alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS  AGREEMENT  (the "First  Amendment") is made as of the 11th day of
December,  1998 by PSC INC., a New York corporation ("PSC" or the "Company") and
ROBERT C. STRANDBERG ("Executive").

         WHEREAS,  PSC and Executive entered into a certain employment agreement
on June 2, 1998 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS,   the  parties  desire  to  amend  in  certain  respects  said
         Employment Agreement.  

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of  the premises and  mutual covenants
herein contained, the parties agree as follows:

         1.  All of the  terms  used in this  First  Amendment  shall  have  the
meanings defined in the Employment Agreement.

         2. Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety and
replaced by a new Section 5, which will read as follows:

                    "5. Restricted  Stock.  Pursuant to the Company's 1994 Stock
                  Option Plan,  on March 25, 1998 PSC awarded  Executive  37,500
                  restricted  Common  Shares of the Company,  upon the terms and
                  conditions  and subject to the  restrictions  set forth in the
                  Restricted Stock Award Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A.
                  If  Executive  is then an officer of the  Company,  on each of
                  March 25, 1999 and March 25,  2000,  PSC will award  Executive
                  37,500 restricted Common Shares pursuant to a Restricted Stock
                  Award  Agreement  similar in form to Exhibit A, as modified to
                  reflect changes in dates and stock prices. Notwithstanding the
                  foregoing  sentence,  if  there  is a Change  in  Control  (as
                  hereinafter  defined),  and if Executive  becomes  entitled to
                  receive Severance Benefits (as hereinafter defined), Executive
                  will be  immediately  entitled  to receive  the Common  Shares
                  which  otherwise  would have been  awarded to him on March 25,
                  1999 and/or on March 25,  2000,  fully  vested and free of any
                  and all restrictions."

                                       66
<PAGE>


         3. Except as modified by this First Amendment, the Employment Agreement
has not  heretofore  been  amended or  cancelled,  and remains in full force and
effect.
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties have caused this First Amendment to be
executed as of the day and year first above written.

                                             PSC Inc.


                                             By: /s/ Robert S. Ehrlich
                                                 Robert S. Ehrlich
                                                 Chairman of the Board


                                                 /s/ Robert C. Strandberg
                                                 Robert C. Strandberg

                                       67
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), I, John B. Wood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Michele Nakazawa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) to
my knowledge, 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.



Date: April 23, 2007/s/ John B. WoodJohn B. WoodChief Executive OfficerDate: April 23, 2007/s/ Michele NakazawaMichele NakazawaChief Financial Officer
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5502 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 15, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the effective date of the gift card provisions of 

the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5502 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DELAY OF EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 Title IV of the Credit Card Accountability Responsi3 bility and Disclosure Act, is amended by striking section 

4 403 and inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under sub7 section (b) of this section, this title and the amendments 

8 made by this title shall become effective 15 months after 

9 the date of enactment of this Act. 

10 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a gift certifi12 cate, store gift card, or general-use prepaid card 

13 that was produced prior to April 1, 2010, the effec14 tive date of the disclosure requirements described in 

15 sections 915(b)(3) and (c)(2)(B) of the Electronic 

16 Funds Transfer Act shall be January 31, 2011, pro17 vided that an issuer of such a certificate or card 

18 shall— 

19 ‘‘(A) comply with paragraphs (1) and (2) 

20 of section 915(b) of such Act; 

21 ‘‘(B) consider any such certificate or card 

22 for which funds expire to have no expiration 

23 date with respect to the underlying funds; 

24 ‘‘(C) at a consumer’s request, replace such 

25 certificate or card that has funds remaining at 

26 no cost to the consumer; and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5502 RFS 

1 ‘‘(D) comply with the disclosure require2 ments of paragraph (2) of this subsection. 

