alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ex-10.1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

LEASE




     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into this the
1st day of September, 2005, by and between LJH, LTD. (“Landlord”), and AIRCRAFT
INTERIOR DESIGN, INC. (“Tenant”).



     WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant are parties to that certain Lease dated October 4, 2002 (the
“Lease”); and



     WHEREAS, each of Landlord and Tenant desire to amend certain provisions of the Lease, all on
the terms and conditions set forth herein.



     NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree as follows:



     1. Amendment of Section 2.  Section 2 of the Lease shall be deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:




2. TERM The term of this Lease shall consist of a fixed term, commencing on October
4, 2002 (the “Commencement Date”) and ending on August 31, 2005, and a variable
term, commencing on September 1, 2005, and ending on the last day of the calendar
month which is at least thirty (30) days after either party provides written notice
to the other of termination of the Lease.



     2. Amendment of Subsection (a) of Section 6. Subsection (a) of Section 6 of
the Lease shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




(a) Tenant shall be permitted to use the Lease Premises for any and all lawful
purposes, subject, however, to zoning ordinances, present or future constitutions,
laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulation, other governmental order or
controlling judicial determination of any federal, state, local, municipal or
other governmental body, agency or authority having or asserting jurisdiction and
all departments, commissions, boards and officers thereof (collectively, “Laws”),
the orders, rules and regulations of the Board of Fire Insurance Underwriters and
any similar bodies having or asserting jurisdiction thereof, now in effect or
hereafter adopted by any governmental authority having or asserting jurisdiction
and such conditions, restrictions and other encumbrances, if any, to which the
Lease Premises are subject at the time of execution and delivery hereof.



     3. Other Terms Not Amended. Except as expressly set forth herein, the
terms and provisions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be
deemed modified, limited or otherwise amended by this Amendment.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this instrument under seal as
of the day and year first above written.



LJH LTD.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	DLH Management, L.L.C.,	 	 
	 	 	its General-partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Lacy J. Harber	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Lacy J. Harber, President	 	 






AIRCRAFT INTERIOR DESIGN, INC.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Kevin Carter
	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	KEVIN CARTER	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	V.P. TREASURER
Exhibit 32





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 Village Bank and Trust Financial 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”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their knowledge and belief:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.











/s/ Thomas W. Winfree


March 18, 2011Thomas W. Winfree


DateChief Executive Officer/s/ C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.


March 18, 2011C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.


DateChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                        EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                             THREE MONTH PERIOD         NINE MONTH PERIOD
                                                                             ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,       ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                           ----------------------     ----------------------
                                                                             1999          1998         1999          1998
                                                                           --------      --------     ---------     --------
<S>                                                                        <C>           <C>          <C>           <C>
EARNINGS PER COMMON AND DILUTIVE
  POTENTIAL SHARE:
  Net Income                                                               $ 11,538      $  7,738     $  28,412     $ 22,363
                                                                           ========      ========     =========     ========
Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding - Basic                                             26,725        26,566        26,664       26,199
  Effect of dilutive securities (a):
        Stock options                                                           376           548           339          670
                                                                           --------      --------     ---------     --------
           Adjusted common shares - Diluted                                  27,101        27,114        27,003       26,869
                                                                           ========      ========     =========     ========
EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED                                               $   0.43      $   0.29     $    1.05     $   0.83
                                                                           ========      ========     =========     ========
</TABLE>


(a)  Shares issuable were derived using the "Treasury Stock Method" for all
     dilutive potential shares.
----

| Number of      Shares |   | Date first      exercisable |
|-----------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                  |   | December      10, 2008      |
|                  |   | December      10, 2009      |
|                  |   | December      10, 2010      |

----

|  | (vi) | Upon      the commission of any act for which either criminal or civil penalties may      be sought; |
|--|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (vii) | Upon      the willful violation of any of the Company’s written      policies; |
|--|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (viii) | Upon      engaging in any activity which is competition with the Company, or any      parent or subsidiary of the Company;or |
|--|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (ix) | Upon      any unauthorized disclosure of the confidential information or trade      secrets of the Company or of any parent or subsidiary of the      Company. |
|--|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|   |                     |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | MET-PRO      CORPORATION |
|   |                     |   |
|   |                     |   |
|   | By:                      |   |
|   |                     | Raymond      J. DeHont, President |
|   |                     |   |
|   |                     |   |
|   |                     |   |
|   |                     |                                       , Optionee |

----
H. Res. 578

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 8, 1998.

Whereas the United States must maintain and improve its

preeminent position in science and technology in order to

advance human understanding of the universe and all it

contains, and to improve the lives, health, and freedom

of all peoples; and

Whereas the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives is hereby submitting a print to Congress entitled ‘‘Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National

Science Policy’’: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the print from the Committee on Science entitled

‘‘Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science

Policy’’ should serve as a framework for future deliberations

on congressional science policy and funding.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 14.1 (Revised)




SENSIVIDA CODE OF ETHICS




Purpose: written standards designed to avert wrongdoing, while promoting honesty and ethical conduct at all times relevant to the best interests of our shareholders and the investment public.




At all times....




1.  Ethical management of any actual or apparent conflicts of interest between any personal and professional relationships of our Officers




2.  *Complete/fair/accurate/timely/lucid disclosure in all reports and documents filed with or submitted to the SEC and all public communications *All public communications will be both 8-K filings and posted on the company web site: SENSIVIDAMEDICAL.com




3.  Full compliance with applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations




4. Prompt internal reporting to the appropriate party of any infraction; holding accountable, all responsible parties for breach of the Code of Ethics.




As required under present SEC guidelines, any change to or a waiver of the above code of ethics will be reported within 5 business days either on an 8-K filing or a posting of notice on the company's SENSVIDAMEDICAL.com.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00514-CR
Eugene Hodge, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 3020465, HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Eugene Hodge seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for murder. The trial court has certified that Hodge waived the right of appeal. The appeal is dismissed. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: September 23, 2004 Do Not Publish
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life Insurance
and Annuity Company (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to the officer's
knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.


August 12, 2004                   By  /s/ David A. Wheat
---------------                       ------------------------------------------
    (Date)                            David A. Wheat
                                      Director, Senior Vice President, and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10(i)

                                AMENDMENT NO. 2
                            as of February 28, 1997

         Irwin Jacobs ("Jacobs"), Astrotech International Corporation
("Astrotech") and Brown-Minneapolis Tank & Fabrication Co. ("BMT") are parties
to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated February 7, 1994, and as amended on March
6, 1996, by and among the undersigned (the "BMT Agreement").

         The parties of the BMT Agreement have agreed to amend certain
provisions relating to Contingent Payments to be made by Astrotech to Jacobs
under the BMT Agreement. All defined terms not otherwise defined herein will
have the meanings assigned in the BMT Agreement. All currently disputed and
future Contingent Payments as described in section 1.02 and 1.03 of the BMT
Agreement will be terminated and satisfied in consideration of Astrotech making
additional payments in 1997 to Jacobs, as follows:

                  1).      A $600,000 initial payment upon signing of this
                           amendment

                  2).      A final payment to be made with the amount to be
                           determined as follows:

                                    a)      If paid on or before April 30,
                                            1997, the amount will be
                                            $1,930,000;

                                    b)      If paid on or after May 1, 1997 but
                                            before July 31, 1997, the amount
                                            will be $1,970,000

                                    c)      If paid on or after August 1, 1997
                                            but before September 30, 1997, the
                                            amount will be $2,000,000. In any
                                            event, the final payment will be
                                            made no later than September 30,
                                            1997.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 as of the
date first above written.

                                              /s/ IRWIN L. JACOBS
                                              -------------------
                                                  Irwin L. Jacobs

                                       Astrotech International Corporation

                                       by:  /s/ HELEN VARDY GRICKS
                                            ------------------------

                                       its:  Treasurer
                                             -----------


                                       Brown-Minneapolis Tank & Fabricating Co.

                                       by:  /s/ HELEN VARDY GRICKS
                                            ------------------------

                                       its:  Treasurer
                                             -----------
H. Res. 608

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 20, 1998.

Resolved, That a committee of two Members of the

House be appointed to wait upon the President of the United

States and inform him that the House of Representatives has

completed its business of the session and is ready to adjourn,

unless the President has some other communication to make

to them.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Kulp & Collins *v.*J. B. English.

Judgment — Set-Off Against Judgment.

Where the judgment plaintiffs are admittedly insolvent, the chancellor has authority to set off against their judgment so much of their indebtedness to defendant as was not litigated in the action resulting in the judgment.

*539APPEAL PROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

March 5, 1873.

*R. H. Field, for appellants.*

*A. H. Field, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The admitted insolvency of appellants Kulp and Collins authorized the chancellor to set-off against their judgment so. much of/ their indebtedness to English as was not litigated in the action resulting in such judgment.

This embraces the amounts paid to the Federal government by English on account of taxes, licenses and penalties due from the old firm, and which appellants had agreed to pay. Also the debts to Kalfus, and the debts to Goodfrey, Wolfe & Co., the whole amounting at the date of the judgment to $574.35.

The claim for $273.15, the difference between the amount of the notes, acts, etc., delivered to English by appellants when they bought him out, and the amount they agreed to deliver to him, appears from the pleadings to have been litigated in the former action. The claim for $90 on account of the debt of Jones Moore was: also before the jury, in that suit, and we must assume was1 considered in making up the verdict. Both these claims should have been rejected.

The petition does- not show that due diligence was exercised in the collection of the other claims therein set up, and hence the chancellor properly declined to hold appellants responsible for their loss. For the error in allowing the claims for $273.15 and the Moore debt for $90, the judgment must be reversed. It appears from the exhibit that portions of the judgment in favor of appellants against English were assigned of record to R. H. Fields and Wm. Wilson, attorneys, in payment of their fees for legal services rendered in procuring it. Upon the return of the cause appellee should be required to bring them before the court, and inasmuch as the claims he now asks to be allowed to set off against' said judgment might have been asserted in the old suit if he had chosen to set them up. If Wilson & Fields make it appear that the amounts assigned them are nob more than were reasonable in view of the services rendered, they can not be affected by the amount of the set-offs herein directed to be allowed.

The cause is remanded for the further preparation indicated, and for a judgment consistent with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, G. Peter D’Aloia, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of American StandardCompanies Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
1

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: April 30, 2004     By: /s/ G. Peter D’Aloia       G. Peter D’Aloia   Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
2
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Straub Construction, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63470

)

Under Contract No. N62473

- 16

- C

- 4602 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Richard J. Pinto, Esq.

Marks , Golia & Pinto , LLP

San Diego, CA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Anthony Hicks, Esq.

Trial Attorney

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE W ILSON

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter

judgment in favor of appellant.

It is the Board ’ s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b) , and the

parties ’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a

consent judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of

$191,420. 92

. Appellant has agreed to waive Contract Disputes Act interest.

Dated: December 8, 2022

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

(Signatures continued)2 I concur

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63470

, Appeal of Straub

Construction, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board ’ s Charter.

Dated: December 8, 2022

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4176 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 570
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4176

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2004

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                              June 7, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 122 West Elwood Avenue in Raeford, North Carolina, as the ``Bobby 
                Marshall Gentry Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 122 
West Elwood Avenue in Raeford, North Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Bobby Marshall Gentry Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Bobby Marshall Gentry Post 
Office Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 570

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4176

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 122 West Elwood Avenue in Raeford, North Carolina, as the ``Bobby 
                Marshall Gentry Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 7, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```