alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.11(h)





Exhibit 10.11(h)




AMENDMENT NO. 7

TO THE

VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC RETIREMENT PLAN




(As Amended and Restated Effective June 1, 2005)




WHEREAS, VWR International, LLC (“VWR”) maintains the VWR International, LLC Retirement Plan
(the “Plan”) for the benefit of its selected employees; and



WHEREAS, the Plan was most recently amended and restated effective June 1, 2005, and was
subsequently amended on six occasions; and



WHEREAS, Section 11.1 of the Plan provides that the Benefit and Retirement Plan Committee of
VWR (the “Committee”) is authorized to adopt Plan amendments that have no substantial adverse
impact on any “Employer” or the Plan; and



WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan to reflect a relevant provision of the Heroes
Earning Assistance and Relief Act of 2008;



NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date set forth below, the Plan is hereby amended as
follows:




	1.	 	Effective January 1, 2009, Section 8.2(f) of the Plan (as amended by Amendment No. 4 to the
Plan) is amended by adding a new sentence to the end thereof to read in its entirety as
follows:






Effective January 1, 2009, differential wage payments (within the meaning of
section 3401(h)(2) of the Code) shall constitute “compensation” for purposes of
this Section 8.2 (and for purposes of any other definition of compensation used in
the Plan that is based on the definition set forth in section 415 of the Code).



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Benefit and Retirement Plan Committee has caused this Amendment No. 7
to be adopted on behalf of VWR International, LLC this 15th day of
December, 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:	 	 	 	VWR INTERNATIONAL, LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Laureen Quinter
 


	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Paul Dumas
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Buss, Appellant.

Submitted November 19, 2007;

decided February 19, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for poor person relief granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          13,959
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             181
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     12,497
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          24,361
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            24,048
<LOANS>                                        260,722
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,824
<DEPOSITS>                                     311,754
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,212
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 335,824
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 21,788
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,203
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   390
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                24,381
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              14,749
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,885
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,496
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      565
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (10)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    562
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         359
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.04
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,146
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,445
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    197
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,175
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      163
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,582
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,582
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                              The Leap Group, Inc.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                      Three Months Ended April 30,
                                                                                                      ----------------------------
                                                                                                         1998           1997
                                                                                                         ----           ----
                                                                                                             (unaudited)
<S>                                                                                                  <C>            <C>
Net income/(loss)                                                                                    $    14,986    $(1,150,108)

Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding during period                                                                   13,641,000     13,610,000

Net shares issuable upon exercise of
    dilutive outstanding stock options                                                                   220,000             --
                                                                                                     -----------     ----------
Shares used in Diluted per share
    calculation                                                                                       13,861,000     13,610,000

Basic earnings per common share                                                                            $0.00         $(0.08)

Diluted earnings per common share                                                                          $0.00         $(0.08)
</TABLE>

