alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
a50590453ex10_25a.htm


Exhibit 10.25a












January 21, 2013







George Wehlitz


via hand delivery







George,







Thank you for assuming the role of Interim Chief Financial Officer.  You will report to me in this role.  This will confirm your pay, bonus, and other changes effective, January 21, 2013.







Compensation.  Your bi-weekly pay rate will be $13,076.93, which annualizes to $340,000.00.







Bonus Plan.  Your Hot Topic Annual Bonus target will remain at thirty-five (35%) of your annualized base salary. The actual amount of the bonus awarded will be based upon the Hot Topic, Inc. achieving its Operating Income goal, as well as you achieving performance that is meeting expectations or higher.  In order to receive any bonus payout you must be actively employed on the date that bonuses are distributed.







Stock Option Grant.  Effective on your first day of in this new role (January 21, 2013) and upon formal Board of Directors’ approval, you will be granted an option of 50,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Option”) under the Company’s stock option plan subject to vesting over four (4) years with twenty-five percent (25%) of the shares subject to the Option vesting on the first anniversary of the grant date. The remaining shares will vest in equal quarterly installments over the remainder of the vesting period. The exercise price per share under the Option shall be equal to the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date the Option is granted.







Salary Review.  You will be eligible for your next salary review and consideration for a merit increase on or about April 1, 2014.







All other compensation and benefit programs remain the same. As you know, the Company reserves the right to adjust these programs at its discretion.







I look forward to working together in this new role.







Best,












/s/ Lisa Harper                                           


Lisa Harper


Chief Executive Officer
##### 



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
ADVANTA BANK CORP.
ADVANTA BUSINESS CARD MASTER TRUST
   1.
    
    The Bank is the Servicer as of the date hereof.2.
    
    The undersigned is an Authorized Officer who is duly authorized as required pursuant to
the Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate.3.
    
    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the twelve-month period ended
December 31, 2006, and of its performance under the Agreement throughout such twelve-month
period was conducted under my supervision.4.
    
    Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all
material respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such twelve-month period
and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except
as set forth in paragraph 5 below.5.
    
    The following is a description of each default in the performance of the Servicers
obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known to me to have been made by the
Servicer during such twelve-month period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each
such default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each such default
and (iii) the current status of each such default:
   ADVANTA BANK CORP.,
as ServicerBy:
    /s/ John MooreName:
    John MooreTitle:
    President
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 14, 2020

No. 04

- 18

- 00616

- CR

Romeo ADAMS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR9532

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant filed a pro se motion for rehearing on December 30, 2019. The motion is

denied.

______ ___________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 14th day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### SMITH v. CROWN PUBLISHERS, Inc., et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 8, 1953.

Richard H. Weis, New York City, for plaintiff.

Townley, Updike & Carter, New York City, for defendant Crown Publishers, Inc.

Fishbach & Crowe, New York City, for defendants Lait and Mortimer.

NOONAN, District Judge.

This is a motion by the plaintiff in a libel action for an order pursuant to Rule 30(b) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., limiting the scope of the deposition of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleges that many of the questions asked the said plaintiff in the course of the deposition infringe upon the plaintiff’s constitutional immunity; in addition, the plaintiff alleges that much of the information sought would be inadmissible in court. In short, invoking the aforementioned rules, the plaintiff alleges that the questioning is being carried on in bad faith, and that the purpose is to annoy, embarrass, and oppress her. Examples of questions alleged to illustrate this harassment are contained in the plaintiff’s supporting affidavits.

Because of the nature of the action, the defendant being at least permitted to show the truth of matters known to the plaintiff, the court must allow greater latitude than it would ordinarily feel called upon to permit. While some of the questions seem harassing in nature, the court has not been called upon to decide this issue as to any specific questions that have been asked.

The question of privilege with regard to the immunity of a Senator as provided for in Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution of the United States, is most difficult of application in this case because of the position of the parties. The vast majority of the authorities, American and English, as well as the recent discussion in the House of Representatives (Congressional Record 3/26/53 pages 2444— 2446) discuss the matter in terms of using the privilege as a defense to an action rather than as an aid to the prosecution of one.

As a matter of general principle, it is most difficult for the court to rule on the question of privilege in the abstract. The normal procedure, and, the court feels, the proper one to be followed in this case, is for the examination to pro*515ceed, the plaintiff to refuse • to answer those questions for which refusals she asserts privilege, and then for the matter to be submitted to a court for ruling on the specific questions disputed.

The court will rule at this time only that the plaintiff’s voting record in the House and Senate, and the reasons therefor, are clearly matters of privilege (discussion of legislative privilege in Tenney v. Brandhove, 1951, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019).

Motion denied, without prejudice to the plaintiff. Settle order.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

COUNSELLORS AT LAW

_____________

CHARLES C. CARELLA

BRENDAN T. BYRNE

PETER G. STEWART

ELLIOT M. OLSTEIN

ARTHUR T. VANDERBILT, II

JAN ALAN BRODY

JOHN M. AGNELLO

CHARLES M. CARELLA

JAMES E. CECCHI

JAMES D. CECCHI (1933-1995)

JOHN G. GILFILLAN III (1936-2008)

JAMES T. BYERS

DONALD F. MICELI

A. RICHARD ROSS

KENNETH L. WINTERS

JEFFREY A. COOPER

CARL R. WOODWARD, III

MELISSA E. FLAX

DENNIS F. GLEASON

DAVID G. GILFILLAN

G. GLENNON TROUBLEFIELD

BRIAN H. FENLON

KHOREN BANDAZIAN

LINDSEY H. TAYLOR

5 BECKER FARM ROAD

ROSELAND, N.J. 07068-1739

PHONE (973) 994-1700

FAX (973) 994-1744

www.carellabyrne.com

RICHARD K. MATANLE, II

FRANCIS C. HAND

AVRAM S. EULE

RAYMOND W. FISHER

______

OF COUNSEL

RAYMOND J. LILLIE

WILLIAM SQUIRE

ALAN J. GRANT

MARC D. MICELI

RAYMOND E. STAUFFER

STEPHEN R. DANEK

ERIC MAGNELLI

DONALD A. ECKLUND

VINCENZO M. MOGAVERO

AUDRA E. PETROLLE

MEMBER N.Y. BAR ONLY

September 9, 2011

VIA ECF

Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh

United States District Judge

United States Post Office and Courthouse Building

Newark, New Jersey 07101-0999

Re: In re: Medco/Express Scripts Merger Litigation

Civil Action No. 11-4211 (DMC)

Dear Judge Cavanaugh:

This firm, along with Grant & Eisenhofer and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann

LLP, are co-lead counsel in the above captioned consolidated actions. We wish to advise the

Court that Defendants have consented to Plaintiffs’ filing their reply papers in further support of

class certification on Tuesday, September 13. Under the Local Rules, our papers would

ordinarily be due on Monday, September 12. However, due to the Labor Day holiday,

Defendants’ opposition papers were filed on Tuesday, September 6. The agreed extension gives

Plaintiffs the seven days to file reply papers otherwise allowed under Local Rules.

Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. If the Court has any questions, we

are available that the Court’s convenience.

Respectfully submitted,

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO

/s/ Lindsey H. Taylor

LINDSEY H. TAYLOR

cc: All Counsel (via ECF)

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 50 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 2519
No. • — .

#### United States et al. *v.*New York et al.

June 10, 1946.

The motion to vacate injunction pending appeal is denied.
[No. 55468-9-I.

Division One.

November 21, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Kristopher Larsen, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-1-10322-0, William L. Downing, J., entered December 3, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### James Helms, Appellant, v Regal Cinemas, Inc., Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 882]

*1288Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell on water-saturated carpeting in the lobby of defendant’s movie theater. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was a snowstorm in progress at the time of plaintiffs fall. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion *(see Schuster v Dukarm,*38 AD3d 1358 [2007]). In support of the motion, defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of plaintiff in which he testified that it had been snowing “most of the day,” and that there was “[p]robably a foot of snow on the ground” when he entered defendant’s movie theater. He did not, however, expressly state that it was snowing at the time he entered the movie theater, and thus it cannot be said that defendant established as a matter of law, based on that deposition testimony, that there was a storm in progress. In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden, we conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted the deposition testimony of his wife, who was with him at the movie theater. According to her deposition testimony, it was not snowing at the time of her husband’s fall, and she estimated that one inch of snow had accumulated throughout the day. In addition, plaintiff submitted a certified record of the National Climatic Data Center showing that there was only a trace of snowfall in the area in question that day. We thus conclude on the record before us that there is an issue of fact whether there was a snowstorm in progress when plaintiff entered the movie theater “and, if not, whether a reasonable period of time had elapsed after the cessation of the storm to impose a duty on defendant [to clean the lobby]” *(Williams v Scruggs Community Health Care Ctr.,*255 AD2d 982, 983 [1998]; *see Boarman v Siegel, Kelleher & Kahn,*41 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2007]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 236

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that United States 

air carriers should establish for all members of the Armed Forces on 

active duty reduced air fares that are comparable to the lowest airfare 

for ticketed flights, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2003

Mr. HONDA (for himself and Mrs. TAUSCHER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

United States air carriers should establish for all members of the Armed Forces on active duty reduced air 

fares that are comparable to the lowest airfare for 

ticketed flights, and for other purposes.

Whereas the Armed Forces is comprised of approximately 

1,400,000 members who are stationed on active duty at 

more than 6,000 military bases in 146 different countries; 

Whereas the United States is indebted to the members of the 

Armed Forces, many of whom are in grave danger due 

to their engagement in, or exposure to, combat; 
2

•HRES 236 IH 

Whereas military service, especially in the current war 

against terrorism, often requires members of the Armed 

Forces to be separated from their families on short notice, for long periods of time, and under very stressful 

conditions; 

Whereas the unique demands of military service often preclude members of the Armed Forces from purchasing discounted advance airline tickets in order to visit their 

loved ones at home; and 

Whereas it is the patriotic duty of the people of the United 

States to support the members of the Armed Forces who 

are defending the Nation’s interests around the world at 

great personal sacrifice: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that each United States air carrier should—

3 (1) establish for all members of the Armed 

4 Forces on active duty reduced air fares that are 

5 comparable to the lowest airfare for ticketed flights; 

6 and 

7 (2) offer flexible terms that allow members of 

8 the Armed Forces on active duty to purchase, mod9 ify, or cancel tickets without time restrictions, fees, 

10 and penalties.

Æ
**EXHIBIT32.2**

###### ** **

Alpha Pro Tech,Ltd.

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

 

18U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lloyd Hoffman, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| DATE:  | **August 6, 2009** | ** ** | BY:    | /s/ **Lloyd Hoffman** |                    |
|--------|-------------------------|------------|--------|-----------------------|-------------------------|
|   |                    |       |   |                  |                    |
|   |                    |       |   | Lloyd Hoffman         |                    |
|   |                    |       |   |                  | Chief Financial Officer |
|        |                         |            |        |                       |                         |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1







Certification

of

Wausau Paper Corp.

under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wausau Paper Corp. (the Company) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (1) Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



| |                       |  |                               
| | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------
| | Date:  August 5, 2009 |  |                               
| |                       |  |                               
| |                       |  | THOMAS J. HOWATT              
| |                       |  | Thomas J. Howatt              
| |                       |  | President and CEO             
| |                       |  |                               
| |                       |  |                               
| |                       |  | SCOTT P. DOESCHER             
| |                       |  | Scott P. Doescher             
| |                       |  | Senior Vice President, Finance
| |                       |  | (Chief Financial Officer)     





This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Wausau Paper Corp. for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
# laucnty16

&8Page &P of &N
##### 



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
ADVANTA BANK CORP.
ADVANTA BUSINESS CARD MASTER TRUST
   1.
    
    The Bank is the Servicer as of the date hereof.2.
    
    The undersigned is an Authorized Officer who is duly authorized as required pursuant to
the Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate.3.
    
    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the twelve-month period ended
December 31, 2007, and of its performance under the Agreement throughout such twelve-month
period was conducted under my supervision.4.
    
    Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all
material respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such twelve-month period
and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except
as set forth in paragraph 5 below.5.
    
    The following is a description of each default in the performance of the Servicers
obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known to me to have been made by the
Servicer during such twelve-month period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each
such default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each such default
and (iii) the current status of each such default:
   ADVANTA BANK CORP., 
as ServicerBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ John Moore

John MooreTitle:
    
    President
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 143 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 143

    Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 121) to enhance the 
    operation of the AMBER Alert communications network in order to 
 facilitate the recovery of abducted children, to provide for enhanced 
 notification on highways of alerts and information on such children, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2003

    Mr. Frost (for himself and Mr. Lampson) submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 121) to enhance the 
    operation of the AMBER Alert communications network in order to 
 facilitate the recovery of abducted children, to provide for enhanced 
 notification on highways of alerts and information on such children, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That, immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, 
the House shall without intervention of any point of order consider in 
the House the bill (S. 121) to enhance the operation of the AMBER Alert 
communications network in order to facilitate the recovery of abducted 
children, to provide for enhanced notification on highways of alerts 
and information on such children, and for other purposes. The bill 
shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 55675-4-I.

Division One.

November 28, 2005.]

#### Reuel Robertson et al., *Appellants,*v. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for San Juan County, No. 04-2-05186-1, Alan R. Hancock, J., entered January 3, 2005. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by Appelwick, A.C.J., and Ellington, J. Now published at 135 Wn. App. 1.
Exhibit 8

                              List of Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Active Subsidiaries

Subs Name                                          Country
---------                                          ----------
<S>                                                <C>
Tadipol-ECI Sp.z.o.o                               Poland
Alvarion SARL                                      France
Alvarion De Mexico SA                              Mexico
Alvarion Inc                                       USA
Alvarion UK Ltd.                                   UK
Alvarion Srl                                       Romania
Alvarion Asia Pacific Ltd.                         Hong Kong
Alvarion Do Brasil LTDA                            Brasil
Alvarion Japan KK                                  Japan
Alvarion Telsiz Sistemleri A.S.                    Turkey
Alvarion Israel (2003) Ltd.                        Israel
Alvarion Mobile Inc.                               USA
Interwave Communications Inc.                      USA
Interwave Communications Ireland Limited           Ireland
Interwave Communications UK Ltd.                   UK
</TABLE>

------------
 *   Alvarion SARL is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alvarion UK LTD.
**   Alvarion Telsiz Sistemleri Ticaret A. S. and Alvarion -- Tadipol -- ECI
     Sp.zoo are wholly owned subsidiaries of Kermadec Telecom B.V.