alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit_4-9.htm










Exhibit 4.9



 







	 	 
kubatronik

	 	 







	 	 
leiterplatten

	 






	 	 
Member of the Eltek Group

	 









 


Kubatronic Leiterplatten GmbH – POB 1246 – 73302 Geislingen/Steige










	 	
By registered letter


To:


Ms. Karin Kubat


Filstrr. 3


73326 Deggingen

	
Karl-Benz-Straße 13


73312 Geislingen/Steige


Tel.: +49 (0) 73 31 / 9 69 14-0


Fax: +49 (0) 73 31 / 6 92 56


 


vertrieb@kubatronik.de


www.kubatronik.de







 



	 	 
Our reference     Date


Geislingen, 18 December 2007







 


Lease contract with regard to Karl-Benz-Straße 13, 73312 Geislingen







Dear Ms. Kubat,







By this letter, we would like to avail ourselves of the extension option for the aforementioned land with the buildings thereon, in accordance with the contract dates 07.06.2002.







In accordance with the verbal agreement with Mr. Amnon Shemer, we hereby extend the lease contract by 5 additional years, from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2013. The lease continues to be € 6,488 + legal VAT. As of 01.01.2010, the net monthly lease amounts to € 7,210.00. The aforementioned sums include the lease for the free area. Should we wish to avail ourselves of another extension option with regard to the lease contract, we shall contact you in due time, in accordance with section 1 par. IV of the amendment and completion agreement dated 07.06.2002.


 




	 	 
I approve the content of the letter







 




Kindest regards,







Kubatronic Leiterplatten GmbH


 




	
[signature]

	
[signature]

	
[signature]


	
Dan Eshed

	
p / Axel Herrmann

	
Karin Kubat


	
 (-)

	  	  







 


 




	
Business Managers:


Dan Eshed


Alois Kubat


HRB 540816 Ulm

	
Kreissparkasse Geislingen


Account no. 5 008 399


(BLZ 610 500 00)


IBAN No.: DE43105000000008399


BIC Code: GOPS DE 6G

	
USt-IdNo.: DE145462461


Fiscal no.: 62050/06583
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SAFETY 1ST
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 100.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                         897,602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,698,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,700,000
<INVENTORY>                                 15,940,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,687,083
<PP&E>                                      24,331,648
<DEPRECIATION>                            (10,938,457)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,735,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       48,996,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       18,044,378
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,311
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,071,401
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,735,475
<SALES>                                    121,279,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           121,279,933
<CGS>                                       75,011,419
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               75,011,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            44,194,512
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,053,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,335
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,105,131)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,194,466
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,194,466
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
Presidential Documents

18725

Federal Register

Vol. 60, No. 70

Wednesday, April 12, 1995

Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 6785 of April 10, 1995

Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A., 1995

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

As we move toward a complex and challenging new century, excellence

in American education is more vital to our Nation’s success than ever.

We live in an era when advances in science and technology create new

questions and demand more of our citizens each day. Only a national

commitment to high-quality education can prepare our young people to

meet the great responsibilities and opportunities of the future.

Yet an education that prepares a child for a lifetime is more than an

accumulation of facts or single-minded preparation for a career. It is also

a set of ideals and ethics that unites all Americans and allows us to work

together for a just and honorable society. Teachers, families, and communities

play vital roles in passing on these shared values and common hopes for

a better tomorrow.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, well understood the importance of nurturing the heart along with the mind. Throughout

his long and rich life, he believed that the education of our young people

would only be successful if it sought to build character as well as intellect,

if it taught the lessons of honesty, tolerance, and good citizenship, as well

as language, math, and science.

This year, let us rededicate ourselves to teaching the love of learning that

was championed by Rabbi Schneerson and is strengthened by caring leaders

like him throughout our Nation. As we provide our students with the information and practical tools they need, let us also pass on to them the capacity

for understanding that can help to give fuller meaning to their lives.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 11, 1995, as ‘‘Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A.’’ I call upon Government officials, educators,

volunteers, and all the people of the United States to observe this day

with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of

April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-five, and of

the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and

[FR Doc. 95–9213

Filed 4–11–95; 10:48 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

nineteenth.

œ–
#### Gloria HAYES, Appellant, v. LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION of Missouri, et al., Respondents.

No. WD 49653.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 21, 1995.

Samuel I. McHenry, Kansas City, for appellant.

Sharon A. Willis, Kansas City, Sandy Bowers, Jefferson City, for respondent, Mo. Div. of Employment Security.

