alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.9(8)


SALARY DEFERRMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AGREEMENT is effective as of the 1st day of February,
2009, by and between, Metalline Mining Company, a Nevada corporation (the “Employer” or
“Company”) and                                                    (the “Employee”).


WHEREAS, to help the Company conserve its financial
resources Employee and Employer have agreed that Employee will defer a portion of his current annual salary on the
terms and conditions set forth below.


THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged by each of the parties), the parties agree as follows:


1. Salary Deferral. Notwithstanding any other
agreement between the parties, the Employee agrees to defer 50% of his annual salary through January 31, 2010,
provided that any deferred amounts shall be paid to Employee at the earlier of: (i) the Company being adequately
funded to pay Employee the full amount of salary deferred, as determined in the sole judgment of the Company’s
Board of Directors; or (ii) upon approval by the Board of Directors, for the occurrence of an Unforeseen
Emergency, as defined below. Provided, however, if at any time the Board of Directors believes that payment, as
required above, would jeopardize the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern, then such payments may be
further deferred and will be made as soon as payment would no longer have such effect.


For purposes of this agreement, an Unforeseen Emergency
includes: (i) a severe financial hardship resulting from an illness or accident of Employee, his spouse,
beneficiary or dependent, (ii) the loss of Employee property due to casualty, (iii) the need to pay for
medical expenses (including non-refundable deductibles and prescription drug medication), (iv) an imminent
foreclosure of or eviction from Employee’s primary residence, or (v) other similar extraordinary and
unforeseeable circumstances arising as a result of events beyond the control of Employee.


2. Further Assurances. The parties to this
Agreement hereby agree to execute and deliver all such further documents and instruments and do all acts and things as
may be necessary or convenient to carry out the full intent and meaning of and to effect the transactions contemplated
by this Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employer and Executive enter into this
Agreement effective as of the date first set forth above.


Metalline Mining Company


Employee


By
                                                                                                            


                                                                                           


Date:
                                                                                                         


Date:
#### Michael JOUVET, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 877-91, 878-91.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Jan. 6, 1993.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1993.

William T. Hughey, Dallas, for appellant.

*848John Vance, Dist. Atty. & Pamela Sullivan Berdanier, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in a single trial of the offenses of aggravated robbery and aggravated sexual assault and the jury assessed punishment at a life sentence and a fine of $10,000 for each offense. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial. *Jolivet v. State,*811 S.W.2d 706 (Tex.App. — Dallas .1991). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether unadjudicated acts of misconduct are admissible at the punishment phase of a non-capital trial after the 1989 amendment to Article 37.07, § (3)(a), V.A.C.C.P.

Following appellant’s pleas of guilty before the jury, the trial court admitted testimony of five witnesses who testified that appellant had committed similar offenses upon them two months after the subject offense. At the time of trial, appellant had not been convicted for any of these offenses. The court of appeals, citing its earlier decision in *Grunsfeld v. State,*813 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991), held that the trial court erred in admitting these unadjudicated extraneous acts allegedly committed by appellant.

In its brief, the State disagrees with the court of appeal’s majority in *Grunsfeld*and argues that extraneous conduct evidence is admissible under the 1989 amendment to 37.07, § (3)(a), supra. In the time since we granted the State’s petition, we have handed down our decision in *Grunsfeld v. State,*843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Cr.App. delivered October 28, 1992, rehearing denied December 9, 1992) affirming that decision. The opinion of the court of appeals in this cause is consistent with the plurality opinion of this Court in *Grunsfeld.*We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
EX-10.29








Baldwin Technology Company, Inc.

2 Trap Falls Road

Suite 402

Shelton, CT 06484

Tel: 203-402-1000

Fax: 203-402-5500




January 29, 2009




Mr. Karl S. Puehringer

51 Phillips Lane

Darien, CT 06820




Dear Karl:



Pursuant to Paragraph 17 of the agreement dated June 19, 2007 (the “Agreement”), which sets forth
the terms of your employment with Baldwin Technology Company, Inc. (the “Company”), and in
accordance with a letter agreement between you and the Company dated January 13, 2009 wherein you
agreed to reduce your annual base salary by ten (10%) percent, the Agreement is hereby amended,
effective February 1, 2009, as follows:





	 	1.	 	Paragraph 2.A is amended to provide for an annual base salary of three hundred
seventy eight thousand dollars ($378,000).
	 
	 	2.	 	Notwithstanding the foregoing, any payments that may become due to you in accordance
with Paragraph 2.D or Paragraph 8 of the Agreement, and any other calculations which rely
on your annual base salary shall continue to be calculated as if your annual base salary
was four hundred twenty thousand dollars ($420,000).




