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


                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the "First Amendment") is made and
entered into as of January 20, 2005 by and between Onyx Software Corporation, a
Washington corporation (the "Corporation") and Janice P. Anderson (the
"Executive"). This First Amendment modifies the employment agreement originally
executed between the parties on June 7th, 2004 (the "Employment Agreement")
which is hereby incorporated by reference. In the event of any conflict between
the Employment Agreement and the First Amendment, the terms of this First
Amendment shall control. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the
meaning ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.

        In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the Corporation and Executive agree as
follows:

1.      The nonqualified stock option grant of 135,000 shares of the
        Corporation's common stock (the "Grant"), as outlined in Section 6(b) of
        the Employment Agreement, is hereby modified as follows. The date of the
        Grant which was originally contemplated to be the first anniversary of
        Executive's commencement of employment, shall instead be granted on
        January 20, 2005. Save for the change in grant date as noted herein, the
        Grant shall be made under the terms of Section 6(b) of the Employment
        Agreement.

2.      All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain
        in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS HEREOF, each of the parties has executed this First Amendment, in the
case of the Corporation by its duly authorized officer, as of January 20, 2005.

ONYX SOFTWARE CORPORATION               EXECUTIVE
-------------------------               ---------


By:  /s/ Paul B. Dauber            By: /s/ Janice P. Anderson
     --------------------              ----------------------
     Paul B. Dauber                    Janice P. Anderson
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                        LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         (In thousands, except ratios)
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     NINE MONTHS
                                                                YEAR ENDED              ENDED
                                                             DECEMBER 31, 1997    DECEMBER 31, 1996
                                                             -----------------    -----------------
<S>                                                          <C>                  <C>
Earnings:
  Income before income taxes, minority interest and equity
     in net loss of affiliates.............................      $126,982              $16,498
  Plus:
     Interest expense......................................        37,871                6,000
     Interest component of rent expense(1).................         4,400
  Less capitalized interest................................        22,641
                                                                 --------              -------
Earnings available to cover fixed charges..................      $146,612              $22,498
                                                                 ========              =======
Fixed charges(2)...........................................      $ 78,568              $ 6,000
                                                                 ========              =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.........................          1.9x                 3.7x
                                                                 ========              =======
</TABLE>

---------------
(1) The interest component of rent expense is deemed to be approximately 25% of
    total rent expense.

(2) Fixed charges include preferred dividends as adjusted for the Company's
    effective tax rate.
# C_2011347EN.01004201.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/42

---

Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-538/11)

2011/C 347/75

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J. Halleux, Agents, and by L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04));

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.






  — | The measures implemented by Belgium do not entail a selective advantage for farmers, slaughterhouses and entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing under the applicable legislation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.

—

The measures implemented by Belgium do not entail a selective advantage for farmers, slaughterhouses and entities that process, handle, sell or trade in bovine animal products that are subject to compulsory BSE testing under the applicable legislation.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, David M Long, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, of Biofield Corp.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December
     31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
     78o(d)); and

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


Date: March 30, 2004
                                  By: /s/ David M. Long
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      David M. Long, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2014409EN.01003802.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission

(Case T-35/11) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff subheadings - Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 409/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment in part of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | It is not necessary to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is not necessary to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA.

| 3. | Kyocera Mita Europe BV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Kyocera Mita Europe BV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

1

---
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00293

- CR

Michael Riojas v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 25th District Court of Gonzales County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 17

- 17

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 22, 2019
Editorial Note on Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

Editorial Note on Subpart 151.50 of Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart 151.50 of part 151 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, and CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996.

§ 151.50-6 Motor fuel antiknock compounds. When transporting motor fuel antiknock compounds containing tetraethyl lead and tetramethyl lead the requirements listed in this section shall be observed. ( a ) Tanks used for these cargoes shall not be used for the transportation of any other cargo except those commodities to be used in the manufacture of tetraethyl lead and tetramethyl lead.
( b ) Pump rooms shall be equipped with forced ventilation with complete air change every 2 minutes. Air analysis shall be run for lead content to determine if the atmosphere is satisfactory prior to personnel entering the pump room.
( c ) Entry into cargo tanks used for the transportation of these cargoes is not permitted.
( d ) No internal tank inspection is required. If it is desired to internally inspect tanks used for these cargoes, the Commandant must be notified in advance before such inspection is made.
( e ) The provisions of § 151.50-5 shall also be met as a requirement for shipping antiknock compounds containing tetraethyl lead and tetramethyl lead.
# C_2016222EN.01004001.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 3 May 2016 — Kovács v Commission

(Case F-136/11) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Initial proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years made by the appointing authority and accepted by the person concerned - Withdrawal by the appointing authority of its initial proposal - New proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years based on new general implementing provisions - Objection of inadmissibility - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 222/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Zsuzsanna Kovács (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: initially, D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent, and lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision fixing the pension rights, acquired prior to entering the service, credited to the applicant under the EU pension scheme.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Zsuzsanna Kovács shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Zsuzsanna Kovács shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 24.

