alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.17


 





AMENDMENT No. 1

TO

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 1 to Executive
Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is effective as of July 14, 2022, by and between Renters Warehouse, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company (the “Company”), and Nolan Jacobson (“Executive”). All capitalized
terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement (as defined below).


 


RECITALS:


 


The Company and Executive entered
into that certain Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated effective as of February 2, 2018. The Company
and Executive desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions hereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the foregoing recitals, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
Company and Executive, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:


 


1.   Amendment
to Severance Amount. Section 4.3(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “ninety (90) days” in the
seventh line with “one (1) year”.


 


2.   No
Other Changes; Entire Agreement. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a
conflict between the provisions of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall govern. This Amendment and the
Agreement constitute the sole agreement containing the subject matter hereof.


 


3.   Miscellaneous.
This Amendment shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. This Amendment shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. The descriptive headings for the
several sections of this Amendment are inserted for convenience only and not to confine or limit any of the terms or provisions hereof.
Electronic signatures (e.g., “.pdf”, “DocuSign”, etc.) and photocopies shall be deemed originals.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this Amendment No. 1 effective as of the date set forth above.


 





	THE COMPANY:	 	EXECUTIVE:	 
	 	 	 	 
	RENTERS WAREHOUSE, LLC	 	 	 



 


	Signed:	/s/ Kevin Ortner	 	/s/ Nolan Jacobson

	By:	Kevin Ortner	 	Nolan Jacobson

	Its: 	Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                    5
<CIK>                                        0000881695                   
<NAME>                                       Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         3,003,300
<SECURITIES>                                   1,449,326
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,994,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                     746,000
<INVENTORY>                                    4,711,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              13,566,721
<PP&E>                                         7,827,826
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,307,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28,967,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         22,705,696
<BONDS>                                       12,445,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                164
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         457,926
<OTHER-SE>                                    (6,641,777)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28,967,572
<SALES>                                       20,994,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              20,994,546
<CGS>                                         20,055,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 20,055,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,851,262
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,993,898
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (58,369,079)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (58,369,079)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (27,434,812)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (85,803,891)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (2.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (2.57)
        

</TABLE>
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4063 

To prohibit the President from negotiating or concluding any withdrawal, 

suspension, waiver, or modification to the Agreement on Trade-Related 

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights without explicit authorization 

from Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 7, 2022 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. CRAMER, 

Mr. HAGERTY, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. LEE) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prohibit the President from negotiating or concluding 

any withdrawal, suspension, waiver, or modification to 

the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property Rights without explicit authorization from Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Free TRIPS Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4063 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT ON 

2 TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLEC3 TUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President, and any official, 

5 employee, or agent of the United States, may not negotiate 

6 or conclude any withdrawal, suspension, waiver, or modi7 fication to the TRIPS Agreement without obtaining ex8 plicit authorization from Congress before beginning nego9 tiations with respect to that withdrawal, suspension, or 

10 modification. 

11 (b) TRIPS AGREEMENT DEFINED.—In this section, 

12 the term ‘‘TRIPS Agreement’’ means the Agreement on 

13 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights re14 ferred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round 

15 Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(15)). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ELLIOTT BROWN, a/k/a Ta Dow , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00415

- MJG

- 2 )

Submitted : July 19, 2018 Decided: July 24, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Elliott Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Elliott Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

mo tion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court correctly concluded that Brown’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but i n substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 397

- 99 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 531

- 32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized successive ha beas corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that Brown is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order. See Mcrae , 793 F.3d at 397

- 99 . However, in the absence of prefiling authorization, the district court
l acked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materia ls before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Mark P. O’Neill, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Hypertension Diagnostics, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us 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 controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’smost recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: February 14, 2007                                                       /s/ Mark P. O’Neill   Mark P. O’Neill   Manager of Finance and Accounting(principal financial officer)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11994-11995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5197]



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



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bid Sale of Property

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the request for sealed bids for the sale 
of Cuyahoga Valley NRA Tract 109-38, aka 1509 Boston Mills Road, 
Peninsula, Ohio. Freehold interest in the property is to be conveyed, 
including restrictive covenants attached to the deed. The minimum 
acceptable bid is $70,000 plus a $100.00 non-refundable processing fee. 
The fair market appraisal may be inspected at Park Headquarters, 15610 
Vaughn Road, Brecksville, Ohio. Monies must be submitted separately for 
the bid and non-refundable fee by certified [[Page 11995]] check, post 
office money order, bank draft or cashier's check made payable to the 
United State of America for the full amount of the bid and non-
refundable fee and sent to Superintendent, Cuyahoga Valley NRA, 15610 
Vaughn Road, Brecksville, Ohio 44141. The property will be available 
for inspection from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. on April 29, 1995. Bids will be 
received until 2:00 p.m. on May 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent John P. Debo, Cuyahoga 
Valley National Recreation Area, 15610 Vaughn Road, Brecksville, OH 
44141 (216-526-5256).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is being published in accordance 
with 36 CFR 17.4, July 1, 1992.

