alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.45

AMENDMENT TO

EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

NEW HOME II PROJECT

This Amendment to Exploration and Development Agreement (hereinafter Amendment) is made and entered into effective
February 2, 2010, by and between G3 Energy, LLC hereinafter referred to as G3, whose address is 475
17thStreet, Suite 1210, Denver, CO 80202, and Resolute
Northern Rockies, LLC hereinafter referred to as Participant whose address is 1675 Broadway, Suite 1950, Denver, CO 80202.

GeoResources, Inc. and Resolute Energy Corporation are entering into this Agreement as the guarantors for their respective subsidiary. G3 Energy, LLC is
the subsidiary of GeoResources, Inc. and Resolute Northern Rockies, LLC is the subsidiary of Resolute Energy Corporation.

RECITALS:

A. G3 and Participant have entered into that certain Exploration and Development Agreement effective February 2, 2010
(the Agreement).

B. The Third Party Participant referred to in the Agreement has elected to acquire a 5% interest
instead of a 10% interest and G3 and Participant have agree to share the difference between them.

C. Participant and G3
desire to amend the Agreement to reflect that participation by Participant.

Now therefore, the parties hereto, for the mutual
promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby contract and agree as follows:

1. All terms defined in the Agreement that are used herein shall have the meanings given in the Agreement.

2. Article I, Section 11. shall be amended to read as follows:

11. Participants Share: 47.5% Working Interest ownership

3. Article I, Section 15, shall be amended to read as follows:

15. Third Party Participant: Means Intervention Energy, LLC, the third party owning the 5% proportional participating interest derived
from G3 in the New Home II Project.

4. Article III, C. G3 Overhead Fee, shall be amended to delete all references therein to
45% and replace them with 47.5%.



---

5. Except for the foregoing, all other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed effective as of the date hereinabove provided.

Parties:



|               |  |                      |  |                                |  |        |  |                 
|-------------- |  | -------------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  | ------ |  | ----------------
|G3 Energy, LLC |  |                      |  | Resolute Northern Rockies, LLC
|               |  |                      |  |                               
|By:            |  | /s/ J.K. Glenn       |  |                                |  | By:    |  | /s/ Bill Alleman
|Name:          |  | J.K. Glenn           |  |                                |  | Name:  |  | Bill Alleman    
|Title:         |  | Vice President, Land |  |                                |  | Title: |  | Land Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,891,350   
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,104,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    219,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,680,672  
<PP&E>                                      21,559,956   
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,957,368   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,487,289   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,701,066  
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    339,407
<COMMON>                                     2,687,211
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,365,925  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,487,289   
<SALES>                                      9,919,499  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,222,477   
<CGS>                                        9,111,934  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,617,117   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (394,640)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (394,640)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (394,640)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,262,550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,514,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    221,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,648,910
<PP&E>                                      21,173,441
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,007,291
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,057,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,052,691
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    339,407
<COMMON>                                     2,687,211
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,797,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,057,023
<SALES>                                      7,322,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,503,189
<CGS>                                        5,744,669
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,847,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                655,519
<INCOME-TAX>                                   263,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            392,519
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   392,519
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022051EN.01002101.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2021 — RSD Reise Service Deutschland GmbH v QL

(Case C-690/21)

(2022/C 51/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: RSD Reise Service Deutschland GmbH

Applicant and respondent: QL

Question referred

Is Article 12(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the traveller may be forced to accept a voucher and/or postponement in lieu of the repayment requested in the event of cancellation by the organiser due to a global pandemic?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).

---
MEMORANDUM

TO: File

FROM: George Faison

SUBECT: Presentation to Scrap Tire Workshop

A presentation was made on February 23, 2010 to the Region 8 State Scrap Tire Workshop to provide an overview of the upc oming proposed rule Identification of NonHazardous Secondary Materials that are Soli d Wastes. The presentation focused on the following topics:

• Background and Purpose of the Rule

• Overview of the January 2, 2009 Adva nce Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

• Possible approaches to address sc rap tires and tire derived fuel

• Next Steps
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 66 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 66

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 4, 1993.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, elected 
to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Ways and Means: Dave Camp of Michigan.
    Committee on the District of Columbia: Cass Ballenger of North Carolina.
    Committee on House Administration: Jennifer B. Dunn of Washington.
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries: Richard W. Pombo of California; 
[vacancy]; and [vacancy].
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
No. 11030.

#### The Delaware Gas Co. *v.*Park.

Decided October 6, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Delaware county.

*Messrs.*Arnold, *Morton & Irvine*and *Mr. IT. W.*Jewell, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Marriott & Freshwater*and *Messrs. P%igh &*Pugh, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Grounds stated in journal entry. It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on the grounds that the court of common pleas erred in the second and third particulars set out in the judgment entry of the circuit court; and also erred in the admission of evidence; and it appearing to the court that there *431were reasonable grounds for this proceeding in error, it is ordered that no penalty be assessed herein.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3071
JERRY L. GENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CENTRAL VIRGINIA LEGAL AID SOCIETY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-764)

No. 95-7857
JERRY L. GENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLIENT CENTERED LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1188-R) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry L. Gent, Appellant Pro Se. John William Boland, Martha Saine Condyles, Andrew Eric Kauders, Jr., MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district courts' orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint and dismissing a civil complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the records and the district courts' opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district courts. Gent v. Central VA Legal Aid, No. CA-95-764 (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 1995); Gent v. Client Centered Legal Servs. , No. CA-95-118-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 6, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Mackie Designs Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James T. Engen, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  November 14, 2002 | By:    |    /s/ James T. Engen         |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   | James T.  Engen                         |
|                           |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
|                                |        |                                         |        |  |

 

