alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.35

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of October 20, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Summer Energy Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Employer”), and Angela Hanley (“Employee”). 

RECITALS

A. Employer and Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”).  Unless otherwise indicated, all capitalized terms herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Employment Agreement; and 

 

B.Pursuant to Section 9 of the Employment Agreement, Employer and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Amendment.   

  

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, Employer and Employee hereby agree as follows: 

1.Exhibit A to the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the second bullet point in section 5 of Exhibit A and replacing it in its entirety with the following language:   

Beginning on and measured from October 1, 2017, and continuing through the term of this Agreement, Employee will be granted a fully-vested option to purchase 15,000 shares of Employer’s common stock each calendar quarter, provided Summer LLC’s (i) quarterly commercial sales volume exceeds 22,500,000 KWh for such quarter (as measured by the ERCOT Commercial Rolling Metrics report) and (ii) EBITDA after SG&A expenses, divided by Gross Profit, each as set forth on Employer’s internal energy schedule, exceeds 9.0% for such quarter.  Provided such metrics were met for a particular quarter, Employer will grant said options as promptly as possible following the end of such fiscal quarter with a strike price equal to the greater of (i) the fair market value of a share of stock on the date of grant, and (ii) $2.50 per share.  Such option will be granted pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Stock Option Grant Agreement and the Employer’s 2015 Stock Option and Stock Award Plan.  Upon the occurrence of a Change of Control (as defined in this Agreement, as amended), unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the incentive compensation described in this paragraph shall terminate.  

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the Effective Date.

 

EMPLOYER:EMPLOYEE: 

 

SUMMER ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC.

a Nevada corporationAngela Hanley 

Angela Hanley 

By: /s/ Neil Leibman 

Name: Neil Leibman 

Title: CEO 


1
From: tana55@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:31:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Tana Johnson

Puyallup, WA 98374
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

David Carroll, Stephenson, an individual, and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

John McKay, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5054FDB

ORDER

The Court Dismissed this cause of action by order entered February 8, 2006, there being an

order that any pro se complaint or petition submitted for filing in this district by Plaintiff is subject to

review by the Court prior to issuance of summons or service of process by the Court. Plaintiff filed

two documents [Dkt. # 2 and Dkt. # 5] seeking an order vacating the Court’s above referenced order

of dismissal as being void. Plaintiff’s motions are without merit. 

IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal Date 2/7/2006 [Dkt. # 2]

and Plaintiff’s Petition/Application to vacate order [Dkt. # 5] are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to

accept no further documents for filing in this cause of action. 

DATED this 6th day of March, 2006.AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05054-FDB Document 6 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 1
No. P67/156.

#### Fred Bronner Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 64/8189 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consist of HO gauge figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Polk's Model Graft Hobbies, Inc., et al.*(47 CCPA 187, C.A.D. 746), except that certain of such articles are composed of plastic material, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: robert.preisser@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:55:53 PM

Health and Human Services:

I am writing today to object the the proposal that all insurance providers cover all "contraceptives" and

sterilization procedures, with no co-pay to patients. This is simply not right. It is not right to force me

to pay for what amounts to optional services for others. If people wish to have an intimate relationship

without risk of a pregnancy, that is their choice, and the method by which they choose to lower the risk

of pregnancy is also their choice. If people wish to use condoms, that is one option. IUDs are another.

Of the multiple preventive options available, there is no reason why all should be made available at no

cost, without a co-pay. Making all these options "free" will only drive up health care costs, since people

will choose more expensive options when they are "free" than they would if they were required to pay

for them.

Alsok by setting co-pays at zero, those people are not getting a "free" benefit... they are getting one at

the expense of all other people paying higher premiums. Those people may be single, and a large

percentage are likely past child-bearing age, etc. Why should they be forced to pay to allow other

people to get free birth control? This is simply unfair, and unnecessary. There is no constitutional right

to free birth control. The Federal Government has no right to force other people to pay for other

people's free birth control, either.

No Americans should be forced by the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object

to. I again urge you remove contraceptives, sterilizations, and any other form of birth control from the

list of mandatory preventive services that all insurers must provide.

Sincerely,

Robert Preisser

Washington, DC 20001
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Order -1 THOMAS A. CENA, JR.

Attorney at Law

2115 North 30th, Suite 201

Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 572-5120 Fax: (253) 593-4503

E-MAIL: TomC55@nventure.com

JUDGE LEIGHTON 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-5101RBL

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 

vs. ) SUPPLEMENTAL TO JUDGMENT AND

) SENTENCE

JOSE ANGEL LOPEZ-VAZQUEZ, aka )

JOSE ANGEL LOPEZ-AGUILAR, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

THIS MATTER having come on regularly before the above-entitled Court, upon the motion of the

Defendant, JOSE ANGEL LOPEZ-VAZQUEZ, aka, JOSE ANGEL LOPEZ-AGUILAR, for an Order and

Recommendation supplemental to the Judgment and Sentence rendered herein on September 8, 2006. The

Court having reviewed the instant motion, the declaration accompanying said Motion and the Court being in

all respects fully advised, now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows: 

Case 3:06-cr-05101-RBL Document 75 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Order -2 THOMAS A. CENA, JR.

Attorney at Law

2115 North 30th, Suite 201

Tacoma, WA 98403

(253) 572-5120 Fax: (253) 593-4503

E-MAIL: TomC55@nventure.com

The Court makes the following recommendations regarding placement of the Defendant for the

period of his incarceration and custody pursuant to the sentence imposed upon him:

1. It is recommended that the Defendant be considered by the Bureau of Prisons and other

relevant authorities for the prisoner exchange program between the United States and Mexico;

2. It is recommended that the Bureau of Prisons arrange for placement of the Defendant at FCI 

Sheridan, Oregon, in order to allow him to have optimal contact with his family. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of September, 2006.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by

/s/ Thomas A. Cena, Jr.

_____________________________________

THOMAS A. CENA, JR., WSBA No. 6539

Attorney for Defendant Lopez-Vazquez

Case 3:06-cr-05101-RBL Document 75 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TROY DEIMERLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVE JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5002 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s Letter/Motion regarding Lost Correspondence [Dkt. #63] will be

considered by the Court as an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. One

basis for the recommendation to grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment is

that plaintiff failed to respond in opposition to the motion in violation of Local Rule

CR 7(b). Plaintiff’s objection relates to the failure of Safford Creek Correction

Center to send out some of his legal mail dated September 5, 2006 and October 3,

2006. This lawsuit involves allegations that defendants acted with deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. The motion for summary judgment was 

filed after plaintiff complained that his legal papers were not mailed out by Safford

Creek; therefore, his objection does not relate to or explain why he failed to respond

to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. As such, plaintiff’s objection is

DENIED. 

(2) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(3) The motion for summary judgment of Defendants Grays Harbor County Sheriff

Michael J. Whelan, GHCCF Superintendent David Christensen, Corrections Officer

Josh D. Burgess, and Corrections Officer Dallas Greer (Dkt. #38) is GRANTED; and

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendant

Case 3:06-cv-05002-RBL Document 71 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05002-RBL Document 71 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-463-CV

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. APPELLANT

V.

MANSFIELD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL APPELLEES

DISTRICT, CITY OF MANSFIELD, AND 

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 

----------

FROM THE 236TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Unopposed Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”

It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.
DELIVERED: December 18, 2008
Case 2:06-cv-00265-MJP Document 18 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Bakken Energy Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shih Long Ning, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of May 31, 2015.  By:/s/ Shi Long NingShi Long Ning
Chief Executive Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAUL DAVID ALVARADO-MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

 

Case No. CR05-5747RBL

 CR06-5333RBL

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office

alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant United States Attorney, DAVID JENNINGS:

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, JOHN CARPENTER: 

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of

supervision; the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s) and maximum potential sanction if

substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the alleged violation(s); 

The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Honorable RONALD B. LEIGHTON: 

Date: APRIL 12, 2011 

Time: 8:30 AM 

( ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing.

( X ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. 

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office. This Order is entered

without prejudice to review.

March 18, 2011.

A

J. Richard Creatura

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 202 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 1
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   In connection with the Annual Report of IC Places, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven Samblis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)  the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  IC PLACES, INC.  /s/:  Steven Samblis STEVEN SAMBLIS, Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer   April 14, 2009
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 JetPads, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Kanaat, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 29th day of July, 2009.  /s/ Robert Kanaat Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
From: newburyfamily1999@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:59:16 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Newbury

Fort Polk, LA 71459
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 53

Commending Dr. Jason C. Hu, Representative of the Taipei Economic and

Cultural Representative Office in the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 19, 1997

Mr. MURKOWSKI submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending Dr. Jason C. Hu, Representative of the Taipei

Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the

United States.

Whereas Dr. Jason C. Hu has served with distinction as Representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) since June 1996, and has

ably represented the interests of the Republic of China on

Taiwan;

Whereas Dr. Hu has been a firm and consistent advocate of

democratic principles throughout his distinguished career;

Whereas Dr. Hu has established many deep friendships with

Members of Congress and other Americans during his

tenure in Washington; and
2

•SCON 53 IS

Whereas Dr. Hu has been asked to return to Taiwan to serve

as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of

China: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress hereby—

3 (1) commends Dr. Jason C. Hu for his service

4 as Representative of the TECRO office; and

5 (2) expresses to Dr. Hu and his family its best

6 wishes for his continued success in the future.

Æ
Order entered January 5, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00560-CR

JOSE DAVID GUTIERREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-23201-H

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 4, 2021 motion for an extension of 

time to file his amended or supplemental brief. We GRANT the motion and 

ORDER appellant’s amended or supplemental brief due by January 15, 2021. 

The State’s brief will be due thirty days after appellant files his amended or 

supplemental brief.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MELISSA FERNANDEZ,

Appellant,

v.

DOUGLAS A. MELDRUM and CATHERINE MELDRUM,

Appellees.

No. 4D2023-0604

[July 11, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Scott R. Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017CA009612. 

John R. Sutton of Sutton Pomares Law Group PA, South Miami, for 

appellant.

Justin C. Carlin of The Carlin Law Firm, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellee Douglas A. Meldrum.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.