3 ‘‘(2) DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.—The disclo4 sure requirements of this subsection are met by pro5 viding notice to consumers, via in-store signage, 

6 messages during customer service calls, Web sites, 

7 and general advertising, that— 

8 ‘‘(A) any such certificate or card for which 

9 funds expire shall be deemed to have no expira10 tion date with respect to the underlying funds; 

11 ‘‘(B) consumers holding such certificate or 

12 card shall have a right to a free replacement 

13 certificate or card that includes the packaging 

14 and materials, typically associated with such a 

15 certificate or card; and 

16 ‘‘(C) any dormancy fee, inactivity fee, or 

17 service fee for such certificates or cards that 

18 might otherwise be charged shall not be 

19 charged if such fees do not comply with section 

20 915 of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. 

21 ‘‘(3) PERIOD FOR DISCLOSURE REQUIRE22 MENTS.—The notice requirements in paragraph (2) 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 5502 RFS 

1 of this subsection shall continue until January 31, 

2 2013.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 14, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-718 (Second Review)] 

## Determination 

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on glycine from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                 

## Background 

The Commission instituted this review on June 1, 2005 (70 FR 31534) and determined on September 7, 2005 that it would conduct an expedited review (70 FR 55625, September 22, 2005). 

The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on October 31, 2005. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3810 (October 2005), entitled Glycine from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-718 (Second Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 31, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 05-21951 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### STATE v. LEWIS

No. 5 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 159.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 April 1973.
#### In the ESTATE OF Treadwell RUML, Deceased. Berry F. Laws, III, Personal Representative, Respondent, v. Steven Ruml, et al., Appellants.

No. WD 61502.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 29, 2003.

*881Robert D. Kroeker, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

John P. Hastings, Leawood, KS, for appellants.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and EDWIN H. SMITH and NEWTON, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Rural appeals from an order of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County allowing supplemental compensation to the respondent, Berry F. Laws, III, for his services and expenses as successor personal representative in the estate of Treadwell Ruml.

The appellant raises three points on appeal. In Point I, he claims that the probate court erred in allowing supplemental compensation to the respondent because it was for work that was for the respondent’s own benefit, rather than the benefit of the estate, in that the work consisted of opposing an appeal of the probate court’s approval of a settlement agreement, which released the respondent from a claim which one heir had against him. Alternatively, he claims that the probate court erred in allowing supplemental compensation to the respondent because it was not for work that was either reasonable or necessary to the estate in that the work consisted of the late filing of receipts, which was a menial task that was due to the respondent’s own improper delay. In Point II, he claims that the probate court erred in allowing supplemental compensation to the respondent because it was detrimental to the estate in that it had the effect of keeping the estate open into the year 2002, thereby threatening the loss of sizable federal income tax deductions. In Point III, he claims that “[t]he circuit court erred in entering its judgment April 12, 2002, for supplemental fees to the personal representative and his counsel because the compensation allowed by the circuit court included ‘costs and charges’ as legal fees.”

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### WARREN H. HOOVER, Appellant, v. LINDA M. HOOVER, Respondent.

No. 20302

June 28, 1990

793 P.2d 1329

*Richard W Young,*Reno, for Appellant.

*Steven M. Hess,*Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

By the Court,

Springer, J.:

Warren Hoover is the father of four children, two children born to respondent Linda Hoover, and two children born later to a second wife.

Linda Hoover requested the district court to award her child support for her two children in accordance with the child support formula. The statutory “obligation for support” for two children is 25 percent of the paying parent’s gross monthly income. NRS 125B.070(2)(b). The district court correctly awarded Linda the 25 percent provided in the statute.

Warren claims that this award fails to take into consideration the fact that he has two other children to support. He wants the court to apply the formula percentage for four children (31 percent) and then divide 31 percent by four to get his “per-child *389rate of support.”1 There is no legislative authority for making this kind of calculation. When a custodian seeks support for a certain number of children in his or her custody, the statute clearly states what percentage of gross monthly income must be paid. The statutory schedule sets 25 percent for two children and that is what Linda Hoover is entitled to.

