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



 


Amendment to Project Collaboration
and Profit Sharing Agreement dated October 13 2013 (the “Collaboration Agreement”)


 


This amendment is entered into on March 5, 2014 between Kevin
T. Mulhearn (“Mulhearn”) and OSL Holdings, Inc. (“OSL”) .


 


Whereas pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement OSL is obligated
to issue substantial shares to Mulhearn.


 


Whereas the Collaboration Agreement does not provide for
a cash return of Mulhearn’s investment.


 


Whereas issuance of those shares would cause substantial
dilution to OSL shareholders.


 


Therefore the parties agree as follows


 


	 	1.	OSL shall no longer be obligated to issue the Buyout Shares as defined in the Collaboration Agreement.
	 	 	 
	 	2.	OSL shall issue Mulhearn a promissory note in the amount of $700,000 payable in twelve months. The note shall permit OSL , in its discretion, to convert the note into shares of common stock at market price any time after the thirty day weighted average share price reaches $0.50.
	 	 	 
	 	3.	OSL shall provide warrants for 5,000,000 shares exercisable when the share price hits $0.25 and warrants for 3,000,000 shares exercisable when the share price hits $0.50.
	 	 	 
	 	4.	Issuance of the aforementioned warrants and note shall satisfy OSL’s obligations pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement.
	 	 	 
	 	5.	Mulhearn has the option of providing up to an additional $200,000 of funding to OSL within the next twenty days in exchange for a prorata increase in the note and warrants.
	 	 	 
	 	6.	This amendment is subject to OSL board approval and will be void if such approval is not obtained within seven days of its execution.


 


Agreed to:


 


	/s/
    Kevin T. Mulhearn		/s/
    Eric Kotch
	Kevin
    T. Mulhearn	 	OSL
    Holdings, Inc. By Eric Kotch
	 	 	CFO
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS,
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CMF”), and AVENTIS ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California
limited liability company (the “Advisor”), have agreed to amend the Management Agreement (the “Management Agreement”), dated as of December 1, 2011, among the Partnership, CMF and the Advisor, to reduce the monthly
management fee rate payable to the Advisor. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Management Agreement. 

WHEREAS, all provisions contained in the Management Agreement remain in full force and effect and are modified only to the extent necessary to
provide for the amendments set forth below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Management Agreement as follows: 

1. The monthly fee for professional management services rate referred to in clause (a)(ii) of the Section entitled “Compensation” in
the Management Agreement is hereby reduced to a monthly management fee rate equal to 1/12 of 1.25% (a 1.25% annual rate). 
 2. The
foregoing amendment shall take effect as of the 1st day of March, 2014. 
 3. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute the same agreement. 
 4. This Amendment
No. 1 shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Management Agreement has been executed for and on
behalf of the undersigned as of the 7th day of February, 2014. 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 	President and Director


  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
		
	By:	 	Ceres Managed Futures LLC
		 	(General Partner)
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 	President and Director


  

			
	AVENTIS ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Steven Hwang

		 	Name: Steven Hwang
		 	Title:   Chief Operating Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mtniteb**~tate~** 

# (!Courtof**§ppeaI~** 

# fortbejfeberaIQCircuit

DONALD D. GNADER, JR., Claimant-Appellant, 

### v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.
2012-7153 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 11-1686, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr. 

### ON MOTION ORDER The court treats the various motions to stay proceedings as a motion for an extension oftime for the appellant to file his opening brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: Case: 12-7153 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 10/10/2012DONALD GNADER, JR. v. SHINSEKI 2 The motion is granted. The appellant's opening brief is due within 30 days ofthe date ofthis order.

FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s26 Case: 12-7153 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 10/10/2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

August 14, 2019

Madelyne Adlin

New York

Re: National Floors Direct, Inc., Matter No. 182-3085

Dear Ms. Adlin: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s (“Commission” or 

“FTC”) proposed consent order in the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has placed 

your comment on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the agency’s Rules of 

Practice, 16 C.F.R. §4.9(b)(6)(ii). The Commission is committed to protecting consumers from 

deceptive or other unlawful practices, so we greatly appreciate your feedback on this matter. 

According to our complaint against National Floors Direct, Inc. (“NFD”), NFD violated 

the Consumer Review Fairness Act by using non-disparagement provisions in form contracts 

offered to its flooring and carpeting installation customers in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

and Rhode Island between July 2016 and April 2018. The proposed order resolving this charge 

would prohibit NFD from using such non-disparagement clauses in form contracts for goods and 

services, and require it to notify consumers who signed such contracts that the prohibited 

provision is void. 

In your comment, you state that an NFD sales representative gave you incorrect 

information about the steps that you would need to take to prepare for the company to install new 

flooring in your home. You also state that you had to negotiate with NFD to have it waive fees 

that you believed should not be your responsibility based on the information the sales 

representative told you and that he wrote into your contract. As noted above, the order against 

NFD would prohibit it from offering consumer form contracts with provisions that would restrict 

your ability to share your honest, candid opinions about the company and its services, thus 

allowing prospective customers to learn from your experience. If you had signed an NFD form 

contract with such a provision, NFD would not be able to enforce that provision. We have also 

added your comment to our agency’s complaint database, which assists us in tracking complaints 

and helps inform our law enforcement decisions. Further, if you have any additional information 

regarding these practices, we would encourage you to submit a complaint with the Commission 

at our website, www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov, or by calling our Consumer Response Center 

(877) 382-4357.

Having considered all the facts of this case and all of the comments submitted in response 

to the proposed consent order, the Commission has now determined that the public interest 

would best be served by issuing the Complaint and the Decision and Order in final form without 

any modifications. The final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from 
Letter to Commenter Adlin

Page 2

the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. The Commission thanks you again for your 

comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Very truly yours,

April J. Tabor

Acting Secretary of the Commission
EXHIBIT 22

                             SENTECH EAS CORPORATION

                            REGISTRANT'S SUBSIDIARIES



 SenTech EAS International, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of SenTech EAS
 Corporation.



                                   END OF PAGE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, July 12, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Thursday, July 12, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Otis Simpson. For more information please contact Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues. Otis Simpson. For more information please contact Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

The agenda will include a discussion on various letters, and other issues related to written communications from the IRS.

Dated: June 1, 2018.

Antoinette Ross,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2018-12204 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Noemi Isabel Noria, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00005

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 17

- 26260 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Noemi Isabel Noria, has adequately indicated h er inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 2 5 , 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
No. 11028.

#### The State, ex rel. Trustees of Malta Township, *v.*The County Auditor of Morgan County.

Decided June 23, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Morgan county.

*Messrs. Ivers & Danford,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John Q. Lyne,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Spear- and Davis, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

,

Justices

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

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

Dec ember 2 1 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk Dec ember 2 1 , 2018

156737( 7 2 )

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF HOME

BUILDERS, ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND

CONTRACTORS OF MICHIGAN, and

MICHIGAN PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL

CONTRACTOR ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

SC: 156737

v COA: 331708

Oakland CC: 2010

- 115620

- CZ

CITY OF TROY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Manufacturers

Association to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on

Dec ember 19 , 2018 , is accepted for filing

.
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-39865, 33-39866, 33-65176, 333-40118, 333-45971, 333-45975, 333-91967 and
333-113059 of Hector Communications Corporation of our report dated February 18,
2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hector Communications
Corporation and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004.


/s/ Olsen Thielen and Co., Ltd.
-------------------------------
Olsen Thielen and Co., Ltd.
March 29, 2005
St. Paul, Minnesota
#### Larry DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-766.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 7, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1972.

Larry Davis, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         208,613
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,421
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               355,082
<PP&E>                                          72,322
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 601,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          541,076
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         20
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   601,182
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,457,597
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,725,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (403,167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (404,367)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (404,367)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### FIDELITY NATIONAL BANK OF BATON ROUGE v. John R. SHEPPARD.

No. 8468.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 30, 1971.

*575Teddy Airhart, Jr., of Airhart & Copen-haver, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Roy F. Cangelosi, Jr., and Dean M. Mosely, Kizer, Cangelosi, Sanford & Mosely, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LANDRY, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

This is a suit on a note, brought by Fidelity National Bank of Baton Rouge against John R. Sheppard. Judgment by default was rendered against defendant on November 21, 1969, and defendant timely applied for a new trial. Written reasons denying the application for the new trial were filed on October 23, 1970. On January 20, 1971, defendant filed a petition for appeal, which reads as follows:

> “Petitioner desires to appeal devolutively from the final judgment denying a motion for a new trial, rendered on the 23rd day of October, 1970.”

Plaintiff’s entire brief is devoted to argument as to the propriety of the ruling of the district judge in denying the new trial. He complains of no irregularity in the proceedings leading up to the judgment of November 21, 1969, except to say that he was relying on an alleged local custom that he would be notified by opposing counsel before a default judgment would be taken.

We think it clear from the record that defendant intended to appeal from the judgment denying the new trial and not from the judgment of November 21, 1969. No appeal lies from a judgment denying a new trial. General Motors Accep. Corp. v. Deep South Pest Control, 247 La. 625, 173 So.2d 190 (1965).

The record does not reflect that defendant inadvertently put the wrong judgment date in his motion for appeal, as was the case in H & H Boat Rental Inc. v. Vidos, 221 So.2d 829 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1969), and authorities therein cited.

Since the judgment appealed from is an interlocutory, non-appealable judgment, defendant’s appeal must be dismissed.

The appeal is therefore dismissed, at defendant’s cost.

Appeal dismissed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1331

_____________________________

EUGENE HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary,

Florida Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

May 17, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Court denies the petition for writ of certiorari on the 

merits.

ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Eugene Harris, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Sauer-Danfoss Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
33-53927 and No. 333-93745 on Form S-8 of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. of our reports
dated February 14, 2003 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Sauer-Danfoss Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, and the related financial statement schedules,
which reports appear in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of
Sauer-Danfoss Inc.

     As described in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, in 2002
the Company changed its method of accounting for goodwill and other intangibles.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Des Moines, Iowa

March 12, 2003
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 26, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00827-CV

CHRISTOPHER ARGUIJO AND MELISSA GONZALEZ & ALL OTHER 

OCCUPANTS, Appellants

V.

GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 & Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CI049394

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed July 3, 2013. No clerk’s record has 

been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed 

the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On October 15, 2013, notification was transmitted to all parties of the 

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within 
2

fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and 

provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Brown.