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

                                 EXHIBIT 10.33

 Amendment, dated January 3, 1997, to Employment Agreement between the Company
                               and Max W. Batzer



<PAGE>

                       Diagnostic Health Services, Inc.
                       2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1525
                             Dallas, Texas  75207


                                                  January 3, 1997

Mr. Max W. Batzer
10709 St. Lazare Drive
Dallas, TX  75229

          Re:  Seventh Amendment to Employment Agreement
               -----------------------------------------

Dear Max:

          This will confirm that, on the date hereof, the Board of Directors of
Diagnostic Health Services, Inc. (the "Company") has authorized and approved
certain amendments to your outstanding employment agreement with the Company
dated November 1, 1991 (as amended to date, the "Employment Agreement").

          The amendments that have been authorized and approved consist of the
following:

          1.  Paragraph 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended so as to
provide for a new scheduled expiration date of December 31, 2001, subject to
year-to-year renewal thereafter in accordance with such paragraph 2.

          2.  Paragraph 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended so
as to provide for a minimum annual base salary of $360,000 per annum, effective
retroactively to January 1, 1997.

          Except as specifically set forth herein, all terms and conditions of
the Employment Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.

          If you are in agreement with the foregoing, kindly confirm same by
countersigning and returning to the Company a duplicate copy of this letter.

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    DIAGNOSTIC HEALTH SERVICES, INC.


                                    By: /S/ BRAD A. HUMMEL
                                        ------------------
                                        Brad A. Hummel, President
Acknowledged, Confirmed and
Agreed To:


    /S/ MAX W,. BATZER
    ------------------
    Max W. Batzer
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dewayne E. FANN, Defendant-Appellant. Dewayne E. FANN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

Nos. 62879, 67356.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Dec. 26, 1995.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J. and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, for murder in the first degree, § 565.020.1, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the court to life imprisonment without possibility of probation or parole for the murder and a consecutive sentence of life imprisonment for the armed criminal action. The Defendant also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Walker, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), rendered on July 23, 1987, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Ross, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
#### Ex parte Earl S. HOLLAND, Jr.

No. C-9798.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 13, 1990.

Curtis L. Seidlits, Jr., Sherman, for relator.

George Roland, McKinney, for respondent.

ORIGINAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM.

This is an original habeas corpus proceeding. After an evidentiary hearing, the 199th district court of Collin County found relator Earl S. Holland, Jr. in contempt for failure to pay court-ordered child support. The district court ordered relator jailed for six months or until he pays the child support arrearage. Although the court found that relator “is now in arrears in the amount of $10,440,” it failed to specify the time, date, and place of each occasion on which relator failed to pay child support. Relator argues that without such specificity, the child support enforcement order is unenforceable. We agree. The relevant section of the Family Code provides that if an enforcement order “imposes incarceration or a fine, [it] must contain findings setting out specifically ... the time, date, and place of each occasion on which the respondent failed to comply” with the child support order. Tex.Fam.Code § 14.33(a). Because the enforcement order does not contain the requisite specificity, it is not enforceable by contempt. *See Ex Parte Boykins,*764 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1989, orig. proc.).

Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 122, a majority of the Court holds the district court’s order void as contrary to Tex.Fam.Code § 14.33(a) and, without hearing oral argument, orders relator discharged.
exhibit10_6.htm


Exhibit 10.6




 



2010 Executive Bonus Plan







Executive Officers of Charter and certain other managerial and professional employees of Charter and its subsidiaries are eligible to participate in Charter's 2010 Executive Bonus Plan. Bonuses for eligible employees for 2010 will be determined based on the extent to which Charter's (or, if applicable, an employee's particular operating group or key market area’s) performance during 2010 meets or exceeds budgeted goals with respect to four performance measures. These measures, and the percentage of an employee's bonus allocated to each measure, are Revenue (20%), Adjusted EBITDA for Corporate employees or Operating Cash Flow for Operating Group and Key Market Area employees (30%), Adjusted EBITDA less Capital Expenditures (30%) and Customer Excellence Index Plus (“CEI+”) (20%).  CEI+ will be measured against quantifiable statistics determined by the Board of Directors or Compensation and Benefits Committee and include: 1) Call Center Operations Metrics; 2) Technical Operations Metrics; and 3) Network Operations Metrics.







