alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7

	
Amendment to Employment Agreement between Registrant and John Grasso
 dated January 1, 2007


	
 

	
 


	
(THE FIRST OF LONG ISLAND CORPORATION
 LETTERHEAD)


	
 


	
December 15,

2008                    





Mr. John Grasso


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Re:

	
Letter Employment Agreement dated January
 1, 2007 (the “Agreement”)





Dear Mr. Grasso:


          This
will serve to confirm that we have agreed to amend the captioned Agreement in
the following respects:


          1.          The
phrase “and within ten (10) days after” is hereby deleted from the first
paragraph of Section 4(A) of the Agreement.


          2.          The
following paragraph “D” is hereby added to Section 4 of the Agreement:


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
                 “F.          In
 the event that you shall become entitled to a Termination Payment pursuant to
 Section 4(A)(i) or Section 4(A)(ii) hereof, such payment shall be made to you
 within ten (10) days after the expiration of a period of six (6) months
 measured from the termination of your employment or your resignation, as the
 case may be. Subject to the foregoing limitation, the date of payment shall
 be determined by FLIC in its sole discretion.”

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
          3.          The
 following paragraphs “E” and “F” are hereby added to Section 7 of the
 Agreement:

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
                 “E.          “Termination”
 shall mean a separation from service, within the meaning of Internal Revenue
 Code Section 409A, (i) which results from a decision of the Bank to terminate
 your employment and (ii) by reason of which each of us anticipates that no further
 services will be provided by you hereunder subsequent to the effective date
 thereof.”

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
                 “F.          “Resignation”
 shall mean a separation from service, within the meaning of Internal Revenue
 Code Section 409A, (i) which results from a decision by you to resign your
 employment (including resignation for Good Reason) and (ii) by reason of
 which each of us anticipates that no further services will be provided by you
 hereunder subsequent to the effective date thereof.”

	
 





          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.


14







	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Very truly yours,


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
THE FIRST OF LONG ISLAND CORPORATION


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
By:

	
/s/MICHAEL N. VITTORIO


	
 

	
 

	



	
 

	
 

	
MICHAEL N. VITTORIO


	
 

	
 

	
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
Accepted and Agreed this

	
 

	
 


	
17th day of December 2008

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
/s/JOHN GRASSO

	
 

	
 


	


	
 

	
 


	
JOHN GRASSO

	
 

	
 





15
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-101288, No. 333-88686, No. 333-88366 and No. 333-88364) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-86172, 333-67216 and No. 333-43818) of Deltagen, Inc. of our report dated April 13, 2003 except asto Note 21(h) which is as of April 29, 2003 relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. 

 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

April 30, 2003
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carlos VARGAS-ALCERRECA.

No. 2011-KD-2003.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 502-586; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1279.

Writ granted. We find the trial court abused its discretion under the facts of this case in granting a continuance. Accordingly, the rulings of the lower court are reversed and the motion to continue is denied. Case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

JOHNSON, J., would deny.
#### STATE ex rel. Lester WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1568.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Williams, Lester; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District *1259Court Div. B, No. 372-257; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0803.

Denied.
Exhibit 32A

Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of WidePoint
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 ( the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ STEVE L. KOMARSteve
L. KomarChief Executive Officer

/s/ JAMES T. MCCUBBIN
James T. McCubbinChief Financial Officer

Date: March 31, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1503 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1503

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2007

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 
     Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration 
                                Project.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and 
Riparian Restoration Project''.

SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 
and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et 
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 16__. AVRA/BLACK WASH RECLAMATION AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION 
              PROJECT, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.

    ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with Pima 
County, Arizona, may participate in the planning, design, and 
construction of water recycling facilities and to enhance and restore 
riparian habitat in the Black Wash Sonoran Desert ecosystem in Avra 
Valley west of the metropolitan Pima County area.
    ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the project 
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the cost of 
the project.
    ``(c) Limitation.--Federal funds provided under this section shall 
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project described in 
subsection (a).
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $14,000,000.
    ``(e) Use of Funds.--Federal funds provided under this section 
shall only be used for the design, planning and construction of water-
related infrastructure.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for Public Law 102-
575 is amended by inserting after the last item relating to title XVI 
the following:

``Sec. 16__. Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration 
                            Project, Pima County, Arizona.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Deborah M. Spriggs,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0530

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

DAVID ABRAHAM LORENZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 27, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 10 2023

01/10/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0530
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements pertaining to the employee stock option plans of United Microelectronics
Corporation:



| | 1. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-102605) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan,
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-126889) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan and the 2004 Employee Stock Option Plan, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-142809) pertaining to the 2004 Employee Stock Option Plan and 2005 Employee Stock Option Plan
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated April 18, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of United Microelectronics Corporation and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of United Microelectronics Corporation, included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) of United Microelectronics Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2015.



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young
|Taipei, Taiwan,  
|Republic of China
|April 18, 2016
Court File No. 32-107046

                            SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

                                  IN BANKRUPTCY

                        IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF
             TRANSFORMATION PROCESSING, INC. OF THE CITY OF TORONTO
             IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED
                    UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

MASTER                              )                THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF
                                    )
                                    )                NOVEMBER, 1999

                                      ORDER

         THIS MOTION made by BDO Dunwoody  Limited,  the trustee (the "Trustee")
in the Proposal of Transformation Processing, Inc. ("TPI"), was head this day at
393 University Avenue, Toronto.

         ON  READING  the  Notice of Motion,  the  Report of the  Trustee  dated
November 9, 1999 (the "Trustee's Report"),  filed, and on hearing submissions of
counsel for the Trustee and the Court being satisfied that the required majority
of  creditors  have duly  accepted  the  Proposal on the terms  contained in the
Proposal  annexed as Appendix "A" hereto (the  "Proposal"),  and being satisfied
that the said terms are reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of
creditors and that no offences or facts have been proven to justify the Court in
withholding its approval,

1.   THIS COURT ORDERS that the Proposal be and same is hereby approved pursuant
     to

2.   THIS COURT  ORDERS that the Trustee  shall  forthwith  give  security in an
     amount  give  security  in an  amount to be fixed by the  official  receive
     pursuant to subsection 16(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.


                                        ----------------------------------------
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 3, 2019

NO. 03-18-00147-CV

Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Appellant

v.

Omar Weaver Rosales, 201701087, 201700840, 201700279, 201700153, 201607308, 

201607292, 201701948, 201702052, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE;

CONCURRING OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on February 20, 2018. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the 

case to the trial court for further proceedings. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT  23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-37385, 333-24941, 333-66445 and 333-69241) pertaining to the
1995 Flexible Stock Incentive Plan, the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, the 1997
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the WebLogic, Inc. 1996 Stock Plan, and the
Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-58439, 333-63117 and 333-66443) of
BEA Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 23, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of BEA Systems, Inc. included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 1999.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Palo Alto, California
April 28, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Appendix A to item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
(in thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,207,241
<SECURITIES>                                     6,559,879
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,231,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                             284,503
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,463,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,672,505
<BONDS>                                         21,425,949
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           114,987
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,558,615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,463,955
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,490,333
<CGS>                                            8,926,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,696,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (378,087)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                (1,660,373)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     79,705
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (212,273)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                302,130
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       302,130
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.03



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION
  Dated: February 25, 2008
    /s/ Michael W. BrennanMichael W. BrennanChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. Dated: February 25, 2008
    /s/ Michael J. HavalaMichael J. HavalaChief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. 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. The information contained in this written statement shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed
incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference to such filing.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 10, 2014.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D13-2877

Lower Tribunal No. 09-61914

________________



### The Quin Group, Inc., etc.,

Appellant,

vs.



### 2020 Ponce, LLC, etc.

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola,

Judge.

Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers and Elizabeth Lee Beck and Jared H. Beck, for

appellant.

Phillips, Cantor, Shalek, Rubin & Pfister and Gary S. Phillips and Edward J.

Pfister (Hollywood); Blaik P. Ross, for appellee.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

SALTER, J.In this circuit court case involving a contract for the purchase of an office

condominium unit from a developer (2020 Ponce), the purchaser (The Quin

Group) subpoenaed the general contractor (Beauchamp Construction Co., a nonparty) to produce various records. The contractor filed objections that included a

request for the reimbursement of the contractor’s general counsel at $150 an hour

to remove or identify privileged documents in the estimated 35 boxes of

construction documents.

The trial court instead authorized “costs” at $40 per hour for an “employee”

of Beauchamp to “use good faith in reviewing documents and limiting time needed

to review said documents.” Part of the handwritten order (and it is unclear who

may have done the writing) stated “The purpose of reviewing the documents is to

review for privilege issues prior to production.” Based on the inclusion of that

sentence in the order, The Quin Group maintains that any award to Beauchamp for

such a review would be an award of attorney’s fees, not costs, prohibited under the

applicable rules and such cases as Attorney’s Title Insurance Fund, Inc. v. LandaPosada

, 984 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Neither the order for reimbursement of costs for the review and production

of documents nor a subsequent order denying The Quin Group’s motion for

reconsideration and rehearing fixed an amount to be awarded. At oral argument,

2counsel for The Quin Group argued that the parties had estimated that the task

might take ten hours, so that the amount in controversy was essentially agreed.

Although we are tempted to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination,” 1 of this $400.00 dispute in a prompt and decisive fashion, our

limited jurisdiction precludes us from doing so. The orders before us are not final

because the amount of any award of costs has not been determined. See Kling

Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp.

, 127 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Nor do we

find any other basis for jurisdiction.

Because this record reflects that the Beauchamp employee performing the

document review and production is a non-lawyer, it seems unlikely that the final

invoice for costs remitted to The Quin Group by Beauchamp will include

attorney’s fees. But if the invoice does include such time or charges, The Quin

Group will have an opportunity to raise its objections and to appeal from any

resulting final order.

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

1 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.010.

3
Order entered April 9, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00811-CR

No. 05-20-00812-CR

JORGE GARCIA OLGUIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-82189-2020 Cts. 1 & 2

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s April 5, 2021 motions for extensions of 

time to file his briefs in these appeals. We GRANT the motions and ORDER

appellant’s briefs received with the motions filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23601]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM06-22-014]


North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing 
September 14, 2010.

    Take notice that on September 9, 2010, the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted its compliance filing and 
request for approval of implementation plans for Generator Owners and 
Generator Operators of nuclear power plants in the United States for 
Versions 2 and 3 of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability 
Standards, designated as CIP-002-2 through CIP-009-002 and CIP-002-3 
through CIP-009-003 respectively, in compliance with the Commission's 
March 18, 2010 Order, Order Addressing Compliance Filing and Approving 
Implementation Plans, 130 FERC ] 61,185 (2010) (March 18 Order).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1a7a4b3a2ae8f8d888f84b29491918e9395a187849382cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2848790818dacaeabaca791b7b2b2adb0b682a4a7b0a1eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 30, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23601 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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