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



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

					
	



		 Mark Hoplamazian
 President and

Chief Executive Officer
		
		  
 Hyatt Hotels Corporation

71 South Wacker Drive
 Chicago, IL 60606 USA

 
 T: +1 312.780.5400

F: +1 312.780.5282
 mark.hoplamazian@hyatt.com
		

 April 20, 2015 

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL 
 Mr. Atish
Shah 
 Via e-mail 
 Dear Atish: 

I am delighted that you have agreed to undertake the role of ‘Interim Chief Financial Officer (CFO)’ subject to approval of the Board of Directors.

 In this position, you will report to me in my capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer. You will be responsible for the finance function until a
permanent CFO is selected or such earlier time as I may determine to relieve you of such responsibility, at my discretion. 
 During this time, you will
continue to be responsible for the Investor Relations and Financial Planning & Analysis functions and your total compensation will remain unchanged. 

I welcome your continued contributions, and valuable support as you undertake this interim role. 

 

	
	Yours Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Mark Hoplamazian
	
	Mark Hoplamazian
	President & CEO
	Hyatt Hotels Corporation

  

	cc:	Robb Webb, Chief Human Resources Officer 


  
 1 








 Acceptance 

Please review this document and, if satisfactory, note your agreement to these terms in the space provided. 

I have read and fully understand the terms and conditions of my employment as senior vice president, Interim CFO. 

 

			
	Acceptance:		 /s/ Atish Shah

			Atish Shah
		
	Date:		 April 20, 2015



  
 2
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 July 2004

in Case T-115/02: AVEX Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for a Community figurative mark comprising the letter ‘a’ - Earlier Community figurative mark comprising the letter ‘a’ - Likelihood of confusion)

(2004/C 239/35)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-115/02: AVEX Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by J. Hofmann, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and the intervener before the Court of First Instance being Ahlers AG, formerly Adolf Ahlers AG, established in Herford (Germany), represented by E.P. Krings, lawyer — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2002 (Case R 634/2002-1) relating to the opposition filed by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark comprising the letter ‘a’ against registration of a Community figurative mark comprising the letter ‘a’ — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

----
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 22-60451

Summary Calendar

____________

Maria Elizabeth Melgar-Ortiz; Esmeralda Del Carmen 

Gutierrez-Melgar; Noel Antonio Gutierrez-Melgar, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A209 436 967

Agency No. A209 436 968

Agency No. A209 436 969

______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Maria Elizabeth Melgar-Ortiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, or 

“BIA.” The decision dismissed her appeal from an order of an Immigration 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60451 Document: 00516680353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2023
No. 22-60451

2

Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

1

 Because we 

review the BIA’s decision concerning asylum, withholding, and CAT relief 

for substantial evidence, we may not disturb this decision unless the evidence 

“compels” a contrary conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th 

Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in original).

This standard has not been met. Melgar-Ortiz shows no error in 

connection with the BIA’s determination that her proposed particular social 

groups were not cognizable. A particular social group must be socially 

distinct. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019). In 

addition, a particular social group must be more than one person. Martinez 

Manzanares v. Barr, 925 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2019). She thus fails to show 

that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the 

issue whether she was eligible for asylum or withholding. Because an 

applicant for asylum or withholding of removal must first show membership 

in a relevant social group, Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th Cir. 2021), 

we need not consider her remaining arguments concerning these forms of 

relief.

Her CAT arguments fail because they do not show that the evidence 

compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the issue whether she 

more likely than not will be tortured if repatriated. See Morales v. Sessions, 

860 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2017). The petition for review is DENIED.

_____________________

1 Melgar-Ortiz is the mother of the other two petitioners here, who are derivatives 

on her application. 

