alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex102.htm


    Exhibit
10.2

     

    AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    This
amendment to Executive Employment Agreement is executed this date November 10,
2009 by and between Gen2Media Corporation (“Company”) and Mark Argenti
(“Employee”).

    


     

    
      	
              1.  

            	
              This
      agreement amends the Executive Employment Agreement between the parties
      dated May 1, 2008 as amended November 2, 2008
    (“Agreement”).

            


    

     

    


     

    
      	
              2.  

            	
              The
      Agreement is hereby amended to provide for a reduced base salary and the
      provision of restricted stock for that reduction.  This
      Amendment shall also settle all outstanding obligations to the Employee
      for shortfalls in contracted compensation during the year ended June 30,
      2009.

            


    

     

    


     

    
      	
              3.  

            	
              The
      base salary shall be $65,000 through April 30, 2010, $75,000 from May1,
      2010 through April 30, 2011 and $85,000 from May 1, 2011 through April 30,
      2012.

            


    

     

    


     

    
      	
              4.  

            	
              The
      number of restricted shares awarded shall vest under the following
      schedule and remain restricted for a two year period following the vesting
      schedule as follows:  200,000 vest immediately; 64,792 per
      quarter over the remaining life of the
contract.

            


    

     

    


     

    
      	
              5.  

            	
              Other
      than specifically amended hereby, all other terms and provisions of the
      Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

            


    

     

    


     

    Gen2Media
Corporation:                                                                           Employee:

     

    


     

    


     

    _________________________                                                   __________________________

     

    Mary
Spio,
Director                                                                           Mark
Argenti, Chairman and CEO

     

    


     

    


     

    _________________________

     

    Ian
McDaniel, Director

     

    


     

    


     

    _________________________

     

    Micheal
Morgan, Director
----

| (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-3212) pertaining to the Columbus McKinnon Corporation 1995 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the Columbus McKinnon Corporation Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the Columbus McKinnon Corporation Restricted Stock Plan and the Columbus McKinnon Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan Restatement Effective April 1, 1989 of Columbus McKinnon Corporation, |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-81719) pertaining to the Options assumed by Columbus McKinnon Corporation originally granted under the GL International, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and the Larco Industrial Services Ltd. 1997 Stock Option Plan, and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-137212) pertaining to the Columbus McKinnon Corporation 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 2, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1999 OF GROVE INVESTORS LLC AND
SUBSIDIARIES, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                          16,864
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,095)
<INVENTORY>                                    193,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               366,420
<PP&E>                                         253,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                (39,465)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 867,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          194,164
<BONDS>                                        516,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (82,910)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   867,307
<SALES>                                        781,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               781,229
<CGS>                                          633,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,114)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,649)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,649)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
1 

### FILED April 16, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

JEFFREY MORGAN, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9802-CV-00079 ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ) v. ) JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ) ) ) THOMAS L. DRISKILL, ) ) HONORABLE BEN W. HOOPER, II, Defendant-Appellant. ) JUDGE

For Appellant For Appellee THOMAS L. DRISKILL JEFFREY L. JONES Pro Se STEVEN DOUGLAS DRINNON Knoxville, Tennessee Rainwater & Jones Dandridge, Tennessee



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED Susano, J.1 Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals, provides as follows: The Court, with the concurrence of all judges 2 This is an unlawful detainer action. Jeffrey Morgan filed a civil warrant against Thomas L. Driskill in the Jefferson County General Sessions Court seeking to recover a mobile home and lot in Strawberry Plains. Judgment restoring the plaintiff to possession was entered in that court. On appeal by Driskill to the Jefferson County Circuit Court, that Court, based “upon the record and testimony in open Court,” entered a judgment that
upholds the order of the General Sessions Court and does hereby dismiss this Appeal and grants possession to the Plaintiff.
(Emphasis added).

On this appeal, the appellant, Thomas L. Driskill, challenges the propriety of the trial court’s judgment; however, he has not filed a record of the evidence heard below. In the absence of a transcript or statement of the evidence, we must assume that “had [a record] been preserved, [it] would have contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings” in support of its judgment. Sherrod v. Wix , 849 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Tenn.App. 1992). See alsoMcDonald v. Ohoh , 772 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn.App. 1989); Irvin v. City of Clarksville , 767 S.W.2d 649, 653 (Tenn.App. 1987); Gotten v. Gotten , 748 S.W.2d 430, 432 (Tenn.App. 1988).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals. 1participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated ‘MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case. 3 Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant. This case is remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the lower court’s judgment and for the collection of costs assessed there, all pursuant to applicable law.

__________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
CONCUR:

________________________ Houston M. Goddard, P.J.

________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J.
**Exhibit99.2**

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 theQuarterly Report of MEEMIC Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Victor T. Adamo, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Victor T. Adamo        |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Victor T. Adamo            |
| Chief Executive****Officer |
|                       |
| August 14, 2002            |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10166

Conference Calendar

 

LEO DURDEN, II,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEORGE BUSH, JR., Governor of the

State of Texas;

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:97-CV-53-C

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leo Durden, II, Texas inmate #718598, fails to challenge the

district court’s reason for dismissing his civil rights

complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint as

malicious. Therefore, any such challenge is deemed abandoned on
No. 97-10166

- 2 -

appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993). Thus, there is nothing for this court to review.

This appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. We caution Durden that any additional frivolous

appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To

avoid sanctions, Durden is further cautioned to review all

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court.

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
§ 450.189 Ground safety prescribed hazard controls. ( a ) *General.* In addition to the hazard controls derived from an operator's ground hazard analysis and toxic hazard analysis, an operator must comply with paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
( b ) *Protection of public on the site.* An operator must document a process for protecting members of the public who enter any area under the control of a launch or reentry operator, including: ( 1 ) Procedures for identifying and tracking the public while on the site; and
( 2 ) Methods the operator uses to protect the public from hazards in accordance with the ground hazard analysis and toxic hazard analysis.
( c ) *Countdown abort.* Following a countdown abort or recycle operation, an operator must establish, maintain, and perform procedures for controlling hazards related to the vehicle and returning the vehicle, stages, or other flight hardware and site facilities to a safe condition. When a launch vehicle does not liftoff after a command to initiate flight was sent, an operator must— ( 1 ) Ensure that the vehicle and any payload are in a safe configuration;
( 2 ) Prohibit entry of the public into any identified hazard areas until the site is returned to a safe condition; and
( 3 ) Maintain and verify that any flight safety system remains operational until verification that the launch vehicle does not represent a risk of inadvertent flight.
( d ) *Fire suppression.* An operator must have reasonable precautions in place to report and control any fire caused by licensed activities.
( e ) *Emergency procedures.* An operator must have general emergency procedures that apply to any emergencies not covered by the mishap plan of § 450.173 that may create a hazard to the public.
( f ) *Application requirement.* An applicant must submit the process for protecting members of the public who enter any area under the control of a launch or reentry operator in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
§ 25.832 Cabin ozone concentration. ( a ) The airplane cabin ozone concentration during flight must be shown not to exceed— ( 1 ) 0.25 parts per million by volume, sea level equivalent, at any time above flight level 320; and
( 2 ) 0.1 parts per million by volume, sea level equivalent, time-weighted average during any 3-hour interval above flight level 270.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, “sea level equivalent” refers to conditions of 25 °C and 760 millimeters of mercury pressure.
( c ) Compliance with this section must be shown by analysis or tests based on airplane operational procedures and performance limitations, that demonstrate that either— ( 1 ) The airplane cannot be operated at an altitude which would result in cabin ozone concentrations exceeding the limits prescribed by paragraph (a) of this section; or
( 2 ) The airplane ventilation system, including any ozone control equipment, will maintain cabin ozone concentrations at or below the limits prescribed by paragraph (a) of this section.
[Amdt. 25-50, 45 FR 3883, Jan. 1, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 25-56, 47 FR 58489, Dec. 30, 1982; Amdt. 25-94, 63 FR 8848, Feb. 23, 1998]
March 13 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

APPROXIMATELY $59,52 8.00 , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00983

- CV V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on October 16, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by r eason of this appeal be paid by appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7101

STEPHEN CAMPBELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EARL BESHEARS, Warden; CHAIRMAN OF MARYLAND

PAROLE COMMISSION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-2259-PJM)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Campbell v. Beshears, No. CA-97-2259-

PJM (D. Md. July 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 19, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 19, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A25I0031. SOUTH GEORGIA RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, LLC v. MELISSA T. PACE AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF WADE JEFFERSON PACE, DECEASED .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: STCV2201801
TERENCE CORNELIOUS 

LEWIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1411

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 17, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Michael G. Allen, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Colleen Dierdre Mullen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, 

and Jessica Judith Dasilva, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Harry Heckinger, Appellant.

Argued January 11, 1937;

decided January 26, 1937.

*David P. Siegel, Samuel Hassen*and *Bernard, Axler*for appellant.

*Charles P. Sullivan, District Attorney (John H. W. Krogmann*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgments reversed and new trial ordered. There is no evidence in this record to justify the submission of this case to the jury. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
§ 91.703 Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States. ( a ) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall— ( 1 ) When over the high seas, comply with Annex 2 (Rules of the Air) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and with §§ 91.117(c), 91.127, 91.129, and 91.131;
( 2 ) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force;
( 3 ) Except for §§ 91.117(a), 91.307(b), 91.309, 91.323, and 91.711, comply with this part so far as it is not inconsistent with applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operated or Annex 2 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation; and
( 4 ) When operating within airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace, comply with § 91.706.
( 5 ) For aircraft subject to ICAO Annex 16, carry on board the aircraft documents that summarize the noise operating characteristics and certifications of the aircraft that demonstrate compliance with this part and part 36 of this chapter.
( b ) Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Rules of the Air, Tenth Edition—July 2005, with Amendments through Amendment 45, applicable November 10, 2016, is incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the FAA must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 and is available from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Marketing and Customer Relations Unit, 999 Robert Bourassa Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada; *http://store1.icao.int/ ;* or by contacting the ICAO Marketing and Customer Relations Unit by telephone at 514-954-8022 or by email at *sales@icao.int .* For questions about ICAO Annex 2, contact the FAA's Office of International Affairs at (202) 267-1000. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34320, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991; Amdt. 91-254, 62 FR 17487, Apr. 9, 1997; 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004; Amdt. 91-299, 73 FR 10143, Feb. 26, 2008; Amdt. 91-312, 75 FR 9333, Mar. 2, 2010; Docket FAA-2016-9154, Amdt. 91-348, 82 FR 39664, Aug. 22, 2017]