alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pathmark Stores, Inc. Form 10-Q; May 1, 2004; Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1





AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
  TO
  SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT AGREEMENT



          This Amendment Number 1 to
Supplemental Retirement Agreement is made and entered into as of the 29th day  of March,
2004, by and between PATHMARK STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and Eileen Scott  (the “Executive”), residing at 17 Wellington Drive, Basking
Ridge, New Jersey 07920.


          WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive are parties to the Supplemental Retirement Agreement between the  Company
and the Executive dated as of March 1, 2000 (the “Agreement”);


          WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive desire to make certain amendments to the Agreement, as  hereinafter set
forth;


          NOW, THEREFORE, for good
and valuable consideration receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company  and the
Executive agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


          (1)  Section 1 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following Section 1.2A to  read as
follows:


          1.2A “Applicable
Dollar Amount” means $250,000; provided, however, that such amount shall be
increased to $480,000 on the earliest to occur of (i) January 1, 2007, (ii) death, (iii)
Disability, or (iv) a Change of Control, in each case so long as Executive is employed
by the Company on such date.



          (2)  Section 1 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following Section 1.5A to  read as
follows:


          1.5A “Change of
Control” means a Change of Control as defined in the Pathmark Stores, Inc. 2000
Employee Equity Plan as amended as of June 13, 2002.



          (3) Section 2.a. of the
Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:


          a. “Unreduced
Supplemental Retirement Benefit” is equal to the sum of 30% of the  Executive’s
Average Final Compensation after completion of 10 years of Vesting Service, plus 1% of
the  Executive’s Average Final Compensation multiplied by each additional year of
Vesting Service in excess  of 10; provided, however, that in no event shall the Executive’s
Unreduced Supplemental Retirement  Benefit exceed the lesser of (i) 40% of her Average
Final Compensation, or (ii) the Applicable Dollar  Amount; and








          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company and the Executive have caused this Amendment Number 1 to Supplemental  Retirement
Agreement to be executed effective as of the 29th day of  March, 2004.



		 PATHMARK STORES, INC.
	ATTEST:


	/s/ Marc A. Strassler

Marc A. Strassler

Secretary

	By 	/s/ Frank G. Vitrano 

        Frank G. Vitrano

       President 



/s/ Eileen R. Scott

EXECUTIVE
#### John Brackett *v.*G. M. Adams.

Bills and Notes — Action on Note — Note Must be Filed with Petition— Failure to File not Grounds of Demurrer — Remedy is by Rule.

In an, action on a promissory note title writing should be referred to and filed with the petition but the failure to do so is not a ground of demurrer. 'But the appropriate remedy is by rule to compel the production of the note.

APPEAL FROM BELL CIRCUIT COURT.

March 15, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

The petition alleges, in effect, the execution and delivery to the plaintiff by the defendant of a promissory note for, $73.99, and that in that sum the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff. *72These averments, in our opinion, constituted a good cause of action, the facts alleged being admitted by the demurrer.

*Farmer, for appellant.*

*Adams, for appellee.*

A note corresponding to that described in the petition is copied in the record; but it is not made a part of the petition, nor does the record show whether it was filed with the petition or not; but although the note should have been exhibited by a reference to it in the petition, showing it to have been filed with it, the omission was not a ground of demurrer, for notwithstanding it the petition started facts constituting á cause of action.. Burt the appropriate remedy of the defendant was a rule to compel the production of the note, or on failure to do so, or properly account for the non-production, of the note, to dismiss the action.

The defendant having, however, relied alone on a general demurrer to the petition, we concur in the action of the court below in overruling it.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1997 and the unaudited
consolidated statement of operations for the six months ended December 31, 1997
and is qualified in it's entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                          176,217
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3,766,771
<ALLOWANCES>                                     75,000
<INVENTORY>                                     964,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              5,018,957
<PP&E>                                          118,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                6,254,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,551,320
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          5,117
<OTHER-SE>                                     (390,301)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  6,254,617
<SALES>                                      24,613,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             24,613,043
<CGS>                                        22,959,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                22,959,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (415,676)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (415,676)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (707,615)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,123,291)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.23)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT





The Board of
Directors


Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-05304, 333-06886, 333-77391, 333-31074, 333-31170, 333-42720 and 333-96407) on Form S-8 of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. of
our report dated March 18, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and
comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2001, the nine-month period ended December 31, 2000 and the year ended March 31, 2000 and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
2001, annual report on Form 10-K of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.





Our report refers to a change in accounting for
business combinations and goodwill and intangible assets resulting from business combinations consummated after June 30, 2001.





Los Angeles, California


March 31, 2002
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00026-CR

JASON LAMON MAYES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27450

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O RDER

Our review of the reporter’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive data” as 

that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social security 

number, tax identification number or similar government-issued personal identification number.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(1). Volume eight of the reporter’s record, together with Exhibit 27 Case 

Report and Exhibit 27, include social security numbers. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders 

otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, 

must not contain sensitive data.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because volume 

eight of the reporter’s record, together with Exhibit 27 Case Report and Exhibit 27, contain

sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), 

to seal the electronically filed volume eight of the reporter’s record, together with Exhibit 27 Case 

Report and Exhibit 27, in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: October 22, 2019
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re CEVA Ground US, LP.

Appellate case number: 01-19-00760-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-27415

Trial court: 164th District Court of Harris County

Relator, CEVA Ground US, LP, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the 

trial court’s August 23, 2019 order denying relator’s motion to dismiss based on forum non 

conveniens. The Court requests that real parties in interest file a response to the petition by no later 

than November 8, 2019.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Sarah B. Landau__

 Acting individually 

Date: _October 11, 2019____
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Hill International, Inc.: 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-114816 and No. 333-148156) and Form S-8 (No. 333-137512 and No. 333-141814) of our report dated March 24, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Hill International, Inc., included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Amper,Politziner & Mattia P.C. 

Edison, New Jersey 

March24, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and Co-Chairman
of the Board of Directors of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that
to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the annual report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended December 31, 2006 of the Registrant (the Report):

|                                                                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1)
  The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
  the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



| |     |                                                                                    
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Edwin C. Quattlebaum                                                           
| |     |                                                                                    
| |     | Edwin
  C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.                                                      
| |     | Chief Executive
  Officer, President and Co-Chairman of the Board of
  Directors of
| |     | MetaMorphix,
  Inc.                                                                

Date: June 8, 2007

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 3

- 0 459

_____________________________
F ICKLING AND C OMPANY , I NC ., and NGI A CQUISITIONS , LLC
, Appellants/Cross

- Appellees
,

v.

W EST S HORE L EGACY , LLC, and A LACHUA C OUNTY , F LORIDA , Appellees/Cross

- Appellants

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Division of Administrative Hearings

. Suzanne Van Wyk, Administrative Law Judge

. May 31, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and B ILBREY and N ORDBY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 D. Kent Safriet and Joshua E. Pratt of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, PLLC, Tallahassee; Patrice Boyes of Patrice Boyes, P.A., Gainesville
, for Appellants/Cross

- Appellees

. Robert N. Clarke, Jr., Martin B. Sipple, and Magdalena Ozarowski of Ausley & McMullen, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee /Cross

Appellant West Shore Legacy, LLC

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brett Waliczek,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00115-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Lopez McHugh LLP - Newport Beach, CA

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 2/5/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 10, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 843 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 1
ORGANIZATION OF SCIENTIFC AREA COMMITTEES

LEGAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE (LRC) 

The Attorneys, Love’em or Hate’em. You Can’t

(should not) Do Standards Without’em”

Hon. Christopher J. Plourd

Chair, LRC

Organization of Scientific Area Committees 

Seattle, Washington

February 20th, 2018
AND THE LAW

n SCIENCE IN THE COURTROOM
THE LRC LOOKS AT STANDARDS 

FOR USE IN AN ADVERSARIAL

LEGAL SYSTEM

Attorneys
2/26/18

THE COURTROOM
LEGAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE

(LRC) 

n Judges.

