alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREE-Letter Agreement EX - 10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1





March 11, 2015


Carla Shumate
Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer & Treasurer


Dear Carla,
 
This letter confirms our understanding that in the event your employment with LendingTree, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) is terminated by the Company for a reason other than (i) Cause (as defined below) or (ii) unacceptable performance (as such may be determined by the Company in its sole discretion, provided that such performance shall be reasonably documented by the Company), the Company will pay you severance pay in an amount equal to the sum of six (6) months of your annual base salary upon your executing a waiver and release document provided by the Company.  This severance will be paid on regularly scheduled pay dates for six (6) months following the effective date of the waiver and release and will be discontinued should you find other employment.


"Cause" shall mean gross negligence in carrying out your duties for the Company or any breach of fiduciary duties to the Company, conviction of, or plea of guilty or no contest to any felony, any act of fraud or embezzlement, material violation of a Company policy or any unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential information or trade secrets of the Company or its affiliates, or failure to cooperate in any Company investigation. 


Sincerely,






Claudette Parham
Senior Vice President, Human Resources & Administration
§ 21.4151 Cooperation. ( a ) The Department of Veterans Affairs and the State approving agencies will take cognizance of the fact that definite duties, functions and responsibilities are conferred upon each of them. To assure that programs of education are administered effectively and efficiently, the cooperation of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the State approving agencies is essential. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3673(a))
( b ) *State approving agency responsibilities.* State approving agencies are responsible for: ( 1 ) Inspecting and supervising schools within the borders of their respective States;
( 2 ) Determining those courses which may be approved for the enrollment of veterans and eligible persons;
( 3 ) Ascertaining whether a school at all times complies with its established standards relating to the course or courses which have been approved;
( 4 ) Determining those licensing and certification tests that may be approved for cost reimbursement to veterans and eligible persons;
( 5 ) Ascertaining whether an organization or entity offering an approved licensing or certification test complies at all times with the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3689; and
( 6 ) Under an agreement with VA rendering services and obtaining information necessary for the Secretary's approval or disapproval under chapters 30 through 36, title 38 U.S.C. and chapters 107 and 1606, title 10 U.S.C., of courses of education offered by any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government within the borders of their respective States. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3672, 3673, 3674, 3689)
( c ) The Department of Veterans Affairs will furnish State approving agencies with copies of such Department of Veterans Affairs informational and instructional material as may aid them in carrying out the provisions of 38 U.S.C. chapter 36.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3673(b))
[31 FR 6774, May 6, 1966, as amended at 37 FR 6679, Apr. 1, 1972; 54 FR 49756, Dec. 1, 1989; 61 FR 20728, May 8, 1996; 72 FR 16969, Apr. 5, 2007]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JONATHAN MICHAEL STONE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 596 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
EXHIBIT # 10.47

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                     12% CONVERTIBLE SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

          This Amendment No. 1 to the 12% Convertible Secured Promissory Note,
dated as of July 31, 2003 (this "Amendment"), is to the 12% Convertible Secured
Promissory Note, dated _________________, 2003 in the principal amount of
$__________________(the "Note"), issued by Molecular Diagnostics, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") to _______________________ ("Investor").

                                   WITNESSETH

          WHEREAS, Investor purchased the Note from the Company in connection
with a bridge financing in the aggregate principal amount of up to $4,000,000;

          WHEREAS, Investor purchased the Note from the Company pursuant to
certain financing documents, including a Note Subscription Agreement, Indenture,
Security Agreement, Collateral Sharing Agreement, Warrant to Purchase Shares of
Common Stock and the Note (collectively, the "Financing Documents");

          WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Financing Documents, the total
outstanding principal balance and accrued and unpaid interest on the Note were
due July 31, 2003;

          WHEREAS, pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of Section
17 of the Note, the Company and Investor desire to amend the Note as hereinafter
set forth.

          NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Investor agree as
follows:

     1.   The first two sentences of Section 1 shall be deleted and replaced in
          their entirety with the following:

          "The unpaid principal balance of this Note shall bear simple interest
     at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date hereof until
     July 31, 2003. After July 31, 2003, the unpaid principal balance of this
     Note shall bear simple interest at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) per
     annum."

