alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.60

                         Transworld HealthCare, Inc.
                              75 Terminal Avenue
                            Clark, New Jersey 07066



                                                           June 12, 1997

Health Management, Inc
1371-A Abbott court
Buffalo Grove, Illinois 60089

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      Reference is made to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
November 13, 1996, as amended by letter agreements, dated November 27, 1996,
December 12, 1996, December 23, 1996, January 10, 1997, January 13, 1997 and
March 26, 1997, among Transworld HealthCare, Inc. ("Transworld"), IMH
Acquisition Corp. ("Newco"), and Health Management, Inc. (as amended, the
"Merger Agreement").

      The parties hereto agrees as follows:

      1. Section 8.1(a)(iv) of the Merger Agreement is hereby amended by
changing the date "June 30, 1997" to "July 31, 1997."

      2. Section 8.1(c) of the Merger Agreement is hereby amended by changing
the date "June 30, 1997" to "July 31, 1997."

      Except to the extent amended hereby, the Merger Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect and nothing herein shall affect, of be deemed to be a
waiver of, the other terms and provisions of the Merger Agreement.

      The effectiveness of this amendment shall subject, at the option of
Transwrold and Newco, to the receipt by Transworld of the written consent to
this amendment by the lenders (the "Banks") party to the Credit Agreement,
dated as of July 31, 1996, as amended, among Transworld, the Banks and Bankers
Trust Company, as agent. If the written consent of the Banks has not been
obtained on or prior to July 11, 1997, then at any time thereafter Transworld
may, in its sole discretion, terminate this amendment (in which case this
amendment shall be null and void ab initio).

<PAGE>

Health Management, Inc.
June 12, 1997
Page 2


      If this letter correctly sets forth our understanding with respect to
the foregoing matters, kindly execute and return the enclosed copy of this
letter to evidence our binding agreement.


                                            Very truly yours,

                                            TRANSWORLD HEALTHCARE, INC.

                                            BY /s/ Robert W. Fine
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Name:  Robert W. Fine
                                              Title: President


                                              IMH ACQUISITION CORP.

                                            BY /s/ Robert W. Fine
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Name:  Robert W. Fine
                                              Title: President

AGREED TO:

HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.

BY: /s/ Wm. James Nicol
   --------------------------
   Name:  Wm. James Nicol
   Title: President and Chief
          Executive Officer
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 720 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate unnecessary 

paperwork burdens on government and small businesses by reducing 

the number of excise tax returns filed by small taxpayers that pay 

the Federal excise tax on wines and beer. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. SMITH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate 

unnecessary paperwork burdens on government and small 

businesses by reducing the number of excise tax returns 

filed by small taxpayers that pay the Federal excise 

tax on wines and beer. 

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 ‘‘Paperwork Relief for 

5 Small Business Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 720 IS

1 SEC. 2. PAPERWORK REDUCTION FOR SMALL TAXPAYERS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 5061 of 

3 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to time for 

4 collecting tax on distilled spirits, wines, and beer) is 

5 amended by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as para6 graphs (5) and (6), respectively, and by inserting after 

7 paragraph (3) the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(4) TAXPAYERS LIABLE FOR TAXES OF NOT

9 MORE THAN $50,000.— 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

11 taxpayer who reasonably expects to be liable for 

12 not more than $50,000 in taxes imposed on 

13 wines and beer under subparts C and D for the 

14 calendar year and who was liable for not more 

15 than $50,000 in such taxes in the preceding 

16 calendar year, the last day for the payment of 

17 tax shall be the 14th day after the last day of 

18 the calendar quarter during which withdrawal 

19 occurs. 

20 ‘‘(B) NO APPLICATION AFTER LIMIT EX21 CEEDED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 

22 any taxpayer for any portion of the calendar 

23 year following the first date on which the aggre24 gate amount of tax due under subparts C and 

25 D from such taxpayer during such calendar 

26 year exceeds $50,000, and any tax under such 
3 

•S 720 IS

1 subparts which has not been paid on such date 

2 shall be due on the 14th day after the last day 

3 of the semimonthly period in which such date 

4 occurs. 

5 ‘‘(C) CALENDAR QUARTER.—For purposes 

6 of this paragraph, the term ‘calendar quarter’ 

7 means the three month period ending on March 

8 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the 

11 enactment of this Act. 

Æ
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

 

I, Francois Nader, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| Date: February 20, 2015 |                                                     |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                     |
|                         | /s/   Francois Nader                                     |
|                         | Francois   Nader *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
Amended Consulting Agreement



 Exhibit 10.39 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 To The 
 PalmSource Services Agreement No. US-6000021 
 Entered into with Satjiv Chahil 
 Dated 
 July 31, 2003 
  
 This Amendment 1 (“Amendment”) is made as of 9th day of July, 2004 to the PalmSource Service Agreement (“Agreement”) between Satjiv Chahil (“Contractor”) and PalmSource”) dated July 31, 2003 (“Effective Date”). The terms as listed below
shall be the only terms amended, all other terms shall remain as define in the Agreement. 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties do not wish to negotiate a new contract at this time but do wish to continue their business relationship based on the terms and conditions of their original Agreement as modified herein.

  

	 	1.	Section 12.1 entitled Term: Termination shall be amended to read as follows: 

  

	 	    	“The term of this Agreement shall commence on signature of this Agreement and shall terminate on July 31, 2005.” 

  
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree to be bound by the terms of their original Agreement, except
as hereby amended. 
  

									
	 PalmSource
	 	 	 	 Contractor

					
	Signature:	 	 /s/ DAVID NAGEL
	 	 	 	Signature:	 	 /s/ SATJIV S. CHAHIL



									
					
	Printed Name:	 	 David C. Nagel
	 	 	 	Printed Name:	 	 Satjiv S. Chahil



									
					
	Title:	 	 CEO
	 	 	 	Title:	 	 CEO – CHAHIL.COM



									
					
	Date:	 	 8/2/04
	 	 	 	Date:	 	7/20/04
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 30128 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Jerod Fedison,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10

- CR

- 147

- 1

Before **Smith, Dennis,**  and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Jerod Fedison has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Fedison has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 26, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-30128 Document: 00516523542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2022No. 22

- 30128

2 relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and
the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 22-30128 Document: 00516523542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2022
II 

Calendar No. 19 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 74 

[Report No. 109–8] 

To designate a portion of the White Salmon River as a component of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

FEBRUARY 23, 2005 

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of February 17, 2005, 

by Mr. DOMENICI, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate a portion of the White Salmon River as a 

component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

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 ‘‘Upper White Salmon 

5 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act’’. 
2

•S 74 RS

1 SEC. 2. UPPER WHITE SALMON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER. 

2 Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(lll) WHITE SALMON RIVER, WASH6 INGTON.—The 20 miles of river segments of the 

7 main stem of the White Salmon River and Cascade 

8 Creek, Washington, to be administered by the Sec9 retary of Agriculture in the following classifications: 

10 ‘‘(A) The approximately 1.6-mile segment 

11 of the main stem of the White Salmon River 

12 from the headwaters on Mount Adams in sec13 tion 17, township 8 north, range 10 east, down14 stream to the Mount Adams wilderness bound15 ary as a wild river. 

16 ‘‘(B) The approximately 5.1-mile segment 

17 of Cascade Creek from its headwaters on Mount 

18 Adams in section 10, township 8 north, range 

19 10 east, downstream to the Mount Adams Wil20 derness boundary as a wild river. 

21 ‘‘(C) The approximately 1.5-mile segment 

22 of Cascade Creek from the Mount Adams Wil23 derness boundary downstream to its confluence 

24 with the White Salmon River as a scenic river. 

25 ‘‘(D) The approximately 11.8-mile segment 

26 of the main stem of the White Salmon River 
3

•S 74 RS

1 from the Mount Adams Wilderness boundary 

2 downstream to the Gifford Pinchot National 

3 Forest boundary as a scenic river.’’. 

4 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

5 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

6 as are necessary to carry out this Act. 
Calendar No. 19 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 74 

[Report No. 109–8] 

A BILL

To designate a portion of the White Salmon River 

Rivers System. as a component of the National Wild and Scenic 

FEBRUARY 23, 2005 

Reported without amendment
#### In the Matter of Aurea Ortiz, Petitioner, v Gladys Carrién et al., Respondents.

[961 NYS2d 917]

Determination of respondent Office of Children and Family Services, which, after a fair hearing, affirmed the determination of respondent Administration for Children’s Services denying petitioner’s application for exceptional foster care benefits pursuant to 18 NYCRR 427.6 retroactive from June 29, 2008 to April 8, 2010, or for special foster care benefits pursuant to 18 NYCRR 427.6 retroactive from June 29, 2008 to April 23, 2009, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.], entered March 22, 2012) dismissed, without costs.

The determination to deny petitioner’s application is supported by substantial evidence *(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The record shows that petitioner failed to meet the requisite standards for the enhanced benefits for the relevant time periods *(see*18 NYCRR 427.6). Petitioner’s arguments, that the two fair hearings were conducted in a manner that denied her due process rights and in violation of the procedural requirements of 18 NYCRR 358-5.6 (b), were not raised at the administrative level or in Supreme Court, and thus, they are unpreserved for review by this Court *(see Matter of Khan v New York State Dept. of Health,*96 NY2d 879, 880 [2001]; *Green v New York City Police Dept.,*34 AD3d 262 [1st Dept 2006]).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Abdus-Salaam, Román and Clark, JJ.
#### Gregory J. Tarone, Appellant, v Madeleine K. Tarone, Respondent.

Decided October 22, 2009

Reported below, 2009 NY Slip Op 77173(U).

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT GREGORY FRANK TOTH, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-2984 ) STEPHANIE MILLER-TOTH, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed October 12, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; G. Keith Cary, Judge. Robert L. Donald of Law Office of Robert L. Donald, Fort Myers, for Appellant. Margaret H. White-Small of Margaret H. White-Small, Attorney at Law, Sanibel, and Stacy L. Sherman of Stacy L. Sherman, P.A., Cape Coral, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Toth appeals the judgment for fees and costs in his dissolution of marriage case. The fees and costs awards were premised on findings set forth in the parties' amended final judgment of dissolution. In Toth v. Miller, No. 2D15-3835, 2D16- 289, 2018 WL 4167598 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 31, 2018), this court reversed that judgment- 2 -

other than its provision dissolving the parties' marriage. Accordingly, we reverse the fees and costs judgment. See Nolan v. Nolan, 188 So. 3d 977, 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ("The reversal and remand of the equitable distribution portion of the final judgment necessitates reversal and remand of the alimony and attorney's fees portions of the final judgment as well.").

Reversed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Implementation Guide - PGA Message Set for Shipments Subject to NHTSA Regulations


Download file: Implementation Guide - PGA Message Set for Shipments Subject to NHTSA Regulations
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
Exhibit10.7D

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

ThisAmendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement, dated as of September 28, 2005("Amendment No.  2"), amends theEmployment Agreement, dated September 24, 2001, as amended by AmendmentNo.  1 dated as of November 17, 2004 (the"Employment Agreement"), between Sarah L.Eames (the "Executive") and Allied HealthcareInternational Inc., a New York corporation (the"Company").

WHEREAS, the Executive andthe Company desire to amend the Employment Agreement in the mannerhereinafter set forth;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto,intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

1.    Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in theEmployment Agreement:

(a)    EffectiveOctober  1, 2005, the Executive's base salary shall be atthe rate of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) per month, payable inaccordance with the Company's normal payroll practices.

(b)    The Term (as such term is defined in theEmployment Agreement) shall continue until December 31, 2006.

2.    Except as amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shallremain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned have executed this Amendment No. 2 as of the date set forthabove.

|  | ALLIED HEALTHCARE INTERNATIONAL INC. |
|--|--------------------------------------|

|  | By: /s/ C.F. Murphy Name: C.F. MurphyTitle: Chief Financial Officer |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

/s/ C.Fedder Witness

|  | /s/ Sarah LaddEames SARAH L EAMES |
|--|-----------------------------------|

                        Witness

----
#### The State (Lyman Hyde, Prosecutor), *vs.*the Mayor and Common Council of Newark.

The city of Newark have no authority under the act of the 29th of February, 1886, *Pamph. L.*1886, page 198, § 30, to lay out a street, longitudinally over the waters and towpath of the Morris canal; nor if they had the chartered power, could they do it without fii'st making compensation.

Argued before Justices Yredenburgh and Whelpley.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Vredenburgh, J.

This *eertiorari*is brought to review flie proceedings of the defendants and the assessments for damages and benefits in laying out Dock street, in the city of Newark.

It was laid out in 1856, and for a considerable part of its distance, longitudinally, over the waters and towpath of the Morris canal.

The canal was chartered in 1824, and for a long time before the ordinance in question had been located upon and used over the identical land covered by the street. The defendants claim the power to lay out this street under the act of the 29th of February, 1836, *Pamph. Laws*1836, page 198, § 30. which provides that it shall he lawful for *530the common council to lay out and open any street, road or highway in any part of said city. But this certainly did not give the defendants any power to lay or open one longitudinally over the Morris canal. The legislature could not be intended to give such a power by a general act, nor unless it had therein specifically and by name included the Morris canal. The canal was itself a highway, laid out and opened by authority of -the legislature long 'before this grant of power to the city authorities.

The power given to the city must necessarily refer to streets, roads, and highways other than those which then already existed, and only to the ordinary roads, streets and highways.

The city in this matter exceeded their authority, and their proceedings consequently are void.

Again, if the city had the chartered power to thus lay out this street, it could only be upon making compensation to the canal company. This they have not pretended to do. The prosecutors are assessed for benefits which they have never, and under these proceedings never can receive.

Let the assessment,as against the prosecutors,be set aside
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

STEFAN J. STAS AND LORETTA STAS,

Petitioners

v.

SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY BOARD OF 

ASSESSMENT APPEALS, MOUNTAIN 

VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LENOX 

TOWNSHIP,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 752 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.