Victorine R. Mahon, Jefferson City, for respondent Labor and Indus. Relations Com’n.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a circuit court ruling that Appellant was not entitled to certain unemployment compensation benefits.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James O. Robertson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law, and as modified affirmed, in accordance *954with the following memorandum: The trial court erred in submitting to the jury a count of sexual abuse that was not contained in the indictment. The judgment of conviction on that count must be reversed even in the absence of an objection *(see, People v Ahmed,*66 NY2d 307, *rearg denied*67 NY2d 647; *People v Miles,*289 NY 360).

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that he was improperly convicted of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree *(see,*Penal Law § 265.09 [1]). There is ample proof that defendant was in constructive possession of a loaded, operable, deadly weapon at the time he committed rape in the first degree. It is necessary only to show possession, not use *(see,*Penal Law §§ 5.00, 10.00 [8]; Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law art 265, at 378-379).

Also without merit is defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his right to a public trial *(see, People v Jones,*47 NY2d 409, *cert denied*444 US 946). The Trial Judge closed the courtroom during the suppression hearing without objection by defendant. Thus, any error in closing the hearing is not preserved for review *(see,*CPL 470.05).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—rape, first degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 5 0 0 8 7 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. A R G E O S A L G A D O

- O R T E G A , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 1 : 0 8

- C R

- 2 9 0

- 5

B e f o r e J O L L Y , G A R Z A a n d S T E W A R T , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t A r g e o S a l g a d o - O r t e g a h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. S a l g a d o - O r t e g a h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t

r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 8, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-50087 Document: 00511258895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2010
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 102 (Friday, May 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 28834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11379]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee 
(HICPAC); Correction

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Healthcare 
Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC); June 3, 2021, 
from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EDT in the original FRN.
    The teleconference was published in the Federal Register on April 
9, 2021, Volume 86, Number 67, page 18533.
    The teleconference meeting is being corrected to update the time 
and should read as follows:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC 
announces the following meeting for the Healthcare Infection Control 
Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). This virtual meeting is open to 
the public, limited only by audio and web conference lines (300 audio 
and web conference lines are available). Registration is required. To 
register for this web conference, please go to: www.cdc.gov/hicpac. All 
registered participants will receive the meeting link and instructions 
shortly before the meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 3, 2021, from 12 p.m. to 3 
p.m., EDT.
    This meeting is open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Koo-Whang Chung, M.P.H., HICPAC, 
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging 
and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop 
H16-3, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone: (404) 498-0730; Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#773f3e342736343714131459101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2860616b78696b684b4c4b064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-11379 Filed 5-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5453 

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to adjust 

the boundary of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. TURNER (for himself and Mr. LANDSMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act 

of 1992 to adjust the boundary of the Dayton Aviation 

Heritage National Historical Park, 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. DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE NATIONAL HIS4 TORICAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

5 Section 101 of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preser6 vation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 410ww) is amended by add7 ing at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5453 IH

1 ‘‘(d) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—In addition to the 

2 sites described in subsections (b) and (c), the boundary 

3 of the park is adjusted to include approximately 1 acre 

4 of land in Dayton, Ohio, depicted as ‘Proposed Addition’ 

5 on the map entitled ‘Dayton Aviation Heritage National 

6 Historical Park Proposed Boundary Addition’ and dated 

7 February 2023.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Matter of Lewis B. Kaye, Petitioner, v New York City Loft Board, Respondent, and Max Denovellis et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered December 12, 1988, brought to annul a determination by respondent, dated March 3, 1988, which found that the subject premises are covered under article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law, unanimously dismissed, the determination confirmed, and the petition denied, without costs or disbursements.

The application for coverage under the Loft Law alleged that the first, second and third floors of the five-story subject premises were in a residential capacity, occupied as a residence by three separate families during the April 1, 1980 through December 1, 1981 "window period” (Multiple Dwelling Law § 281 [1] [iii]). It is undisputed that the ground and *209fourth floors were being used commercially. Petitioner conceded that the second and third floors were used residentially but contended that the first-floor tenant had utilized the unit commercially.

At a hearing, the ground- and second-floor tenants testified regarding the contents of the first-floor loft unit. They stated that they had frequently seen the tenant in the unit itself or the hallways, and further, that the unit was not used commercially. The Loft Board credited this testimony, as well as documentary evidence that residential utility service was provided under a prior tenant’s name. Accordingly, by order dated March 3, 1988, the Loft Board granted the application for coverage. Petitioner filed for reconsideration which was denied on August 18, 1988.

