 252/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd (Hangzhou, China) (represented by: M. Gambardella and V. Villante, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by J.-P. Hix, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, and subsequently G. Berrisch, lawyers)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents); and by Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Osram GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Osram GmbH;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer    I, Stephen B. Schneer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Develocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls.  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: December 13, 2007  /s/ Stephen B. Schneer Stephen B. Schneer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008022EN.01004502.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/45

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2007 — Cheminova and Others v Commission

(Case T-326/07 R)

(Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)

(2008/C 22/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre, Denmark), Cheminova Agro Italia Srl (Rome, Italy), Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria), Agrodan, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Lodi SAS (Grand Fougeray, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/389/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of malathion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 146, p. 19) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
Exhibit 31.02

                                   Certification

I, Tom Hofer, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB of Vendalux Corporation

2.  Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual report;

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

4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this Annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Annual
report(the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this Annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors ( or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>
<PAGE> 2

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls'
and

Date: July 20, 2005

By: /s/
   --------------------------------
   Tom Hofer
   (Chief Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be
retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
State of North Carolina v. Robert Wayne Stanley

No. COA16-436

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING HEARING.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shawn Jarmine MURCHISON

No. 189P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Murchison, Shawn Jarmine.

James D. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th of May 2016 by Defendant 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 22nd of September 2016."