Case: 22-60451 Document: 00516680353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2023
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-20737

Summary Calendar

_____________________

ANDREA ESTELLE; SHERRYE REESE; ROXANE MIHEALSICK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-4346)

_________________________________________________________________

May 20, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andrea Estelle, Sherrye Reese, and Roxane Mihealsick appeal

the adverse summary judgment in their action under the Railway

Labor Act (RLA). (Because the district court held that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction over the RLA claims, it also dismissed

the state law claims. The latter are not in issue.)

We review a summary judgment de novo, applying the same

standard as the district court. E.g., OHM Remediation Services v.

Evans Cooperage Co., Inc., 116 F.3d 1574, 1579 (5th Cir. 1997).

Such judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a
- 2 -

judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).

Estelle and Reese claim that Continental violated 45 U.S.C. §

152 by removing them from service as flight attendants for 11 days

with pay, because they actively opposed a new collective bargaining

agreement; Mihealsick claims that, for the same reason, other

actions by Continental forced her to return from the training

center to service as a flight attendant. The district court

granted summary judgment because plaintiffs’ claims fell within

none of the exceptions to the System Board of Adjustment’s

exclusive jurisdiction over disputes under RLA collective

bargaining agreements. Pursuant to our de novo review of the record

and our review of the briefs, summary judgment was proper, for

essentially the reasons stated by the district court. See Estelle

v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. H-96-4346, memorandum and order

(July 16, 1998). 

 AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

 Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

December 14, 2016

Order 

Clerk

December 14, 2016

154529(41)

RONNIE MADSON, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 154529

v COA: 331605

Lenawee CC: 11-037046-DC

LATOYA JASO,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the joint motion of the Michigan Coalition of 

Family Law Appellate Attorneys and the Legal Services Association of Michigan to 

participate as amici curiae and to file a brief in support of the application for leave to 

appeal is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on December 6, 2016, is accepted for 

filing.
§ 500.135 Certificate of housing inspection. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a facility or real property to be used for housing a migrant agricultural worker shall not be occupied by any migrant agricultural worker unless either a State or local health authority or other appropriate agency, including a Federal agency, has certified that the facility or real property meets applicable safety and health standards.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the person who owns or controls a facility or real property shall not permit it to be occupied by any migrant agricultural worker unless a copy of a certificate of occupancy from the State, local or Federal agency which conducted the housing safety and health inspection is posted at the site of the facility or real property. The original of such certificate of occupancy shall be retained by such person for three years and made available for inspection in accordance with section 512 of the Act.
( c ) If a request for an inspection of a facility or real property is made to the appropriate State, local or Federal agency at least forty-five (45) days prior to the date on which it is to be occupied by a migrant agricultural worker but the agency has not conducted an inspection by such date, the facility or property may be occupied by migrant agricultural workers unless prohibited by State law.
( d ) Receipt and posting of a certificate of occupancy as provided under paragraph (b) of this section, or the failure of an agency to inspect a facility or property within the forty-five (45) day time period, shall not relieve the person who owns or controls a facility or property from the responsibility of ensuring that such facility or property meets the applicable State and Federal safety and health standards. Once such facility or property is occupied, such person shall supervise and continually maintain such facility or property so as to ensure that it remains in compliance with the applicable safety and health standards.
Rel: April 19, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2023-0052 J.W. Henderson, Jr. v. City of Enterprise (Appeal from Coffee Circuit Court: CV-22-900012). STEWART, Justice. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P. Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.18 Amendment to Term Note





AMENDMENT TO TERM NOTE




This Amendment to the Term Note (“Amendment”) is dated April 2, 2015 by and among SofTech, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation with offices at 650 Suffolk Street, Suite 415, Lowell, MA 01854 (the “Borrower”) and EssigPR, Inc., a Puerto Rico corporation (the “Lender”).




WHEREAS, the Borrower and Lender are parties to that certain Term Note dated October 1, 2014; and




WHEREAS, the Term Note is due and payable in full on April 10, 2015; and




WHEREAS, the Borrower and Lender have agreed to extend the due date an additional three months to July 10, 2015. 




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows:




 

1.

