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

                                 THIRD AMENDMENT

The Employment Agreement dated March 5, 1996, as amended October 23, 1997 and
April 14, 1999 between Mark A. Alexander (the "Executive") and Suburban Propane,
L.P. (the "Partnership") (collectively, the "Employment Agreement") is hereby
modified and amended this ____ day of ____,____, as follows:

Section 6.4 (Excise Taxes) is hereby amended by adding a new subparagraph (e) as
follows:

         (e) In the event any additional taxes are imposed under Section 409A of
         the Code (i.e., an amount calculated as interest under
         409A(a)(1)(B)(ii) or an amount described as an additional 20% of
         includable compensation under 409A(a)(1)(B)(i)(II) of the Code) on any
         compensation to which the Executive is entitled pursuant to this
         Agreement, the Partnership shall pay to the Executive (x) an amount
         equal to such additional taxes and (y) an additional amount such that
         after payment of any additional federal, state and local income and
         employment taxes by reason of the amounts paid by the Partnership
         pursuant to this Section 6.4(e), the Executive shall receive an amount
         equal to the additional taxes described in clause (x). The
         determination as to whether such additional taxes will apply shall be
         made by the Partnership and payment shall (to the extent the
         Partnership has knowledge of such additional taxes) be made by the
         Partnership prior to the date the additional taxes are due to be paid
         by the Executive. The Executive may notify the Partnership at any time
         if he believes he has incurred additional taxes under Section 409A of
         the Code on any compensation to which he is entitled to under this
         Agreement, but the Executive's failure to notify the Partnership shall
         not result in any waiver or forfeiture of his rights under this Section
         6.4(e). The Partnership and the Executive each agrees to execute and
         deliver any reasonable change to this Agreement (other than this
         Section 6.4(e)) as the Partnership or the Executive requests, after
         consultation with respective counsel, to comply with Section 409A of
         the Code; provided that no change that reduces the then present value
         of the payments due (or potentially due) to the Executive pursuant to
         this Agreement (without taking into account this Section 6.4(e)) shall
         be deemed to be reasonable. The provisions of this paragraph shall
         survive termination of this Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is duly executed as of the effective date
noted above.

Mark A. Alexander                           Suburban Propane, L.P.
(Executive)                                 (Partnership)


                                            By:
------------------------                       ---------------------------------
                                            Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-86426) of Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (ACS) of our report
dated July 28, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Computer Data Systems, Inc., included in ACS' Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended June 30, 1998.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Washington D.C.
September 25, 1998
**EXHIBIT10.32**

** AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT FOR EUGENE GLOVER**

 

Summary of Amendment

InDecember, Mr. Glover's duties changed from those described in his employmentagreement dated October 16, 2000 as Senior Vice President, Advanced Developmentto those customarily required as Senior Vice President, BusinessDevelopment.  In March 2004, Mr. Glover'sagreement was amended to decrease his time, efforts, and compensation by onehalf of the previous amount to reflect the part-time nature of his revisedduties, effective April 9, 2004.  Theother terms of his employment agreement remain in effect.
EXHIBIT 4.28


 


Executive director appointment
letter – Mr Ahmed Fahour


 


The
Executive director appointment letter of Mr Ahmed Fahour is incorporated by
reference to National Australia Bank Limited’s Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Commission
on January 20, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS YEAR-TO-DATE SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION FISCAL 1999 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,648
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,823
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,043
<INVENTORY>                                     76,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,759
<PP&E>                                         835,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                 363,222
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 898,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,395
<BONDS>                                        214,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           280
<OTHER-SE>                                     419,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   420,228
<SALES>                                        467,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               467,899
<CGS>                                          420,604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  459,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6,780)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,005
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,770)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (162)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,608)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,608)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
#### John Moore et al. *v.*Andrew Campbell et al.

Appeal — Objection as to Parties.

Objection that a certain person was. not made a party to an action cannot be made for the first time in the Court of Appeals.

APPEAL FROM ESTTLL CIRCUIT COURT.

February 16, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Plaintiffs’ title is not denied, and the amended answer admits the trespass. The removal of the logs did not divest plaintiffs of their right to them-. The proof showed that they were worth one dollar on the river bank. Besides this, other trespass in addition to the cutting and removing of the same logs, are alleged and not denied, and we cannot say that the payment is'for more than the evidence warranted.

The objection that the infant Elizabeth J. McKinney was not a party should have been made in the circuit court.

*510N *Turner, for appellants.*

*T. N. Cardwell, for appellees.*

If appellants desired a trial by jury, they should have asked for it. It was not necessary for appellees to file their title papers, as their title was not denied. The receiver was appointed by consent of parties. The loss resulting from- his failure to perform his duty cannot be thrown on appellees. The wrongdoers must suffer.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form **S-3 (No. 33-44376)**and **S-8 (333-125115, 333-125234, 333-90307, 333-108123and 333-115741)** of Mercantile Bankshares Corporation of our reportdated March 10, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

 

 
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           |
| Baltimore, Maryland            |
| March 10, 2006                 |

 

----
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4318

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 

higher education to widely distribute information describing their procedures for receiving and responding to complaints concerning harassment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2004

Mr. WEINER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

institutions of higher education to widely distribute information describing their procedures for receiving and responding to complaints concerning harassment.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sexual Harrassment 