---
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.010-10 Independent laboratory. ( a ) The approval and production tests in this subpart must be conducted by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

LEON JOHNSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

AMERICAN ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Intervening Plaintiff, UNPUBLISHED April 12, 2018

v No. 331725 Wayne Circuit Court FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, LC No. 13

- 002627

- NI

Defendant

- Appell ee,

and

OSC AR WILSON, ARROW LOGISTICS, LLC

, and DAVID GRIGGS,

Defendants

.

Before: S AWYER

, P .J., and H OEKSTRA and M URRAY , JJ.

M URRAY

, J., ( concurring ).

I concur with the majority opinion’s conclusion to reverse this matter and remand it for further proceedings. Case law requires that before dismissing an action as a sanction a trial court must carefully evaluate on the record all available options . See Vicencio v Ramirez , 211 Mich App 501, 506; 536 NW2d 280 (1995); Dean v Tucker , 182 Mich App 27, 33; 451 NW2d 571 (1990). The record discloses that the trial court failed to do so in this case, and therefore abused its discretion in dismissing the action w ithout considering other factors on the record. I would go no further than that to resolve this appeal, and would not attempt to evaluate the factors the trial court should have considered when the record before us is not sufficiently complete to make a

p roper determination.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6552

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROMANUS NWANERI, a/k/a Romero, a/k/a Frank Davis, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-92-260-WMN, CA-97-3533-WMN) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romanus Nwaneri, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nwaneri , Nos. CR-92-260-WMN; CA-97-3533-WMN (D. Md. Mar. 31, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. 15-20127

Plaintiff,

District Judge John Corbett O’Meara

vs. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

DANTEZ BECKLEY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

For the reasons and under the terms stated on the record on November 29, 2016,

Defendant Dantez Beckley’s Motion to Amend Bond Conditions [Doc. #41] is

GRANTED to the extent that his curfew shall be from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Or, stated

differently, he may be away from his residence from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.).

If Defendant obtains employment that requires him to be away from his residence

before 9 a.m. or after 9 p.m., including travel time, Pretrial Services may change the

curfew hours accordingly in order to accommodate Defendant’s employment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Steven Whalen

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: November 30, 2016

5:15-cr-20127-JCO-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 244
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record

on November 30, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla

Case Manager to the

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

5:15-cr-20127-JCO-EAS Doc # 46 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 245
#### Maria Metzger, *Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v.*Henry Herrmann, *Appellant*.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
§ 182.458 Portable fuel systems. ( a ) Portable fuel systems, including portable tanks and related fuel lines and accessories, are prohibited except where used for portable dewatering pumps or outboard motor installations.
( b ) The design, construction, and stowage of portable tanks and related fuel lines and accessories must meet the requirements of ABYC H-25 (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 175.600) or other standard specified by the Commandant.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 986, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51050, Sept. 30, 1997; 62 FR 51358, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65209, Oct. 31, 2008]
[S.F. No. 24793.

June 26, 1986.]

#### SAN JOSE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; SANDRA ABERNATHY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER OF THE COURT.

On March 10, 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for writ of certiorari in this case [38 Cal.3d 839 (215 Cal.Rptr. 250, 700 P.2d 1252)] and ordered that “the judgment of the above court in this cause is vacated with costs, and that this cause is remanded to the Supreme Court of California for further consideration in light of *Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, AFT, AFL CIO*v. *Hudson,*475 U.S. 292 (1986).” (No. 85-498.)

Upon receipt of the mandate of the Supreme Court we solicited further briefs from petitioner and the real parties in interest as to the impact of the court’s decision in *Chicago Teachers Union.*Those briefs have been received and considered.

It appearing that the parties are in agreement that the petition for writ of mandate should be denied, the remittitur is recalled, our judgment directing that a writ of mandate issue is vacated, the alternative writ is discharged, and the petition for writ of mandate is denied.

Each party shall bear its own costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2508

REINA CHAVEZ-ROMERO, a/k/a Reina M. Chavez-Romero,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Federal Offset Unit,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(6:11-cv-01639-MGL)

Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reina Chavez-Romero, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reina Chavez-Romero appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Chavez-Romero v. U.S. Department of Education, No. 

6:11-cv-01639-MGL (D.S.C. filed Nov. 28 & entered Nov. 29, 

2012). We deny the motion to stay as moot. We deny the motion 

for a copy of the record on appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register: June 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 111)]
[Notices]               
[Page 32982-32983]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10jn10-84]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

 
Notice of Intent To Request Extension From the Office of 
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection 
Activity, Request for Comments; Certification of Airmen for the 
Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request

[[Page 32983]]

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current 
information collection. This rule generates a need for new designated 
pilot examiners and designated airworthiness representatives to support 
the certification of these new aircraft, pilots, flight instructors, 
and ground instructors.

DATES: Please submit comments by August 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on (202) 267-9895, or by 
e-mail at: Carla.Scott@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Certification of Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport 
Aircraft.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of an approved 
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0690.
    Forms(s): FAA forms 337, 8610-2, 8110-14, 8110-28, 8710-11.
    Affected Public: A total of 57,214 Respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1.27 hours per 
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 72,582 hours annually.
    Abstract: This rule generates a need for new designated pilot 
examiners and designated airworthiness representatives to support the 
certification of these new aircraft, pilots, flight instructors, and 
ground instructors.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla 
Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises 
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments Are Invited On: Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of 
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2010.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business 
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-13993 Filed 6-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```