This court is not blind to the public policy issues that might arise in the future relative to application of this formula in cases where several successive children are born to one child support payer. Whether all children should be treated equally or whether each successive family should receive diminished support is a matter of considerable public policy concern. The legislature, not the court, is the proper body to make these decisions. As the law now stands, when the court is to “[determine the required support in any case involving the support of children,” or when there is a request “to change the amount of the required support of children,” the court “shall apply the appropriate formula set forth in subsection 2 of NRS 125B.070.” NRS 125B.080. In carrying out the statutory mandate the courts have the power to make equitable adjustments of the formula obligation and may adjust the amount of support based on a number of factors, including the “responsibility of the parents for the support of others” NRS 125B.080(9)(e); but there is certainly no power in the courts to devise a new formula based on the number of children who happen to have been born to the paying parent at the time application of the statutory formula is sought by the receiving parent.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Young, C. J., and Steffen, Mowbray and Rose, JJ., concur.

1

In support of his position, Warren cites a publication called the Nevada Civil Practice Manual, which apparently contains a formula of its own, namely that “a calculation should be based on all the children the obligor is required to support. That number is then divided by the number of children to determine the obligor’s per-child rate of support.”
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------



                            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 Annual Report of BSD Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dennis Bradley, Controller (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of
              operations of the Company.


/s/ Dennis Bradley
------------------
Dennis Bradley
Controller (principal financial officer)
November 29, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                    (23221)
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             48962
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               200457
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          508127
<PP&E>                                    282007
<DEPRECIATION>                            134835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            9951537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1286946
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  878120
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               13063
<OTHER-SE>                                5750123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              9951537
<SALES>                                   7144257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          7144257
<CGS>                                     3644029
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             3644029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          425362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        484061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              1176592
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

# AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

      ( print page 67177)    

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees at the Oak Ridge Institute for Nuclear Studies, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

*Facility:*                         Oak Ridge Institute for Nuclear Studies.                     

*Location:*                         Oak Ridge, Tennessee.                     

*Job Titles and/or Job Duties:*                         All medical division employees.                     

*Period of Employment:*                         June 1, 1950 through June 25, 1956.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *OCAS@CDC.GOV.*

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

John Howard, 

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 05-22030 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                [CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC. LETTERHEAD]



                                 March 25, 2002



San Juan Basin Royalty Trust
Bank One, NA
Corporate Trust Department
403 West Fourth Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the
oil and gas reserve information in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Securities &
Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 and in the
San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2001
based on reserve reports prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. dated
March 25, 2002.

                                     Sincerely,

                                        /s/ Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.

                                     CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wntteb ~tate~ Q[ourt of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI Q[trcutt

CARLOS A. DIAZ-LABOY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

2012-5072

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal

Claims in case no. 10-CV-751, Judge Lawrence J. Block.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Carlos A. Diaz-Laboy moves to amend his name in the

caption.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion to amend the official caption is granted.

The revised official caption is reflected above.

Case: 12-5072 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 10/11/2012
CARLOS DIAZ-LABOY v. US

s21

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

2

Case: 12-5072 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 10/11/2012
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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 30, 2021

b0623 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2021

161642

RAKESH NAYYAR, Personal Representative

of the ESTATE OF BIMLA NAYYAR,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 161642

COA: 343676

Wayne CC: 13

- 009819

- NH

OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., d/b/a

OAKWOOD HOSPITAL & MEDICAL

CENTER,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 202 0 judgment

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re Transfer of Attorney to Administrative 

Suspension Status Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 

219(l) 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 9 IDE

No. 215 DB 2015

Attorney Registration No. 64987

(Philadelphia)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2019, the Disciplinary Board having 

certified his name to the Court for failure to pay expenses taxed under Pa.R.D.E. 

208(g)(3), Adam J. Rodgers is transferred to administrative suspension status. See

Pa.R.D.E. 219(l). He shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.