alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.39


 


AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the  16th day
of January, 2018, by and between Live Ventures Incorporated (formerly known as LiveDeal, Inc.), a Nevada corporation
(the “Company”), and Jon Isaac (“Executive”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive have entered into an employment agreement, effective as of January 1, 2013 (the “Employment
Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement in the manner reflected herein.


 


In
consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements herein contained, intending to be legally bound, the parties agree
as follows:


 


1.       Section
2 of the Employment Agreement hereby is amended so that the Term is deemed to continue until December 31, 2020, or upon the date
of termination of employment pursuant to Section 6 of the Employment Agreement; provided, however, that the Term may be extended
as mutually agreed to by the parties.


 


2.       Section
4 of the Employment Agreement hereby is amended by deleting such section in its entirety and by substituting in lieu thereof the
following:


 


Business
Expenses. During the Term, the Company will reimburse Executive for all reasonable business expenses incurred by him in connection
with his employment and the performance of his duties as provided hereunder, upon submission by the Executive of receipts and other
documentation in conformance with the Company’s normal procedures for executives of Executive’s position and status,
including a reasonable housing expense not to exceed $7,000 per month.


 


3.       This
amendment is deemed to be effective as of January 1, 2016.


 


4.       Except
as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


5.       This
Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute
one and the same instrument.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 


 


 


 






    	 	1	 



     

    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


 


	LIVE VENTURES INCORPORATED, a Nevada corporation


	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
        By:

        

        
	/s/ Virland A. Johnson	 	
        
/s/ Jon Isaac
	 	Name: Virland A. Johnson	 	Jon Isaac
	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer	 	 




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



    	 	2
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-08-00450-CV

ARLINGTON MEMORIAL

HOSPITAL

APPELLANT

V.

PATRICIA HARRIS, INDIVIDUALLY

AND AS PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

ESTATE OF HARVEY HARRIS,

DECEASED

APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

AND

NO. 02-09-00008-CV

IN RE ARLINGTON MEMORIAL

HOSPITAL

RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT
 

2... See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

2

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

On May 22, 2009, Arlington Memorial filed its “Notice of Entry of Order”

in this court, to which it attached the “Order Granting Defendant Arlington

Memorial Hospital’s Objections to Plaintiffs’ Amended Expert Report, Motion to

Dismiss and For Attorney Fees and Costs” signed by the trial court on May 14,

2009. Because the trial court’s May 14, 2009 order grants all of the relief

sought by Arlington Memorial, we dismiss this appeal and petition for writ of

mandamus as moot.2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 20, 2009
Order entered December 12, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00641-CR

STEVEN JOSEPH EISELE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 003-83436-2015

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s December 7, 2016 third motion to extend time to file his brief 

and ORDER the brief filed no later than December 22, 2016. If appellant’s brief is not filed by 

December 22, 2016, this appeal will be abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance 

with rule of appellate procedure 38.8(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 33.2
 MANAGEMENTS ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE
  Platform i e
 Applicable Servicing Criteria
 Period
 Managements interpretation of Applicable Servicing Criteria
 Third parties classified as vendors




---



##### 



DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANYBy:
    /s/ Gary R. VaughanName:
    Gary R. VaughanIts: Managing DirectorBy:
    /s/ David CoName:
    David CoIts: DirectorBy:
    /s/ Matt BowenName:
    Matt BowenIts: DirectorBy:
    /s/ Kevin FischerName:
    Kevin FischerIts: DirectorBy:
    /s/ Robert FrierName:
    Robert FrierIts: DirectorDEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICASBy:
    /s/ Kevin C. WeeksName:
    Kevin C. WeeksIts: Managing DirectorBy:
    /s/ Jenna KaufmanName:
    Jenna KaufmanIts: Director
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

. SE04360A188
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION 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 Surna Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, T. C. Tan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 25th day of February, 2011.








T.C. TANT. C. TanChief Financial Officer
#### ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. Dan F. MICKLER et al., Respondents.

No. 40490.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 21, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1971.

William L. Durden and Fred H. Kent, Jr., of Kent, Durden & Kent, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Willard Howatt, St. Augustine, and Del-bridge L. Gibbs, of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for respondents other than Harold M. Wayne.

Harold M. Wayne, in pro. per.

Benjamin K. Phipps, Tallahassee, for the Tax Assessors Association of Florida, ami-cus curiae.

John E. Norris, of Brannon, Brown, Norris, Vocelle & Haley, Lake City, for Florida Forestry Association, Inc., amicus curiae.

Edward J. McCarthy, Jr., Jacksonville, for Container Corp. of America, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The decision under review is quashed and the cause remanded under the authority of Conrad v. Sapp, filed July 14, 1971, 252 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971) and for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion in the District Court, 241 So.2d 415, with directions to enter a judgment extending “agricultural zoning” to the land involved.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents with opinion.

