alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **EXHIBIT 4.8** |
|-----------------|

 

June 28, 2005

 

Mr. Alain de Pouzilhac

 

Dear Alain,

 

You have delivered a letter to Euro RSCG New York, Inc. (formerly known as Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG Inc.) (“**Company**”) indicating your desire to resign as Vice Chairman of the Company for “Good Reason” as such term defined in Section 7 of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2002 between the Company and you.

 

The Company believes it is in its best interest for you to continue to provide services to the Company through December 31, 2005 and accordingly, desires to make the following offer to you. 

 

The Company hereby agrees to employ you for the period from July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 (the “**Employment Period**”). During the Employment, you will serve as a senior advisor to the Company performing, upon reasonable notice, such services for the Company, as may be requested by the Chief Executive Officer (“**CEO**”) or other officer of the Company as are generally commensurate with your position, years of experience and level of skill, *provided, however,*that you shall not be required to devote more than the equivalent of ten (10) full business days during any calendar quarter to the performance of such services. It is mutually understood and agreed that the services to be requested are contemplated to include advice andassistance on strategic and business development matters, maintaining and improving client, personnel and vendor relationships, public and investor relations, and, subject to agreement by you, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, such other like or similar services as may be requested from time to time. 

 

As full compensation for your employment as a senior advisor, and all services performed during the Employment Period, the Company shall pay you the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per month for a total amount of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00), less tax withholding and other deductions required by law, in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices. The sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) payable for your services will be deducted from the lump sum amount of one million eight hundred dollars ($1,800,000) to be paid to you by the Company within 30 days. 

 

Please indicate your acceptance of and agreement to the foregoing by signing in the space provided below.

 
| Sincerely, |
|------------|

 
| Euro RSCG New York, Inc. |
|--------------------------|

 
| BY: _________________________ |
|-------------------------------|

Accepted and Agreed

 

_____________________________

Alain de Pouzilhac

 

 

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 17, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131035 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, HARVEY GRACE, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 131035 COA: 257896 Oakland CC: 2002-045572-NM BRUCE LEITMA N and BRUCE LEITMAN, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 16, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applicati on or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address whether the proffered affidavit from plaintiff's expert witness was sufficient to create a genuin e issue of material fact, in light of the principles discussed in Simko v Blake , 448 Mich 648 (1995), and other applicable law. The parties ma y file supplemental briefs with in 35 days of the date of this order, but they should av oid submitting a mere restatemen t of the arguments made in their application papers.

d1114 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 17, 2006

Clerk
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>                                                               EXHIBIT 23(a)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<TABLE CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=7 WIDTH=734>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
<P ALIGN="RIGHT">EXHIBIT 23(b)</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>


<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><CENTER><TABLE CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=7 WIDTH=734>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
<P ALIGN="CENTER">CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</CENTER></P>


<P> </P>
<P>	We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491, 33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273 and Form S-3 Nos. 33-6001 and 333-60175)
pertaining to various stock option and employee savings plans of Wellman, Inc. of our report dated 27 January 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Wellman International Limited and Subsidiaries at 31 December 1999 and 1998 and
for each of the three years in the period ended 31 December 1999, included  in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Wellman, Inc.</P>

<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>KPMG</P>
<P>Chartered Accountants</P>
<P>Registered Auditors</P>

<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Dublin, Ireland</P>

<P>27 March 2000</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 KENNETH ORTHMAN, 7 Petitioner-Appellee, 8
v. NO. 31,260 9 KRISTI ORTHMAN, 10 Respondent-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF UNION COUNTY 12 John M. Paternoster, District Judge 13 Beck & Cooper 14 Robert O. Beck 15 Clayton, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Donald Schutte 18 Tucumcari, NM 19 for Appellant 20 Kamm & McConnell, LLC 21 Terrence R. Kamm 22 Raton, NM 23 Guardian Ad Litem 242 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 VANZI, Judge. 2 Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 3 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has 4 been filed, and in fact, Appellant has filed a Consent to Proposed Disposition. 5 Mandate shall issue forthwith. 6 DISMISSED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________________________ 9 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

_________________________________ 12 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 13

_________________________________ 14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 15
[No. 54808-5-I.

Division One.

November 14, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Chad Justin Conshafter, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-1-08875-3, Richard A. Jones, J., entered July 12, 2004. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
) Judge Stanley R. Chesler presiding

) Magistrate Madeline Cox Arleo SIXING LIU )

FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 10(b)WAIVER OF APEARANCE FOR ARRAIGNMENT ON SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

Defendant. Sixing Lu (“Defendant”), by and through his attorney, James F). Tunick, in

accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 10(b),re9uests that he waive his presence in

the United States District for the District of New Jersey for his scheduled arraignment on the

Second Superseding Indictment and in supports states as follows.

1, Sixing Liu, am the Defendant in this case, and I have been charged in the Second

Superseding Indictment with eleven (II) felony count. I have received a copy of the Second

Superseding Indictment and reviewed it in its endrety. I would like to waive my appearance in the

United States Disthct for the District of New Jersey for the arraignment on the Second Superseding

Indictment. I am pleading not guilty to all eleven counts alleged in the Second Superseding

Jndictment. I will also be available to plead not guilty before this 1-lonorable Court by way of

telephonic conference for the scheduled arraignment, currently set for Tuesday And 17. 2012 at 1:30

p.m.

C

‘

‘?_

Defe lant S Dated

e D. Tunick yfr.ftz I) e’. \ ncy tot Defendant Sucing Lw1

—
Honorable Stanley R. Chesler

United States District lodge

Lnited States District Court

For the District of\ew Jersey

Federal Square

Newark, NJ 0102

Re: United States v. Sixing fin Cnm. No. 11-208 (SRC)

Dear judge Chesler.

As you are probably aware, the United States Attorney’s has obtained a Second Superseding indictment against Defendant, Sixing Liu. There are eleven (11) counts in the Second Superseding indictment charged by the grand jury against Defendant. The only distinctions between the Superseding Indictment and the Second Superseding Indictment are that 1) there are two fewer allegations violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (‘ITAR”) 2) there is one more count alleged for alleged false statements to federal agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 and 3) the Second Superseding indictment alleges, for the first time, that Defendant possessed a stolen trade secret. Defendant has previously pleaded not guilty to the alleged ITAR violations and the false statement allegations contained in the Superseding Indictment.

Consistent with the provisions contained in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 10(b), Defendant is requesting a waiver of his appearance in the United States District Court for the District of New jersey. Defendant and 1 have signed a waiver acknowledging receipt of the Second Superseding Indictment and that it has been reviewed it in its entirety. In the waiver, Defendant pleads not guilty to all eleven counts. Defendant will be available to plead not guilty before Your J—lonor by way of telephonic conference for the scheduled arraignment, currently set for Tuesday Aril 17, 2012 at 1:30p.m. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Si.nce 2lN

lunick

Via electronic_1jjtirWcjk(nsdJt:

Via electronic mail to c; urbir, Grey sdov

1
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

To the Board of Directors ofSMTC Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-44250) on Form S-8, the registration statement (No.333-116986) on Form S-3, the registration statement (No. 333-86802) on Form S-3, and the registration statement (No. 333-115400) on Form S-1 of SMTC Corporation of our report dated March 29, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheetsof SMTC Corporation as of December 31, 2004 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity (deficiency) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2005, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of SMTC Corporation. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chartered Accountants 

Toronto, Canada 

March 31, 2006
# 16SUMA2_00

# image1.png
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 774

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit any operator of 

an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from 

imposing any fee on a consumer for the use of that machine, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit 

any operator of an automated teller machine that displays any paid advertising from imposing any fee on 

a consumer for the use of that machine, and for other 

purposes.

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 ‘‘Access to Money 

5 (ATM) Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 774 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USER FEES FOR AUTOMATED 

2 TELLER MACHINES THAT CARRY PAID AD3 VERTISING. 

4 The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 

5 1693 et seq.) is amended—

6 (1) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920, 

7 and 921 as sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respec8 tively; and 

9 (2) by inserting after section 917 the following 

10 new section: 

11 ‘‘SEC. 918. FEES. 

12 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If an automated teller machine 

13 or other cash dispensing machine at which a consumer 

14 may initiate an electronic fund transfer displays any ad15 vertising on the screen of such machine, whether in the 

16 form of a banner or a trailer or in any other format, for 

17 which the operator of such machine has received any pay18 ment or other financial benefit, no fee may be imposed 

19 on the consumer with respect to such transaction by the 

20 operator of such machine, whether or not the consumer 

21 maintains an account with the operator. 

22 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION FOR DIRECT ADVERTISING BY THE

23 OPERATOR AND PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.—

24 Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to—

25 ‘‘(1) advertising relating to products or services 

26 provided by the operator of an automated teller ma-
3

•HR 774 IH 

1 chine or cash dispensing machine referred to in such 

2 subsection or by any affiliate of such operator; or 

3 ‘‘(2) any public service announcement.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 10.22



 Exhibit 10.22 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment No. 1”) dated as of December 20, 2012 is made between ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC, a Delaware limited liability Company (the
“Company”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Asset Acceptance Capital corp., a Delaware corporation (“AACC”) and Reid E. Simpson (the “Executive”). 
 Recitals 
 1. Prior to the date hereof, the parties hereto entered
into that certain Employment Agreement, effective as of May 17, 2010 (the “Employment Agreement”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement. 

2. The Internal Revenue Service has issued guidance under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A that requires AACC and the Executive to
amend the release provision in the Employment Agreement. 
 3. Pursuant to Section 13 of the Employment Agreement, the
Executive and AACC agree to modify the Agreement as set forth below. 
 Agreement 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and subject to the terms and conditions contained herein and for other consideration
provided herein, the parties agree as follows: 
 8. SEVERANCE BENEFITS. The third sentence in Section 8(a) is hereby
amended and restated to read as follows: 
 As a condition of receiving the Severance Benefits, Executive agrees
to sign an effective legal release in substantially the form attached hereto as Schedule 2, provided that such form may be revised to reflect subsequent changes in the law or practices as may be deemed necessary and advisable by
counsel to the Company to provide for Executive’s waiver of any and all claims he has or may have against the Company, AACC and their agents, employees, directors, subsidiaries, attorneys, successors, assigns, and affiliates, as of the date of
his termination (the “Release”), including a statutory period during which Executive is entitled to revoke the Release, and Severance Benefits hereunder shall commence to be paid or made, as applicable, within 60 days following
Executive’s termination of employment; provided, however, that the revocation period 







 
has first expired and provided further, that if such 60-day revocation period begins in one taxable year of the Executive and ends in the second calendar year, the payments and benefits shall
commence to be paid or made in the second taxable year. 
 The undersigned parties do hereby execute this Amendment No.1 on
December 20, 2012, effective as of May 17, 2010. 
  

			
	ASSET ACCEPTANCE CAPITAL CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Rion B. Needs

	Its:	 	 President and Chief Executive Officer

	
	 /s/ Reid E. Simpson

	Reid E. Simpson, Executive



  
 2
# 17SNR10_00

# image1.png
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

35. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

[In thousands]

Category

Total Age Sex

2020 2021

16 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over Men Women

2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021

Total not in the labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,587 100,241 17,278 16,574 23,416 23,241 58,893 60,426 40,718 40,983 58,869 59,259

Do not want a job now1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,464 93,912 15,364 14,919 20,052 20,272 57,048 58,722 37,256 37,999 55,208 55,913

Want a job1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,123 6,329 1,914 1,656 3,363 2,969 1,846 1,704 3,462 2,984 3,661 3,346

Did not search for work in previous

year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,588 3,925 1,176 1,010 2,068 1,699 1,344 1,216 2,166 1,774 2,423 2,151

Searched for work in previous year,

but not in past 4 weeks2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,535 2,404 739 646 1,295 1,270 501 488 1,296 1,209 1,239 1,194

Not available to work now. . . . . . . . . . . . 572 622 193 206 299 329 80 87 241 253 331 369

Marginally attached (available to

work now)3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,962 1,782 545 440 996 941 421 401 1,055 956 907 826

Discouraged over job

prospects4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 510 136 104 301 279 137 127 343 312 231 198

Reasons other than

discouragement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,388 1,272 409 336 694 662 285 273 712 644 676 628

Family responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . 124 155 18 20 84 107 22 28 40 54 84 101

In school or training. . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 154 110 108 29 41 2 4 68 76 73 78

Ill health or disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 142 14 18 57 70 52 54 68 79 55 63

Other5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 820 267 190 524 444 209 187 536 435 464 385

1

Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job.

2 Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched since the end of that job.

3 Persons ′′marginally attached to the labor force′′ are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during

the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

4 Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work

available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.

5

Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as child-care and transportation problems, as well as a small number for which

reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
[No. 54418-7-I.

Division One.

October 17, 2005.]

#### Mark Adams, *Appellant,*v. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., *Respondent.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-2-36564-7, Jeffrey M. Ramsdell, J., entered May 7 and June 1, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J, concurred in by Baker, J.; Kennedy, J., indicated her concurrence prior to her death on September 16, 2005.
[No. 54290-7-I.

Division One.

October 17, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Justin Tyme Ward, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-1-02766-5, Richard McDermott, J., entered May 17, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2408

___________ Richard W. Caw, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 12, 2000 Filed: January 20, 2000

___________ Before HANSEN, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. RichardW. Caw appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Caw supplemental security income benefits. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that no error of law or fact appears. We are also satisfied this case presents no novel issues to justify an extended opinion. We find substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the decision of the Commissioner, and Caw is not disabled for social security purposes. We thus affirm-2-

onthe basis of the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In the Matter of Joseph B., Appellant. Monroe County Attorney, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 871]

Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its broad discretion in this juvenile delinquency proceeding by placing respondent in a limited secure facility, “the least restrictive available alternative . . . which is consistent with the needs and best interests of the respondent and the need for protection of the community” (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]; *see Matter of Brendon H.,*43 AD3d 1283 [2007]). The record of the dispositional hearing establishes that respondent is in need of drug treatment, psychological counseling, special educational services and a structured environment, and the court properly determined that those needs can be addressed most effectively in a limited secure facility *(see Matter of Vidal*W., 267 AD2d 1104 [1999]; *Matter of Willie J.H.,*258 AD2d 938 [1999]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| (1)      | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and    |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |
| (2)      | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|                    |

|                 | MEDPRO SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC. |
|----------------------|------------------------------|
|                 |
|                 |
| Dated: June 24, 2009 | By:                          | /s/Marc T. Ray |
|                 |                         |  |
|                 |                         | Marc T. Ray |
|                 |                         |  Chief Financial Officer |

26

----