alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.4**

**FORM OF AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

**      **This Amendment toEmployment Agreement (this "Amendment") is made as of this 16th dayof March, 2001 by and between _______________ (the "Employee") andGables Residential Trust, a Maryland business trust with its principal place ofbusiness in Atlanta, Georgia (the "Company").

       WHEREAS, the Company andthe Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated______________, ______ (the "Employment Agreement").       WHEREAS,  the Company and the Employeedesire to amend the Employment Agreement solely to the extent set forth herein.       NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of themutual promises and covenants set forth in this Amendment and in the EmploymentAgreement, the parties mutually agree as follows:       1.   **Amendment**. Section 10 of the Employment Agreement shall be restated in its entirety to readas follows (deletions are reflected by strike-through text and additions arereflected by bold text):"10.  Non-Solicitation.  During the Original Term or any RenewalTerm and for a period of twelve months from the date of any termination ofemployment (other than pursuant to a Change of Control Event), Employeecovenants and agrees that Employee (a) will not, directly or indirectly, solicitor induce any present or future employee of the Company or any Subsidiary toaccept employment with Employee or with any business, corporation, partnership,association, agency, or other person or other entity with which Employee may beassociated, (b) will not employ or cause any business, corporation, partnership,association, agency or other person or entity with which Employee may beassociated to employ any present or future employee of the Company or anySubsidiary without providing the Company with ten (10) days' prior writtennotice of such proposed employment and (c) will not, directly or indirectly,either for himself or for any other business, operation, corporation, partnership,association, agency or other person or entity, call upon, compete for or solicitthe third party property owners with whom the Company or any of its subsidiarieshas   **or had** an existing property management agreement ~~as of the EffectiveDate as set forth in any of the schedules to the Contribution Agreement~~**during the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on the date onwhich the Employee is no longer providing services to the Company or any of itssubsidiaries.**  This Paragraph 10 shall survive the termination of thisAgreement."

       2.   **Effectof Amendment**.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the EmploymentAgreement shall remain in full force and effect.       3.  **Counterparts**. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of whichshall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute oneinstrument.            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment toEmployment Agreement is entered into as of the date and year first abovewritten.GABLES RESIDENTIAL TRUSTBy:  /s/ Chris D. WheelerChris D. WheelerChairman and Chief Executive Officer

_______________________________Name of Employee
Winchell v. Lubinski, No. 206-3-11 Rdcv (Teachout, J., Nov. 2, 2011) 

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

STATE OF VERMONT 

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION 

Rutland Unit Docket No. 206-3-11 Rdcv 

ROBERT WINCHELL, 

Plaintiff 

v. 

THOMAS LUBINSKI, 

 Defendant 

DECISION 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

Thomas Lubinski, the defendant in this suit, died in February 2011. Plaintiff 

Robert Winchell filed his Complaint on March 29, 2011. Defendant’s attorney 

subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Mr. Lubinski was deceased at 

the time of the commencement of the suit. On September 2, 2011, the court granted the 

Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Reconsideration on September 

13, 2011. 

 Plaintiff bases his argument in favor of reconsideration on 12 V.S.A. § 557(a), 

which tolls the running of the statute of limitations upon the death of a party. As the 

estate of Thomas Lubinski was opened on August 5, 2011, the statute allows Plaintiff to 

initiate a new suit against the estate at any time before August 5, 2013. Plaintiff argues 

that, because a new suit would be allowed under this statue, the court should allow him to 

amend his original complaint and name the estate as a defendant. 

 Plaintiff’s argument ignores the jurisdictional basis for the dismissal of his action. 

As the authorities collected in the previous opinion evidence, the death of a defendant 

prior to the commencement of a suit leaves the court without subject matter jurisdiction 

to hear the case. See, e.g., Glover v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 950 A.2d 335, 339 

(Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). Though this rule may strike Plaintiff as a technicality, the court is 

powerless to allow amendment or grant any other form of relief when it lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction. In the eloquent phrase of the Glover court, “there is, technically, 

nothing to amend.” Id. 

 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. 

 Dated at Rutland, Vermont this 2nd day of November, 2011. 

________________________ 

 Hon. Mary Miles Teachout 

Superior Judge
# C_2010161EN.01005601.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/56

---

Action brought on 29 April 2010 — Avery Dennison Corp. v OHIM — Dennison Hesperia (AVERY DENNISON)

(Case T-200/10)

(2010/C 161/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Avery Dennison Corp. (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dennison Hersperia, S.A. (Torrejón de Ardoz, Spain)

Form of order sought

| — | annul or, in the alternative, amend the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2010 in case R 798/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or, in the alternative, amend the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2010 in case R 798/2009-2;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Avery Dennison Corp.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AVERY DENNISON’ (Application No 3 825 114) for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dennison Hesperia, S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark ‘DENNISON’ (No 1 996 088) for goods in Class 16.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Articles 42(2) and (3) and, in the alternative, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09 on the Community trade mark.

---
EXHIBIT 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  following  registration
statements of Koala  Corporation  and in the related  prospectuses of our report
dated February 10, 1998, with respect to the consolidated  financial  statements
of Koala Corporation  incorporated by reference in this Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 1997:

1.   Registration  Statement  on  Form  S-3  (No.  33-85388)  pertaining  to the
     registration of 475,332 shares of Koala Corporation Common Stock.

2.   Registration  Statement  on  Form  S-8  (No.  33-90134)  pertaining  to the
     registration of 200,000 shares of Koala Corporation Common Stock.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Denver, Colorado
March 27, 1998
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
# C_2013304EN.01000902.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — L v Parliament

(Case T-317/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Staff cases - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Decision to dismiss - Obligation to state reasons - Loss of trust)

2013/C 304/18

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: L (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented: initially by A. Sèbe and V. Sviderskis and subsequently by A. Sèbe, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented: initially by S. Seyr, K. Zejdová and L. Mašalaitė-Chouteau, subsequently by S. Seyr, K. Zejdová and S. Milius, and finally by S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union [confidential], (2) seeking to have that judgment set aside

confidential

2

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union [confidential] in so far as it did not rule on the plea alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality, rejected the plea alleging factual inaccuracy and a manifest error of assessment and held that the appellant had not claimed that the Parliament should be ordered to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union [confidential] in so far as it did not rule on the plea alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality, rejected the plea alleging factual inaccuracy and a manifest error of assessment and held that the appellant had not claimed that the Parliament should be ordered to pay the costs;

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Dismisses the action brought by Mr L before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case [confidential] as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action brought by Mr L before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case [confidential] as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating both to the first instance proceedings and the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating both to the first instance proceedings and the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

1

(2)  Confidential data omitted.

2

---
#### § 351.21 Certification of certain animal fat for export.

Any person receiving inspection service may, if dissatisfied with any decision of an inspector relating to any inspection, file an appeal from such decision or action in accordance with 9 CFR 500.9.

[87 FR 63423, Oct. 19, 2022]
### §5363. Acquisitions

#### (a) Acquisitions of banks; treatment as a bank holding company

For purposes of section 1842 of this title, a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors shall be deemed to be, and shall be treated as, a bank holding company.

#### (b) Acquisition of nonbank companies

#### (1) Prior notice for large acquisitions

Notwithstanding section 1843(k)(6)(B) of this title, a bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $250,000,000,000 or a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors shall not acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any company (other than an insured depository institution) that is engaged in activities described in section 1843(k) of this title having total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or more, without providing written notice to the Board of Governors in advance of the transaction.

#### (2) Exemptions

The prior notice requirement in paragraph (1) shall not apply with regard to the acquisition of shares that would qualify for the exemptions in section 1843(c) of this title or section 1843(k)(4)(E) of this title.

#### (3) Notice procedures

The notice procedures set forth in section 1843(j)(1) of this title, without regard to section 1843(j)(3) of this title, shall apply to an acquisition of any company (other than an insured depository institution) by a bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $250,000,000,000 or a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors, as described in paragraph (1), including any such company engaged in activities described in section 1843(k) of this title.

#### (4) Standards for review

In addition to the standards provided in section 1843(j)(2) of this title, the Board of Governors shall consider the extent to which the proposed acquisition would result in greater or more concentrated risks to global or United States financial stability or the United States economy.

#### (5) Hart-Scott-Rodino filing requirement

Solely for purposes of section 18a(c)(8) of title 15, the transactions subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) shall be treated as if Board of Governors approval is not required.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title I, §163, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1422; Pub. L. 115–174, title IV, §401(c)(1)(E), May 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 1358.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b)(1), (3). Pub. L. 115–174 substituted "$250,000,000,000" for "$50,000,000,000".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Except as otherwise provided, amendment by Pub. L. 115–174 effective 18 months after May 24, 2018, see section 401(d) of Pub. L. 115–174, set out as a note under section 5365 of this title.

#### Construction of 2018 Amendment

For construction of amendment by Pub. L. 115–174 as applied to certain foreign banking organizations, see section 401(g) of Pub. L. 115–174, set out as a note under section 5365 of this title.
##### 



1
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Alliance Semiconductor Corporation;2
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors:
   /s/ Melvin L. KeatingMelvin L. KeatingChief Executive OfficerAugust 9, 2006
# C_2010080EN.01004001.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/40

---

Action brought on 22 January 2010 — Ella Valley Vineyards v OHIM — Hachette Filipacchi Press (ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS)

(Case T-32/10)

2010/C 80/65

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: C. de Haas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other part to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA (Levallois-Perret, France)

Other part to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November in all its provisions because it infringed Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November in all its provisions because it infringed Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS pursuant to Articles 87 to 93 of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS pursuant to Articles 87 to 93 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS’ for goods in Class 33 (Application for registration No 3 360 914).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French word mark and the Community word mark ‘ELLE’ for goods in Class 16 (Community trade mark No 3 475 365).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because the public concerned will not make any link between the marks at issue and because the use of the mark ‘ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS’ does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier ‘ELLE’ marks

Pleas in law:

---
#### § 78.40 Designation of States/areas.

The Administrator may amend §§ 78.41 and 78.42 to reclassify States and areas as Class Free, Class A, Class B, Class C, or quarantined when the Administrator determines that the States or areas meet the appropriate definitions in § 78.1. The Administrator may approve the division of a State into two brucellosis classification areas upon finding that: (a) The State has legislative and regulatory authority for maintaining separate areas; (b) The State has committed resources to enforcing the different requirements in each area; (c) The State has an effective method for monitoring and controlling movement of cattle across the intrastate boundary; (d) The State has defined the intrastate boundary by county lines or by recognizable geographic features, such as rivers and highways; and (e) Each area of the State meets the standards for the brucellosis classification requested. The Administrator may amend § 78.43 to reclassify States as validated brucellosis-free States or remove such status when the Administrator determines that such States meet or do not meet the standards of a validated brucellosis-free State as defined in § 78.1. In the case of any reclassification to a lower class, reclassification as a quarantined State or area, or removal of validated brucellosis-free status, the State animal health official of the State involved will be notified of such reclassification or removal, and will be given an opportunity to present objections and arguments to the Administrator prior to the reclassification or removal taking place.

[51 FR 32580, Sept. 12, 1986, as amended at 53 FR 2222, Jan. 27, 1988; 56 FR 54533, Oct. 22, 1991; 56 FR 55803, Oct. 30, 1991]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5656]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,934]


Pass & Seymour/Legrand a Subsidiary of Legrand North America; 
Including On-Site Leased Workers From Select Staffing, also Known as 
Real Time Staffing Services, and Aerotek; Concord, NC; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on May 27, 2010, applicable to workers of Pass & Seymour/Legrand, a 
subsidiary of Legrand North America, including on-site leased workers 
from Select Staffing and Aerotek, Concord, North Carolina. The workers 
manufacture electrical wiring devices. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on June 16, 2010 (75 FR 34174).
    At the request of a State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The company reports that 
Select Staffing, an on-site leased firm, is also known as Real Time 
Staffing Services. Select Staffing employees separated from employment 
at the Concord, North Carolina location of the subject firm had their 
wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account 
for Select Staffing, also known as Real Time Staffing Services.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
properly reflect this mater.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,934 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Pass & Seymour/Legrand, a subsidiary of Legrand 
North America, including on-site leased workers from Select 
Staffing, also known as Real Time Staffing Services, and Aerotek, 
Concord, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated 
from employment on or after June 14, 2010, through May 27, 2012, and 
all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation 
from employment on the date of certification through two years from 
the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of March 2011.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-5656 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### § 54.2 Cooperative agreements and memoranda of understanding with States.

APHIS will execute cooperative agreements and/or memoranda of understanding with the animal health agency of any State in order to cooperatively administer the Scrapie Eradication Program and the Scrapie Free Flock Certification Program within that State. These agreements will describe the respective roles of APHIS and State personnel in implementing the Scrapie Eradication Program and the Scrapie Free Flock Certification Program. Each agreement may specify the financial, material, and personnel resources to be committed to these programs and other scrapie control measures by APHIS and the State; assign specific activities related to the control of scrapie within a State to APHIS or State personnel; establish schedules for APHIS representatives or State representatives to visit flocks; establish procedures for maintaining and sharing program records specified in this part, and specify other responsibilities of State representatives and APHIS representatives in support of the Scrapie Eradication Program and the Scrapie Free Flock Certification Program.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0101)

[66 FR 43982, Aug. 21, 2001, as amended at 84 FR 11182, Mar. 25, 2019]