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


Exhibit 10.2













Carl Palumbo







September 14, 2010







Dear Carl:







We are pleased to confirm our offer of the position of Senior Vice President, Planning and Allocation with SYMS Corp. In this capacity you will report directly to Joel Feigenbaum, COO.  Please review the following employment arrangements:








	
Start date:

	  	
To be determined.


	  	  	  
	
Base Compensation:

	  	
An annualized salary of $250,000.00, paid through bi-weekly payroll periods.


	  	  	  
	
Expense Stipend:

	  	
You will receive an annual expense stipend in the gross amount of $12,500.00, paid through bi-weekly payroll periods.


	  	  	  
	
Incentive compensation:

	  	
You will eligible to participate in the annual Management Incentive Plan (MIP) with a 35% Target award; the goals are to be established.  This will be payable according to Plan criteria after the fiscal year-end results.  Any award earned for the current fiscal year performance will be pro-rated following 60 days employment.  We will discuss the details of this program upon employment.


	  	  	  
	
Vacation:

	  	
You will receive 15 days vacation beginning January 1, 2011.


	  	  	  
	
Benefits:

	
  

	
Your benefits will include those normally accorded exempt salaried co-workers of SYMS Corp.  A benefits package will be sent to you under separate cover.  We will review your benefits plan upon your start date.  However, if you have any questions prior please feel free to contact me at (201) 902-9600, ext 166.












In accordance with the Immigration and Naturalization Reform and Control Act of 1986, our offer is contingent upon completion of the verification procedure.  Attached please find a list of acceptable identification that must be presented during your orientation.







This offer in no way changes your status as an at-will employee as set forth in our Co-worker Handbook.  Please fax the signed acceptance to (201) 902-9270.  If I can answer any questions please feel free to call me.









Sincerely,





Ann M. Keefe


Senior Vice President, Operations








	
Accepted:  

	
         /s/ Carl Palumbo

	  	
Date:  

	
9/20/2010


	  	
         Carl Palumbo

	  	  	  











	
SYMS Corp

	
One Syms Way, Secaucus, NJ 07094

	
(201) 902-9600


	  	
WWW.SYMS.COM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM DELICIOUS
BRANDS,  INC.  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AS OF MARCH 31,  1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                 MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  5,632,895
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     688,418
<INVENTORY>                                                    2,247,636
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               7,947,688
<PP&E>                                                           955,957
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   596,184
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                18,577,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         16,313,108
<BONDS>                                                          710,848
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                    1,516,668
<COMMON>                                                          44,895
<OTHER-SE>                                                        (8,346)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  18,577,083
<SALES>                                                       12,341,817
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              12,341,817
<CGS>                                                          9,496,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  9,496,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               3,892,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  19,333
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               166,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (1,227,732)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (1,227,732)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (1,227,732)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (.29)


</TABLE>
#### Debra Jean KIRBY, Appellant, v. WILLIAM C. HAAS & COMPANY, INC., et al., and Granite State Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. WD 40402.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 15, 1988.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 27, 1988.

Larry M. Brummet and Jay T. Grodsky, Kansas City, for appellant.

David A. Welte and D. Keith Henson of Polsinelli, White, Vardeman & Shalton, Kansas City, for Wm. C. Haas & Co., Inc., et al.

Stacey L. Rainey of Turner & Boisseau, Kansas City, for Granite State Ins. Co.

Before FENNER, P.J., MANFORD, and COVINGTON, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kirby appeals from an order of the trial court denying her petition in equity and her counterclaim in equity in a collateral case and dismissing her garnishment action against the respondent insurance company. The cases have been consolidated on appeal.

The orders are affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
ADRIAN GRAY,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0782

Opinion filed June 6, 2017.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original Jurisdiction.

Adrian Gray, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as untimely and successive. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5) 

and (d)(6)(C).

WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10467 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Danielle Harper,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 185

- 1

Before **Wiener, Elrod,**  and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Danielle Harper
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Harper has not filed a response. We have reviewed

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir. R. 47.5** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 21, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10467 Document: 00516585825 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2022No. 22

- 10467

2 counsel’s brief and the re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further resp onsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 22-10467 Document: 00516585825 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2022
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3733

JLG Industries, Inc:

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
Exhibit 32.3
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
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 Partnership.
 /s/ Gerard H. Sweeney

Gerard H. SweeneyPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 8, 2008
 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Brandywine Realty Trust and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-10474

Palo Alto Networks, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The 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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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 in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 9, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-978 Lower Tribunal No. 17-1202

________________ 

### Credo LLC , Appellant,
vs. 

### Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, etc., et al. , Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts, Judge. Roniel Rodriguez IV, P.A., and Roniel Rodriguez IV, for appellant. Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP, and Stuart I. Grossman, Matthew J. McGuane, and Anthony (Tony) Bell, for appellee Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4999 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require 

silent alarms in elementary schools and secondary schools, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER (for himself, Mr. KEAN of New Jersey, Mr. FITZPATRICK, 

Mr. KIM of New Jersey, Ms. MACE, Mr. BACON, Mr. DAVIS of North 

Carolina, Mr. MOSKOWITZ, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. GARCIA of 

Texas, Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas, Mr. COSTA, and Mr. CARSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to require silent alarms in elementary schools 

and secondary schools, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Alyssa’s Legacy Youth 

5 in Schools Safety Alert Act’’ or the ‘‘ALYSSA Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4999 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING SILENT ALARMS IN SCHOOLS. 

2 (a) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY PLANS.—Section 

3 1112(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

4 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6312(c)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (5)(B)(ii)(III), by striking 

6 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

8 end; 

9 (3) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at 

10 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(8) ensure that each school served by the local 

13 educational agency is prepared to address a school 

14 security emergency, including through the use of 

15 panic alarms (as defined in section 8549D).’’. 

16 (b) CONDITION OF RECEIPT OF FUNDS.—Subpart 2 

17 of part F of title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary 

18 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) is amend19 ed by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘SEC. 8549D. SCHOOL SECURITY. 

21 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—As a condition of receipt of 

22 funds under this Act, each local educational agency shall 

23 ensure that each elementary school and secondary school 

24 served by such local educational agency is equipped with 

25 at least one panic alarm for use in a school security emerVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:14 Aug 15, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4999.IH H4999

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4999 IH

1 gency (including a non-fire evacuation, lockdown, or active 

2 shooter situation). 

3 ‘‘(b) PANIC ALARM DEFINED.—For purposes of this 

4 section and section 1112(c)(8), the term ‘panic alarm’ 

5 means a silent security system signal generated by the 

6 manual activation of a device intended to signal a life7 threatening or emergency situation requiring a response 

8 from law enforcement.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1906

MAI CHAPPEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SPIVEY SHELTON; SARAH SPIVEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:22-cv-00174-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mai Chappel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1906 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Mai Chappel appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised 

in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Chappel’s informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of 

the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The 

informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited 

to issues preserved in that brief.”). We therefore modify the district court’s dismissal order 

to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice, and we affirm the dismissal as modified. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that 

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1906 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.2
                            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 Quarterly Report of Next Generation Technology Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Donald C. Schmitt Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     3)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                               By:  /S/ DONALD C. SCHMITT
                                               ---  ---------------------
                                               Name: Donald C. Schmitt
                                               Title: Chairman and Chief
                                               Financial Officer




<PAGE>
Exhibit 4.30







Exhibit 4.30




Transfer Agreement




Party A: Shanda Computer (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a limited liability company incorporated and duly
existing under the laws of the People’ Republic of China (“PRC”) with its principal address at No.
208, Juli Road, Pudong District, Shanghai.



Party B: Dongxu Wang, a PRC citizen with ID Number of 310226751124032 and with the living address
at 301, No. 6 of No. 1025 Nong, Shangcheng Road, Pudong District, Shanghai.



Party
C: Ku6 (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd., a limited liability company incorporated and duly
existing under the PRC laws with its principal address at No. 6 building, Zhengtong Shidai Creation
Centre, No. 18 of Xili of Xiba River, Chaoyang district, Beijing.



Whereas Party A and Party B entered into loan agreement (“Loan Agreement”) and the relevant
supplementary agreements (“Supplementary Agreements”) on 12 May 2010 and in September 2009
respectively, Party B has borrowed RMB27,892,800 in total from Party A in accordance with such Loan
Agreement. Now Party A intends to transfer to Party C and Party C is willing to acquire from Party
A in terms of Party A’s rights and obligations under the Loan Agreement. After consultations, the
three parties hereto entered into this Agreement on August 5 2010 in Pudong district, Shanghai:




	1.	 	Party A will and agree to transfer its all rights and obligations under the Loan Agreement to
Party C without any consideration.







	2.	 	Party C agrees to acquire all the rights and obligations under the Loan Agreement in
accordance with Article 1 hereof.







	3.	 	Under the Loan Agreement, Party A is changed from Shanda Computer (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to Ku6
(Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.. The remaining articles of this Agreement will remain unchanged
and continue to be valid.

	 
	4.	 	This Agreement takes into effect upon chopped by the three parties hereto.







	5.	 	Any dispute arising from this Agreement shall be resolved though amicably consultation. In
case of failing to reach a settlement through consultation, the dispute shall be submitted to
the local People’s court where this Agreement is signed for a ruling.







	6.	 	This Agreement is made in six originals. Each party holds two originals and each original
has equal legal force.




 


 









 










Signature Page




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



Party A:




Signature:                                         




Name:




Title:




Party B:




Signature:                                         




Name:




Party C:




Signature:                                         




Name:




Title:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-17-00538-CR

Style: Martin Hernandez v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: December 7, 2017

Type of motion: Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief; Notice of 

Appearance with attached finding of indigency

Party filing motion: Appellant’s Newly-Appointed Counsel Dal Ruggles

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: October 9, 2017

Number of extensions granted: 1 Current Due Date: December 8, 2017

Date Requested: January 22, 2018 (45 days, 105 days from original)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: January 22, 2018.

 No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary 

circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Because appellant’s new counsel was appointed on November 9, 2017, appellant’s

second extension is the first by new counsel and is granted, but counsel is warned that

no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(1)(B), 38.6(d). Also, appellant’s notice of appearance is 

construed as a motion for substitution of counsel and is granted. See id. 6.5(d). 

However, withdrawing counsel Alexander L. Calhoun is ordered to mail a copy of

the notice and this order to the pro se appellant via certified and first-class mail and to 

file a certificate of service with this Court within 10 days of the date of this order. See

id. 6.5(b), (d). The Clerk of this Court is directed to remove Alexander L. Calhoun as

counsel and substitute Dal Ruggles as the lead counsel of record.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: December 12, 2017