n Prosecutors.

n Defense attorneys.

n Innocence network attorneys.

n Academic and Government representatives.
WHAT DOES THE LEGAL RESOURCE 

COMMITTEE (LRC) DO? 

n Input to Scientific Area Committee (SAC’S) 

and Subcommittees.

n Maintain open dialog through liaisons.

n Evaluation of standards.
CHRISTOPHER J. PLOURD

LRC Chairman
ANDREA ROTH DAVID KAYE

ACADEMIA
PROSECUTION

RICHARD “DICK” REEVE ELIZABETH GEDDIS
JUDICIAL

RON REINSTEIN KENT CATTANI
GOVERNMENT

INNOCENCE NETWORK

LYNN ROBATELLI GARCIA BARRY SCHECK
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

JENNIFER FRIEDMAN JOHN ELLIS
AFFILIATES

TED HUNT LINDSEY HERF
LEGAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE

MISSION 

n The legal ramifications of standards.

n Meaningful use of forensic science standards by the legal 

system.
n Is the subject of the standard or guideline a new 

or novel technique?

n A novel application of an older technique or method?

LRC QUESTIONS 

n Are there any adverse appellate court rulings on 

the admissibility of the technique?

n If so, does the standard address the concerns 

identified in the court opinion(s)? 

n How?
n Does the standard address the documentation 

and preservation of underlying materials and 

data?

LRC QUESTIONS 

n Does the standard require any documentation of 

the case information the examiner was exposed 

to before or during the analysis?
n Are the directives of the standard specific and 

clear as to what they require or recommend?

n Are the technical terms used in the standard 

defined within the document?

n If not, does the standard or guideline refer the reader 

to definitions published elsewhere?

LRC QUESTIONS 
n Does existing research or data support the 

standard? If so, where can these be found?

n To what extent and how has the technique been 

validated?

LRC QUESTIONS 
LRC QUESTIONS 

n Are the error rates associated with the 

technique, when applied as prescribed or 

recommended, estimated? If so, how? If not, 

why not?

n Is the uncertainty associated with measurements 

obtained by using a technique as prescribed or 

recommended in the standard estimated? If so, 

how? If not, why not?
Is something bad about to happen?
USE OF STANDARD BY LEGAL SYSTEM

n What is needed by the legal community.

n Legal obligations for disclosure.

n Focus on electronic communication.
LRC COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

n Forensic science legal resources.

n Legal resource attorney network.

n Community outreach.
THANK YOU!
QUESTIONS?

Christopher.Plourd@imperial.courts.ca.gov
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Annual Report of Xtra-Gold Resources
Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, PAUL ZYLA, President and Chief Executive Officer the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (a) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Date: | March 30, 2010 | /s/ Paul Zyla                              
|----- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------
|      |                |                                            
|      |                | Paul Zyla                                  
|      |                | President and Chief Executive
      Officer
|      |                | (principal executive 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.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00184-CR

Sallia VASQUEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR10163

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 19, 2015

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is granted, and this appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
Cite as 2022 Ark. 188 

## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION BOARD Opinion Delivered : October 20, 2022

PER CURIAM Kelsey Bardwell of Harrison is re appointed to the Continuing Legal Education Board
for a three
-

year term to expire on October 20 , 202 5 . Ms. Bardwell is an at - large
representative

. The Honorable Tjuana Byrd of Little Rock is re appointed to the Conti nuing Legal
Education Board for a three
- year term to expire on October 20 , 202 5

. Judge Byrd is an at large representative. Amber Wilson Bagley of Little Rock is reappointed to the Continuing Legal
Education Board for a three
- year term to expire on Octobe r 20 , 202 5

. Ms. Ba gley represents
the Second Congressional District

. The court extends its sincere appreciation to Ms. Bardwell, Judge Byrd, and Ms. Bagley for accepting re appointment to this important board

.