DEKLE, Justice

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent on authority of Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So.2d 665 (Fla.1971), and Conrad v. Sapp, 252 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971). We there established that in cases of disputed facts the granting or denying of the beneficial “agricultural” classification by the taxing authorities, and any court review thereof, are to be based upon the particular facts of each case under applicable standards (criteria); that the determination arrives in this Court with a presumption of correctness (under this well-established rule); and that the decision will be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence. This case is supported by competent, substantial evidence, as were *Greenwood*and *Sapp.*It should be affirmed.

Accordingly, I would uphold the discretion here exercised by the Agricultural Zoning Board, by the able Circuit Judge and then by the First District Court of Appeal in denying the agricultural zoning which petitioner sought.
Treasury approves Maine’s plan to invest $11.8 million of CPF funding in 

multi-purpose community facilities to improve resources for communities 

that enable work, education, and health monitoring.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Maine

 

▪ Program Summary: $11.8 million for Multi-Purpose Community Facilities (9% of 

CPF allocation)

▪ Program Description: Maine’s Connectivity Hubs 

Grant Program will identify and invest in new and 

existing community anchor institutions 

(“Connectivity Hubs”), which may include libraries, 

telehealth centers, or food banks. Connectivity Hubs 

will provide programming on workforce training, 

education, and health monitoring or telehealth. Connectivity Hubs may 

additionally lend or offer digital connectivity devices, including tablets and 

computers, for public use. 

▪ Key State Contact: Maine Connectivity Authority (MCA)

Maine Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information

Maine estimates this 

program will fund 20-25 

Connectivity Hubs that 

will serve approximately 

110,000 individuals 

annually.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            3994
<SECURITIES>                                      8000
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6008
<ALLOWANCES>                                        53
<INVENTORY>                                       8195
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 28504
<PP&E>                                            4044
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   32108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3474
<BONDS>                                             66
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1173
<OTHER-SE>                                       25297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     32108
<SALES>                                          14362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 14362
<CGS>                                             6452
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (235)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3187
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1196
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1991
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1991
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32


</TABLE>
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0673 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM091AD

737 - 57A1319 IN 01 --- 4/27/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket **MA Y BE VIEWED AT:**  Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
Page 37.1.972
 

Page 37.1.973

 

Page 37.1.975

 

 

 

 

Redacted by the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury

Redacted by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury
WALSH STATION 

Page 37.1.976
Page 37.1.977
Page 37.1.978



WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY 

Page 37.1.982
Page 37.1.983
Page 37.1.984
Page 37.1.985

WEST COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY 

Page 37.1.987

Page 37.1.989
 

 

Page 37 1 990

 

WINDWARD INC DBA HONDA OF HAYWARD 

Page 37.1.992
Page 37.1.993
 

Page 37.1.994

 
Page 37.1.995
WINTER CHEVROLET 

Page 37.1.996
Page 37.1.997
Page 37.1.998
Page 37.1.999
Page 37.1.1000

 

 

 

YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE 

Page 37.1.1002
Page 37.1.1003
 

Page 37.1.1004
Page 37.1.1005
February 22, 2013 

Attn: Damon Walker 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30, Room W-12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

West Building Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590 

Damon, 

Carlsbad Palomar Airlines' grant of authority expires on February 25, 2013. This letter is requesting 

extending that authority to allow us to complete our 121 certification with the FAA 

We continue to move forward in our 121 application. Below are events and milestones that will give you a 

clear idea of where we are in the process and the approximate additional time we require. 

• On November 20,2012 the San Diego FSDO suspended California Pacific's 121. application. The 

suspension was immediately appealed. 

• In early December as a result of the appeal the FAA moved the handling of the 121 application 

from the San Diego FSDO to the regional office in Los Angeles. 

• On January 9, 2013 a planning meeting was held between California Pacific Airlines and the 

regional office of the FAA. A target of March 10, 2013 was established to resubmit the 

certification package. 

The regional FAA office has committed to move the application through the review process as 

quickly as possible. Completion is expected sometime this summer. 

Other relevant issues: 

• We have had some changes in personnel, but continued to have the critical 119 positions filled. 

We will be sending updated information on the people in place in a separate document. 

• There also have been changes to the board. Names and resumes will be supplied. 

• There have been minor additions to the ownership. The list of stockholders will be supplied 

Nearly $10m dollars have been invested in the airline to this point. We continue our fund raising 

and have sufficient funds to complete the certification process with a 2 aircraft operation. The 

details on monies spent to date, pre-operating monies required and fund raising efforts will also 

be sent in a separate document. 

• Our first year forecast remains unchanged. The calculation of funds equal to negative working 

capital can be made from forecasts previously submitted. 

We respectfully request that the grant of authority be extended to allow us to finish the 121 certification 

process. 

