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

EXHIBIT 10.21

ADDENDUM TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEEMENT




THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES:


1.The private company with limited liability ChargePoint Network (Netherlands) B.V. having its registered seat in Amsterdam and its office address at Hoogoorddreef 56E, 1101 BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands (formerly known as ChargePoint Europe Holdings B.V.), legally represented for this purpose by ChargePoint Inc. which is legally represented by Pasquale Romano, hereinafter to be referred to as: the ‘Employer’, and 
2.Christopher Burghardt, residing in                       , hereinafter to be referred to as: the ‘Employee’;


Both parties will be referred to as: ‘Parties’


WHEREAS:


a)Since 6th of November 2017 the Employee is employed with the Employer and he holds the position of Managing Director;
b)Employee has resigned as per 31 December 2021 from his position as Managing Director with ChargePoint Network (Netherlands) B.V.;
c)Due to his resignation as employee of ChargePoint, parties have agreed to change article 14.1c in the terms and conditions to the Employment Agreement;
d)The Parties wish to set out these changes in the terms and conditions to the Employment Agreement as follows in this addendum (hereinafter to be referred to as: ‘the Addendum’), and Parties agree that this Addendum forms an integral part of the Employment Agreement. 


DECLARE TO HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:


To define a definition of what constitutes ‘Business level contacts’ as mentioned in article 14.1c. Therefore, the current article 14.1c will be replaced by below article 


Article 14 – Non-competition


14.1 Except with the prior written approval of the Employer, the Employee shall not be permitted, both during the employment agreement and until one year after its end


14. 1c    to have or maintain business contacts in any way, directly or indirectly, with relations of the Employer with whom the employer and employee have been in contact on a business level during the last two years prior to the end of the employment agreement. Business contacts in this definition is limited to ChargePoint customers, including commercial partners such as channel partners and resellers, with whom ChargePoint conducted business within the period referenced in this clause.    


All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged.


In witness whereof, the Addendum was agreed and signed in duplicate on 22nd December 2021 in __________






Read and approved:                        Read and approved:






_/s/ Pasquale Romano________                    _/s/ Christopher Burghardt_________
On behalf of ChargePoint Network (Netherlands) B.V.        Christopher Burghardt
Director: ChargePoint Inc.
Name: Pasquale Romano
Position: Chief Executive Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPerformance of a Ka-band satellite system under variable transmitted signal power conditionsA laboratory hardware-based satellite communication system simulator has been used to measure the effects of transmitted signal power changes on the performance of a Ka-band system. Such power changes can be used to compensate for signal fade due to rain attenuation. This paper presents and discusses the results of these measurements.Document ID19870009267Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsFujikawa, Gene*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Kerczewski, Robert J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1987Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-88984E-3454NAS 1.15:88984Accession Number87N18700Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 650-60-23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870009267.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 345 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 345

   Recognizing the 100th anniversary of Fenton Art Glass, a beloved 
   institution in West Virginia, that continues to contribute to the 
 economic and cultural heritage of the State through its production of 
                   world renowned, hand-blown glass.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 21, 2005

  Mr. Byrd (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing the 100th anniversary of Fenton Art Glass, a beloved 
   institution in West Virginia, that continues to contribute to the 
 economic and cultural heritage of the State through its production of 
                   world renowned, hand-blown glass.

Whereas Fenton Art Glass rose from its humble beginnings as a glass decorating 
        company in 1905, and came to settle in Williamstown, West Virginia, by 
        opening a factory to create their own glass when they were unable to 
        obtain the glass that they needed;
Whereas, with the vision of brothers Frank and John Fenton, Fenton Art Glass 
        began to create innovative new colors and established the company in the 
        forefront of the hand-blown glass industry;
Whereas in 1907, Fenton introduced its highly colorful Iridescent, or 
        ``Carnival'' Glass, which became instantly successful throughout the 
        country and is now highly prized by collectors around the world;
Whereas during the 1930s and 1940s, Fenton addressed the shortages felt by 
        families in the United States by producing mixing bowls and tableware 
        that were often unavailable during the World War II and Depression 
        shortages;
Whereas Fenton Art Glass is not only a family tradition, with the third 
        generation of the Fenton family now carrying on the legacy, but also a 
        West Virginia institution, employing generations of workers; and
Whereas Fenton Glass, known for its beauty and precision in craftsmanship, is a 
        symbol of the dedication and care of the Fenton family, as well as the 
        pride in craftsmanship so characteristic of the West Virginia people: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate congratulates Fenton Art Glass on its 
centennial milestone, for creating beautiful, hand-blown glass in West 
Virginia for 100 years.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NeuStar, 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 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; andc.
    
    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 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 control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    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.
 August 11, 2006
    
    /s/ Jeffrey A. Babka

Jeffrey A. Babka
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0004146

19-MAR-2014

08:20 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED June 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                         APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                   1,549,021
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            2,447,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                               100,000
<INVENTORY>                                              1,258,760
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         5,431,684
<PP&E>                                                   2,655,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                             992,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           8,067,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    2,540,463
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                     8,755
<OTHER-SE>                                               5,113,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             8,067,919
<SALES>                                                    728,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         1,561,547
<CGS>                                                      604,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            2,214,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           9,762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (585,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (585,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (585,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.07)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017195EN.01000401.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Costin Popescu v Guvernul României and Others

(Case C-632/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Driving licences - Directive 2006/126/EC - Article 13(2) - Concept of ‘entitlement to drive granted before 19 January 2013’ - National legislation transposing the directive - Obligation to obtain a driving licence imposed on persons who were allowed to ride a moped without a licence before the entry into force of that legislation))

(2017/C 195/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Costin Popescu

Applicant:

Defendants: Guvernul României, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Direcția Regim Permise de Conducere si Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor, Direcția Rutieră, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, in particular Article 13(2), must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, adopted in order to transpose that directive into national law, which terminates the authorisation to ride mopeds without holding a driving licence, the issue of which is subject to passing tests or examinations similar to those required for driving other motor vehicles.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

1

---
#### American Express Co., *a/c*Finchley, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6412.

Entry No. 734680, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 1945, etc.

Certified May 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 7, 1945, etc.

(Decided October 3, 1946)

*Eugene B. Pickrell*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Adminis--trative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the items in question are the appraised values less additions made on entry because of advances in similar cases.
g
UNITED STATES

BATHYMETRIC MAP

BERING SEA

UKIVOK
rm = =
Co oe . is : is * — =
| / 3
ee 2 mA, tae eat
| / ' ' n
cA e 4 a
~ i it
ai,
|
> ,
¥ , |
cotrow 5. |
|
Ime ie ‘ 1
— tm 7 ‘ on |
cstrow ; 7 7 ‘ . F
vrivean j
“ , T |
} ’ ~) A 1 i
- CHIRIKOF
4 BASIN om | |
. , < 2 |
. - “ = er - ,- - ery
, % ¢ 5 i 4 |
* pene ; ile j : ier : t I? q :
—) \, nari 2i¢ fp »lece F . . a, ob +
ee > i “ < WSs to
ent 3 . tr M 2, ‘
“s + ‘ { w > - a ‘ og
: te ~ x t / ‘
4 ’ rianin iyo. a ip ;
WF Waa Fad rs a fu |p F bs 3 He M4 i
’ ’ 3 ° Te - A ‘ r : - }
M es ° i * ' = ~ \
eS gure Pae, - . 4 3
¢ Ms ee fie { male : 7 \ < ;
f 3 mt “Bae 4 rh < q
Cot z “wii > ae i: ° I Aaagt h)
t a " 7, " ia Gr , ; ° - . .
; Ms ‘ ‘“ i . . 4 ‘
2 F , P , * ta 7 \
Abe og - ‘ Pil Fe F AH Po ‘ :
a - =~ 4, y a °. - .
bi 2 oy 3 *
rr ” P
4 v} 1 pai ig ae , 4 ‘ ae) s\~, |
, . . = 7
> ‘ ‘ 4 ae rime, : - ; 5 NORTON PLAIN it
4; 2 a% ; ‘ 7 ; 7 |
“+ ' - . 4 ‘ — P
i oe i “4 . 23, : : t= te z , lhe R
i ‘a 3 * y PS ee ie io -+4 estat
nd te < “ , , ‘ R ‘ hy 24% J " * iid ‘ >
° 1 . TT ve
Paihed ot Wesbogren: BE :
US. DEFRRTMENT OF COMMERCE = é UKIVOK
= | MADOMAL CCFANIS AND ATHOSINERK: ADWeAGRERTICN - NOS NO 24
ane we + rustigneal OCbaw HCE
- wun
“ Arana. CONTE eetoneth WAETES TO many Behe
= vortwesrn wr # wate stevats