5 Reporting and Posting Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 4318 IH 

1 SEC. 2. HARASSMENT PROCEDURE DISCLOSURES RE2 QUIRED. 

3 Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

4 U.S.C. 1092) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(h) HARASSMENT PROCEDURE DISCLOSURES RE7 QUIRED.—Each eligible institution participating in any 

8 program under this title shall carry out appropriate and 

9 reasonable information dissemination activities for pro10 spective and enrolled students (including those attending 

11 or planning to attend less than full time) regarding the 

12 procedures established by such institution for receiving 

13 and responding to complaints regarding sexual harass14 ment. Such dissemination activities shall include—

15 ‘‘(1) distribution to enrolled students (along 

16 with the distribution of information concerning en17 rollment in the institution) of information—

18 ‘‘(A) identifying the acts that constitute 

19 sexual harassment; 

20 ‘‘(B) stating that sexual harassment is ille21 gal; and 

22 ‘‘(C) describing the procedures to be fol23 lowed to file a sexual harassment complaint and 

24 to receive services and assistance for the victim; 

25 and 
3

•HR 4318 IH 

1 ‘‘(2) posting of the information described in 

2 paragraph (1) through bulletins widely distributed 

3 among the buildings, classrooms, student unions, 

4 and other facilities on the campus of such institu5 tion.’’.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 02-06-316-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.G., JR., AND J.G., CHILDREN	

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

	FROM THE 360TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	On September 5, 2006 and October 30, 2006, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $125 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.  

DELIVERED:  November 16, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         145,382
<SECURITIES>                                12,662,376
<RECEIVABLES>                                  352,086
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,842
<PP&E>                                       3,565,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                 811,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,588,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          431,376
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,157,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,588,562
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               255,657
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                145,730
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   145,730
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
10980.

#### Ward *v.*Ward.

Decided January 27, 1920.

Application for administration—appeal; from Floyd superior court—Judge Wright. August 1, 1919.

*M. B. Eubanks,*for plaintiff in error.

*Maddox &■ Boyal,*contra.

Broyles, O. J.

This case is controlled by the decision in *Ward*v. *Ward*(No. 10979), ante, 695. There are some assignments of error in this case which were not raised in that case, but, as they are not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, they are treated as abandoned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

          GTE HAWAIIAN TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
        Statement of the Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Millions)                            Nine Months Ended
                                                 September 30, 1998
                                                 ------------------
<S>                                              <C>     
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                  $   68.8
  Add - Income taxes                                     33.7
      - Fixed charges                                    34.9
                                                     --------
Adjusted earnings                                    $  137.4
                                                     ========
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                   $   31.7
  Portion of rent expense representing interest           3.2
                                                     --------
Adjusted fixed charges                               $   34.9
                                                     ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                       3.94
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME OF MILGRAY ELECTRONICS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           1,909
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,171
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,066
<INVENTORY>                                     55,457
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,548
<PP&E>                                           5,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,888
<BONDS>                                         31,633
<COMMON>                                         1,704
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,278
<SALES>                                        239,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               239,519
<CGS>                                          183,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  183,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   598
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,954
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,638
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,316
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,316
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.38

<FN>
<F1>ANSWER IS 0 WHEN THE TAG IS NOT APPLICABLE OR THE TAG DOES NOT CORRESPOND
TO OR IS MORE OR LESS INCLUSIVE THAN THE CAPTION USED IN THE CONDENSED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED ON FORM 10-K.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
47

•HR 4567 EH

1 that date as Immigration Information Officers, Contact

2 Representatives, or Investigative Assistants.

3 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department of Home4 land Security Appropriations Act, 2005’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### W. S. Culbertson et al. *v.*Maria H. Brashear et al.

Appearance — Presence in Court — Waiver of Notice.

Where, at the time complainant filed her petition, defendants were in -court and waived notice, it had the effect of bringing defendants before the court for all the purposes of the petition.

New Trial — Undisputed Evidence of Plaintiff.

Where the evidence of plaintiff in petition for a new trial is undisputed, it was held sufficient to authorize the granting of a new trial.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

February 28, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The petition of Mrs. Brashears shows that she was sick, and unable to attend court at any time during the term at which the judgment was taken against her by default. She states further that this was one of the reasons she did not make defense. The fact that she was ignorant of business, and did not understand the objects of appellants’ -suit, and relied on her husband and son, ought not to militate against her in view of the fact that she could not have looked after her interest and made defense, even had she been desirous of doing so. It may well be assumed that her sickness was to some extent the cause of her failing to inquire into the nature of the proceeding that had been instituted against her.

Appellants were in court and waived notice, when appellee presented her petition and moved for an order of injunction, and consented that the actions should be submitted on exceptions to sale, etc. This had the effect of bringing them- before the court for all the purposes of the petition. The injunction asked for was intended to be merely temporary. It was a provisional remedy ancillary to the relief which appellee claimed she was ultimately entitled to. Being in court, the order of warning was unnecessary. Mrs. Brashear was a competent' witness. Her evidence is undisputed.

*542
      *Williams, for appellants.*

*Owens & Ellis, for appellees.*

It authorized the judgment granting the new trial, and warranted the dismissal of appellant’s petition, so far as it sought to subject her lands to the payment of her husband’s debts.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1 / 32.2

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 InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank M. Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



|                     |  |                                                                       
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 30, 2011 |  | /s/ Frank M. Reynolds                                                 
|                     |  | Frank M. Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer