alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit (10.v)

Amendment No. 1 Effective as of February 24, 2003 (this  "Amendment") to Met-Pro
Corporation   Supplemental   Executive  Retirement  Plan  Established  Effective
February 1, 2000


Met-Pro  Corporation (the "Company")  established  effective  February 1, 2000 a
Supplemental  Executive Retirement Plan (the "Supplemental Plan") to provide for
the payment of supplementary retirement benefits to William L. Kacin (hereafter,
"Eligible Executive").

Section  8 of the  Supplemental  Plan  provides  that the  Board  may  amend the
Supplemental  Plan at any  time and from  time to  time,  provided  that no such
amendment may adversely  affect the accrued  benefit of the Eligible  Executive,
his surviving spouse or other beneficiaries, as more fully provided for therein.

All terms used but not defined in this  Amendment  shall have such meaning as is
ascribed to them in the Supplemental Plan.

By action taken on February 24, 2003,  the Board hereby amends the  Supplemental
Plan as follows:  the date  "February  24,  2003" shall be deemed to replace the
date  "January  31,  2004"  on page 3 of the  Supplemental  Plan  in the  column
entitled  "Continued   Employment  until",  with  the  effect  that  the  Vested
Percentage of the Eligible  Executive  shall be deemed to be 100% as of February
24, 2003.

Except to the extent set forth herein, the Supplemental Plan is unmodified,  and
remains in full force and effect.

Executed this 21st day of March, 2003, effective as of February 24, 2003.

MET-PRO CORPORATION

BY:/s/ Gary J. Morgan
   ------------------
   Gary J. Morgan, Vice President--Finance



Witness:/s/ Marion Berkey
        -----------------

         Marion Berkey
         -------------
         print name
EXHIBIT 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 amended Quarterly Report of Magnitude Information
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 (the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge, that the Company's Form 10-QSB fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: October 26, 2005                         /s/ Joerg H. Klaube
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Joerg H. Klaube,
                                                Chief Financial Officer


                                                                              21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

CHRISTY LLOYD,1

Respondent Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

KASEY JEFFERS, 

Petitioner Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 39, 2019 

§ 

§ Court Below: Family Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ File No. CN16-03944 

§ Petition No. 18-29145 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Submitted: March 28, 2019 

Decided: April 1, 2019 

ORDER

The appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 25, 2019. Instead of paying 

the filing fee, she submitted with her notice of appeal a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis, but the motion did not contain all the required information. On January 

28, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk sent the appellant a letter enclosing the incomplete 

motion and directing her to return the completed motion no later than February 12, 

2019, or a notice to show cause would issue. On February 19, 2019, the Chief 

Deputy Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why the appeal should 

not be dismissed because of her failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by filing 

 

1

 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 

the completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellant failed to respond 

to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period; therefore, dismissal 

of this action is deemed to be unopposed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) 

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice
Exhibit 10.15(b)


   Schedule of Secured Convertible Notes (refinancings after October 31, 2005)
        Issued by NCT Group, Inc. to Carole Salkind and outstanding as of
                                December 13, 2005


    Issue Date       Due Date         Principal             Conversion Price
    ----------       --------         ---------             ----------------
     12/07/05        06/07/06         $959,383.98       Greater of: (i) $0.0052;
                                                        or (ii) the par value of
                                                        NCT Group, Inc.
                                                        common stock on the
                                                        date of conversion
Comment: Election Standards Must Comply With The Law And The Public Interest!

 Comment Signers: 
   Elliot Abhau
   Chris Allred
   Mark Anderson 
   R. Isaac Araiza
   Chris Artherton
   Neal Austin
   L. Bagley
   Elizabeth Barger
   Barbara Beach-Moody
   Ann Beckley
   Robin Bergman
   Michael Berla
   Debra Billet
   Dennis Burns
   Laurie Borthwick
   Jeanine Brewer
   Cary Brief
   Daniel Buk
   Bobby Buote
   Barbara Campbell
   Susan Campbell
   Priscilla Carlson
   Karen Caskey
   Barry Cheney 
   Jamie Collier
   Judy Christi
   David Cook
   Janie Cordray
   Leigh Cox 
   Brenda Cullen
   Norma Darrell
   Arthur Dauer
   G. de Miranda
   Peter Deutsch
   Michael Dixon
   James Domenico
   David Edwards
   Julie Eggers
   Carolyn Elliott
   Jacalyn Engler
   Ron Erz
   Angel Evans
   John Farhar
   Edward Frank
   Gabriel Gardner
   Daniel Gutknecht
   Roger Harkness
   BArry Hart
   Chere Hartman
   Lon Heldenbrand
   PAticia Herron
   Cheryl Hines-Dronzkowski
   Barbara Hodes
   Laura Homeyer
   Kate Hunt 
   Mary Beth Ingber
   Eric Paul Jacobsen
   Tim Juett
   Peter Jones
   Greg Johnson
   James Johnson
   Mark Kempinsky
   Morgan Kalicki
   Ann Kemler
   Jill Kern
   Peg Kirby 
   Barbara King 
   Lionel Lennox   
   Virginia Lippert
   Penny Little
   Nike Lesus
   Brian Makowski
   P.J. Madore
   Betty Ann Manock
   Shannon Martinez
   Meg McBride
   Jon Paul McClellan
   Joyce McCloy 
   Mark McCray
   John McCullough
   Sally McDonald
   Scott McGee
   Glenn McGahee
   Brian McNaughton
   Jamie Mandrake
   Carlos Menendez
   Eric Miller 
   Sandra Milunich
   David Modoski
   Joseph Mondello
   Mary Jo Monet
   Margaret Moquette
   Michael Morgan 
   Patti Moses
   Dan, Mouyard    
   Lena Murdock
   Tyler Nevins
   Vince Newton 
   Kelly O'Brien
   James O'Connor
   Peter O'Sullivan
   Paul Della Pelle 
   Judy Pentz 
   Leut Phomma 
   Barbara Rebetti
   L B Reynolds
   Timothy Rood
   Jay Rozner
   Betsy Salter
   Jean Salvatore
   Laua Selesky 
   Max Schauer
   Jim Schuermann
   Julien Sharpe 
   Jay Sherwood
   Carole Simmons
   Matt Stancheck
   A. Tellez
   Blayne Thalken
   Elaine Tihen 
   Clare Tobin 
   Lori Tooker
   Bob Underwood
   Linda Vanlandingham
   Julie Van Sant
   Linda Virga
   Carol Waser
   Robert Waser
   Harvey Wayne
   Carl Weiler
   Charles Wichern
   Kent Williams
   Terrie Williams
   Jeanie Williams-West
   Paul-Victor Winters
   Kim Winz
   Zane Woods
   Ryan Wrocklage
   Julie Zuber
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60457

Summary Calendar

 

BREVER McCALLUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION and

JEROLD B. ERIKSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:93-CV-804-BrN)

 

April 2, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brever McCallum appeals the district court’s grant of judgment

as a matter of law on her federal and state law claims based on

sexual harassment. Because we find that the district court

properly entered judgment as a matter of law for the defendants

under Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.

1969)(en banc), we do not address McCallum’s claims that the

district court improperly denied her motion for a new trial and her

motion for backpay. We AFFIRM for essentially the same reasons
2

stated in the district court’s careful and detailed examination of

the case. 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit        21**

**Middlesex        Water Company**

**Subsidiaries**

|                                                           | **Jurisdiction                  of** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                                                           | **Organization**                     |
|                                                           |                                 |
| Tidewater                  Utilities, Inc.                     | Delaware                             |
| Tidewater                  Environmental Services, Inc.        | Delaware                             |
| Pinelands                  Water Company                       | New                  Jersey          |
| Pinelands                  Wastewater Company                  | New                  Jersey          |
| Utility                  Service Affiliates (Perth Amboy) Inc. | New                  Jersey          |
| Utility                  Service Affiliates, Inc.              | New                  Jersey          |
EXHIBIT 23
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-14177) pertaining to The Molex Incorporated Stock Purchase Plan,(2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-38259) pertaining to The 1990 Molex
Incorporated Stock Option Plan,(3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-68481) pertaining to The 1998 Molex
Incorporated Stock Option Plan,(4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-44652) pertaining to The 1991 Molex
Incorporated Incentive Stock Option Plan,(5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-55700) pertaining to The 2000 Molex
Incorporated Long-Term Stock Plan,(6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-111014) pertaining to The 2000 Molex
Incorporated Long-Term Stock Plan,(7)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129559) pertaining to the 2005 Molex
Employee Stock Award Plan,(8)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129560) pertaining to the 2005 Molex
Employee Stock Purchase Plan,(9)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129561) pertaining to the 2005 Molex
Incentive Stock Option Plan,(10)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129562) pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 2000 Molex Long-Term Stock Plan,(11)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-138901) pertaining to the 2000 Molex
Incorporated Incentive Stock Option Plan, the Molex 2005 Outside Directors Deferred
compensation Plan and the Molex Deferred Compensation Plan, and(12)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-155603) pertaining to the 2008 Molex
Stock Incentive Planof our reports dated August 4, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Molex Incorporated, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
of Molex Incorporated, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2009.
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) ALSD Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America

)

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No:

USM No:

Date of Original Judgment:

Date of Previous Amended Judgment:

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of the defendant the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10

and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

DENIED. GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

PAUL ANTONIO BURKE, JR. 08-00067-001

10237-003

2/11/2009

Pro Se

✔

✔

2/11/1009

11/29/2011 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

United States District Judge

Upon recalculation of the guideline range based on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the Total Offense level remains at

29, with a criminal history category of III. The guideline range remains 108 to 135 months, and the sentence of 108

months is therefore not due to be reduced.

Case 1:08-cr-00067-CG-N Document 118 Filed 11/29/11 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 11, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41407

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KERRIC DEWAUN OWENS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-560-1 

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

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kerric Dewaun Owens appeals his sentence following his

guilty-plea conviction for transporting an undocumented alien

within the United States by means of a motor vehicle for private

financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Owens argues

that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment and United States

v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because the district court

applied a sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines

for creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily
No. 04-41407

-2-

injury. Because Owens did not raise a Booker challenge to his

sentence in the district court, his argument is reviewed for

plain error only. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,

520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005)

(No. 04-9517). 

Owens makes no showing, as required by Mares, that the

district court would likely have sentenced him differently under

the Booker advisory scheme. Similarly, there is no indication

from the district court’s remarks at sentencing that the court

would have reached a different conclusion. Thus, Owens has not

met his burden to show that his substantial rights were affected,

and he has not shown plain error. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 522;

see also United States v. Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 318 n.4 (5th

Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 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 Amendment to the Quarterly Report of Magnitude
Information Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended
March 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge, that the Company's Form 10-QSB fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  May 17, 2006               /s/ Joerg H. Klaube
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                       Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer
1

Alex Kitt, PhD Director of Data Science

EWI SMM Observations
2

“We Manufacture 

Innovation”

...but what does this mean for SMMs?

Confidential – Do Not Distribute
3

EWI and SMMs: Program Learnings 

• Built a Community: Shift 

• Engaged with 251 SMMs, 103 Business 

Assessments, 27 Innovation Audits 

• Walked over 100 SMM facilities 

• Hosted 4 roundtables to discuss SMM needs 

and issues in regards to technology 

• Prepared Community:

• Change Management, Strategic Planning, 

Technology Awareness Training, 

Recommended Improvements

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Community

Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology Awareness

Business 

Assessment

Workshops

.

Innovation Audit

.

?

Insights

Knowledge

Recommendations

Implementation
4

Hierarchy of Needs for Manufacturing Innovation

4

THE SKEPTIC

OPERATIONAL

Can the business operate and pay the bills?

STRATEGIC

Setting direction and control for organization

IMAGINATIVE

Tolerance for new ideas 

and taking risks

THE HEAVYWEIGHT

THE UP AND COMER

THE DREAMER

THE LIFEBOAT

STABLE

Consistent production with a stable client base

INNOVATIVE

Implementing 

technology

In order to implement technology, 

manufacturers must have a sense that 

their business can meet their 

immediate needs.

Innovation can exist in any 

organization, but true impact comes 

when manufacturers are higher up on 

the pyramid.
5

Barriers to Technology Adoptions for Small to Medium 

Manufacturers

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Strategic Planning

○ Prioritizing creating a plan for innovation 

○ Tracking progress against a strategic plan

○ Planning for the unknown

○ Strategic decision paralysis

○ Understanding available resources

Workforce

Capital

○ Succession planning

○ Attracting new talent

○ Retaining entry-level and emerging talent

○ Upskilling current talent

○ Closing the skills gap

○ Dynamic skill needs

○ Capital planning

○ Access to flexible capital

○ Understanding technology ROI 
6

Journey to Becoming a More Innovative Manufacturer

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Key Barriers At This Stage 

○ Recognizes a problem needs to be solved

○ Awareness of manufacturing technology 

as a part of the potential solution

○ Initial willingness to learn more 

to better understand options

Operating at 

Higher Capacity

Evaluating Options

Ready to Invest

Ready to Implement

Expression of Need
7

Journey to Becoming a More Innovative Manufacturer

Confidential – Do Not Distribute

Key Barriers At This Stage 

○ “Crossing the chasm” – confidence that this will work 

outweighs balance sheet risk/opportunity cost 

○ High level of personal risk involved in decision 

for SMMs – owner often personally liable for 

taking on cost of equipment

Operating at 

Higher Capacity

Expression of Need

Evaluating Options

Ready to Invest

Ready to Implement
8 Confidential – Do Not Distribute
9

Thank you for 

your time.

Alex Kitt, PhD 

Director of Data Science

akitt@ewi.org
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00158-CV

KAREN WEAVER AND STEPHEN WEAVER,

Appellants

v.

ERIC HRBACEK AND BRIDGET HRBACEK, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES 

AND SOLE HEIRS OF THE ESTATE OF 

LOUISE HRBACEK, DECEASED,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-C-3336

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Karen and Stephen Weaver and Appellees Eric and Bridget Hrbacek 

have filed an “Agreed Motion to Reverse and Remand.” The parties state that they have 

“reached an agreement to settle this matter and have now effectuated all requirements of 

said settlement.” The parties therefore request that we reverse the trial court’s judgment 
Weaver v. Hrbacek Page 2

and remand this matter to the trial court for dismissal in accordance with their settlement 

agreement. 

We construe the parties’ motion as an agreement requesting this Court to set aside 

the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and to remand this case to the trial 

court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). The parties’ motion is granted. We set aside the trial court’s 

judgment without regard to the merits and remand this case to the trial court for rendition 

of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. 

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Judge Oakes Evans1

Motion granted; remanded

Opinion delivered and filed December 21, 2016

[CV06]

 

1 The Honorable Deborah Oakes Evans, Judge of the 87th District Court, sitting by assignment of the Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas under section 74.003(a) of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. § 74.003(a).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7537
TAURICE M. CRISP, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:07-hc-02006-FL) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Taurice M. Crisp, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Ra leigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Taurice M. Crisp seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crisp has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Crisp’s motion for transfer and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED