alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter Agreement dated December 6, 2005



 Exhibit 10.8.1 
  
  
 [Letterhead of Olshan Grundman Frome
Rosenzweig & Wolosky LLP] 
  
  
 December 6, 2005 
  
 Ms. Gina Digioa 
 Vice President & General Counsel 
 Alloy, Inc. 
 435 Hudson Street 
 New York, NY 10014 
  
  

	 	Re:	MLF Investments 

  
  
 Dear Gina: 
  
 Reference is made to the Standby Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of September 7, 2005 between Alloy, Inc. (“Alloy”),
D’Elia*s (the “Company”) and MLF Investment, LLC (“MLF”). Reference is also made to your letter to MLF dated December 5, 2005. As we have discussed, MLF is willing to designate as its segregated account pursuant to
Section 5 (f)(ii), its primary brokerage account with UBS Securities, Account No. 48375501 (the “Designated Account”). Based upon brokerage statements provided to the firm, we advise you that the Designated Account has, in
addition to cash, well in excess of $100 million of Readily Marketable Securities (net of margin borrowings). Rather than set up a new account to serve as the segregated account under Section 5(f)(ii) of the Agreement, we have discussed, and I
believe you have agreed on behalf of Alloy that the Designated Account may serve such purpose. Further, MLF may withdraw funds from the Designated Account, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5(f)(ii) to satisfy year end expenses
obligations and partnership withdrawals so long as there is at all times, until the funding by MLF of MLF’s standby purchase obligation, $100 million of Readily Marketable Securities (net of margin borrowings) or cash in the Designated Account.

  
 If you are in agreement with the foregoing, then pursuant to
Section 5(f), MLF will designate the Designated Account accordingly and provide you with a copy of a recent statement from UBS for the Designated Account. 
  

 
 Very truly yours, 
  
  
 /s/ Steve Wolosky 
  
 Steve Wolosky 
  

	cc:	Matthew Feshbach 

  
 Richard M. Graf, Esq.
11265.

#### Newsome *v.*The State.

Luke, J.

1. No question is presented for decision by a ground of motion for a new trial in the following language: “ Because the court overruled defendant’s motion for continuance, which was first made on Aug. 20th, and renewed and heard and overruled on Aug. 21st, 1919, which was the day said case was tried.” Such a ground of a motion for a new tidal is incomplete, in that it fails to disclose the ground of the application for continuance, and, further, in that it fails to set out or refer to an exhibit setting out the evidence considered by the *192presiding judge in passing upon the application. Park’s Penal Code, § 986; *Delk*v. *State,*99 *Ga.*667 (4) (26 S. E. 752).

Decided April 13, 1920.

Indictment for sale of liquor; from Glascock superior court — Judge Walker. December 12, 1919.

*J. C.*Newsome, for plaintiff in error.

*R. C. Norman, solicitor-general,*contra.

2. A ground of a motion for a new trial that is not approved by tlio trial judge and which he expressly declines to approve will not be considered by this court. See Park’s Penal Code, § § 1090, 1090 (a), and annotations under catchword “Approval” (p. 761).

3. Where a ground of a motion for a new trial is based either in whole or in part upon facts not otherwise shown by the record, and which did not transpire in open court or within the immediate knowledge of the presiding judge, unless they are made to appear by supporting affidavits annexed to the motion, it is proper for the judge to decline to approve the ground or certify to the truth of such recitals of facts.

4. “The affidavits of jurors may be taken to sustain, but not to impeach their verdict.” Civil Code (1910), § 5933.

5. The court charged: “All the law requires is moral and reasonable certainty. So in this case, if you are satisfied to a moral and reasonable certainty, and that beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be your duty to find the defendant guilty.” Such a charge is not subject to the criticism that it applies to a criminal case the degree of proof applicable only to a civil case. Considered in connection with the entire charge, it was not error for any reason assigned. See Park’s Penal Code, § 1012, and annotations.

6. Complaint is made of the following charge: “When I say ‘ a reasonable doubt’ I do not mean some mere vague conjecture or possibility, conjured up in the mind of the jury for acquitting the defendant, but such a doubt as arises in the mind of an Honest juror seeking the truth, and leaves it wavering and doubtful as to the truth of the transaction. It may arise from having heard the ease, tlio want, weakness, or insufficiency of the evidence.” *Held:*The charge was free from error. *Peterson*v. *State,*47 *Ga.*525 (5) ; *Coob*v. State, 11 *Ga. App.*52 (1) (74 S. E. 702) ; *Dumas*v. *State,*63 *Ga.*501 (8) ; *Fletcher*v. *State,*90 *Ga.*468 (2) (17 S. E. 100).

7. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in denying the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Domestic                                               Incorporated
--------                                               ------------

Nashua International, Inc. (1)                         Delaware
Nashua Photo Inc. (1)                                  Delaware
Nashua P.R., Inc. (1)                                  Delaware
Rittenhouse, L.L.C. (1)                                Illinois


Foreign                                                Incorporated
-------                                                ------------

Nashua FSC Limited (1)                                 Jamaica
Nashua Photo B.V. (2)(3)                               Netherlands
Nashua Imaging Supplies (UK) Limited (2)(3)            England


------------------------
(1)  All outstanding capital stock held by Nashua Corporation.
(2)  All outstanding capital stock held by Nashua Photo Inc.
(3)  In liquidation.




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

NOTE:    Nashua Corporation holds certificates representing 15% of Multitek,
         S.A. de C.V. (Mexico).
         Nashua Corporation owns a 37% interest in Cerion Technologies
         Liquidating Trust.
         Nashua Corporation owns a 45% interest in Labelnet, S.A. de C.V.
         (Mexico).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1511 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1511

 To amend section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to render 
   available to certain long-term residents of the United States the 
                      benefit under that section.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2023

  Ms. Lofgren (for herself, Mrs. Torres of California, Ms. Meng, Mr. 
   Correa, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Cardenas, Ms. 
Norton, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Garcia of Texas, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Panetta, 
Mr. Gomez, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Sanchez, 
Ms. Ross, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Payne, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Lieu, Ms. Bush, Mr. 
Vargas, Ms. Lee of California, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Salinas, Ms. Clarke 
 of New York, Ms. Omar, Mr. Soto, Ms. Jacobs, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Wilson 
  of Florida, Mr. Trone, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. McGovern, Ms. 
 Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. Chu, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. 
Scanlon, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mrs. Ramirez, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Ms. DeGette, 
Mr. Robert Garcia of California, Ms. Tokuda, and Mr. Casar) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to render 
   available to certain long-term residents of the United States the 
                      benefit under that section.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Renewing Immigration Provisions of 
the Immigration Act of 1929''.

SEC. 2. REGISTRY.

    (a) In General.--Section 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1259) is amended--
            (1) in the section header, by striking ``entered the united 
        states prior to july 1, 1924 or january 1, 1972''; and 
        inserting ``are long-term residents of the united states''; and
            (2) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
    ``(a) entered the United States at least 7 years before the 
application date;''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,786
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  237,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    285,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,898,621
<PP&E>                                       1,174,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                 373,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,699,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,090,701
<BONDS>                                        662,702
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,647,004
<COMMON>                                     1,150,685
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,851,640)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,699,452
<SALES>                                      2,740,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,740,821
<CGS>                                        3,619,801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,619,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,739,392
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             294,198
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,912,570)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,912,570)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,912,570)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.49)


</TABLE>
#### Heffren *v.*Lorey.

APPEAL from the Washington Common Pleas.

*H. Heffren, T L. Collins,*and *A. B. Collins,*for appellant.

*J. F. Crowe*and A. *B. Voyles,*for appellee.

Buskirk, C. J.

This case is,-in all of its legal aspects, the same as the case of *Heffren*v. *Jayne, ante,*p. 463, and is decided the same as that case.

The judgment is affirmed as to the judgment; for the money, but is reversed as to the order suspending the appellant from practising as an attorney at law; and the cause is remanded, with instructions to the court below to set aside the order and judgment of suspension, and to restore the appellant to his rights and privileges as an attorney at law in said court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         162,688
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,315,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,315,882
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               555,016
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,329,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             507,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (8,271,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              9,182,017 
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   910,558
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    33.90
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA A. DUMAS, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * Civil Action 09-00789-WS-B

 *

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, *

Commissioner of * 

Social Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

and DECREED that this action is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to

sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of this Court.

DONE this the 6th day of April, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00789-WS-B Document 14 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WAYNE EUGENE ALEXANDER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA JUSTICE

No. 97-7407

COMMITTEE; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.

(CA-96-3378-3-22-BC)

Submitted: May 19, 1998

Decided: February 18, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Wayne Eugene Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,

Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Eugene Alexander appeals the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). In a separate order, the court also granted a certificate

of probable cause to appeal as to one issue--claim (2) below--and

denied it as to all other issues. We construe this order as a grant of

a certificate of appealability and affirm as to the certified issue. As to

the remaining issues, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss.

Alexander's petition alleges that his attorney was constitutionally

deficient in three respects: (1) he failed to object to the trial court's

instruction on malice; (2) he failed to object to the trial court's Allen*

charge; and (3) he failed to object to errors committed by the trial

judge, thereby waiving appellate review. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

We therefore affirm the court's order denying § 2254 relief on

claim (2), and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to

claims (1) and (3) on the reasoning of the district court. Alexander v.

South Carolina Justice Committee, No. CA-96-3378-3-22-BC (D.S.C.

Aug. 29, 1997). We 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

_________________________________________________________________

*Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).

 2
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CertificationofChief Financial Officerof Granite Broadcasting Corporation**

 

Thiscertification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) forthe quarter ended March 31, 2003 of Granite Broadcasting Corporation (the“Issuer”).

 

I,Ellen McClain, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify that to the bestof my knowledge:

 

(i)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(ii)the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

 
| Dated:   May 5, 2003 |               |
|---------------------------|--------------------|
|                      | /s/ ELLEN  MCCLAIN |
|                      | Name:              | Ellen McClain |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENTREQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ISSUER AND WILL BE RETAINED BYTHE ISSUER AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFFUPON REQUEST.

 

32

----
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




FISCAL 2006 SUMMARY OF NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




Effective as of the first day of fiscal 2006 (July 1, 2005), the annual retainer
to be paid to each member of the board of directors that is not otherwise employed by
Collegiate Pacific Inc. in any capacity shall be $15,000 plus $500 for each meeting
attended. Further, effective as of the first day of fiscal 2006, the Chairman of the Audit
Committee shall receive an annual retainer of $4,000 and the Chairman of each of the
Compensation Committee and the Nominating Committee shall each receive an annual retainer
of $2,000.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29183]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies 
will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, December 17, in Multi-Purpose 
Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., 
Washington, DC.
    The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the 
public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will 
open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The 
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.
    On December 3, 2014 the Commission published notice of the 
Committee meeting (Release No. 33-9683), indicating that the meeting is 
open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments 
to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a 
majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and 
regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal 
securities laws.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: December 8, 2014.
 Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29183 Filed 12-9-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4782 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4782

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 120 East Illinois Avenue in Vinita, Oklahoma, as the ``Francis C. 
                   Goodpaster Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2004

    Mr. Carson of Oklahoma introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 120 East Illinois Avenue in Vinita, Oklahoma, as the ``Francis C. 
                   Goodpaster Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FRANCIS C. GOODPASTER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 120 East Illinois Avenue in Vinita, Oklahoma, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Francis C. Goodpaster Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Francis C. 
Goodpaster Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```