alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
(this “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of April 6, 2015 by and between InnerWorkings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), and John D. Eisel (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and Executive are parties to an agreement dated September 6, 2011, as amended (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties
have previously amended the Agreement and now desire to further amend the Agreement as set forth below.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the foregoing recitals, the mutual promises and agreements hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:


 


		1.	The first word of the second sentence of Section 4(b) of the Agreement is deleted and replaced
with the following phrase:



 


“Except as otherwise provided
in Section 5 of this Agreement, if”


 


		2.	The first sentence of Section 5 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:



 


“Upon the occurrence of a Qualifying
Termination (as defined below), Executive shall be entitled to immediate vesting of all outstanding equity-based awards (including
immediate vesting at the target level of performance for equity-based awards which would otherwise vest based on performance).
For purposes of this Agreement, a ‘Qualifying Termination’ means a termination of Executive’s employment within
ninety (90) days prior to or twenty-four (24) months following the consummation of a Change in Control as a result of Executive’s
(i) resignation for Good Reason or (ii) termination by the Company without Cause.


Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding
any less favorable or contrary treatment in an award agreement or other grant documentation with respect to equity-based awards,
the vesting of all equity-based awards that are not assumed by a successor company or exchanged for a replacement award on no less
favorable economic terms will be fully accelerated as of the effective date of the Change in Control (including immediate vesting
at the target level of performance for equity-based awards which would otherwise vest based on performance), and such equity-based
awards shall be paid to Executive within thirty (30) days after the effective date of the Change in Control.”


 


		3.	The remaining terms of the Agreement, as previously amended, remain unchanged.





 





 



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment
as of April 6, 2015.


 





	INNERWORKINGS, INC.    	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Eric D. Belcher    	 	/s/ John D. Eisel
	 	Eric D. Belcher 	 	John D. Eisel
	 	Chief Executive Officer
§ 4000.3 What methods of filing may I use? ( a ) *Paper filings.* Except for the filings listed in paragraph (b) of this section, you may file any submission with us by hand, mail, or commercial delivery service.
( b ) *Electronic filings.* ( 1 ) You must file premium declarations under part 4007 of this chapter electronically in accordance with the instructions on the PBGC's Web site subject to the following provisions: ( i ) This electronic filing requirement does not apply to premium information to the extent that the PBGC grants an exemption for good cause in appropriate circumstances.
( ii ) This electronic filing requirement does not apply to premium payments except to the extent that the PBGC so provides in the instructions on the PBGC's Web site.
( iii ) This electronic filing requirement does not apply to information you file to comply with a request we make under § 4007.10(c) of this chapter (dealing with providing record information in connection with a premium compliance review).
( 2 ) You must submit the information required under part 4010 of this chapter electronically in accordance with the instructions on the PBGC's Web site, except as otherwise provided by the PBGC.
( 3 ) You must file notices under part 4043 of this chapter electronically in accordance with the instructions on PBGC's Web site, *http://www.pbgc.gov*, except as otherwise provided by PBGC.
( 4 ) When making filings to PBGC under parts 4041A, 4245, 4262, and 4281 of this chapter (except for notices of benefit reductions and notices of restoration of benefits under part 4281), you must submit the information required under these parts electronically in accordance with the instructions on the PBGC's Web site, except as otherwise provided by the PBGC.
( c ) *Information on how to file.* Current information on how to file, including permitted filing methods, fax numbers, and mail and e-mail addresses, is— ( 1 ) On our Web site, *http://www.pbgc.gov ;*
( 2 ) In our various printed forms and instructions packages; and
( 3 ) Available by contacting our Customer Service Center at 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024-2101; telephone 1-800-400-7242 (for participants), or 1-800-736-2444 (for practitioners). (If you are deaf or hard of hearing or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.)
[70 FR 11543, Mar. 9, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 31080, June 1, 2006; 79 FR 13559, Mar. 11, 2014; 80 FR 55002, Sept. 11, 2015; 80 FR 55745, Sept. 17, 2015; 80 FR 57717, Sept. 25, 2015; 86 FR 36620, July 12, 2021; 87 FR 57825, Sept. 22, 2022]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000057497
<NAME> THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,078
<INVENTORY>                                     42,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,704
<PP&E>                                         118,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,223
<BONDS>                                         36,919
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,345
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,319
<SALES>                                        291,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               291,381
<CGS>                                          229,981
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  229,981
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,788
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,788
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,788
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39


</TABLE>
(80 South. 154)

#### WASHINGTON v. STATE.

(5 Div. 287.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 26, 1918.)

Criminal Law <&wkey;>1131(5) — Dismissal oe Appeal — Escape.

Where, on appeal from a conviction, it appears after taking the appeal that the appellant has escaped from custody, the appeal will he dismissed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Jesse Washington was convicted of crime, and he appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Emmett S. Thigpen, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

It is made to appear to the court by competent evidence that the appellant, since the taking of the appeal in this case, has escaped from custody and is now a fugitive from justice. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO . A

- 4469

- 15T3

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

RCL MANAGEMENT, GARDEN STATE POOL I, LLC, TOWNSHIP OF HILLSIDE,

Defendant s ,

and

RODNEY LEE, his heirs devise, and personal representatives and his/her, their, or any of their successors in right, title and interest,

Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________________

Submitted September 26, 2017

– Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F

- 030486

- 13.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. "
A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R. 1:36

- 3.

October 17, 20172 A

- 4469

- 15T3 Rodney Lee , appellant pro se.

RAS Citron, LLC, attorneys for resp ondent (John Habermann and Monik a Pundalik, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Rodney Lee seeks to challenge the foreclosure of a

mortgage by plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association. Because Lee

did not file his notice of appeal until June 21, 2016, we entered

an order on July 11, 2016, denying his motion to file his notice

of appeal out of time as to the November 24, 2015 final foreclosure

judgment. Instead, our order limited his appeal to the M ay 12,

2016 order denying his motion to vacate the final judgment.

However, Lee failed to provide us with the motion judge's statement

of reasons for the May 12, 2016 order, and thus we cannot engage

in meaningful appellate review of the judge's decision and order.

See Cipala v. Lincoln Tech. Inst. , 179 N.J. 45, 55 (2004).

As significantly, Lee's appellate brief does not address the

merits of the reconsideration motion. Instead, his brief is

directed entirely at an interlocutory order dated October 28,

2014, granting summary judgment striking his answer. His attempted

appeal of that order is untimely, because his appeal of the final

judgment was untimely. However, even if we were to consider his

arguments , they are without merit, for the reasons cogent ly stated3 A

- 4469

- 15T3

by Judge David B. Katz in his written opinion accompanying the

October 28, 2014 summary judgment order. Defendant's arguments

do not warrant further discussion here. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E).

Summary judgment was properly granted, and Lee has provid ed no

basis to disturb the May 12, 2016 order denying his motion to

vacate the final judgment.

Affirmed.
§ 1960.59 Training of employees and employee representatives. ( a ) Each agency shall provide appropriate safety and health training for employees including specialized job safety and health training appropriate to the work performed by the employee, for example: Clerical; printing; welding; crane operation; chemical analysis, and computer operations. Such training also shall inform employees of the agency occupational safety and health program, with emphasis on their rights and responsibilities.
( b ) Occupational safety and health training for employees of the agency who are representatives of employee groups, such as labor organizations which are recognized by the agency, shall include both introductory and specialized courses and materials that will enable such groups to function appropriately in ensuring safe and healthful working conditions and practices in the workplace and enable them to effectively assist in conducting workplace safety and health inspections. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to alter training provisions provided by law, Executive Order, or collective bargaining arrangements.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-397/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Clinique La Ramée ASBL, Winterthur Europe Assurance SA v Jean-Pierre Riehl, Council of the European Union (1)

(Officials - Social benefits - Communities' right of subrogation to an official's rights against the third party liable for an actionable event)

(2004/C 262/12)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-397/02: reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) by decision of 6 November 2002, registered on 11 November 2002, in the proceedings between Clinique La Ramée ASBL, Winterthur Europe Assurance SA and Jean-Pierre Riehl, Council of the European Union — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it ruled:

Article 85a of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of officials and the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 2799/85 of 27 September 1985, is not to be interpreted as conferring on the Communities the right to obtain from a third party liable for the death of an official reimbursement in full of the survivor's pension paid to the surviving spouse pursuant to Articles 79 and 79(a) of those Staff Regulations, where the law applicable to entitlement to compensation for damage provides that the right to a survivor's pension is unconnected with the obligation of the perpetrator of a wrongful act to compensate in full for the damage and the damage suffered by the surviving spouse as a result of the loss of the deceased wife's income is less than the amount of the survivor's pension paid to him.

----

(1)OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

----
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

       I, James J. Bazata, certify that: 

l.       I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.       The small business issuer's other certifying officers 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)) for the small business issuer and have:

       (a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

       (b)       [Intentionally omitted]

       (c)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

       (d)       Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.       The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

       (a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

       (b)       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 7, 2004.

/S/James J. Bazata
## We've moved! Click below to go to a site.
#### CHAMBERLAIN et v SNYDER Admr SNYDER Admr v CHAMBERLAIN et

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Fulton Co

No 98.

Decided Feb 25, 1929

Fred B Fowler, Wauseon, for plaintiff in error and plaintiff respectively.

Ward & Johnson, Wauseon, for defendants in error and defendants respectively.

*234WILLIAMS, J.

The first question for us to determine is whether the cause below is one which can be appealed. It is contended in argument that the action was one brought under GC. Section 10857, which permits an administrator to “ask the direction or judgment of the court in any matter respecting the * * estate or property to be administered and the rights of the .parties in interest in the manner and as fully as formerly w,as entertained in courts of equity.” We are of the opinion that the action below was not an action within the terms of this section, but that it was properly an interpleader under GC. Section 11265. An inspection of the record shows that of all the persons who were proper and necessary parties, the only one that w,as actually made a party was the plaintiff himself. If G. F. Knight was at the time of his death the owner of an interest in the fund in question, any right of action for such fund would pass to his personal representative and if there is such a duly appointed, qualified and acting personal representative, he is not made a party to this action. The fund is still in the hands of the building and loan company, and that company is not made a party. Both the 'building and loan company and the personal representative of G. F. Knight, deceased, were necessary parties to a complete determination of the issues involved in the court below, and an interpleader such as «would result'from the making of the proper and necessary parties is not appealable.

> Maginnis vs. Schwab, 24 Ohio St., 336; Conklin vs. Andrews, 18 Court of Appeals Opinions, 6th District, unreported, p. 168.

The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

We think the judgment in the error case should be reversed for the reason that it is not binding, upon the building and loan company nor upon the estate of G. F. Knight, deceased. The duly appointed and.acting-personal representative of G. F. Knight, deceased could bring an action against the bank because he is not bound by a judgment in an action to which he is not a party, and the building and loan company itself could resist any new action to which it might be a party or could refuse to comply with the judgment rendered in the court below, for the same reason. We are not determining, in any sense the rights of the parties to the fund on deposit, but leave that for future determination.

For the reasons given the judgment of the court below will be reversed and the cause remanded for 'further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Lloyd and Richards, JJ, concur.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0602 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2009 - SW - 061 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**