alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7



                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                  This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made effective
as of December 31, 1997, by and among Chester National Bank, a national bank,
Chester Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Michael W. Welge.

                  WHEREAS, the parties hereto previously entered into and
executed that certain Employment Agreement dated October 4, 1996 (the
"Employment Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined
herein have the meanings given to such terms in the Employment Agreement;

                  WHEREAS, the parties to the Employment Agreement desire to
amend the Agreement to extend the term thereof for an additional year, as
contemplated by Section 2 of the Employment Agreement;

                  WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Bank has conducted a
formal performance evaluation of the Executive for purposes of determining
whether to extend the Employment Agreement, and has determined that such
Employment Agreement should be extended for an additional year.

                  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein and in the Employment Agreement, and upon the other terms and
conditions hereinafter provided, the parties hereto agree that the term of the
Employment Agreement is hereby extended until January 1, 2001, and all other
terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
First Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the 31st day of December, 1997.


CHESTER NATIONAL BANK                                CHESTER BANCORP, INC.


By: /s/ Edward K. Collins                            By: /s/ Edward K. Collins
   ------------------------                             -----------------------
Name: Edward K. Collins                              Name: Edward K. Collins
     ----------------------                               ---------------------
Title: Ex. Vice President                            Title: Secretary
      ---------------------                                --------------------


EXECUTIVE

/s/ Michael W. Welge
-------------------------
    Michael W. Welge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,962,540
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,346,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,714,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          582,130
<BONDS>                                      5,329,658
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,484,026)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,714,303
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               371,562
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             440,043
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,470)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,470)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.21)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

REX Stores Corporation
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned officers of REX Stores Corporation (the Company) hereby certify,
to their knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended October 31, 2009 which this certificate accompanies, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

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

/s/ Stuart A.
Rose  Stuart A. Rose

/s/ Douglas L.
Bruggeman 
Douglas L. Bruggeman

Dated:
December 3, 2009

---
v150341_10-801 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
10.80.1
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
333-99777 and No. 333-99777-01 of Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited
Partnership of our report dated February 13, 2004 (except for paragraph three of
Note 8, as to which the date is March 2, 2004, and Note 25, as to which the date
is March 9, 2004), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 9, 2004
Exhibit
10.19

     

    Subaye
Transaction Agreement

     

    A:
Subaye

     

    B:
SSTH

     

    Both
parties agree on 31st. Jan.
2008 in Guangzhou,

     

    
      	
              1.

            	
              Party
      A appoints party B to have the exclusive rights to manage the Marketing
      operation and collection of A/R. B agrees to help A in marketing with its
      2000 movie stores. B will pay A all the revenue net of tax and after
      deducting 10% commissions to A’s bank account every
  month.

            


    

     

    
      	
              2.

            	
              Party
      B has the sole and exclusive rights to perform video production services
      for Subaye members to produce video promotion clips and agrees to bill the
      Subaye members at a discounted
price.

            


    

     

    
      	
              3.

            	
              The
      period is one year, ended on
30/01/2009

            


    

     

    
      	
              4.

            	
              The
      supplementary contract will also be
binding.

            


    

     

    
      	
              5.

            	
              Each
      party shall have one copy.

            


    

    


     

    A: Subaye
( signed and stamp)

     

    B: SSTH
(stamp)
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 25 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARK SWANGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, vs. FRANK BEEBE; ARTHUR WHITLOCK; STEVEN AMES; RUBY BRIDGEFORTH; CHARLIE KEEN; BARBARA CHILES; CLAUDE PIERRE LOUISE; JOE MARTINES; TONY KIDD; JOHN MORSE; LINDA HERNANDEZ; KENT PHILLIPS; SHIRLEY SEARUGGS; LA RAE KEMP, M.D.; ETHEL OATMAN, R.N.; MEL STENCEL; MARSHA BOYLE; CHAR EHRENSHIFT; DEL BROWN; DAVID BACHMAN, M.D.; HILDA STANLEY; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO; U.S.P.O., SPECIFIC AGENCY; JEFFREY METZNER, M.D. Ph.; WALTER TORRES, Ph.d., Defendants - Appellees. No. 98-1242 (D.C. No. 98-605) (D. Colo..)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. - 2 - Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. **