The contents of this application and the attached exhibit (s) are true and correct to the best of my 

knowledge and belief. Pursuant to Title 18 United States Code Section 1001, I [the individual signing the 

application, who shall be a principal owner, senior officer, or internal counsel of the applicant], in my 

individual capacity and as the authorized representative of the applicant, have not in any manner 

knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed or failed to disclose any material fact or made any false, 

fictitious, or fraudulent statement or knowingly used any documents which contain such statements in 

connection with the preparation, filing or prosecution of the application. I understand that an individual 
who is found to have violated the provisions of 18 U.S.C section 1001 shall be fined or imprisoned not 

more than five years, or both. 

Theodore L. Vallas, CEO 

CaHfornia Pacific Airlines
Treasury approves Idaho’s plan to invest $3.4 million of CPF funding in 

libraries to better support communities by providing additional space and 

resources to facilitate work, education, and health monitoring.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Idaho

 

▪ Program Summary: $3.4 million for Multi-Purpose Community Facilities (3% of 

CPF allocation)

▪ Program Description: Idaho’s Commission for Libraries

Facility Program is a competitive grant program that

provides funding to eligible libraries to upgrade or

expand facilities to meet the needs of identified

communities. Public libraries funded through this

program will provide increased access to resources and programming for 

community members including students, job seekers, and families, among others. 

▪ Key State Contact: The Idaho Commission for Public Libraries

Idaho’s Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information

Idaho estimates that 

this program will fund 

improvements to at 

least 23 libraries.
EXHIBIT 11

                      Latshaw Enterprises, Inc.
<TABLE>
                 Primary and Fully Diluted Net Income 
                    per Common Share Computation

<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months Ended         
                                              February 3,         January 28,
                                                 1996                1995

Primary

Net income applicable
<S>                                           <C>  <C>             <C>  <C>
to common shareholders                        $    487             $    473

Weighted average number of common 
 shares outstanding during the period              501                  497 

Add - common equivalent shares (determined
 using the "treasury stock  method") 
 representing shares issuable upon the 
 exercise of stock options granted                  17                   22 

Weighted average number of common and 
 common equivalent shares outstanding              518                  519 

Net income per share                           $   .94               $  .91 

Fully Diluted

Net income                                     $   487                $ 473 
Add - interest expense of convertible 
 subordinated debentures                            39                   37 

Net income applicable to common shareholders   $   526                $ 510 

Weighted average number of common shares 
 outstanding during the period                     501                  497  

Add - common equivalent shares (determined 
 using the "treasury stock method") representing 
 shares issuable upon the exercise of stock 
 options granted                                    17                   22 

Add - dilutive convertible subordinated 
 debentures                                        500                  500 

Weighted average number of common and 
 common equivalent shares outstanding            1,018                1,019    
 
Net income per share                           $   .52              $   .50 
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Columbia Energy Group (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
W. O'Donnell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 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.

          /s/ Michael W. O'Donnell
-------------------------------------------
            Michael W. O'Donnell
   President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 2, 2004
#### Kenneth CALDWELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. N-151.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 10, 1970.

Kenneth Caldwell, in pro. per.

SPECTOR, Judge.

Petitioner in an original habeas corpus action seeks release from a five-year sentence imposed upon him after his convic*428tion of the crime of escape from the Alachua County Jail.

 In support of his claim, petitioner advances the interesting theory that his escape was not unlawful and, hence, not a crime inasmuch as the sentence he was serving at the time he escaped was itself unlawful. The allegedly unlawful sentence was a two-year term imposed after he pled guilty to a charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Petitioner’s claim is that the two-year prison sentence earlier imposed upon him was invalid by operation of the rule announced by the court in .the case of Calloway Brown v. State, Case No. 2481, original opinion dated October 22, 1969,' not reported. While the Calloway Brown decision relied upon by petitioner did stand for the proposition asserted by him, the said opinion never became final since it was receded from by the court on rehearing. The court’s final decision in Callo-way Brown was filed on February 12, 1970, 232 So.2d 55. Inasmuch as the original opinion dated October 22, 1969, in the Cal-loway Brown case spawned a spate of post-conviction motions to vacate judgments and sentences and habeas corpus actions, all of which proceed on the mistaken notion that crimes punishable by sentences of imprisonment in county jails or in the state prison are not felonies, we deem it especially appropriate to call to the attention of the members of the Raiford bar the fact that the court receded from its earlier views by its February 12 decision noted above. Much judicial time and labor has been expended in considering and disposing of cases of this type simply because prisoners have not taken proper note of the fact that the opinions of appellate courts are not final until the time for rehearing and disposition thereof, if any, has run. I suppose that failure to be cognizant of this latter rule has caused numerous prison inmates to sacrifice their few pennies and privileges given to their more sophisticated fellow inmates who hold out to them false hopes of release or new trials.

Viewing the legality of petitioner’s sentence in the breaking and entering case in light of the court’s opinion on rehearing in Calloway Brown, we hold that the said sentence is not invalid. Accordingly, pe-tioner’s claim, being predicated upon a fallacious legal premise, must fall.

The petition is denied.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.