alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.7

                          FORM OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is effective as of this 25th day of
July, 1996 (the "Effective Date"), by and between Assembly Manufacturing Systems
Inc., a California Corporation ("AMS"), and , an individual ("Employee").

In consideration of the mutual agreements and the promises herein contained, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Employment. AMS hereby employs Employee and Employee hereby accepts
employment with AMS on the terms and conditions set_____________ forth in
the Agreement.

2. Term of Employment. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the
Effective Date and continue until terminated, which _________ may be done by
either party at any time on fourteen (14) days written notice to the other
party.

3. Duties. Employee shall devote his full productive time to the duties
assigned to him. "Full productive time" is hereby defined as the time
reasonably necessary to perform his required duties in a timely manner, but not
less than forty (40) hours per week, for fifty-two (52) weeks per year, less
holidays, sick leave, and vacation time in accordance with the then-prevailing
policies of AMS. Employee's performance shall be reviewed at least annually by
AMS.

4. Compensation. In consideration of Employee's performing the duties described
herein, AMS agrees to compensate employee at ________the rate of ( ) per year.
Employee shall also be covered by AMS's Group Medical ------ ---- Insurance,
and such other group benefits granted to employees pursuant to the then
prevailing policies of AMS.

Employee shall also receive:

(a) As incentive compensation, such bonuses and benefits as AMS's Board of
Directors, in its sole discretion, shall determine.
(b) As further incentive compensations, SGI Warrants in the amount to be
decided in the sole discretion of SGI's Board of Directors.
(c) Reimbursement of reasonable business expenses incurred by Employee in
accordance with AMS's policies.
(d) Compensations shall be reviewed by AMS and Employee at least annually.

5. Integration. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended, except by a
writing signed by both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed at Simi Valley, California.

ASSEMBLY & MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS INC.                   EMPLOYEE
2222 Shasta Way
Simi Valley, CA 93065

By:--------------------------------                     ------------------
Amir M-Khiabani
President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         132,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,167,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                   280,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,442,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,728,406
<PP&E>                                       1,674,227
<DEPRECIATION>                                 434,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,770,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,139,440
<BONDS>                                      1,942,417
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       430,482
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,052,986
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,770,871
<SALES>                                     13,878,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,878,016
<CGS>                                        9,348,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,469,085
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,928,007
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             724,464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,591,695)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    59,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,650,695)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,650,695)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.25)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Jasmine Gregory, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Premier Holding Corp.;



(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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The Registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 Registrant 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 Registrant, 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;



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant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; and



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant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 Registrant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 Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  September 9, 2010



/s/   Jasmine Gregory

Jasmine Gregory

Chief Financial Officer, and Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6491

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK EARL FRANCIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-106, CA-99-420-7)

Submitted: December 29, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Earl Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Earl Francis appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. §

2255 (West Supp. 2000) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions. Because

Francis’ Rule 60(b) motion was tantamount to a successive § 2255

application, we conclude the district court lacked jurisdiction to

consider it absent authorization from this Court. 28 U.S.C.A. §

2244(b) (West Supp. 2000); United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551

(5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1011 (1999). Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the claims

raised solely in that motion.

As to claims raised in the original § 2255 motion and supplements submitted prior to the district court’s dismissal of the

original motion, we find no reversible error. Therefore, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss those claims on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Francis, Nos.

CR-94-106; CA-99-420-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 18, 2000). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Brooks Sherman, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (this Report) of Integrated Security Systems, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;



4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my 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; and

(c)

Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;



5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  February 17, 2009

/s/ BROOKS SHERMAN

Brooks Sherman

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Principal Executive Officer
#### Bates, et al. v. Northern Coal & Coke Company.

(Decided February 2, 1915.)

Appeal from Letcher Circuit Court.

Appeal — Subsequent Appeals — Former Decision as Law of tbe Case in General. — Tbe decision of tbe Court of Appeals upon appeal is tbe law of tbe case; and upon a subsequent appeal thereof, *460the principles announced in the former opinion are not open to reargument. The opinion on former appeal is controlling upon the Court of Appeals to the same extent as it hinds the trial court on remand.

R. O. BRASHEARS for appellants.

SMITH & COMBS for appellee.

OpinioN op the Court by

Judge Hannah

Affirming.

TMs is an action instituted in the Letcher Circuit Court to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale and conveyance of the coal under a farm in Letcher county owned by W. J. Bates.

There was a judgment denying the relief sought, and the plaintiff, Northern Coal & Coke Company, appealed therefrom. Upon appeal the judgment was reversed with instructions to enter a judgment specifically enforcing the contract. See Northern Coal & Coke Company v. Bates, 146 Ky., 624.

Upon the return of the case to the trial court, the original judgment was set aside, and the trial court rendered and entered a judgment in conformity with the mandate and opinion of this court. From that judgment the defendants appeal. .

The contentions presented by the appellants herein are in the nature of criticisms of the propriety of the rulings of this court upon the former appeal rather than of the judgment which, upon remand of the case, was rendered and entered by the trial court in obedience to the mandate, and which judgment is now appealed from.

The decision of this court upon appeal is the law of the case; and upon a subsequent appeal the principles announced in the former opinion are not open for re-argument. The opinion upon the former appeal controls this court upon a subsequent appeal of the ease to the same extent as it binds the trial court on remand. Sanders v. Herndon, 128 Ky., 347, 32 R., 1362, 108 S. W., 908; White v. Ayer, 116 S. W., 349; Foster-Milburn Co. v. Chinn, 137 Ky., 834, 127 S. W., 476; L. & N. v. O’Nan’s Admr., 119 S. W., 1192.

The judgment which was entered upon remand of the case decreeing specific performance of the contract conforms to the opinion of the court on the former appeal.

There was no objection saved by appellants to and is now no appeal from the proceedings subsequently *461liad in the trial court in pursuance to and in execution of the judgment decreeing specific performance; hut they appear in the record, and we have examined them. They appear to have been regular and in conformity to approved principles of procedure. In fact, appellants present no specific objection in respect thereof, and complain only of the judgment rendered and entered upon remand.

That judgment being in conformity to the opinion on the former appeal, the door is closed to a further entertainment of the questions then considered.

Affirmed.
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 the Interior

###### National Indian Gaming Commission

# AGENCY:

National Indian Gaming Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of reopening of comment period.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice reopens the period for comments on the Draft NEPA Procedures Manual published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 4, 2009 (74 FR 63765, 74 FR 63787).                    

# DATES:

The comment period for the Draft NEPA Procedures Manual is being reopened from January 19, 2010, to March 4, 2010.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Please submit your comments by only one of the following means: (1) By mail to: Brad Mehaffy, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005; (2) by hand delivery to: National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005; (3) by facsimile to: (202) 632-7066; (4) by e-mail to:                         *nepa_procedures@nigc.gov;*                         or (5) online at                         *http://www.regulations.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bradley Mehaffy, NEPA Compliance Officer at the National Indian Gaming Commission: 202-632-7003 or by facsimile at 303-632-7066 (not toll-free numbers).

# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: 

In response to several requests, the Acting Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission has decided to reopen the comment period on the Draft NEPA Procedures Manual for an additional 45 days.

Dated: January 15, 2010.

George T. Skibine,

Acting Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-1148 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Metropolitan Health
Networks, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael M. Earley, Chief Executive Officer of Metropolitan, 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 results of operations of
Metropolitan.


/s/ MICHAEL M. EARLEY
-------------------------------------
Michael M. Earley
Chief Executive Officer
March 23, 2007
No. 1,670.

#### In re ALLPORT’S ESTATE. KARL KLEIN-SCHMIDT, Jr., Appellant.

*Appeal from District Court, Lewis and Clarice County; 8. U. Mclntire, Judge.*

Decided October 13, 1903.

*Mr. W. E. Carroll,*for Appellant.

Per Curiam.-

This cause having been set for hearing this day, and it appearing that no briefs have been filed herein; it is ordered that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.
#### BUDD, Administrator, Appellant, *v.*POWER, Respondent.

*Warranty*— Possession *of stock on range. —*Cattle running on the public ranges are in the constructive possession of the owner, and upon a sale thereof a warranty of title will be implied.

*Appeal from Third Judicial District, Gallatin County.*

On rehearing.

Same case reported in 8 Mont. 380.

No brief on file for Appellant.

*Armstrong &*Hartman, for Respondent.

*100Blake, C. J.

The respondents bave filed a petition fora rebearing in this case, which is reported in 8 Mont. 380. It was held therein that the court below erred in deciding that the question of warranty of title to certain cattle did not arise. The findings of fact and conclusions of law are stated in the opinion, and it appears that the property was on the range at the time the promissory note sued on was executed by the respondent, and belonged exclusively at all times to one Ferris, who sold and delivered it to the Gallatin Mill Company; and that neither Scribner nor De Lancy had any interest or claim thereto. This court was of the opinion that the respondents must prove that the cattle were in the possession of De Lancy when the sale was made, and that the law would imply a warranty of title from this fact. The respondents contend that the testimony relating to this matter was overlooked, and that the evidence shows that Scribner had possession of the property; that he delivered to De Lancy a bill of sale of one half thereof, which was sufficient to transfer this stock on the range; and that De Lancy afterwards sold his interest to the respondents. The testimony, in our opinion, does not establish the claim of possession in Scribner; and the presumption to be drawn from the foregoing findings is that Ferris, while enjoying the ownership, also possessed the cattle. In *Dodge*v. *Jones,*7 Mont. 121, Mr. Chief Justice McConnell, in discussing the question of the delivery of certain borses, says: “ When they were on the range, the actual possession was in no one. The range was common pasturage for everybody, and the constructive possession accompanies the title.”

The respondents also insist that the court did not weigh carefully the testimony of the witnesses, regarding the fraud and deceit of De Lancy. There is no finding that De Lancy knew that he had no title to the cattle, or that there was a conspiracy between De Lancy and Scribner to defraud the respondents. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the reasonable inference from the findings is that De Lancy believed that the bill of sale which he had received from Scribner transferred to him the interest in the property, which was sold by him to the respondents. The learned chief justicé, in the opinion, referred to some exceptions to the doctrine of *caveat*emptor, which constitute the *101foundation of this petition; but, under the issues made by the pleadings, they cannot be the subject of review at this time. We are therefore satisfied that the facts before the court were given due consideration at the last term, and that the application for a rehearing should be denied.

Bach, J., and De Wolfe, J., concur.