As so amended by this letter agreement, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Very truly yours,

BALDWIN TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ Mark T. Becker 

Mark Becker
	 	 
	 

	 	Chair, Compensation Committee	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED	 	 
	 
	/s/ Karl S. Puehringer	 	 
	 	 	 
	Karl S. Puehringer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:
	 	January 30, 2009
#### Jimmie COLLINS, Claimant/Appellant, v. HARVARD INTERIORS MANUFACTURING CO., Employer/Respondent, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Insurer/Respondent, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Additional Party/Respondent.

No. 65242.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 9, 1994.

Ray B. Marglous, Clayton, for appellant.

Patricia Kampsen, Kansas City, for employer/respondent and insurer/respondent.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., R. Lucas Boling, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Second Injury Fund.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming, as modified, the award of the Administrative Law Judge under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The decision of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*649The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2831-2832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1502]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[DA 96-52]


Commission To Reschedule En Banc Hearing on Spectrum Policy

Released: January 22, 1996
    The Federal Communications Commission has changed the date of the 
en banc hearing on spectrum policy and management. The original hearing 
date of January 31, 1996 was announced in a Public Notice released 
December 15, 1995. The new hearing date is March 5, 1996.
    Parties who have not yet submitted letters of interest and would 
like to be considered for an invitation as panelists may submit letters 
of interest by 5:30 p.m. January 26, 1996 to: Amy Lesch, Office of 
Plans and Policy, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, 
Room 822, Washington, D.C. 20554, fax (202) 418-2807, tel (202) 418-
2049.
    Letters of interest must clearly identify the speaker, organization 
represented (if any), relevant experience and training and the specific 
topic(s) he/she wishes to discuss. We will select speakers for the 
hearings in order to achieve broad representation of viewpoints. The 
Commission may select panelists who have not submitted a request to 
appear and address subjects related to but not specifically included in 
the notice released December 15, 1995.
    The precise format and schedule for the en banc hearing, as well as 
a list of the selected presenters, will be specified in a future public 
notice. Presenters will be asked to submit written remarks; to make an 
oral presentation to the Commission which will be limited to no more 
than three minutes; and to respond to questions of the Commissioners. 

[[Page 2832]]

    Persons selected to appear will be required to submit to the 
Secretary, by close of business February 20, 1996, an original and 9 
copies of their proposed remarks, a summary of those remarks of no more 
than one page, a brief speaker biography, and a description of the 
organization represented. In addition, 10 copies of the material 
submitted to the Secretary must be submitted to Amy Lesch, Office of 
Plans and Policy by close of business on February 20, 1996. Persons 
wishing to respond to testimony presented at the hearing are invited to 
do so by the reply comment deadline, March 26, 1996.
    For more information contact Amy Lesch, Office of Plans and Policy 
at (202) 418-2049 or Steve Sharkey, Office of Engineering Technology, 
(202) 418-2404. Members of the media should contact Maureen Peratino, 
Office of Public Affairs, (202) 418-0500.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-1502 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. William SHOEMATE, Defendant/Appellant. William SHOEMATE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 66050, 68784.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.

July 2, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 1,1996.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and AHRENS and RUSSELL, JJ.

*499
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of assault in the second degree, § 565.060.1(3), RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections for a period of fifteen years to be served consecutively with sentences imposed for prior unrelated convictions. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. 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).
**Employment Agreement**

**Jennifer Boone**

 

 

| Position: | Vice President of Network Development |
|-----------|---------------------------------------|

 

| Term: | February 1, 2007-January 31, 2008 |
|-------|-----------------------------------|

 

| Base Salary: | $121,750 |
|--------------|----------|

 

Primary

| Responsibilities: |
|-------------------|

|   | 1. | Develop and refine the company’s provider network |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Minimize network attrition |
|--------|----|----------------------------|

|   | 3. | Develop national and regional relationships where appropriate |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | Assist in the development of client fee schedules |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | Lead the roll-out and adoption of value added services for the providers |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 6. | Assist in the development of the new products and services for the company |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 7. | Lead and develop your staff |
|--------|----|-----------------------------|

|   | 8. | Provide a voice on executive committee that provides guardianship of network |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Place of 

Employment:

 

|   | 1. | Primary office will be at the Corporate Headquarters in Dallas, TX |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Travel will be required as needed |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------|

 

| Bonus Eligibility: |
|--------------------|

|   | 1. | up to 25% of  Base Salary based on achievement of annual business objectives |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | a. | (50%) Personal Position Defined Objectives as defined by the CEO |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b. | (50%) Company Financial Objectives |
|--------|----|------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Other potential as defined by the CEO or Board of Directors |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Equity 