Petitioner contends that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

Judicial review of a determination by an administrative agency rendered after a hearing is limited to consideration of whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record (CPLR 7803 [4]; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). A reviewing court may not reevaluate the weight of the evidence or interfere with the administrative determination by choosing between conflicting inferences *(300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180). In the case at bar, credible testimony was given by both witnesses, thus establishing the residential occupancy of the first-floor unit; this was given additional support by utility service records showing residential service, albeit under the prior tenant’s name. Thus substantial evidence supported the Loft Board’s determination. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00254-CR

JAMES ALVIN GREENE APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 97TH DISTRICT COURT OF MONTAGUE COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2013-0021M-CR

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

In two points, James Alvin Greene contends that the trial court erred by 

requiring him to pay $2,564 in court costs in its judgment adjudicating him guilty 

of sexual assault. We modify the judgment to reduce the court costs to $564 and 

affirm it as modified.

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

The State filed a petition to adjudicate appellant guilty of sexual assault, for 

which he was on deferred adjudication community supervision. The trial court 

found two of the allegations in the petition to adjudicate to be true. After 

receiving a presentencing report, the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment 

at ten years’ confinement. The trial court did not orally assess a fine. The 

judgment included the imposition of “court costs” in the amount of $2,564. The

bill of costs prepared by the District Clerk’s office shows that $2,000 of the court 

costs is attributable to a “fine” and that $450 is attributable to attorney’s fees.

In his first point, appellant contends that the court costs improperly 

included a $2,000 fine assessed in the original order placing him on deferred 

adjudication community supervision because the trial judge did not orally 

pronounce the fine as part of appellant’s sentence upon adjudicating him guilty. 

The State concedes that the $2,000 cannot properly be assessed as court costs. 

See Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Therefore, we 

sustain appellant’s first point.

In his second point, appellant challenges $450 of the remaining $564 in 

court costs because he contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that he 

has the ability to pay $450 in attorney’s fees. The original order placing appellant 

on deferred adjudication, which was the result of a plea bargain, included $450 in 

attorney’s fees. Because appellant did not challenge this part of the court costs 

in a direct appeal from the order deferring adjudication, he has forfeited this 

complaint. Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 320–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see
3

also Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (explaining 

that attorney’s fees may be included in court costs and, being nonpunitive, are 

not required to be orally pronounced to be effective). We overrule appellant’s 

second point.

Conclusion

Having sustained appellant’s first point and overruled his second point, we 

modify the trial court’s judgment to reduce the court costs to $564 and affirm the 

judgment as modified.

/s/ Terrie Livingston

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

CHIEF JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 26, 2015
ex10-1.htm




Exhibit 10.1







FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE, INC.







Summary of Director Compensation







The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the directors of Five Star Quality Care, Inc. (the “Company”) for services as directors, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Directors.








	
·

	
Each independent director receives an annual fee of $30,000, plus a fee of $750 for each meeting attended.  Up to two $750 fees are payable if a board meeting and one or more board committee meetings are held on the same date.


	  	  
	
·

	
The chairpersons of our quality of care committee, audit committee, compensation committee and nominating and governance committee receive an additional annual fee of $15,000, $12,500, $4,500 and $4,500, respectively.


	  	  
	
·

	
Each director is entitled to receive a grant of 11,000 of the Company’s common shares on the date of the first board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for directors who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).


	  	  
	
·

	
The Company generally reimburses all directors for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as directors.
#### Larry Wilbur WILCOX, Appellant, v. Connie Elizabeth WILCOX, Respondent.

No. WD 49754.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 4, 1995.

Lance A. Riddle, Bailey & Associates, Warrensburg, for appellant.

Betsy Iverson, Dept, of Social Services, Div. of Legal Services, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from order denying Appellant’s motion to declare child emancipated and terminate child support.

Judgment affirmed.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8676]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-221-000]

Northern Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

April 4, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 31, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, 
effective May 1, 1995:

Second Revised Sheet No. 267

    Northern states that such tariff sheet is being submitted to modify 
the tariff provisions surrounding the Monthly Index Price, as follows: 
(1) To change the price discovery point from Custer County, Oklahoma to 
the MidContinent Pooling Point, and (2) To change the source of the 
daily quoted price from ``Basic Watch'' to a companion publication from 
the same publisher entitled, ``BTU's Daily Gas Wire''.
    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed 
to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a petition to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211). All such 
petitions or protests must be filed on or before April 11, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file 
a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8676 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```