alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
usap-ex1023_180.htm



Exhibit 10.23

 

First amendment to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT, dated as of the   18th day of February 2020 to the employment agreement made as of the 21st day of February 2008, by and between UNIVERSAL STAINLESS & ALLOY PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Paul A. McGrath (the "Executive").

WITNESSETH:

In consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and Executive agree as follows:

Amendment:

WHEREAS, the Company desires to eliminate the corporate membership at the Southpointe Golf Club, 360 Southpointe Boulevard, Canonsburg, PA  15317; and 

WHEREAS, the Executive is an employee designated as a corporate member of the Southpointe Golf Club pursuant to the Company’s corporate membership, and 

WHEREAS, the Executive wishes to convert the Southpointe Golf Club corporate membership to a personal Senior Master Membership, and 

WHEREAS, the Executive’s employment agreement made as of the 21st day of February 2008 provides for in Section 3.3 Participation in Plans,  ...the Company shall pay the membership dues for Executive at Southpointe Golf Club.  Charges related to the use of the Club shall be the responsibility of the Executive.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive’s employment agreement made as of the 21st day of February 2008 will be so amended to eliminate the reference to: the Company shall pay the membership dues for Executive at Southpointe Golf Club in Section 3.3 Participation in Plans. The Executive’s current monthly salary will be adjusted effective January 1, 2020, to cover the monthly dues payment of the Senior Master Membership. 

No other changes are made to the Executive’s employment agreement made as of the 21st day of February 2008.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above.

UNIVERSAL STAINLESS & ALLOY

   PRODUCTS, INC.

 

By:/s/ Dennis M. Oates

 

Title:President and Chief Executive Officer

 

EXECUTIVE

 

 

 /s/ Paul A. McGrath

Paul A. McGrath
Opinion issued August 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00440-CV

———————————

COSTELLA N. WILLIS, Appellant

V.

DARREL WILLIS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1117262

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We lack jurisdiction over an appeal in which the notice of appeal is not 

timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b); Galerie Barbizon, Inc. v. Nat’l Asset 

Placement Corp., 16 S.W.3d 506, 508 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no 

pet.). If a post-judgment motion extending the appellate deadline is timely filed, 
2

the appellant must file its notice of appeal within 90 days after the trial court 

signed the judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1)–(a)(4). A timely request for 

findings of fact and conclusions of law may extend the appellate timetable when 

the findings and conclusions either are required by the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure or could be considered by the appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.1(a)(4); IKB Indus. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1997). 

However, a request for findings and conclusions must be filed within 20 days of 

the rendition of judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 296.

The trial court entered a final decree of divorce on March 9, 2012. On May 

1, 2012, Appellant Costella Nicole Willis filed her notice of appeal and a request 

for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Consequently, the notice of appeal and 

the request for findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed 53 days after the 

final decree of divorce was entered. 

Willis also filed an amended notice of appeal on May 25, 2012. The 

amended notice of appeal references a judgment nunc pro tunc alleged to have 

been signed that same day. There is no indication, however, that such a judgment 

exists. Accordingly, the only judgment Willis can appeal from is the March 9, 

2012 judgment.
3

This Court sent notice to Willis that her appeal was subject to dismissal 

absent proof of this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a) (allowing 

involuntary dismissal of case). Willis did not respond.

The request for findings of fact was not filed within 20 days of the rendition 

of judgment. Thus, rule 26.1(a)(4) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure does 

not apply, and the appellant must have filed a notice of appeal within 30 days after 

the trial court signed the judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Since the notice of 

appeal was not filed within 30 days, the appeal must be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Conclusion

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Bland.
#### MIDLO v. FAIRCHILD MOTOR CORPORATION.

No. 14961.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 7, 1935.

James N. Brittingham, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellant.

James C. Henriques, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

Herman Midlo purchased an automobile from the Fairchild Motor Corporation and, after using it for a while, discovered that the upholstery had become stained or soiled under circumstances which the defendant recognized as involving it with responsibility. The upholstery was replaced by defendant, but in doing so a number of tacks used in the process were too long, with the result that one of the tacks protruded through the ■body and five or six others caused small dents or bumps to appear. When the tack hole and the bumps were discovered by the plaintiff, the car was returned to the defendant corporation, which offered to weld the body surface and to guarantee the welding for a period of two years. Plaintiff insisted that the guaranty should extend for the life of the car and defendant refused, whereupon Midlo brought this suit claiming $260, the price of a new body.

There was judgment below in favor of plaintiff for $8. He has appealed and defendant has answered the appeal asking that the judgment be amended by dismissing the plaintiff’s suit at his cost.

The question succinctly stated is whether the defendant should be required to replace the body with a new one or to be held liable only for the cost of repairing it.

The obligation of the defendant company was to restore the body of plaintiff’s automobile to a condition as good as it was before the dents were made in the body. Lambert v. American Box Co., 144 La. 604, 81 So. 95, 3 A. L. R. 612; Sherwood v. American Railway Express Co., 158 La. 43, 103 So. 436.

There is some difference of opinion among the expert witnesses who have testified concerning the effect of welding the body of the car, but we believe that it clearly preponderates in defendant’s favor and that it is fair to say .that the welding of the defective *246part of the automobile body, as proposed by the defendant, could be accomplished and the car restored to a condition substantially the same as it was originally. A piece of metal similar to that used in the construction of plaintiff’s car was punctured, welded, and painted by defendant and introduced in evidence. An examination of this exhibit corroborates the view of defendant’s experts.

The cost of such a job, the record shows, is between $6 and $10. The lower court awarded the plaintiff $8, and we And no fault with this amount.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed, the.cost of the trial court to be borne by the defendant, Fairchild Motor Corporation, and the cost of this court by plaintiff, Herman L. Midlo.

Affirmed.
----

----

**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**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  December                12, 2007 |   |  /s/              Robert w. Dunlap                            |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                               |   | Robert                W. Dunlap                                    |
|                                               |   | Chief                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                               |   | (principal                executive and financial officer)         |

----

----
Exhibit
        32.2
  
 **CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**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 Annual Report of Arotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
        10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Paup, Vice President - Finance
        and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350,
        as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
        certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
        or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained
        in
        the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Thomas
            J.
            Paup
 Thomas
            J. Paup, Vice
            President - Finance and CFO
 (Principal
            Financial
            Officer)
 Date: June
              13, 2007
190 La. 839

#### ZYLKS et al. v. KAEMPFER.

No. 34521.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1938.

For former opinion, see 189 La. 609, 180 So. 425.

Foster, Hall, Barret & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellants.

E. W. & P. N. Browne, of Shreveport, and W. N. Seligsberg, of New York City, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

At the time this case was decided Mrs. Sarah Kaempfer, the appellee, was dead, and, therefore, the decree in her favor was without force or effect.

Jacob C. Kaempfer and Bertram M. Kaempfer, testamentary executors under the will of their mother Mrs. Sarah C. Kaempfer, have filed in this court a petition, together with a certified copy of the letters testamentary issued to the petitioners in the Surrogate’s Court of West-chester County, New York, on February 14, 1938, as same appears in the record of the proceeding entitled “Succession of Sarah C. Kaempfer,” No. 74359 of the docket of the First District Court, Parish of Caddo, Louisiana, in which petitioners inform the court of the death of their mother Mrs. Sarah C. Kaempfer prior to the entering of the decree in this case and pray for judgment herein nunc pro tunc, re-entering the decree as the judgment of this court, affirming the judgment of the court below.

It appearing from the allegations of the petition and the documents annexed thereto that Jacob C. Kaempfer and Bertram M. Kaempfer have been appointed and have qualified as the executors of the will of Mrs. Sarah C. Kaempfer, and that they have voluntarily made themselves parties to this appeal, and it further appearing that no objection to the granting of the prayer of the petition has been made by opposing counsel, on whom, as shown by the certificate of petitioners’ counsel, a copy of the petition was timely served, the following decree is re-instated and made the final judgment of this court:

> “For the reasons assigned, the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed.”
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6023 

AN ACT 

To require the United States Postal Service to continue 

selling the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 

Semipostal Stamp until all remaining stamps are sold, 

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, 
2 

•HR 6023 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Multinational Species 

3 Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization 

4 Act of 2021’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION; REQUIREMENT TO SELL ALL 

6 STAMPS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(c) of the Multinational 

8 Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Act of 

9 2010 (39 U.S.C. 416 note; Public Law 111–241) is 

10 amended— 

11 (1) in paragraph (2)— 

12 (A) by striking ‘‘of at least 6 years,’’; and 

13 (B) by inserting before the period at the 

14 end the following: ‘‘and ending not earlier than 

15 the date on which the United States Postal 

16 Service provides notice to Congress under para17 graph (5)’’; and 

18 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(5) REQUIREMENT TO SELL ALL STAMPS

20 PRINTED.— 

21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The United States 

22 Postal Service shall sell each copy of the Multi23 national Species Conservation Fund Semipostal 

24 Stamp that the United States Postal Service 

25 prints under this Act. 
3 

•HR 6023 EH

1 ‘‘(B) NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS.—The 

2 United States Postal Service shall notify the 

3 Committee on Homeland Security and Govern4 mental Affairs in the Senate, the Committee on 

5 Environment and Public Works of the Senate, 

6 the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the 

7 House of Representatives, and the Committee 

8 on Natural Resources of the House of Rep9 resentatives when all copies of the Multinational 

10 Species Conservation Fund Semipostal Stamp 

11 printed under this Act have been sold.’’. 

12 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.—The amend13 ments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as if en14 acted on the day after the date of enactment of the Multi15 national Species Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp 

16 Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Public Law 113–165; 128 

17 Stat. 1878). 

18 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

19 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

20 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

21 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

22 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

23 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

24 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro-
4 

•HR 6023 EH

1 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

2 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6023 

AN ACT 

To require the United States Postal Service to constamps are sold, and for other purposes. tion Funds Semipostal Stamp until all remaining tinue selling the Multinational Species Conserva-
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Julie T. Chau, * From the 161st District Court

 of Ector County

Trial Court No. B-136,673.

Vs. No. 11-17-00047-CV * July 19, 2018

Select Medical Corporation * Opinion by Willson, J.

d/b/a Regency Hospital of Odessa, LLP, (Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error 

in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we reverse 

the judgment of the trial court, and we remand this cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Select 

Medical Corporation d/b/a Regency Hospital of Odessa, LLP.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Hollice Neyland, Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,544.

First District, Second Division.

July 7, 1966.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Marshall A. Patner, Frederick F. Cohn and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

PRESIDING JUSTICE BRYANT.

Not to be published in fall.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
financial  statements  for the nine month period  ended  September 30, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

        
<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                        2,000
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              2,000
<PP&E>                                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (41,934)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             0
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       1
<COMMON>                                                     10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                  246,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                254,500
<SALES>                                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  0
<CGS>                                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      .00
 

        


               





</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of Ashraf M. Dahod and Paul J. Milbury hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President, Operations and Chief Financial Officer, respectively of Starent Networks, Corp. (the
"Company"), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: November 8, 2007 | By: | /s/ Ashraf M. Dahod                                                   
|---------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Ashraf M. Dahod
President and Chief Executive Officer                 
|Date: November 8, 2007 | By: | /s/ Paul J. Milbury                                                   
|                       |     | Paul J. Milbury
Vice President, Operations and
Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Innovative Consumer Products,                Inc. for                the quarter ended April 30, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended April 30, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects,                the financial condition and results of operations of Innovative Consumer                Products, Inc.. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/                Dawn Marie Hughes                                                         |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Dawn                Marie Hughes                                                                   |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  June                13, 2007                                                                       |
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 Annual Report of TRANS GLOBAL SERVICES, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Arthur
P. Grider III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     1.     The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                   /s/  Arthur P. Grider III
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   ARTHUR P. GRIDER III, Chief Executive Officer
                                   Date: October 27, 2003


<PAGE>