alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

 

This Amendment No. 1 (this "Amendment") to an Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") entered as of November 9, 2012, by and between Accelerize Inc., a Delaware corporation with headquarters at 20411 SW Birch St. Ste. 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (the “Company”), and Brian Ross, a natural person, residing at 1280 Hems Road, Columbia Falls, MT 59912 (the “Employee”), is entered as of this 9th day of June 2016. Each of the Company and the Employee may be referred to hereinafter as a "Party" and collectively, the "Parties".

 

WHEREAS, the Parties have entered the Employment Agreement as of November 9, 2012; and

 

WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to adjust the Term of the Agreement.

 

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

 

 

	 	
1.
	
Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: 



 

1.       Term. The Company employs Employee, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, through the earlier of June 30, 2021 or such date as this Agreement shall terminate or expire as provided herein (the “Term”).

 

 

	 	
2.
	
All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or caused to be executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

 

 

 

EMPLOYEE: 

 

 

/s/ Brian Ross

Brian Ross

 

  

 

ACCELERIZE INC. 

 

 

By: /s/ Anthony Mazzarella

Name: Anthony Mazzarella

Title: Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.3**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Chester County Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John E. Balzarini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.

 

 

 

| Date:  August 11, 2008 |                    |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|
|                        | /s/ John E. Balzarini   |
|                        | John E. Balzarini       |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer |
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATIONS
      OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT
      OF 2002**







**CERTIFICATIONS**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Nutrition 21, Inc., a New York
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Alan
      Kirschbaum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
      his knowledge:




(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 the Company.




/s/    
                Alan KirschbaumAlan
                Kirschbaum
              Chief
                Financial Officer


November
      9, 2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Nutrition 21, Inc. and will be retained by Nutrition 21, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,047
<SECURITIES>                                    42,263
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,411
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,375
<PP&E>                                          13,608
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,814
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,241
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           153
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,314
<SALES>                                         73,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,593
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,278
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,225
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,053
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,053
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-20948

Summary Calendar

 

JESSE NORTH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

CA-H-94-3204

May 27, 1996

Before JOHNSON, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Jesse North appeals the district court’s denial of his request for judicial review of a

decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”). The

district court made its denial on the grounds of res judicata. North’s present suit stems from an

award of benefits following a 1990 application. However, in this suit North effectively requested

the district court to review the Commissioner’s decision not to reopen a January 1986 application
2

for benefits. The district court is unable to fulfill this request because federal courts lack subject

matter jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s decision not to reopen a prior, fully-adjudicated

application. See Ellis v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 419, 419 (5th Cir. 1981). Therefore, we affirm the

district court’s denial of judicial review of North’s application for benefits on the alternate

ground that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s

decision to reopen North’s case. See Sojourner T. V. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992),

cert. denied, 507 U.S. 972 (1993).

AFFIRMED.
#### Sarah E. Mellen v. Abner Mellen and others.

Motion denied with ten dollars costs. Mem.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO 
 THE
VALSPAR CORPORATION 2015 OMNIBUS EQUITY PLAN 
 Section 12.13 of The Valspar Corporation 2015 Omnibus Equity Plan (the
“Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as of June 8, 2016, by adding the following at the end thereof: 
 “Notwithstanding the
foregoing or anything else in this Plan to the contrary, in the event of a Change in Control, each Award granted after June 8, 2016 shall be covered by the foregoing provisions of this Section 12.13 only to the extent that it is not
assumed or replaced by the acquiring company or an affiliate thereof. Each such Award that is assumed or replaced by the acquiring company or an affiliate thereof shall not vest solely in the event of a Change in Control but shall vest upon a
qualifying termination of the Participant’s employment with the Company and its Affiliates on or following the Change in Control to the extent provided by the Award Document governing such Award.”
ACTIONS OF THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2023, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Regents pursuant to Board 

Bylaw 3.01, (1), approves the budget of appropriated funds for fiscal year 2024 when signed 

into law by the President, and the Institutional budget totaling $914.4 million for Trust funds for 

fiscal year 2024 as reflected in this report, and (2) authorizes expenditures by the Secretary in 

accordance therewith. Any material changes in program plans incorporated into this budget 

shall be made only with the approval of the Board of Regents or its Executive Committee.

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Regents pursuant to Board 

Bylaw 3.01, approves the Smithsonian Institution’s $1,212.0 million appropriation budget 

request to the Office of Management and Budget for fiscal year 2025. Any material changes in 

program plans incorporated into this budget shall be made only with the approval of the Board 

of Regents or its Executive Committee.
#### Andrew Anderson, Respondent, v. Leo Sander, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ<, concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 99 (Monday, May 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12410]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Federal Advisory Committee; National Defense Intelligence College 
Board of Visitors; Closed Meeting

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, National Defense Intelligence 
College, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of section 10 of 
Public Law 92-463, as amended by section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice 
is hereby given that a closed meeting of the Defense Intelligence 
Agency, National Defense Intelligence College Board of Visitors will be 
held on June 15 and 16, 2010, in Washington, DC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 (from 8 a.m. 
to 5 p.m.) and on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 (from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m.).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Defense 
Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-5100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David R. Ellison, President, DIA 
National Defense Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-5100 (202) 
231-3344.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire meeting is devoted to the 
discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(1), 
title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore will be closed. The Board will 
discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the 
Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission 
assigned to the National Defense Intelligence College.

    Dated: May 19, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-12410 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
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 April 30, 2006 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: June 8, 2006      | 

---
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1709 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:10:23 Page 1 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1709 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:10:23 Page 2 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1709 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:10:23 Page 3 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1709 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:10:23 Page 4 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1709 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:10:23 Page 5 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1709 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:10:23 Page 6 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1709 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:10:23 Page 7 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1709 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:10:23 Page 8 of

8
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

DONTAY LAMAR WILLIAMS , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0850 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2008

- 160672

- 001 The Honorable M. Scott McCoy , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

APPEARANCES Dontay Lamar Williams, Kingman Petitioner
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent FILED 1-16-2018STATE v. WILLIAMS Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge James P. Beene, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:
¶1 Petitioner Dontay Lamar Williams seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, f iled pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32.1. This i s Petitioner’s third petition for post

- conviction relief. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- convictio n relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 3 to Form 10-K of Geospatial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas R. Oxenreiter, Chief 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, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                       |  |  |  |    
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: December 4, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Thomas R. Oxenreiter
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                    |  | Thomas R. Oxenreiter   
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                   |  | Chief Financial Officer
# Nancy L. Kassebaum: A Featured Biography

**

----

When Senator Nancy Kassebaum delivered Washington’s Farewell Address on February 16, 1981, the Kansas Republican was one of only two women serving in the United States Senate, and only the 14th female senator in the institution’s history. The daughter of Alfred M. Landon, the Republican governor of Kansas who challenged Franklin Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential election, Kassebaum served three terms in the Senate, beginning on December 3, 1978. Known for her moderate but independent stand on issues, Kassebaum worked tirelessly on policies such as reducing the budget deficit and international arms control. In her last term she chaired the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources—only the second woman to chair a Senate standing committee. Kassebaum retired in 1997, but she remains a powerful and influential role model for women seeking elective office.  In 2017 Kassebaum participated in the Women of the Senate Oral History Project.

All Featured Biographies

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

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2278 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2278

 To reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program 
                              Act of 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 2000

 Mrs. Lincoln introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program 
                              Act of 1994.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION AND DESIGN 
              PROGRAM ACT OF 1994.

    Section 5 of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program 
Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 719c) is amended by striking ``for each of the 
fiscal years 1995 through 2000'' and inserting ``for each of fiscal 
years 2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF PROGRAM TO INSULAR AREAS.

    (a) In General.--The Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design 
Program Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 719 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``SEC. 6. DEFINITION OF STATE.

    ``In this Act, the term `State' means a State, the District of 
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and 
any other territory or possession of the United States.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2(c) of the Junior Duck Stamp 
Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 719(c)) is 
amended by striking ``50 States'' each place it appears and inserting 
``States''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 March 29, 2016

a0321

Order 

Clerk

March 29, 2016

151057

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151057

COA: 324953

Oakland CC: 89-095782-FC

JOHN MARSHALL ATKINS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

By order of December 22, 2015, the application for leave to appeal the January 21, 

2015 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Montgomery v Louisiana, cert gtd 575 US ___; 135 S Ct 1546; 191 L Ed 2d 635 (2015). 

On order of the Court, the case having been decided on January 25, 2016, 577 US ___; 

136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016), the application is again considered and, pursuant 

to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the 

Oakland Circuit Court for the defendant’s first-degree murder conviction, and we 

REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing on that conviction pursuant to MCL 

769.25 and MCL 769.25a. See Montgomery, supra; Miller v Alabama, 567 US ___; 132 

S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.