With respect to each performance measure listed above, the eligible employee would receive 100% of the portion of his or her target bonus allocated to that performance measure if Charter's (or such employee's operating group's or key market area’s) performance reaches the budgeted goal for that measure. Also, for each performance measure, the employee would receive 10% of the allocated percentage if the performance equals 90% of the budgeted goal, and could receive as much as 150% of the allocated percentage if the performance exceeds the applicable budgeted goal by 5%. Each employee's target bonus is determined based on market data and position within the company. Target bonuses for executive officers range from 65% to 165% of base salary, subject to applicable employment agreements.  The Target award is the assigned percentage of a participant's base salary earnings while in a bonus eligible position throughout 2010.  “Earnings” under this plan will include wages (less any bonus/incentive payment), vacation pay, sick pay, floating holiday and holiday pay, and salary continuation under Charter’s disability plans.  Payments of the bonus amount will be made, if earned, annually.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Dela Cruz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered February 26, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and two counts of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00) and sentencing him to indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years for the burglary and one year for each assault charge, all terms to run concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant and complainant began a relationship in December 1985. Defendant would sleep over at complainant’s apartment on a regular basis, where she lived with her son and daughter. After a few months, defendant became physically abusive. On March 4, 1987, when there was no response to defendant’s knock on complainant’s door, he knocked the door down, entered the apartment and began hitting complainant. Defendant was arrested shortly thereafter when the police *313arrived. Defendant was charged with sexual abuse, burglary and four assaults committed over a one-year period.

At trial sufficient proof was elicited to sustain defendant’s conviction for burglary in the second degree. Defendant paid no rent, his name was not on the lease and he did not have a key. Defendant’s act of knocking down the door to gain entrance to the apartment is in itself inconsistent with any theory that he had a license to enter, and his acts of violence towards complainant render the question of intent to commit a crime on the premises beyond dispute. (Penal Law §§ 140.25, 15.05 [1].)

Nor do we find that defendant was prejudiced by the testimony given by complainant’s children concerning defendant’s assaultive behavior. This testimony could either have been considered as evidence of uncharged assaults or merely a more general statement regarding the assaults charged. In any event, even if the testimony of complainant’s children constituted evidence of uncharged crimes, defendant was not prejudiced by such testimony. The record makes clear that the jury was able to discriminate between the assaults charged, as they acquitted defendant of sexual abuse as well as two counts of assault. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
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-2018-0025-2603

Price Pump Company:

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 the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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
<PAGE>   1






                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
PhyCor, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
PhyCor Inc. on Form S-3 (No. 33-98528), Form S-4 (Nos. 33-66210 and 33-98530)
and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-65228, 33-85726 and 333-58709) of our reports dated
February 23, 1999, except as to notes 10 and 17, which are as of March 17, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of PhyCor, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operation, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1998, and related schedule, which reports
appear in the December 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of PhyCor, Inc.

                                            /s/ KPMG LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
February 14, 2000
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF GATEWAY, INC.



|                                            |  |             
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Name                                        |  | Jurisdiction
|Advanced Logic Research, Inc.               |  | Delaware    
|Cowabunga Enterprises, Inc. dba Gateway.com |  | Delaware    
|Gateway Accessory Stores, Inc.              |  | Delaware    
|Gateway Asia, Inc.                          |  | Delaware    
|Gateway Companies, Inc.                     |  | Delaware    
|Gateway Country Stores LLC                  |  | Delaware    
|Gateway International Holdings, Inc.        |  | Delaware    
|Gateway Japan, Inc.                         |  | Delaware    
|Gateway Manufacturing LLC                   |  | Delaware    
|Gateway PC LLC                              |  | Delaware    
|Gateway Technologies, Inc.                  |  | Delaware    
|GW Holdings LLC                             |  | Delaware    
|Nicholas Insurance Company Ltd.             |  | Bermuda     
|North Merrill Maintenance LLC               |  | South Dakota
|Spotware Technologies, Inc.                 |  | Delaware
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 1184 Lower Tribunal No. 20 13

- CA

- 005860

- O

_____________________________
T ERRY S PEARS , Appellant
,

v.

E LISE B RADFORD , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the C ircuit Court for Orange County

. D onald A. Myers, Jr., Ju dge.

January 9, 20 24

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED

.

STARGEL
, W OZNIAK and SMITH
, JJ. , c oncur.

Michael M. Brownlee, of The Brownlee Law Firm , P.A., Orlando , for Appellant.

Warren Kwavnick, of Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, F ort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4651

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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 the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7932]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,799]


Huls America, Incorporated, Elizabeth, NJ; Notice of Termination 
of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on March 13, 1995 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers and former workers at Huls America, 
Incorporated, Elizabeth, New Jersey (TA-W-30,799).
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of March 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-7932 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7089
BRIAN K. JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versusRONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-1040-AM) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 28, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Brian K. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Angelone , No. CA-96-1040-AM (E.D. Va. July 23, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3960

Cummins Allison Corp:

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 the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

General Counsel
##### 



NAME
    
    INCORPORATIONGlobal Divers and Contractors, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Pipelines PLUS, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaPipelines, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Movible Offshore, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaPelican Transportation, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaThe Red Adair Co., L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Industries Offshore, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Offshore International, LTD
    
    Cayman IslandsGlobal International Vessels, Ltd.
    
    Cayman IslandsNorman Offshore Pipelines, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Pipelines Plus (Nigeria), Ltd.
    
    NigeriaGlobal Offshore, Pty. Ltd.
    
    AustraliaGlobal Industries Asia Pacific Pte, Ltd.
    
    SingaporeGlobal Industries (B)Sdn. Bhd.
    
    BruneiPT Global Industries Asia Pacific
    
    IndonesiaGlobal Asia Pacific Industries, Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaSubtec Asia, Limited
    
    Isle of ManSubtec Marine Services Limited
    
    CyprusSubtec Offshore Support, Ltd.Cyprus
    
    CyprusSubtec Middle East Limited
    
    DelawareSubtec National Company, L.L.C.
    
    United Arab EmiratesGIL Holdings, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Production Services, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaGlobal Industries Mexico Holdings, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoGlobal Vessels Mexico, S. de R.L.de C.V.
    
    MexicoGlobal Industries Offshore Services, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoGlobal Industries Services, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoGlobal Offshore Mexico,S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoGlobal Offshore (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaGlobal Industries Offshore(Thailand), Ltd.
    
    ThailandGlobal Offshore International, L.L.C.
    
    LouisianaSunset Contracting Services, Inc.
    
    TexasGlobal Industries International, L.P.
    
    Cayman IslandsGlobal Industries Offshore Spain, S.L.
    
    SpainGlobal Industries Offshore Netherlands, BV
    
    The NetherlandsGlobal Industries Offshore Labuan Ltd.
    
    LabuanGlobal Vesssels Mauritius, Ltd.
    
    MauritiusGlobal Construction Mauritius Services, Ltd.
    
    MauritiusGIL Mauritius Holdings, Ltd.
    
    MauritiusGLBL Holdings, LLC
    
    LouisianaGlobal Industries Australia Holdings Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaPT Divcon
    
    IndonesiaGlobal Industries International, LLC
    
    LouisianaSubtec Saudi Arabia Limited
    
    Saudi ArabiaGlobal Industries Offshore Hong Kong Limited
    
    Hong KongGLBL Brasil Oleodutos e Servicos Ltda.
    
    Brazil