Mr. Swanger attempts to appeal from the dismissal o f his complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P . 8(a). The district court denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). We review a Rule 8(a) dismissal for an abuse of dis cretion, ordinarily after time is given to amend a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). See Mangan v. Weinberger , 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988). With his noti ce of appeal, Mr. Swanger apparently attempted to amend the complaint. See R. doc. 49. We have reviewed the district court pleadings as well as Mr. Swanger’s submissions on appeal and conclude that the distric t court did not abuse its discretion. See Carpenter v. Williams , 86 F.3d 1015, 1016 (10th Cir. 1996). Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires short and plain stateme nts of claims showing that a plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint (an d attempted amendment) consists of recounting numerous incidents without sufficientidentification of actors and applicable legal theories. See Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas , 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989)- 3 -

(discussing purpose of complaint). The motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis i s DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the appeal is DI SMISSED. Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2614 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2614

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide 
      for duty-free treatment on certain manufacturing equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2000

 Mr. Thurmond (for himself and Mr. Hollings) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide 
      for duty-free treatment on certain manufacturing equipment.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Subheadings 9902.84.79, 9902.84.83, 9902.84.85, 
9902.84.87, 9902.84.89, and 9902.84.91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States are each amended--
            (1) by striking ``4011.91.50'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``4011.91'';
            (2) by striking ``4011.99.40'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``4011.99''; and
            (3) by striking ``86 cm'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``63.5 cm''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60108 Su m m ar y Cal endar JU LI O CE SAR D IAZ- SAE N Z , P et i t i on er v. ERI C H . H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L, Res po nde nt Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B I AN o. A 37 999 602 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Ju l i o C esar D i az- S aen z, a n ative an d ci t i zen of M exi co, peti t i on s t h i s c ou rt to re v ie w th e d e c is io n o f th e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls (B IA) d is m is s in gh is ap pea lan d aff

i rm i n g t h e i m m i grati on j u dg e’ s ( IJ) ord er f i n di n g h i m rem ovab l e, p u r s u a n t t o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A)(i), a n d in e lig ib le fo r c a n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l, pu rsuan tt o 8 U . S . C . § 1229 b( a) ( 3) , becau se he h ad com m i t t ed an agg ra vated fe lo n y . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60108

2 D ia z -S a e n z a b a n d o n s b yfailin gto b rie f an ych a ll e n ge t o th e deter m i n ati on t h at he w as rem ovab l e u n der 8 U . S . C . § 122 7( a) ( 2) ( B ) (i) , b ased on hi s c on t rol l ed s u b s ta n c e v io la tio n s . S eeT h u ri v . A sh cr oft , 3 8 0 F .3d 7 8 8 , 7 9 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). D i az- S aen z, w h o w as convi ct ed i n N ovem ber 200 1 i n st a te cou rtf or po s s e s s i o n o f

m ar ij uanaa nd who has apr i o rs t at e c o ur tdr ug c o nvi c t i o n, c ont ends t hatt he B IAer r ed by tr eat i ng hi s 2001 co nvi c t i on as e quival entt o a n agg ravated fel on y u n der t h e reci di vi st provi si on s of t h e C on t rol l ed S u bstances A c t. S ee21 U . S. C . § 844( a) . Th e B IAcor r ec t l y det er m i ned t hatD i az- Saenz had c o m m itt e da n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n yfo rim m ig r a tio n la w p u r p o s e s . S ee Carach u ri - R osend o v. Hol d er , 5 7 0 F .3 d2 6 3 , 2 6 6 -6 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or cer t . f i led(J u ly1 5 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( N o . 0 9 -6 0 ). A c c o r d in g ly , th e p e tit io n fo rre v ie w is DE NI ED .
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 January 17, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-12733

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket Nos.