----
EX-10.3





 Exhibit 10.3 

Schedule A-10 

This Schedule A-10 dated March 10, 2021, is issued pursuant to the Third Amended and Restated Executive
Employment Agreement by and among Company, Parent and Executive, dated March 20, 2019 (the “Agreement”), and shall be incorporated therein and governed by the terms and conditions of such Agreement. This Schedule A-10 is effective April 1, 2021, and is intended to replace any previously issued Schedule A. 
 1.
Position: Chief Financial Officer. Executive shall report in such capacity to Company’s Chief Executive Officer. 
 2. Base Salary:
$404,250 per year. 
 3. Bonus: Executive will be entitled to an annual performance-based cash bonus of $150,000, for the achievement of certain
financial and operational targets. These targets, and the bonus dollars tied to such targets, will be determined and communicated to you by the Chief Executive Officer on an annual basis. For the 2021 calendar year, your bonus will be based on the
following performance measures: 
  

	 	a.	 Consolidated Revenue; 



 

	 	b.	 Non-GAAP Earnings Per Share – Diluted; and 



 

	 	c.	 Consolidated Gross Profit Dollars. 



The target amount for each measure for the 2021 calendar year is set forth on Appendix 1 to this schedule. Should Company fail to achieve the
target amount for the above performance measures, Executive’s annual performance-based bonus, if any, shall be based upon Company’s evaluation of the percentage of the target amount achieved during the year. Conversely, should
Company’s performance exceed the target amount for the above performance measures, Executive’s annual performance-based bonus may exceed the bonus amount stated above, based upon Company’s evaluation of the percentage of the
over-achievement of such target amount(s). All bonuses will be paid by March 15, 2022, following the completion of Company’s year-end audit. If Executive leaves Company voluntarily, or is terminated
with Cause, before December 31, 2021, Executive will not be eligible for a bonus. If Executive is terminated by Company during 2021 without Cause, Executive’s bonus calculation will be based on Company’s annual results (calculated as
though Executive were still an employee) and a prorated bonus will be paid considering the days in 2021 in which Executive was employed by Company divided by 365. 

4. Benefits: Executive is eligible for standard company benefits in the same manner as other executives of Company. 

5. Expenses: Company will reimburse all properly documented expenses reasonably related to Executive’s performance of Executive’s duties
hereunder. 













									
	BY:	 	/s/ Vivek Gupta 3/10/21	 		 	BY:	 	/s/ John J. Cronin, Jr. 3/10/21
		 	 Company / Date
	 		 		 	 Executive / Date



  
 - 2 -
# C_2022266EN.01002202.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2022 — Creaticon v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE)

(Case T-93/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - EU figurative mark SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE - Earlier national word mark SKINTEGRITY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 266/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Creaticon d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: P. Krmpotić, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and modification of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2020 (Case R 847/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Creaticon d.o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Creaticon d.o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
____________________ AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-03-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-28-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-03-1995
<CASH>                                          62,924
<SECURITIES>                                     1,138
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,218
<INVENTORY>                                     33,349
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,687
<PP&E>                                          49,752
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 286,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,378
<BONDS>                                         15,348
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           189
<OTHER-SE>                                     165,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   286,705
<SALES>                                        220,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               335,216
<CGS>                                          130,650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  298,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,817
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,828
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,882
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,946
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,946
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.59
        

</TABLE>
#### Cora Leigh PRUITT and Burt Pruitt, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Hugh WHELCHEL d/b/a Game Trail Riding Ranch, Appellee.

No. 2675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 17, 1970.

John R. Young, of Hamilton, James, Merkle & Young, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Elmo R. Hoffman, of Hoffman, Hendry & Parker, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.

CROSS, C. J., dissents, with opinion.

CROSS, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

I must respectfully dissent.

I am of the conviction that the injection in the court’s instructions of the specter of assumption of the risk in the instant case was highly improper and prejudicial to plaintiffs’ case. Jury charges must square with the rule of law arising from the facts developed at the trial of the case. Charges which derive from any other source are apt to mislead the jury. Bashaw v. Dyke, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 507; Bessett v. Hackett, Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 694; Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. v. Doyle, 1936, 123 Fla. 659, 167 So. 358; Murden v. Miami Poultry & Egg Co., 1934, 113 Fla. 870, 152 So. 714.

The instruction relating to assumption of the risk was not predicated upon facts in proof, nor upon evidence which had been submitted and therefore constituted error.

I would reverse.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report of Preferred Voice, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Latif M. Nathani, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Latif M. Nathani       
|Latif M. Nathani           
|Principal Executive Officer
|November 12, 2004
H. Res. 67

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

February 4, 1993.

Resolved, That the following named Members, Resident

Commissioner, and Delegates, be, and they are hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Pat Williams, Montana;

and Blanche M. Lambert, Arkansas.

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS: Floyd H.

Flake, New York; James A. Hayes, Louisana; Craig A.

Washington, Texas; Barbara-Rose Collins, Michigan; Corrine

Brown, Florida; Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, Pennsylvania;

Lynn C. Woolsey, California; [vacancy]; and [vacancy].

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Maxine Waters, California; and [vacancy].

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT:

Jim McDermott, Washington, Chairman; George (Buddy)

Darden, Georgia; Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland; Kweisi
2

HRES 67 EH

Mfume, Maryland; Robert A. Borski, Pennsylvania; and

Thomas C. Sawyer, Ohio.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Mrs. Lyda Pennington ALLEN, Admx. of the Estate of W. A. Pennington, Deceased, Appellant, v. Bobbie Jean EASTMAN et al., Appellee.

No. 46262.

Supreme Court of Missisippi.

May 24, 1971.

McKoin, Zinner, Hawkins & Johnson, Biloxi, for appellant.

Jones & Patterson, Brookhaven, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.