Term. Section 6. entitled “Term.” of the Term Note shall be amended by changing the due date from April 10, 2015 to July 10, 2015.




2.

Consideration. Borrower hereby awards Lender 2,500 stock options to purchase SofTech common stock at an exercise price of $1.00 per share. Such stock options will be fully vested upon execution of this Amendment. The stock options will expire on the ten year anniversary of the award if not exercised.




All other terms and conditions detailed in the Term Note shall remain unchanged.




BORROWER

LENDER




SofTech, Inc.

EssigPR, Inc.







By:  /s/Joseph P. Mullaney

By: /s/ Joseph P. Daly   




               CEO

              CEO

Its: ___________________

Its: __________________




             April 2, 2015

             April 2, 2015

Date: _________________

Date: ________________
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 5, 2017

a1212 

# Order

Clerk January 5, 2017

154091

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154091

COA: 333117

Kent CC: 13

- 007669

- FH

LEE ARTRIA BARNES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2016 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the de fendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41694

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

WILLIAM RYAN McDOWELL ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 690

Filed: August 22, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jefferson County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two and one

- half years , for delivery of a controlled substance

, affirmed

.

Sean P. Bartho lick of Bartholick Law, PLLC, Rexburg, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
William Ryan McDowell pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance . I.C. § 37

- 2732(a)(1)(B) . In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district

court sentenced McDowell to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of

confinement of two and one

- half years

. McDowell appeals.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court ’ s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App . 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewingthe length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, McDowell ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
§ 1918.34 Other decks. ( a ) Cargo shall not be worked on decks that were not designed to support the load being worked.
( b ) Grated decks shall be properly placed, supported, maintained and designed to support employees.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13108]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1962-000]


Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Meeting

May 19, 2000.
    Take notice that there will be a full group meeting of the Rock 
Creek-Cresta Relicensing Collaborative on Monday, June 5, 2000, from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m. at the PG&E offices, 2740 Gateway Oaks Drive, in 
Sacramento, California. Mark Robinson of the Commission's Office of 
Energy Projects has been invited to participate by phone for a brief 
update of the settlement status. Expected participants need to give 
their names to William Zemke (PG&E) at (415) 973-1646 so that they can 
get through security.
    For further information, please contact Elizabeth Molloy at (202) 
208-0771.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13108 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David B. Swank certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Diomed Holdings,
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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

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

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

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  May 13, 2005                        /s/ DAVID B. SWANK
                                              -----------------------------
Supreme Court

No. 2018

- 33

- A ppeal

. ( NC 09

- 142 )

Karen F. Carroll :

v. :

Lisa Rodriques et al

. :

O R D E R

The Court being evenly divided, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Chief Justice Suttell did not participate.

Entere d as an Order of this Court this ____

___ day of February , 2020.

By Order,

____________________________

Clerk 28th

/s/SU

- CMS

- 02B (revised November 2016) STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPREME COURT

– CLERK’S OFFICE

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Karen F. Carroll v. Lisa Rodriques et al.

Case Number No. 201 8

- 33

- A ppeal.

( NC 09

- 142 )

Date O rder Filed February 28

, 2020

Justices Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.

Source of Appeal Newport County Superior Court

Judicial Officer From Lower Court Associate Justice Brian Van Couyghen

A ttorney(s) on Appeal For Plaintiff:

Christopher A. Anderson , Esq.

For Defendant:

Lauren E. Jones, Esq.

Evan S. Leviss, Esq.

Robert S. Thurston, Esq.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lionel Johnson, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 478]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered February 27, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence of defendant’s participation in the drug transaction, including his unequivocal affirmative response to the undercover officer’s query as to whether he was “working” as well as his conduct throughout the transaction.

Defendant’s various arguments concerning his application to have the trial prosecutor recused are indistinguishable from arguments this Court rejected on a codefendant’s appeal *(People v Smith,*262 AD2d 77), and we see no reason to reach a different result herein. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.