03-61167-CV-JAG

97-06002 CR-JAG

DAVID ANTHONY ROSTAN, JR., 

a.k.a. Anthony David Rostano, 

a.k.a. David Anthony Rostano, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(January 17, 2007)

Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Although we have in the past chosen to decide for ourselves which issues, if any, 1

warranted a COA, here, remand seems to be the more viable option. See Thomas v. Crosby, 371

F.3d 782, 796 (11th Cir. 2004) (discussing court of appeal’s discretion whether to remand case to

district court or whether to apply the COA standards itself), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1063, 125 S.

Ct. 888 (2005).

2

Appellant David Rostan, through counsel, challenges the district court’s

denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. After the denial of his § 2255 motion, Rostan filed a pro se application for

certificate of appealability that asserted six different issues, which the district court

granted in a blanket order. 

Before addressing the merits of his claims, we note that, when the district

court grants a certificate of appealability, its order “shall indicate which specific

issue or issues satisfy the showing required by [§ 2253(c)(2)].” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(3). Because the district court’s order did not comply with the mandates

of § 2253(c)(3), we vacate the order and remand this case to the district court for

the court to specify the issues on which Rostan “made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).1

VACATED and REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2056 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2056

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to ensure an 
 adequate level of commodity purchases under the school lunch program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 10, 2000

Mr. Johnson (for himself and Mr. Craig) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to ensure an 
 adequate level of commodity purchases under the school lunch program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Commodity Distribution Act 
of 2000''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT.

    Section 6(e) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1755(e)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by striking ``in the form of'' and all that 
                follows through ``(A) commodity assistance'' and 
                inserting ``in the form of commodity assistance'';
                    (B) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a period; 
                and
                    (C) by striking subparagraph (B); and
            (2) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) by striking ``the Secretary shall, to the 
                extent necessary,'' and inserting ``the Secretary--
            ``(A) shall, to the extent necessary,'';
                    (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting 
                ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(B) shall not use commodities provided under the 
        authority of any other Act to meet the requirement for the 
        school year.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11


                             CityFed Financial Corp.
              Statement Regarding the Computation of Per Share Loss


                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                  ------------------
                                                       March 31,
                                                       ---------

                                                2000              1999
                                                ----              ----

 Computation of Loss Per Share:

 Weighted average number of shares
     outstanding                            18,715,609        18,715,609

 Loss applicable to  common stock:1

  From continuing operations               $(2,082,000)      $(2,110,000)
                                           ============      ============

  From discontinued operations             $(1,037,000)      $         -
                                           ============      ============
  Net loss                                 $(3,119,000)      $(2,110,000)
                                           ============      ============

 Basic loss per share:

  From continuing operations               $     (0.11)      $     (0.11)
                                           ============      ============
  From discontinued operations             $     (0.06)      $         -
                                           ============      ============
  Net loss                                 $     (0.17)      $     (0.11)
                                           ============      ============


----------------------
1 Losses applicable to Common Stock are net of preferred stock dividends for the
three months ended March 31, 2000 and 1999 in the amount of $2,159,000.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 5, 2012

d0227 

# Order

March 5, 2012

144025

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144025 COA: 298417 Oakland CC: 2009-229331-FC MICHAEL RAY RICHARD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 20, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# States in the Senate | Vermont Senators

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

 1. Appointed by governor, to fill vacancy. By resolution of Senate, Mar. 16, 1854, declared not entitled to retain his seat. Vacancy from Mar. 16 to Oct. 13, 1854.

 2. Vacancy from July 13 to Nov. 5, 1923.

 3. Vacancy from Oct. 7 to Nov. 20, 1933.

 4. Elected Nov. 5, 1940, to fill vacancy in term ending Jan. 3, 1945. Took oath Jan. 10, 1941. Governor during interim.

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States