TATU ME

WER AW WANE

“SANTOR MERCATOR ORETON i
Sete | 2800

4 c= )
a; ae
lel Prd
4
ond
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATifllE c E I v ED 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC OCT 2 9 2015 

In the Matter of: 

Compass Systems & Sales, Inc .. 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

_____________________ ) 

HFARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2015-2440 

Case No. 2014-GL-70-0239 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Mr. 

------------------------------------------~' Stuart A. Strasfeld 

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge 

100 E. Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown, OH 44503 

Counsel for Respondent 

Brian K. Khan 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Midwest Team 

2300 East Devon Ave., AGL-7H 

Des Plains, Illinois 60018 

(p) 847-294-7652 

(f): 847-294-7498 

PARTIES PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN 

Federal Aviation Administration (l'AA) and Compass Systems & Sales, Inc., through 

their respective counsel, state as follows their Proposed Discovery Plan: 

1. Rule 26 (a)(1) Disclosures: The parties shall exchange the disclosures required 

by Rule 26(a)(l) on or before November 20, 2015. 

2. Rule 26 (a)(2) Disclosures: The parties shall exchange initial expert disclosures 

(if any) required by December 11, 2015. Rebuttal disclosures shall be served by 

December 30, 2015. 

3. Discovery Cut Off: All discovery shall be completed by February 19, 2015. 
4. Dispositive Motions: All dispositive motions shall be filed by and heard by April 

8, 2015. 

5. Amendments to Pleadings: All amendments to pleadings must be sought by the 

discovery cut-off date of February 19, 2015. 

6. Final Settiement Conference: The parties, including counsel and those with 

authority to settle, shall meet by teleconference May 20, 2015, for a final 

settlement conference. 

Brian K. Khan 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Midwest Team 

2300 East Devon Ave., AGL-7H 

Des Plains, Illinois 60018 

J~-' Stuart A. Strasfeld 

Attorney for Compass Systems & Sales, Inc .. 

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld& Lodge 

I 00 East Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown, OH 44503 

;_ 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A copy of this: PARTIES PROPOSED DISCOVERYPLAN 

was served upon, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearing, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Mr. Stuart A. Strasfeld 

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge 

I 00 E. Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown, OH 44503 

Counsel for Respondent 

On October 28, 2015, by Federal Express, by the undersigned. 

Dated: October 28, 20 I 5 

Brian K. Khan
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

THOMAS L. JUSTUS,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs.

 CASE NO. 2:12-cv-126

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

COMMISSIONER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH P. DEAVERS

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the Order filed March 8, 2013, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

DISMISSING this case.

Date: March 8, 2013 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-00126-EAS-EPD Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/08/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Order entered June 27, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00127-CV

TERRY JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

MAI DINH, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-05233-E

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 26, 2019 motion for an extension of time to file his 

brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court on 

June 26, 2019 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JOHN MONROE, 

 Case No. 2:12-cv-837 

 Plaintiff, JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

 Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King 

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

ORDER

 This Court previously reversed the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and 

remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. (ECF No. 20, 21.) This matter is now 

before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff be 

awarded $2,900.00 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 

2412. (ECF No. 25.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the award be made 

payable to Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to an assignment executed by Plaintiff, provided that the 

parties verify that Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset. (Id. at PageID# 1008.) 

The Magistrate Judge made her recommendations based on the parties’ stipulation. (ECF No. 

23.) 

The Report and Recommendation specifically advises that the failure to object to the 

Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the date of the Report results in a waiver of 

the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment 

of the District Court. (ECF No. 25 at PageID# 1009.) The time period for filing objections to 

the Report and Recommendation has expired with no party filing an objection. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00837-GLF-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections 

have been filed and the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the 

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25.) The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff be awarded 

$2,900 in attorney fees under the EAJA and FURTHER ORDERS that, if the parties verify that 

Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset, the award be made payable to Plaintiff’s 

attorney pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff in favor of his counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 GREGORY L. FROST 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:12-cv-00837-GLF-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>