alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Amendment to Employment Agreement is hereby entered into as of April 17, 2009 by and
among Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Corporation”), Cedar Shopping
Centers Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”) and Brenda J. Walker
(the “Executive”).



W I T N E S S E T H:




     WHEREAS, the Corporation, the Partnership and the Executive entered into that certain
Employment Agreement dated as of November 1, 2003, as presently in effect (the “Employment
Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation (on the Corporation’s own behalf, and as
the sole general partner of the Partnership) approved a modification to the Employment Agreement;



     NOW THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound the parties hereto agree as follows:



     1. Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:




     “2.1 The term of employment shall end October 31, 2010, unless sooner terminated as
provided in this Agreement.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the
date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CEDAR SHOPPING CENTERS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ LEO S. ULLMAN
 	 
	 
	 
	 	CEDAR SHOPPING CENTERS PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
By:  Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc.
 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ LEO S. ULLMAN
 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ BRENDA J. WALKER
 	 
	 	Brenda J. Walker
#### Joseph C. Boyce, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. Llewellyn Boyce, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Mem. by

Learned. P. J.
EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Tongjitang Chinese Medicines Company (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shaolan Wang, 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 to my 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 30, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Shaolan Wang       
|Name:  |  | Shaolan Wang           
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Margaret Lawless, as Administratrix, Appellant, v. Staten Island Rapid Transit Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Dykman, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0001058549
<NAME> MEDITECNIC, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         510,370
<SECURITIES>                                   1,605,160
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,121,888
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,896,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1
<COMMON>                                       7,528
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,876,564)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,896,091
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  226,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (190,868)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (190,868)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (190,868)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)


</TABLE>
News      - Press Releases
      - Newsletters
      - Videos
      - Podcasts
      -  Resources          - Annual Reports
        - Public Information Pamphlets
        - Fact Sheets
        - Storymaps
        - SRBC in the News 

Home ** About ** News ** Press Release List

# Press Release List
#### Henry H Baker and Lewis Baker, as Executors, etc., Appellants, v. William T. Baker and Martin V. Baker, Respondents.

Order reversed, with’ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and motion for re-sale denied', with ten dollars costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2285
IDA HAWKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GUY GARHEART, in his individual capacity as Chief of Police; BRUCE HERSHFIELD, Dr., in hisindividual capacity as Superintendent, Springfield State Hospital, Defendants - Appellees, and RICKY LEE HINKLE; STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-2922-K) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Ida Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Paul Fletcher-Hill, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order de nying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hawkins v. Garheart , No. CA-94-2922-K (D. Md. June 6, 1995).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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation of our report dated October 19, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation
and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001, and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows and
related schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended September
30, 2001, which report appears in the September 30, 2001, annual report on Form
10-K of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

(signed) KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
December 14, 2001
#### C. C. WILLIAMS, J. ARTHUR STEWART, H. C. STUTTS, D. C. HAMER, G. B. HAMMOND, G. B. WILLIAMS, C. S. LEWIS, E. T. DENNIS, T. N. SLACK, E. R. BROWN, J. M. HUNSUCKER, DR. C. W. McMANUS, S. C. STEWART, W. C. LASSITER and All Other Taxpayers and Citizens of HEMP, Who Care to Make Themselves Parties Plaintiff, v. KARL ROBBINS, Alias KALAM RABINOWITS; W. P. SAUNDERS (or SANDERS), E. M. RITTER, A. F. LOWDERMILK, W. N. McDUFFIE, F. H. UPCHURCH and E. C. McSWAIN, Defendants.

(Filed 1 December, 1943.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Bobbitt, J.,*at Chambers in Union County, 28 August, 1943. From Moore.

Civil action instituted 14 August, 1943, to restrain defendants, their servants, agents, employees and attorneys from putting into effect anything that will change the name of the town of Hemp to Robbins.

This action is by the same plaintiffs, relates to the same order of the Municipal Board of Control, and is grounded upon substantially the same alleged facts as in the case of *Ilunsuclcer v. Winborne, ante,*650, to which reference is here made for facts in these respects. The judgment recites that when the case came on for hearing before judge presiding over and holding courts of the 13th Judicial District, at Chambers, in the courthouse in Monroe, Union County, on 28 August, 1943, to which the hearing had theretofore been continued, and being heard upon notice to show cause why temporary restraining order issued on 14 August, 1943, should not be continued in effect and after “fully hearing the matter, from ¿flidavits of both sides and upon argument of counsel, the court is of opinion that plaintiffs' herein are not legally entitled to attack in this cause the order of the Municipal Board of Control . . ., the said order and proceedings relating thereto being set out in the evidence upon the hearing.” It further appears that “the court fails to find that the petition filed with the Municipal Board of Control was signed by less than a majority of the *bona fide*resident qualified electors or by less than a majority of the *bona fide*resident freeholders or homesteaders, and the court fails to find that any of the signers of said petition were induced to sign on account of intimidation or fraud.” Thereupon it was ordered that the said temporary restraining order be and it is vacated and dissolved. And the hearing upon demurrer of defendants, as well as upon motion of plaintiffs made orally to strike the demurrer, was continued until a hearing may be had at term time in Superior Court of Moore County.

Plaintiffs appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.

*659
      *U. F. Seawell, Jr., W. D. Siler, and L. B. Varser for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*U. L. Spence, M. G. Boyette, and J. C. B. Ehringhaus for defendants, appellees.*

Winborne, J.

Plaintiffs present on this appeal these two questions: 1. Are plaintiffs entitled to have the action heard in the courts of Moore County? 2. Should the temporary restraining order and injunction issued be continued to the hearing? For reasons set out in the opinion in *Hunsucker v. Winborne, ante,*650, each of these questions must be answered in the negative. Hence, the judgment below is

Affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
for the periods presented therein.
 March 19, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Clifton W. Sink, Jr.Name:
    
    Clifton W. Sink, Jr.Title:
    
    Chief Executive Officer and President
 24
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

NO. 03-15-00454-CR

Roy Lee Nobles, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Appellant has filed 

a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the motion, allows appellant to 

withdraw his notice of appeal, and dismisses the appeal. Because appellant is indigent and 

unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 7, 2018

No. 04-17-00815-CR

Issac WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR8370B

Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding

ORDER

After we granted the State’s first motion for an extension of time to file the brief, the 

State’s brief was due on September 5, 2018. On the due date, the State filed its second motion 

for a thirty-day extension of time to file its brief. 

The State’s motion is GRANTED. The State’s brief is due on October 5, 2018. Any 

further motion for extension of time to file the State’s brief is discouraged.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.1






Exhibit 10.1




AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS COMPANY

2005 STOCK PLAN




Amendment No. 3


Adopted: February 19, 2009



Effective April 30, 2009, the American Reprographics Company 2005 Stock Plan, as
amended (the “Plan”) is further amended as follows:





	1.	 	Section 8(a) of the Plan is restated in its entirety to read as follows:






(a) Non-Discretionary Grants. Without further action of the Board, on the date of
each Annual Meeting, commencing with the Annual Meeting in 2009, each person who is then a
Non-Employee Director will be automatically granted a Restricted Stock Award for that
number of shares of Common Stock having a then Fair Market Value equal to $50,000, which
award will vest 100% twelve (12) months after the date of the Annual Meeting, subject to
the Non-Employee Director’s Continuous Service.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Willis, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 912]

*408Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered August 22, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the limited extent to which a prosecution witness was allowed to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination did not undermine the defendant’s right of confrontation *(see People v Chin,*67 NY2d 22 [1986]; *People v Navarro,*251 AD2d 353 [1998]; *People v Brock,*238 AD2d 347 [1997]; *People v Rodriguez,*177 AD2d 664 [1991]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### W. L. GIBBS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 19 December, 1930.)

Railroads D b — Evidence of wilful or wanton injury to licensee held insufficient to be submitted to jury in this case.

A person who voluntarily sits for his own convenience upon a freight platform of a railroad company to watch the trains is a permissive licensee to whom the company is not liable except for injuries resulting from its wilful and wanton negligence, and evidence that the employees of the defendant in unloading a car left a plank, used as a gangway, resting between the car and platform, and that the movement of the train dragged it upon and injured the plaintiff as he was sitting on the platform, and that he could have readily observed and avoided the danger, is *held:*not sufficient to take the case to the jury upon the issue of defendant’s negligence, and its motion as of nonsuit should have been allowed.

Civil actioN, before *Moore, J.,*at May Civil Term, 1930, of HeN-UERSON.

The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that on or about 22 April, 1929, he was sitting on the edge of the freight platform of defendant. The platform is about 12 feet wide. A track of defendant ran near the platform. The testimony showed that the track was from two to seven feet from the platform. While sitting upon the platform a train of defendant passed by and coupled up with a box car. The box *50car bad been loaded, but the gang plank wbicb extended from the platform to the car, while it was being loaded, was not removed when the loading was completed. When the engine coupled to the box car and began to move the box car, this gang plank was dragged by the movement of the train and struck the plaintiff, who had his back to the gang plank at the time he was struck. The plaintiff had no business upon the premises of the railroad company, but sat down upon the platform to wait for trains to pass. There is no evidence that the defendant knew of plaintiff’s presence. The injury happened in daylight and the moving gang plank was in plain view of plaintiff if he had been looking or paying attention.

At the conclusion of all the evidence the trial judge sustained a motion of nonsuit.

*Ray, Redden & Redden for plaintiff.*

*J. E. Shipman and Jones & Ward for defendant.*

Brogden, J.

What duty does a railroad company owe to a person upon its platform, who has no business upon the premises and is there exclusively for his own convenience?

The injury complained of happened in broad daylight and the moving gang plank was in full view of the plaintiff if he had been exercising any care for his own safety. At most the plaintiff was a bare or permissive licensee, and there is no evidence that the injury resulted from wilful or wanton negligence. Therefore, by virtue of both reason and authority the ruling of the trial judge was correct. *Quantz v. R. R.,*137 N. C., 136, 49 S. E., 79; *Peterson v. R. R.,*143 N. C., 260, 55 S. E., 618.

The facts do not bring this case within the principle announced in *Brigman v. Construction Co.,*192 N. C., 791, 136 S. E., 125, or *Jones v. R. R.,*199 N. C., 1.

Affirmed.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (1.35 MB)

Tags:HASC, Dickinson, SASC, Senate Armed Services Committee, Richard, STRATCOM, House Armed Services Committee, USSPACECOM

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Latest Cost-of-Living Adjustment

Footer menu
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Social Security Program Data

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Actuarial Publications

Automatic Increases

Estimate Your Benefit

Beneficiary Data

Trust Fund Data

Actuaries at SSA

 The Social Security program in the United States        provides protection against the loss of earnings due to retirement,       death, or disability.  The financial operations of this program are       handled through the        Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)       and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.  

       Monthly benefits are paid from the OASI Trust Fund to        retired workers and their families and to survivors of        deceased workers.  Monthly benefits       are paid from the DI Trust Fund to disabled workers and their       families.

       Both funds are financed primarily by contributions, or       taxes, paid by employees, their employers, and self-employed persons.       Other sources of income are interest on investments and income from       the taxation of benefits.

- Data available from the Office of the Chief Actuary           - Benefit data          on the number of Social Security beneficiaries and their          average benefit amounts
  - Financial data          on income to and cost from the funds and on         investments of the funds 
Data available from the         
Office of Retirement and Disability Policy

Footer menu