     2.   Section 2 is amended by deleting the date "July 31, 2003" and
          inserting the new date of "July 31, 2004."

     3.   Investor hereby waives any Events of Defaults by the Company under the
          Financing Documents.

     4.   Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given to
          them in the Financing Documents.

     5.   This Amendment may be executed in counterparts and each such
          counterpart shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and
          all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same
          instrument.

<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed
as of the 31st day of July, 2003.

                                        MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, INC.


                                        By: _______________________________

                                        Name: _____________________________

                                        Title: ____________________________



                                        INVESTOR


                                        ___________________________________
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23654]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1555-000]


Wisconsin Power and Light Company; Notice of Filing

September 24, 2009.
    Take notice that, on September 23, 2009, Wisconsin Power and Light 
Company filed to supplement its filing in the above captioned docket 
with information required under the Commission's regulations. Such 
filing served to reset the filing date in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#10565542535f7e7c797e75436560607f626450767562733e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05434057464a6b696c6b60567075756a777145636077662b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 2, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23654 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



AMENDMENT
    NO. 1 TO
    MANAGEMENT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
  Amendment Management Cooperation Agreement Company Common Stock Stockholder
  W I T N E
    S S E T H:
  WHEREAS
  NOW, THEREFORE
      Permitted
    Transferee provided
  Permitted Transfer provided




---



##### 



By:
    /s/  Michael
    G. FerrelName: Michael
    G. Ferrel
    Title: President  
  
      By:
    SILLERMAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION, its General Partner  By:
    /s/  Robert
    F. X. SillermanName: Robert
    F. X. Sillerman
    Title: President   2




---



##### 



By:
    SILLERMAN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., its General PartnerBy:
    /s/  Robert
    F. X. Sillerman   Title:
    President   
     
        By:
    /s/  Mitchell
    J. Slater   Title:
    Trustee   
     
     
     
     3




---



##### 



SCHEDULE II
  Permitted Transfers
  Column A

Column BExecutive Officer

Affiliates/Direct Ownership

Number of SharesRobert F.X. Sillerman


Direct Ownership



3,000,000Michael G. Ferrel


Direct Ownership



365,822Mitchell J. Slater


Direct Ownership



519,430Mitchell J. Slater 2004 GRAT



99,851Howard J. Tytel


Howard J. Tytel and Sandra Tytel



449,246Simon Fuller


Direct Ownership



301,463Thomas P. Benson


Direct Ownership



278,156
# C_2021242EN.01003101.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Hasbro v EUIPO — Kreativni Događaji (MONOPOLY)

(Case T-663/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MONOPOLY - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 242/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: J. Moss, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Kreativni Događaji d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2019 (Case R 1849/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Kreativni Događaji and Hasbro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hasbro, Inc., to pay the costs, including those incurred by Kreativni Događaji d.o.o. for the purposes of the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hasbro, Inc., to pay the costs, including those incurred by Kreativni Događaji d.o.o. for the purposes of the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1205
ARTHUR NUCKLES, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (No. 94-0403-BLA) Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: February 21, 1997Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Nuckles, Petitioner Pro Se. Michael Francis Blair, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia; Patricia May Nece, John M. McCracken, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's ordergranting his motion for reconsideration and reaffirming the decision and order affirming the ALJ's decision to deny his application for black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1996). Our review of the record discloses that theBoard's decisions are based upon substantial evidence and are without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Nuckles v. Clinchfield Corp. , No. 94-0403-BLA (B.R.B. Feb. 24, 1995 & Jan. 25, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed balance sheets and unaudited condensed statements of
income found on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to
date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,593,594
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  791,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    574,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,335,350
<PP&E>                                      24,490,896
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,357,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,158,547
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     6,107,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,234,070)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,357,762
<SALES>                                      2,069,209
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,069,209
<CGS>                                          720,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  720,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,893,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (343,493)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (813,592)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (813,592)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (569,870)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.07)


</TABLE>
2015 10-Q 1Q Exhibit 10.1 Executive Life Insurance Program Closure Letter




Exhibit 10.1





April 20, 2015


John Akai
Client Executive
MetLife Specialized Benefit Resources
501 Route 22 
Bridgewater, NJ 08807 


Re: Johnson & Johnson Executive Life Insurance Program


Dear John:
This letter is to formally advise MetLife that the Executive Life Plan Agreement dated June 19, 1991 has been closed to new participants, effective January 2, 2015.  Please update your records accordingly to reflect this change.  


Should you have any questions on this matter, please call me at 732-524-3638,


Sincerely,
/s/ Lisa Blair Davis
Lisa Blair Davis
Vice President 
International Total Rewards
& Global Benefits




C:   R. McDonald
       S. Vora
Editorial Note on Part 1102
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 83 FR 43739, Aug. 28, 2018.

§ 1102.400 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* This subpart is issued by the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) under sections 1106 and 1109 (a)(4)(B) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Title XI), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010)), 12 U.S.C. 3335, 3338 (a)(4)(B)).
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this subpart is to implement section 1109 (a)(4)(B) of Title XI, 12 U.S.C. 3338.
( c ) *Scope.* This subpart applies to States that elect to register and supervise appraisal management companies pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 3346 and 3353, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
#### § 18.438 Adult education.

A recipient that provides adult education may not, on the basis of handicap, exclude qualified handicapped persons. The recipient shall take into account the needs of these persons in determining the aid, benefits, or services to be provided.

[45 FR 63268, Sept. 24, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51370, Aug. 26, 2003]
#### § 1081.302 Conduct of hearings.

All hearings will be conducted in a fair, impartial, expeditious, and orderly manner. Enforcement counsel will present its case-in-chief first, unless otherwise ordered by the hearing officer, or unless otherwise expressly specified by law or regulation. Enforcement counsel will be the first party to present an opening statement and a closing statement, and may make a rebuttal statement after the respondent's closing statement. If there are multiple respondents, respondents may agree among themselves as to their order of presentation of their cases, but if they do not agree, the hearing officer will fix the order.
#### Edward G. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17455.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 19, 1963.

Decided April 4, 1963.

See also 106 U.S.App.D.C. 325, 272 F.2d 554.

Mrs. Kitty Blair Frank, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Mr. William C. Pryor, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Fahy and Bastían, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of having committed robbery in violation of 22 D.C. Code § 2901. Before trial he was committed to‘ St. Elizabeth’s Hospital for mental examination. After 87 days of observation and examination there the Superintendent advised the Clerk of the District Court that no mental disease or defect was found during the period of examination or on or about the time of the offense. He also advised that appellant was mentally competent to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and to consult properly with counsel in his defense.

It is now suggested that there was error in the eonclusional character of the report of the Superintendent; but the report in no way affected the fairness of the trial, for no question was raised at the trial as to the defendant’s mental condition.

Another contention on the appeal is that there was indication, supported by affidavits, that one of the witnesses who identified the defendant as the robber had defective eyesight, and the court should have granted counsel’s motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 28 that the court obtain the assistance of an expert to examine the witness and possibly to testify. Such a request was made on the day of trial, first at the time the case came on for assignment in the District Court, when it was denied by the judge making the assignments without prejudice to the matter being called to the attention of the trial judge. Later the same morning the matter was called to the attention of the trial judge, when the case was otherwise ready for actual trial. While oral argument was not allowed, the request was made clear to the trial judge. Since it appears the *273matter of the witness’ vision was adequately explored on cross-examination and there was other strong identifying testimony, the discretion exercised by the trial judge in denying the motion does not constitute prejudicial error.

None of the contentions ably advanced by counsel appointed by this court warrants disturbance of the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereupon.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

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


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Resources Development,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ching Lung Po, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Ching Lung Po
-----------------------
Ching Lung Po
Chief Executive Officer
May 20, 2003

A signed original of these written statements required by Section 906 has been
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
provided to China Resources Development, Inc. and will be retained by China
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources Development, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission or its staff upon request.
-------------------------------------