    Dated: February 27, 1995
Roy F. Beasley, Jr.,
Acting Superintendent, Cuyahoga Valley NRA.
[FR Doc. 95-5197 Filed 3-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4096]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision
[AC-12; OTS No. 03859]


AmericanTrust Federal Savings Bank, Peru, Indiana; Approval of 
Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on February 9, 1995, the Deputy 
Assistant Director, Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the 
application of AmericanTrust Federal Savings Bank, Peru, Indiana, to 
covert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are 
available for inspection at the Information Services Division, Office 
of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20552, and 
the Central Regional Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 111 East 
Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois 60601-4360.

    Dated: February 14, 1995.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4096 Filed 2-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 12, 2021

No. 04-20-00532-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W.J.M., A CHILD

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-15709

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s 

brief is due on or before April 13, 2021.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 12th day of February, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 3, 2024

NO. 03

- 22

- 00198

- CV

UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company and Sierra Health and Life Insurance Company, Inc. , Appellant s

v.

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas; Teacher R etirement System of Texas;

Humana Insurance Company; Humana Insurance Company of New York; and

Humana Insurance Company of Puerto Rico, Inc. , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 2, 20 22

. H aving reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The appellant s

shall pay all costs relating to this app eal, bo th in this Court and in the court below.
exhibit4g.htm




Exhibit 4(g)

GUARANTEED ACCUMULATED VALUES


AND SURRENDER VALUES


FOR DCA FIXED ALLOCATIONS*













	
$10,000 Single Contribution


	
End of


Year


 

	
Guaranteed


Accumulated


Value

	
Guaranteed


Surrender


Value


	
1

	
$8,160.00

	
$7,560.00


	
2

	
6,218.96

	
5,618.96


	
3

	
4,207.91

	
3,707.91


	
4

	
2,130.07

	
1,730.07


	
5

	
0.00

	
0.00

















*Guaranteed Values are based on the guaranteed interest rate of 2.0%. These values do not provide for premium tax, if any.







The Guaranteed Values illustrated above assume a single $10,000 Purchase Payment allocated to the 60-month DCA Fixed Account, where transfers from the DCA Fixed Account occur at the beginning of each month and the amount of each transfer is determined according to the declining ratio method. Under the declining ratio method, the amount of each transfer is determined by dividing the current accumulated value by the number of years, half-years, quarters or months remaining in the DCA period, where transfers from the DCA Fixed Account occur on an annual, semi-annual, quarterly or monthly basis, respectively.




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


NYLGV 6/05
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1635

C.H. Hanson Co:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1539

Crystal Mountain Products, Inc:

This letter concerns the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the 

notice published at 83 FR 32181 (‘July 11 notice’). I am pleased to notify you that although 

your individual request previously had been denied, the United States Trade Representative – in 

response to other requests – has determined to grant an exclusion that covers the product 

described in your request. This exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion responsive to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP**

 

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), provides that if part of aregistration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring asecurity pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has consented to be named as havingcertified any part of the registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement. 

 

On June 25, 2002, the trust announced the termination of its engagement of Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent auditors upon the trustee’sappointment of KPMG LLP to serve as the trust’s independent auditors for fiscal 2002. For more information, see the trust’s current report on Form 8-K dated June 25, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2002.

 

After reasonable efforts, the trust has been unable to obtainthe consent of Arthur Andersen, the trust’s former independent auditors, as to the incorporation by reference of their report for the year ended December 31, 2001 into XTO Energy Inc.’s previously filed registration statements (Nos.33-55784 and 333-91460) under the Securities Act, and the trust has not filed that consent with this Annual Report on Form 10-K in reliance on Rule 437a of the Securities Act of 1933. Because the trust has not been able to obtain ArthurAndersen’s consent, you will not be able to recover against Arthur Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the trust’s financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or anyomissions to state a material fact required to be stated therein.
#### STATE v. LEON TUCKER.

(Filed 23 November, 1955.)

Appeal by defendant from *Armstrong, J.,*and a jury, at September Term, 1956, of RaNdolph.

Criminal prosecution tried on appeal from County Recorder’s Court upon a warrant charging the defendant with the unlawful sale of tax-paid whiskey.

From a verdict of guilty and judgment imposing penal servitude, the defendant appeals.

*Attorney-General Rodman and Assistant Attorney-General McGal-liard for the State.*

*Ottway Burton for the defendant, appellant.*

PER Cueiam.

This case involves no new question or feature requir- » ing extended discussion. We have examined the record and find no substantial merit in any of the exceptions brought forward. Neither *177reversible nor prejudicial error has been made to appear. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

HiggiNS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.