alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                  Page 17 of 20


                               GENESEE CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES



                                   EXHIBIT 10

                        AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                        ---------------------------------



         This AMENDMENT made as of this 13th day of November, 2003 (the
"AMENDMENT DATE") shall modify and amend the Employment Agreement by and between
GENESEE CORPORATION (the "COMPANY") and STEVEN M. MORSE (the "EXECUTIVE") dated
December 15, 2002, as amended by Amendment of Employment Agreement dated May 4,
2003 (collectively, the "AGREEMENT").

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend certain terms of
the Agreement as set forth herein;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

         1.       TERM.  Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:

                  "The term of the Executive's employment under this Agreement
                  shall expire on April 30, 2004."

         2.       SURVIVAL OF THE AGREEMENT.  Except as amended by this
Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance
with the terms thereof.

         3.       MISCELLANEOUS.  This Amendment is governed by the internal
laws of the State of New York.  All references in the Agreement to the
Agreement shall mean the Agreement as modified by this Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the Amendment Date.


                                 GENESEE CORPORATION

                                 By: /s/ Stephen B. Ashley
                                     ------------------------------
                                     Stephen B. Ashley, President


                                 /s/ Steven M. Morse
                                 -----------------------------------
                                 Steven M. Morse
# C_2020222EN.01003601.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/36

---

Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Klaus Berthold v EUIPO — Thomann (HB Harley Benton)

(Case T-284/20)

(2020/C 222/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Klaus Berthold Besitzgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG (Thalhausen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomann GmbH (Burgebrach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark HB Harley Benton — International registration designating the European Union No 1 380 752

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2020 in Case R 1359/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow the opposition against the registration of international registration No 1 380 752 in the European Union for the goods in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow the opposition against the registration of international registration No 1 380 752 in the European Union for the goods in Class 25;

| — | order EUIPO to refuse the registration of international registration No 1 380 752 in the European Union for the goods in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to refuse the registration of international registration No 1 380 752 in the European Union for the goods in Class 25;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and, if appropriate, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO and, if appropriate, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Order filed October 13, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00173

- CV

____________ NEGOTIATE ONE, INC. , Appellant

V.
MEMBERS CHOICE CREDI T UNION, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil Court at Law No

. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1017454



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due September 28, 2015

. No brief or motion for
extension of time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before October 30, 2015
, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 99.3

Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. §1350,  As Adopted Pursuant To  Section 906 OF the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Endocardial Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Robert Paulson, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/ J. ROBERT PAULSON, JR.J. Robert Paulson, Jr. Chief Financial OfficerMarch 28, 2003
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
No. 11293.

#### Barrow, Admx., *v.*The Cincinnati, Lawrenceburg & Aurora Electric Street Railway Co.

Decided January 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Dudley P. Wayne*and *Mr. W. A. Hicks,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Robertson & Buchwalter,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Davis, Sipauck and Price, JJ., concur.
Solar Turbines Incorporated

9330 Sky Park Court

San Diego, CA 92123

Tel: (858) 694

- 1616

Submitted Electronically

October 10, 2014

Frank DeMaris

Yolo

- Solano AQM D

1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103

Davis , CA 95618

fdemaris@ysaqmd.org

RE: Comments to the Proposed Revisions to Rule 2.34: Stationary Gas Turbines

Dear Mr. DeMaris :

Solar Turbines Incorporated (Solar) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the

proposed revisions to Rule 2.34

.

Solar is a manufacturer of industr ial combustion turbines (1

- 22 MW ). Solar’s fleet includes more

than 14,000 com

bustion turbines in 98 countries.

This letter addresses Solar’s concerns with the proposed revisions to Rule 2.43

.

301 EMISSION S LIMITS

According to Footnote A in the table of compliance limits, ‘gas’ fuel includes natural, digester, and

landfill gas es. 

### While it is true that each is a gas, ‘alternative fuels’ like landfill gas, digester

gas, and refinery gas range in composition, heating values, and combustion properties that

cannot easily be quantified. The variability in alternative fuel compositi on results in a

wide

- ranging emissions profile.

For example, the current California BACT (federal LAER) for NOx from landfill gas fired turbines

is 25 ppm. The current federal BACT level is usually around 42 ppm NOx. In effect, the proposed

Rule 2.4 3 wo uld require emissions levels far below current LAER and what has been demonstrated

for alternative gaseous fuel applications.

Solar recommends the term ‘gas’ in the table be changed to Natural Gas. Alternative gaseous fuels

should have separate, higher l imits, or be evaluated on a case

- by

- case basis.

302 S TART

- UP/SHUT

- DOWN

43 ppm NOx (15% O 2 ) is not achievable during start

- up on indu strial size gas turbines for natural

gas fuel. Solar estimates a range of 50

- 70 ppm NOx (15% O 2 ) during start

- up for i ndustrial naturalgas fired turbines equipped with Dry

- Low NOx (DLN) burners. A value of 70 ppm NOx is

therefore recommended instead of 43 ppm.

303.3 CONTINUOUS MONITORING

ISO correction for gas turbines equipped with DLN systems is unnecessary. ISO correction is also

cited in section 501.3.

Please feel fr ee to contact me at 858.505.8554 if you have any questions or need any additional

information.

Sincerely,

Solar Turbines Incorporated

Anthony Pocengal

Principal Environmental Engineer
#### Cornish vs. Sargent.

Where the mandate of this court is filed during the term of the Circuit Court, the cause ought to be continued; and it is error to take judgment by default against the defendant at that term.

The failure to file the mandate of this court in the Circuit Court, for any period of time after the case is remanded, is no cause of abatement.

*Error to Union Circuit Court.*

Hon. Len B. Green, Circuit Judge.

Carleton, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Sargent sued Cornish in the Union Circuit Court, on a note, and obtained judgment by default. Cornish brought the case to this court by writ of error, and at the July term, 1856, the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to the court below to permit Cornish to file pleas in bar.

At the October term, I860, of the Union Circuit Court, Sargent filed the mandate of this court, which the Circuit Court ordered to be spread upon its records, and directed the cause to be reinstated upon the docket; and, at the same term, Sargent took judgment by default against Cornish for the amount of the note declared on.

Cornish sued out a writ of error to reverse the judgment so . obtained against him.

The mandate of this court being filed in term, the cause should have been continued until the next term, without judgment, under the *14th Rule of Practice.*3 *Eng. R.*240.

*278It is insisted for the plaintiff in error that the case should have been abated because of the neglect of Sargent to file the mandate for so long a period, but we have no statute making such want o£ diligence cause of abatement.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
<PAGE>   1



Exhibit 12

GTE North Incorporated and Subsidiary
STATEMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    Nine Months Ended
                                                                    September 30, 1997
                                                                   --------------------

<S>                                                                <C>                 
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                                $            530,573
  Add - Income taxes                                                            314,236
      - Fixed charges                                                           103,733
                                                                   --------------------
Adjusted earnings                                                  $            948,542
                                                                   ====================

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                 $             96,471
  Portion of rent expense
      representing interest                                                       7,262
                                                                   --------------------
Adjusted fixed charges                                             $            103,733
                                                                   ====================

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                                 9.14
</TABLE>
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Presidential Documents 31323 

Presidential Determination No. 2018–09 of June 4, 2018 

Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy 

Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–45) (the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby determine that it 

is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United 

States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in 

sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act. 

You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination, accompanied 

by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, to the Congress 

and to publish this determination in the Federal Register. 

The suspension set forth in this determination shall take effect after you 

transmit this determination and the accompanying report to the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, June 4, 2018 

[FR Doc. 2018–14487 

Filed 7–2–18; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PRES DOCSTrump.EPS</GPH>
**Exhibit23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-148615, 333-74016 and 333-51310) of ImageWare Systems, Inc. of our reportdated April 14, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule which appear in this Form 10-K for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2007. 

 

 

/s/ Stonefield Josephson,Inc.

Los Angeles, California

April 13, 2008

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERNALLY
PERPARED FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,534,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,147,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (561,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,900,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,810,000
<PP&E>                                       5,639,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,730,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,156,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,646,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       933,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,402,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,156,000
<SALES>                                      3,896,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,568,000
<CGS>                                        1,800,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,935,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,218,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (18,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             171,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                262,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    90,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            172,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   172,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 433 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 433

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 24, 1994.
    Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R. 4453) making 
appropriations for military construction for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, all points of 
order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of 
rule XXI are waived.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED AS PART OF THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          10,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,887)
<INVENTORY>                                     81,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,467
<PP&E>                                          83,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,325)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 539,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          123,438
<BONDS>                                        188,453
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,254
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   539,133
<SALES>                                        139,768
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,768
<CGS>                                           92,286
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (58,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       323
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,764)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (35,366)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,094
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,224)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.44)
        

</TABLE>
#### Sheerer vs. Bullock’s Adm’r.

Where the owner of an improvement on the public land sells his claim, making a relinquishment thereof, whereby the vendee is permitted to locate it in his own name with a land warrant, he will not be allowed to avail himself of the plea of no consideration in a suit for the purchase money, whether the claim of the vendor was valuable or worthless, or a right to a pre-emption or an improvement.

*Appeal from Ashley Qvreuit Oov/rt.*

Hon. JohN C. Murray, Circuit Judge.

CarltoN and HutchiNSON, for appellant.

Hempstead, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Bairohild

delivered the opinion of tbe Court.

Bullock bad a small improvement on a piece of land, Ms bands had been seen at work upon it a short time before he sold his claim to Sherrer; for which he took a note of one thousand dollars, on which this suit is brought.

Sherrer, afterwards, located the land with a land warrant, first sending to the land officer at Helena a relinquishment from Bullock of his improvement to Sherrer, and receiving from the officer a reply that he would be permitted to cover the land with a warrant.

To the action Sherrer pleaded that the note was without consideration; and for reversal of the judgment rendered against him in the Circuit Court, it is contended that Bullock had no right of pre-emption to the land, no right to the land; that the amount of the note was so disproportionate to the value of the *730improvement that *the improvement*could not bave been the consideration of the note, and that, therefore, the plea was sustained.

"Whatever the claim of Bullock was, whether valuable or worthless, a right to a pre-emption, or an improvement, Sherrer recognized it, and saw fit to buy it; and, by means of Bullock yielding his claim, procured the government title. "Whether Sherrer made a good bargain, as he told the witnesses, or whether he agreed to pay one thousand dollars for an improvement worth not more than twenty dollars, are matters with which the courts have no .concern; but he cannot make use of the fact that Bullock had no claim to the land to obtain the title to himself, and then avoid his promised-payment for the claim, whose relinquishment enabled him to make a location of the land, which would not otherwise have been allowed. This would be in direct contrariety to the ' principle of *Thredgill vs.*Pintard, *12 How.*24; and, without any precedent, the law of this case would have been so declared by an affirmance of the judgment; which we now direct to be certified to the Circuit Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 495 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 193

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 495

                          [Report No. 103-628]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of a concurrent resolution waiving the 
  requirement in section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946 that the Congress adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each 
                                 year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 28, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 193
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 495

                          [Report No. 103-628]

  Providing for consideration of a concurrent resolution waiving the 
  requirement in section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946 that the Congress adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each 
                                 year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 1994

   Mr. Moakley, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of a concurrent resolution waiving the 
  requirement in section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946 that the Congress adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each 
                                 year.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House a concurrent resolution waiving the 
requirement in section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946 that the Congress adjourn sine die not later than July 31 of each 
year. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.
```