                                      16
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATION**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Ronald A. Walrod, certify that:     1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of JMAR Technologies, Inc.;     2) Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this annual report;     3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;     4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport (based on such evaluation); and     c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         By:  /s/    Ronald A. Walrod    Ronald A. Walrod    Chief Executive Officer   April 7, 2006
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Independent Agencies and Government Corporations]
[National Labor Relations Board]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionBRANCH: EXECUTIVE       NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDLocationPosition TitleName of IncumbentPay PlanType of Appt.Level Grade or PayTenureExpires**OFFICE OF 
              THE CHAIRMAN**Washington, DCChairmanWilliam B. GouldEXPASIII5 years08/27/1998Washington, DCChief Counsel to Board Member (Chairman)William R. StewartESNA............................Washington, DCDeputy Chief Counsel to Board MemberHoward D. JohnsonESCA............................Washington, DCExecutive Assistant to the ChairmanMiguel A. GonzalezESNA............................Washington, DCSpecial Assistant to the ChairmanRalph E. DeedsESNA............................Washington, DCConfidential Staff Assistant to the ChairmanMary A. SawyerGSSC13..................**OFFICE OF 
              BOARD MEMBER BROWNING**Washington, DCMemberMargaret A. BrowningEXPASIV5 years12/16/1997Washington, DCChief Counsel to Board MemberDennis P. WalshESNA............................Washington, DCDeputy Chief Counsel to Board MemberJonathan R. ScheinbartESCA............................**OFFICE 
              OF BOARD MEMBER FOX**Washington, DCMemberSarah M. FoxEXPAIV5 years10/01/1997Washington, DCChief Counsel to Board MemberElinor H. StillmanESNA............................Washington, DCDeputy Chief Counsel to Board MemberLafe E. SolomonESCA............................**OFFICE 
              OF BOARD MEMBER HIGGINS**Washington, DCMemberJohn E. HigginsEXPAIV5 years10/01/1997Washington, DCChief Counsel to Board MemberHarold J. DatzESCA............................Washington, DCDeputy Chief Counsel to Board MemberWilliam A. HillESCA............................**OFFICE 
              OF BOARD MEMBER**Washington, DCMember VacantEXPASIV5 years........Washington, DCChief Counsel to Board MemberLester A. HeltzerESCA............................Washington, DCActing Deputy Chief Counsel to Board MemberRobert F. KaneESTA....................08/18/1997**OFFICE 
              OF THE SOLICITOR**Washington, DCActing SolicitorJeffrey D. WedekindESTA....................02/09/1997**OFFICE 
              OF REPRESENTATION APPEALS**Washington, DCActing Director, Office of Representation AppealsWayne R. GoldESTA....................12/09/1996**OFFICE 
              OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL**Washington, DCGeneral CounselFredrick L. FeinsteinEXPASIV4 years03/08/1998Washington, DCDeputy General CounselMary J. CarlsonESNA............................Washington, DCAssistant General Counsel (Legal)Joseph F. FranklESCA............................*Division 
            of Enforcement Litigation*Washington, DCAssociate General Counsel, Division of 
            Enforcement LitigationLinda R. SherESCA............................Washington, DCDeputy Associate General Counsel, Supreme 
            Court BranchNorton J. ComeESCA............................
```
THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA

WITH ANALYSIS

53

THE PREAMBLE

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more

perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and

secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States

of America.

PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government,1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.2 “Its true office,” wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries,

“is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers

actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not

enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they

deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a

given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive,

the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words,

but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one

could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not

the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?” 3

1 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

2 E.g., the Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the

Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) Chisholm v.

Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793); Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.)

304 (1816), and that it was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of

America. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891).

3 1 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (Boston: 1833),

462. For a lengthy exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M. ADLER & W.

GORMAN, THE AMERICAN TESTAMENT (New York: 1975), 63–118.

55
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH DISTRICT, AT DALLAS

No. 05-16-01124-CV

STEPHEN COURTNEY, M.D. AND PLANO ORTHOPEDICS SPORTS MEDICINE AND SPINE 

CENTER, P.A.

V.

CHRISTEL PENNINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN HEIR AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

ESTATE OF STEVEN PAUL PENNINGTON, DECEASED

(Trial Court No. DC-16-03386 in the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County)

The costs incurred on appeal to the Fifth Court of Appeals Dallas, Texas are below:

Fee Date Type of Fee Charges Paid Paid By

11/30/2016

11/22/2016

10/24/2016

10/03/2016

10/03/2016

09/27/2016

Motion fee

Clerk's record

Motion fee

Reporter's record

Clerk's record

Filing

$10.00

$40.00

$10.00

$360.00

$389.00

$205.00

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

GEORGIANA HOLLAND

COOPER & SCULLY

DIANA L FAUST

COOPER & SCULLY

STEPHEN COURTNEY, M.D. ETAL

DIANA L FAUST

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, LISA MATZ, CLERK OF THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AT 

DALLAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and 

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and 

the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth

District of Texas, this January 31, 2018.

/s/ LISA MATZ, Clerk of the Court
#### William J. KESTNER, v. READING COMPANY, Defendant, and Chester Municipal Authority, Third Party Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 20554.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 25, 1957.

Richter, Lord & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for Reading Co.

Swartz, Campbell & Henry, Philadelphia, Pa., for Chester Municipal Authority.

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff, a railroad employee, brought suit against his employer, the Reading Company, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq. The cause of action stated was that “by reason of the negligence of the defendant the area in and about the tracks had been dug out unbeknown to the plaintiff”, as a result of which the plaintiff, in the performance of his duties, stepped into a hole and was injured.

The Reading Company brought in Chester Municipal Authority as a third party defendant, alleging merely that the plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused by the negligence of the third party defendant. The third party defendant has now served interrogatories upon the plaintiff, to which the plaintiff objects on the ground that the third party defendant is not an “adverse party” within the meaning of Rule 33, Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. 28 U.S.C.

The objection must be sustained. In every case which has been brought to my attention in which the point has been presented (see Cooke v. Kilgore Mfg. Co., D.C., 15 F.R.D. 465, and cases there cited), it has been held that the rule refers not to parties whose *304interest in the result of the litigation may be adverse but to parties who are on opposite sides of an issue raised by the pleadings or otherwise presented by the record. It would seem that a broader construction of the rule would present many difficulties and complications which are avoided by the simple expedient of having the matter governed by the record.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our reports dated November 2, 2001, included in this
Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements Nos. 33-64622, 33-64624, 33-76764, 333-79451,
333-79455, 333-61858 and 333-92665 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-56775 and 333-79653 on Form S-3.

|                                   |  | /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
|---------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Portland, Oregon,
December 6, 2001 |  |                        

---

QuickLinks
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Tolle v. Spherion of Mid-Ohio, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-2923.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2017-O HIO -2923 T HE S TATE EX REL . T OLLE , A PPELLEE , v. S PHERION OF M ID -O HIO , I NC ., ET AL ., A PPELLANTS . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Tolle v. Sp herion of Mid-Ohio, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-2923.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Cordell v. Pallet Cos., Inc

. (No. 2015-1717—Submitted April 4, 2017—Decided May 23, 2017.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-717, 2015-Ohio-3593.

_______________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeal s is affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Cordell v. Pallet Cos., Inc. , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-8446, ___ N.E.3d ___. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and F RENCH , O’N EILL , F ISCHER , and D E W INE , JJ., concur.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 O’D ONNELL and K ENNEDY , JJ., dissent and would schedule oral argument and issue a ruling on the merits following oral argument.

_________________ Badnell & Dick Co., L.P.A., and Ke lly L. Badnell, for appellee. Lee M. Smith & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Elizabeth P. Weeden, for appellant Spherion of Mid-Ohio, Inc. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, a nd Kevin J. Reis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant Industrial Commission.

_________________
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3147 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3147

   To amend the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to extend the Small 
 Business Lending Fund Program, to provide for an appeals process, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 2011

 Mr. Carney (for himself, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Perlmutter, 
Mr. Peters, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, and Mrs. Maloney) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to extend the Small 
 Business Lending Fund Program, to provide for an appeals process, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Small Business Lending Extension 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND UPDATING OF THE SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) Small Business Lending Fund Program Extension.--Section 4109(a) 
of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 is amended by striking ``1 
year'' and inserting ``2 years''.
    (b) Appeal Process; Reapplication.--Section 4103 of the Small 
Business Jobs Act of 2010 is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subsection:
    ``(e) Appeal Process; Reapplication.--
            ``(1) Disclosure of reason for rejection.--
                    ``(A) In general.--With respect to any institution 
                that submits an application to receive a capital 
                investment from the Fund, and has such application 
                rejected by the Secretary, the Secretary shall supply 
                the institution with the reason for such rejection.
                    ``(B) Confidentiality.--The Secretary, in 
                consultation with the appropriate Federal banking 
                agency for an institution, shall ensure that the 
                rejection reason described under subparagraph (A) is 
                kept confidential except as provided under that 
                subparagraph.
            ``(2) Appeal of rejection.--With respect to an institution 
        described under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall establish 
        an appeal process that provides the institution with an 
        opportunity to contest the reasons that were provided for the 
        rejection of the institution's application to receive a capital 
        investment from the Fund.
            ``(3) Reapplication.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
        allowing an institution described under paragraph (1)(A) to 
        reapply to receive a capital investment.''.
                                 <all>
```