Participation: 

 

|   | 1. | Determined annually by the Board of Directors |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Vesting schedule of 4 years, monthly for all grants after 2/1/2007 |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | Full vesting on change of control |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------|

 

| Benefits: |
|-----------|

|   | 1. | Consistent with the benefits offered all employees |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------|

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Xenacare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank Rizzo, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

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

(2)

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



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| |                        
| | /s/ Frank Rizzo        
| | Frank Rizzo            
| | Chief Executive Officer
| | Date: November 15, 2010
Amendment No. 1 dated December 11, 2008 to Registrant's 2007 USERP



 Exhibit 10(g)(3) 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE 
 2007 RESTATEMENT OF THE XEROX CORPORATION 
 UNFUNDED SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, Xerox Corporation (the “Company”)
has adopted the Unfunded Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, which is presently set forth in the “2007 Restatement of Xerox Corporation Unfunded Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan” (the “Plan”), and 
 WHEREAS, the Chief Executive Officer of Xerox Corporation, or her delegate, may amend the Plan as she in her sole discretion deems necessary or appropriate to
comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code and guidance thereunder, and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan, 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence to the end of Section 12 (relating to section 409A compliance) to read in its entirety
as follows: 
 “No offset or reduction of benefits under the Plan shall be permitted to the extent it results in a prohibited
substitution under Code section 409A and regulations thereunder.” 
 This Amendment is effective as of the 2007 Restatement of the Plan. In all
other respects, the Plan shall remain unchanged. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed as of this 17th day of
December, 2008. 
  

			
	 XEROX CORPORATION

		
	 By
	 	 /s/    PATRICIA M.
NAZEMETZ        

		 	Vice President
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Roderick Bartlett, President, Chief Executive Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: May 14, 2012  /s/ Rod Bartlett Roderick Bartlett President and Chief Executive Officer     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1




SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF PROSPECT VENTURES, INC.




In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Prospect Ventures, Inc. for the quarter ending January 31, 2014, the undersigned, Alberto Barriento, President and Chief Executive Officer, principal accounting officer and principal financial officer, of Prospect Ventures, Inc., does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending January 31, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2014 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Prospect Ventures, Inc.







Date:
April 1, 2014
By:
/s/ Alberto BarrientosName:
Alberto BarrientosTitle:
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Glenn Edwin KIRKHAM and Leona L. Kirkham. Glenn Edwin Kirkham, Petitioner-Respondent, and Leona L. Kirkham, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 20368.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Dec. 10, 1996.

*393John E. Price and Eric 6. Jensen of Price, Fry & Robb, P.C., Springfield, for appellant.

Randy R. Cowherd of Schroff, Glass & Newberry, P.C., Springfield, Daniel P. Wade, Ava, for respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

Leona L. Kirkhatn appeals from a judgment and decree dissolving the marriage of the parties. She contends the trial court erred in its manner of awarding or dividing certain property and in denying her maintenance.

Both in the trial court and here, Respondent husband claims that some of the property was his separate, non-marital property. The trial court, however, made no finding regarding whether the property at issue was separate or marital.

Under Section 452.330, RSMo 1994, the trial court must set aside to each spouse his or her separate property and divide the marital property. *In re Marriage of Eck,*904 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Mo.App.1995); *In re Marriage of Steele,*844 S.W.2d 104 (Mo.App.1992).

It is true, as Respondent contends, that even an erroneous declaration in designating separate property does not call for reversal where the decree is nevertheless fair. *In re Marriage of Lewis,*808 S.W.2d 919, 923 (Mo.App.1991). However, here, it is not possible to tell whether there is a fair division until the separate property is determined. Nor is it possible to determine the entitlement of or the amount of maintenance. Under Section 452.335, RSMo 1994, both in determining if maintenance should be awarded and in determining the amount of maintenance, marital property awarded and other financial resources are considered.

There may be situations where neither party contends there was separate property, but as earlier noted, this is not such a case. As there may be credibility issues, it is not for this Court to resolve them and determine what is separate property. *Cf. Eck,*904 S.W.2d at 61; *Steele,*844 S.W.2d at 105.

The portion of the judgment dissolving the marriage and awarding attorneys’ fees is affirmed. The remainder of the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

BARNEY, P.J., and GARRISON, J„ concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6324
FRANCIS J. GREEN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA95-3172-S) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis J. Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 101996, Pub. L. No. 104-32, 110 Stat. 1217, petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that sucha certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Green v. Beshears , No. CA-95-3172-S (D. Md. Feb. 14, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED