alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.4









	Exhibit 10.4 -  	  	Amendment
to Employment Agreement Between The First of Long Island Corporation
                              and Arthur J. Lupinacci, Jr. Dated January 1, 2005 






[THE FIRST OF LONG
ISLAND CORPORATION LETTERHEAD] 



January 1, 2005 



Mr. Arthur J. Lupinacci, Jr.
The
First National Bank of Long Island
10 Glen Head Road
Glen Head, New York 11545 



	 	           Re: 	Letter
Employment Agreement dated July 1, 1999                      (the “Agreement”)






Dear Mr. Lupinacci: 



        This
will serve to confirm that we have agreed to the amendment of the captioned Agreement by
the addition of the following Section 11 thereto: 



        “11.
NON-SOLICITATION; CONFIDENTIALITY.  




        11.1
In consideration of the agreement by FLIC to make a Termination Payment to you under the
circumstances described in Section “4” hereof, and regardless of whether you
shall actually become entitled to receive a Termination Payment, you agree that, for a
period of two (2) years after the termination of your employment by FLIC, you will not (i)
on behalf of any banking organization or lender doing business in New York City or in the
Counties of Nassau or Suffolk, directly or indirectly solicit the business of any person
or entity which shall be a customer of the Bank on the date of such termination or
facilitate or assist in the development of any business relationship between any such
banking organization or lender and any such customer or (ii) either directly or on behalf
of any such banking organization or lender, employ, retain, or solicit the employment or
retention of, any person who shall be an employee of the Bank on the date of such
termination. 



        11.2
You agree, without limitation as to time, to keep secret and retain in confidence all
confidential matters of FLIC and the Bank, whether developed by FLIC, the Bank or you,
including, without limitation, “know-how,” trade secrets, customer lists,
pricing policies, and operational methods, and not to disclose them to anyone outside of
FLIC or the Bank except in the course of performing your duties hereunder or with the
express written consent of FLIC. 



        11.3
If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any covenant contained herein is
unreasonable because of its term or territorial scope, or for any other reason, we agree
that such court may reform the condition of such covenant so that it is reasonable under
the circumstances and this covenant, as reformed, shall be enforceable.” 



        Please
confirm that the foregoing accurately sets forth our understanding by signing and
returning the enclosed copy of this letter. The Agreement will thereupon be deemed amended
in the foregoing respects. 



			       Very
      truly yours,

      

             THE FIRST OF LONG ISLAND CORPORATION

      

      

      By: /s/ Michael N. Vittorio

             ——————————————

             Michael N. Vittorio, President






17 




 







ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 







/s/ Arthur J. Lupinacci, Jr.

——————————————
ARTHUR J. LUPINACCI, JR. 



Enclosure 



18
AGEN-Exhibit 10.4.3 Q1 14




29th Addendum to the BioCentiv – 4-Antibody Lease Agreement from 08/09/2013


BioCentiv [logo]




29th Addendum
to Lease Agreement No. 01/2003
from 12/01/2002


BioCentiv GmbH        (Lessor)
and             4-Antibody AG        (Lessee)


amend the above-mentioned Lease Agreement per 09/01/2013 as follows:




Section 4 Rent, other payments


(1) b    The prepaid incidental expenses from September to December 2013 are set to €7,959.93.


The prepaid incidental expenses starting January 2014 are set to €6,279.98.




Starting 09/01/2013–12/31/2013, the total monthly rent is as follows:


	
				
	Subtotal rent, net
	

	€8,891.11
	


	Center’s flat charge, net
	

	€859.20
	


	Prepaid incidental expenses
	

	€7,959.93
	


	Total rent, net
	

	€17,710.24
	


	19% VAT
	

	€3,364.95
	


	Total rent, gross
	

	€21,075.19
	











Starting 01/01/2014, the total monthly rent is as follows:


	
				
	Subtotal rent, net
	

	€8,891.11
	


	Center’s flat charge, net
	

	€859.20
	


	Prepaid incidental expenses
	

	€6,279.98
	


	Total rent, net
	

	€16,030.29
	


	19% VAT
	

	€3,045.76
	


	Total rent, gross
	

	€19,076.05
	




























Page 1 of 2


29th Addendum to the BioCentiv – 4-Antibody Lease Agreement from 08/09/2013


BioCentiv [logo]




All other provisions of the Lease Agreement remain in effect.






Jena, 08/09/2013




	
			
	BioCentiv GmbH
	4-Antibody AG
Germany Branch



	[signature]
Dr. Klaus Ullrich
Director
	[signature]
Dr. Robert Burns
Director
	[signature]
Dr. Luis Martin-Parras
Authorized Agent











































































Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF

THE UNITED STATES CODE



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rewards Network Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald L. Blake, President and 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



November 9, 2005



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    RONALD L. BLAKE                               
|Ronald L. Blake President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 10.3**

**SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE**

**SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION**

**2006 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN**

This Second Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Susser Holdings Corporation 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, (the “Plan”), is hereby adopted as of March 15, 2011 by SusserHoldings Corporation (the “Company”). Terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Plan. 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan for the purposes set forth therein; and 

WHEREAS, the Company’s Compensation Committee (the “Committee”), the Company’s Board of Directors and theCompany’s stockholders previously approved, effective May 26, 2010, an amendment to the Plan to permit a one-time option exchange program that was initiated and concluded shortly thereafter; and 

WHEREAS, the Committee deems it to be in the best interests of the Company and desires to amend the Plan to clarify that any subsequentexchanges or re-pricings of stock options will similarly require the approval the Company’s stockholders; and 

WHEREAS,the Committee administers the Plan and has the authority to amend, suspend or terminate the Plan at any time and for any reason, unless tax or regulatory requirements require specific stockholder approval. 

NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date first set forth above, Section 5(j) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in itsentirety as follows: 

“**j. Modification, Extension and Assumption of Options**. Within the limitations of the Plan, the Committee maymodify or extend outstanding Options or may provide for the cancellation of outstanding Options in return for the grant of new Options for the same or a different number of Shares and at the same or a different Exercise Price. The foregoingnotwithstanding, (i) no modification or exchange of an Option (other than pursuant to Section 8 or 10) shall, without the consent of the Participant, materially impair the Participant’s rights or increase the Participant’sobligations under such Option and (ii) no reduction in the Exercise Price of the Option, or cancellation of the Option in exchange for the issuance of a new Option with a lower Exercise Price, (other than pursuant to Section 8 or 10) shallbe effected without the prior approval of the Company’s stockholders.” 

All other provisions of the Plan shallremain the same and in full force and effect. 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.] 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Susser Holdings Corporation, by a duly authorized officer, has executedthis Amendment to the Susser Holdings Corporation 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, effective as of the date first set forth above. 

 
**SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION** By: 
/s/ Mary E. Sullivan
  Name: Mary E. Sullivan  Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR J.C.
PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                             552
<SECURITIES>                                     1,032
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,658
<ALLOWANCES>                                        85
<INVENTORY>                                      7,017
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,321
<PP&E>                                           8,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,266
<BONDS>                                          6,737
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        483
<COMMON>                                         2,877
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,529
<SALES>                                         20,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,362
<CGS>                                           15,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   365
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   167
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    633
<INCOME-TAX>                                       246
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                387
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       387
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42
        

</TABLE>
----

----

| (a)   | This      Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended      January 31, 2008 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of      section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)   | Information      contained in the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                             |   |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      Caitlin Jeffs                           |   |   |   |   |
| Caitlin      Jeffs  President                    |   |   |   |   |
|                                             |   |   |   |   |
| /s/      John Da Costa                           |   |   |   |   |
| John      Da Costa  Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |
#### FRANKLIN et ux. v. LOUISIANA CENTRAL LUMBER CO. et al.

No. 4820.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

May 4, 1934.

J. Norman Coon, of Monroe, for appellants.

Thornton, Gist & Richey, of Alexandria, for appellees.

DREW, Judge.

Meredith Marion Franklin and his wife, on behalf of their minor son and for his use and benefit, filed suit against W. S. Camp and the Louisiana Central Lumber Company claiming total permanent disability arising out of an accident which they allege arose out of and in the course of his employment with W. S. Camp, a contractor, hauling logs for the Louisiana Central Lumber Company. They pray for compensation at the rate of $3 per week for a period of not more than 400 weeks, and for judgment against both defendants in soli-do.

The defense made is that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of the employment of plaintiffs’ minor son. They deny that he was in the employ of W. S. Camp on the day of the accident and resulting injuries.

Due to the admissions made by defendants during the process of the trial, the case evolves itself into one question of fact, Was plaintiffs’ son employed to work for W. S. Camp on the day of the accident? He had performed no work for Camp on the day of the accident, although he was riding on a log wagon owned by Camp when he fell and sustained his injuries. The lower court found that plaintiffs’ son was not in the employ of either defendant on the day of the accident, and rejected plaintiffs’ demands.

We have carefully studied the testimony in the record and are unable to say there is error in the judgment of the lower court. In fact, the-preponderanee of the testimony is in favor of the defendants, and we, as was the *374lower court, are convinced that plaintiffs’ son was not working, nor was he employed to work, for W. S. Oamp on the day he was injured. It is not contended that he was employed by the Louisiana Central Lumber Company.

It is unnecessary for us in this opinion to review the testimony of each witness in the case, for, by doing so, we could throw no additional light on the case.

We find no error in the judgment of the lower court, and it is affirmed, with costs.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 30674 Summary Calendar

GLORIA WILLIAMS

- KATES , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Jeh Johnson , Secretary,

Defendant

- Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana U.S.D.C . No. 2:12

- cv
- 00772

- SS

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK , and HIGGINSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Plaintiff Gloria Williams

- Kates appeals from a final judgment dismissing all of her claims , giving us jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. W e affirm.
Williams

- Kates sued her former employer, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting
clai ms of discrimination due to age, disability , and gender, as well as
retaliation

. The parties consented to the magistrate judge ’s deciding the case

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 12, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-30674 Document: 00512530701 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2014No. 1 3

- 30674
DHS submitted a motion for summary judgment , and Williams

- Kates eventually filed two volumes of exhibits in opposition

. The magistrate granted summary judgment in favor of DHS on all of
Williams

- Kates’s claims, dismissing her suit with prejudice on June 7, 2013. The magistrate judge’s Order and Reasons carefully set out the facts at issue,
noted Williams

- Kates’s often unsupported objections to each fact , and applied to the undisputed material facts the burden

- shifting framework under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973)

. On appeal, Williams

Kates essentially reurges the same arguments she raised below

. Under our de novo review of this grant of summary judgment, applying the same standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 that the magistrate judge applied, 1 we reach the same conclusions that the magistrate judge reached, for the same reasons stated in her Order and Reasons. Acco rdingly, we affirm

.

1 See Burrell v. Dr. Pepper / Seven Up Bottling Group, Inc ., 482 F.3d 408 , 411 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Jones v. Comm'r , 3 38 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2003)).

2 Case: 13-30674 Document: 00512530701 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2014
177 La. 76

#### MOREHOUSE LUMBER & BUILDING MATERIAL CO., Inc., v. JACOB & WALKER (STORY et al., Garnishees).

No. 32153.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1933.

Hawthorne & Piles, of Bastrop, for applicants Jacob & Walker.

Madison, Madison & Puller and W. B. Limerick, Jr., all of Bastrop, for respondent Morehouse Lumber & Building Material Co., Inc.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

This case comes up on certiorari from the Court of Appeal.

The point involved is whether installments and payments that are due and owing to a contractor under a construction contract may *505be reached by garnishment, although the contract has not been completed.

The Court of Appeal held that they might. We have carefully examined both the original opinion of the Court of Appeal reported in 139 So. 713 and the opinion on rehearing re-, ported in 144 So. 190, and we find no error therein. These opinions' are in accord with general jurisprudence. See McKendall v. Patullo, 52 R. I. 258, 160 A. 202 and the note thereon (section IV) 82 A. L. R. at page 1121, citing this case and Williams v. Androscoggin & K. R. Co. (1853) 36 Me. 201, 8 Am. Dec. 742; Ricker v. Fairbanks (1855) 40 Me. 43; Harris v. Somerset *&*K. R. Co. (1859) 47 Me. 298; Ware v. Gowen (1876) 65 Me. 534; Webber v. Bolte (1883) 51 Mich. 113, 16 N. W. 257; Empire Sash & Door Co. v. McGreevy (1912) 22 Manitoba, L. R. 676, 8 D. L. R. 27. See, also, Wyer v. Merrill (1831) 7 Me. (7 Greenl.) 342; Kelly v. Snyder (1878) 5 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 39.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

     <PAGE>

     <ARTICLE> 5
     <LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
     OF J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JULY 29, 2000, AND
     IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
     </LEGEND>
     <MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

     <S>                             <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-27-2001
     <PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
     <CASH>                                             641
     <SECURITIES>                                         0
     <RECEIVABLES>                                    1,178
     <ALLOWANCES>                                        16
     <INVENTORY>                                      6,041
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,011
     <PP&E>                                           8,232
     <DEPRECIATION>                                   3,096
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,080
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,283
     <BONDS>                                          5,411
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
     <PREFERRED>                                        420
     <COMMON>                                         3,284
     <OTHER-SE>                                       3,249
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,080
     <SALES>                                         14,572
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,153
     <CGS>                                           10,930
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,354
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   738
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 217
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (156)
     <INCOME-TAX>                                      (61)
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (95)
     <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
     <CHANGES>                                            0
     <NET-INCOME>                                      (95)
     <EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.42)
     <EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)



</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3222

_____________________________
D EXTER D EERING , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for A lachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

. August 15, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and M AKAR and W INSOR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.3 30 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Dexter Deering, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32.1.1

Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of each officer's knowledge
that:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 12, 2010

/s/ C. RANDAL MILLS C. Randal Mills, Ph.D. Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 12, 2010

/s/ PHILIP R. JACOBY, JR. Philip R. Jacoby, Jr. Chief Financial Officer


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. This certification "accompanies" the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

1

---



QuickLinks