alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.15**

 

**FIFTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

This Fifth Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”), dated as of the 15th day of January, 2004 by and between COMFORCE Corporation (“COMFORCE”) a Delaware corporation, and COMFORCEOperating, Inc. (“COI”), a Delaware corporation that is wholly-owned by COMFORCE (COMFORCE and COI are collectively referred to as the “Employer”), and Harry V. Maccarrone, a resident of the State of New York(“Employee”).****

 

WHEREAS, the parties enteredinto an Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 1999, which Employment Agreement was previously amended as of January 23, 2001, September 27, 2001, July 1, 2002 and August 1, 2003, pursuant to which Employer formalized the terms upon whichEmployee is to be employed by Employer through December 31, 2005 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”); and 

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Employment Agreement as herein provided. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual obligations of the parties contained herein, and for othervaluable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

1. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by changing the “Initial Termination Date” to December 31, 2006. 

 

2. The second sentence of Section 4(a)(ii) of the Employment Agreement ishereby amended by adding the following additional proviso at the end thereof: “; and, provided further, that, notwithstanding the foregoing, no such increase shall be made to Employee’s Base Salary for the 2004 calendar year until April 1,2004, at which time Employee’s Base Salary shall be increased by 8.0%.” 

 

3. The last sentence of Section 4(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and the following sentence is added: “The amount, if any, by which $15,000 exceeds the total amount of such reimbursements fordocumented expenses in any calendar year (commencing in 2004) shall be paid to Employee as a non-accountable expense allowance.” 

 

4. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above mentioned. 

 

COMFORCE CORPORATION 

 

By:                                                                                                

Its:

 

COMFORCE OPERATING, INC. 

 

By:                                                                                                

Its:

 

EMPLOYEE 

                                                                                                       

Harry V. Maccarrone
M A N D A T E

TO THE 138TH DISTRICT COURT of CAMERON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 9th day of April,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

ABRAHAM PARRA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00490-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 2012-DCR-2912- B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by this

Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 10th day of December, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              10
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      735
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         20
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,134
<PP&E>                                           4,779
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,396
<BONDS>                                          1,379
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        499
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,326
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,040
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    174
<INCOME-TAX>                                        55
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       119
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the consolidated financial statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
<F2>Not applicable because the Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of El Paso 
Natural Gas Company. 
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<CASH>                            1,903
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    32,429
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,930
<INVENTORY>                      55,989
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 93,258
<PP&E>                           62,065
<DEPRECIATION>                   19,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  197,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            50,252
<BONDS>                          94,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                       3,878
<COMMON>                          2,444
<OTHER-SE>                       38,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    197,411
<SALES>                         176,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                176,761
<CGS>                           157,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   157,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 11,222
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                7,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     430
<INCOME-TAX>                        155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 275
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                        275
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (1.10)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13680]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, June 22, 2009, 8 a.m. to June 
23, 2009, 6 p.m., Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, 
MD, 20814 which was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 
2009, 74 FR 6014571.
    This notice is amended to change this meeting from a two day to a 
one day meeting ending June 22, 2009 at 6 p.m. The meeting is closed to 
the public.

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-13680 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

SABRINA L. SPETZ

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 1714 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 31 DB 2011

Attorney Registration No. 90506

(Allegheny County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2020, the Petition for Reinstatement is 

denied. Petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the 

investigation and processing of the petition. See Pa.R.D.E. 218(f).
Pg. 1 of 1 

November 7, 2008 

Bulletin No. 2008-4 

Subject: Compliance with Technical Standards section 547.14(f)(4), scaling 

algorithms and scaled numbers for electronic random number generators. 

On October 10, 2008, the National Indian Gaming Commission published final 

“Technical Standards for Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids Used in the 

Play of Class II Games.” (Technical Standards). This bulletin supplements the NIGC’s 

previous Technical Standards guidance document, bulletin no. 2008-3, “Compliance 

guidance for new technical standards, 25 C.F.R. part 547” (November 3, 2008). 

 An inadvertent error, not captured and corrected during the notice and comment 

period for the Technical Standards, has been brought to the NIGC’s attention. 

 Electronic random number generators (RNGs) must meet the requirements of section 

547.14. The use of scaling algorithms and scaled numbers must meet the requirements of 

section 547.14(f). Paragraph 547.14(f)(4) requires that scaling algorithms be unbiased, 

defined to mean a measured bias no greater than 1 in 100 million. However, many, if not 

most, industry-standard bingo RNGs are 32-bit RNGs – they produce a universe of 232

results. Using the most common scaling algorithm to scale those results down so that the 

RNG draws numbers from 1 to 75 produces a measured bias of 1 in 57,266,230, a bias 

greater than 1 in 100,000,000. In short, as it is written now, most industry-standard bingo 

RNGs will not be compliant with 547.14(f)(4). As a Class II gaming system must be 

compliant with all of section 547.14 in order to be grandfathered, 25 CFR 547.4(a)(2), 

systems using 32-bit RNGs for bingo will not be eligible for grandfather status absent a 

software change. 

 This was not the NIGC’s intent. A requirement of a bias no greater than 1 in 100 

million is unnecessarily stringent. The Technical Standards were not meant to exclude 

industry-standard 32-bit RNGs scaled to 75 numbers. The bias present in such RNGs is 

insignificantly small and does not affect the statistical randomness of the RNGs or the 

fairness of games played using them. Therefore, NIGC will shortly publish a change to 

the Technical Standards amending 547.14(f)(4) to read: “Use an unbiased algorithm. A 

scaling algorithm is considered to be unbiased if the measured bias is no greater than 1 in 

50 million.” 

 Until such amendment becomes effective, NIGC will regard a gaming system using a 

32-bit RNG scaled to 75 numbers as eligible for grandfather status, provided that the 

RNG meets all of the other requirements of 547.14 and the system meets the 

requirements of all of the other sections specified in 547.4(a)(2).
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of COMFORCE Corporation for the year ended December 25, 2005 as to which this Certification is
an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.

Signed March 20, 2006.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Harry V. Maccarrone                             
|Harry V. Maccarrone,                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



E-9
#### In the Matter of DeAndre David Williams, Petitioner, v Office of Westchester County Clerk, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d *1014712]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the Office of Westchester County Clerk to provide the petitioner with certain documents and for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee is waived, and that branch of the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction *(see*CPLR 7804 [b]; CPLR 506 [b]) to entertain this proceeding. Crane, J.P, Krausman, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - VI A (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, certify, 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:

         (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 result of the
               operations of the Partnership.


        August 14, 2006                   /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
        ---------------                   --------------------
             Date                         Joseph M. Jayson,
                                          Individual General Partner and
                                          Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

      AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC. (Delaware)

            API Heat Transfer Inc. (New York)
                  API Schmidt-Bretten Beteiligungs GmbH (Germany)
                         API Schmidt-Bretten Verwaltung GmbH (Germany)
                         Schmidt-Bretten GmbH & Co. KG (Germany)
                               Schmidt-Bretten Nederland B.V. (Netherlands)

            API Motion Inc. (New York)
                  API Gettys Inc. (Wisconsin)
                  API Deltran (St. Kitts) Ltd.
                  API Harowe (St. Kitts) Ltd.
                  API Delevan Inc. (New York)
                  API Elmo AB (Sweden)
                  API Portescap (Switzerland)
                         API Portescap International (Switzerland)
                               API Portescap Deutschland GmbH (Germany)
                               API Portescap Scandinavia AB (Sweden)
                               API Portescap Polska Sp.zo.o (Poland)
                               API Portescap France SA (France)
                               API Portescap Japan Ltd. (Japan)
                               API Positran Limited (England)
                                    API Portescap (UK) Limited (England)

Note: API-FS Corporation, API of Canada Inc., American Precision Industries Inc.
      (UK) Ltd., API Development Corporation, and Portescap U.S. Inc. are
      omitted because in the aggregate they do not constitute a "significant
      subsidiary". Schmidt-Bretten GmbH & Co. KG is a partnership owned by API
      Schmidt-Bretten Beteiligungs GmbH (99.9%) and API Schmidt-Bretten
      Verwaltung GmbH (.1%).
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION 

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY 

 

The following are certain wholly-owned or majority-owned direct or indirect subsidiaries of Credence Systems Corporation as of December 31, 2005: 

 

Credence Capital Corporation, a California corporation; 

 

Credence Europa Limited, a private limited company in the United Kingdom; 

 

Credence Systems (UK) Limited, a privately limited company in the United Kingdom; 

 

Credence International Limited, Inc., a Delaware corporation; 

 

Credence Systems KK, a Japanese company; 

 

Credence Korea Ltd., a South Korea company; 

 

Credence Systems GmbH, a German corporation; 

 

NPTest International Ltd., a British Virgin Islands limited company;

 

Credence Systems (Philippines) Inc., a Philippinescorporation; 

 

NPTest (Philippines) Inc., a Philippinescorporation; 

 

Credence Systems Pte Ltd., a Singapore limitedcompany; 

 

Credence Systems(Malaysia) Sdn BhD, a Malaysianlimited company; 

 

NPTest UK Ltd., a United Kingdom limitedcompany; 

 

Credence Italia SRL, an Italian company; and

 

Credence France SAS, a French company.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00228-CR

TIAJAH TERRON TURNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1736166)

May 16, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENPING ZHU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73631

Agency No. A095-445-303

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Wenping Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

JUL 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73631

substantial evidence factual findings. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination

because the inconsistencies regarding the timing and length of Zhu’s detention go

to the heart of his claim. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.

2005) (concluding the discrepancies were significant because they involved one of

the few interactions between the petitioner and the police). In the absence of

credible evidence, Zhu has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding. 

See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Zhu does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. See MartinezSerrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically

argued are deemed waived).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Zhu’s claim that the IJ demonstrated bias

because this issue was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358

F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
## FILED August 25, 199

9 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

NATIONSBANK OF TENNESSEE, ) HAMILTON CHANCERY ) (No. 73919) Plaintiff/Apella

nt )

) v. ) NO. 03A01-9808-C H-00279 ) FORMPAK, IN

C. and ) HON. HOWELL N. PEOPLES RON CAMPBELL, ) CHANCELLOR ) Defendants/Appellees )
O R D E R The Opinion in this ca

se filed on June 25, 1999 is hereby wit hdrawn. IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTER:

__________________________________ _ William H.

Inman, Senio

r Judge

__________________________________ _ Herschel P. Fr

anks, Judge

__________________________________ _ Charles D. Susa

no, Jr., Judge
Exhibit
4.3


 


Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


 


We
have issued our report dated August 11, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 596 contained in Amendment
No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-265896) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm”.


 


	 	/s/
    Grant Thornton LLP


 


Chicago,
Illinois 


August
11, 2022
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Auditors

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-07135, No.333-89029, No. 333-28991, No. 333-70616, No. 333-70618 and No. 333- 101256)pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1996 Stock Option Plan,401(k) Salary Reduction Plan and Trust and the 2001 Stock Option Plan ofRibozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3No. 333-66092 and No. 333-75976) of Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of ourreport dated February 21, 2003, except for Note 13, as to which the date isMarch 7, 2003, with respect to the financial statements of RibozymePharmaceuticals, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 31, 2002.

 

 
|              | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|-------------------|---------------------------|
|              |                      |
| Denver,  Colorado |
| March 28,  2003   |

 

 

----