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


 


ALLIED
ESPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

amendment to Restricted Stock UNIT Agreement

 


THIS AMENDMENT TO
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), made effective as of March 22, 2021 is by and between
Allied Esports Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Frank Ng (the “Employee”).


 


Background


 


The Company and Employee
entered into that certain Restricted Stock Unit Agreement dated January 19, 2021 (the “Agreement”), and the
parties desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to Section 10(a) thereof;


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
it is agreed as follows:


 


1. Definitions.
Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.


 


2. Vesting and Forfeiture
of Units. Section 2(a) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:


 


“(a) Generally.
All Units shall become vested on the two-year anniversary of the closing date (the “Closing Date”) of the sale
of the outstanding common stock of Club Services, Inc. to Element Partners, LLC, Bally’s Corporation or any affiliates thereof
(the “Vesting Date”), provided that the Employee remains continuously employed by the Company through the Vesting
Date.”


 


3. General.


 


(a) The Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect, except as amended hereby.


 


(b) This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute
one and the same Amendment.


 


Signature Page follows.


  




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed effective as of the day and year first written above.


 


	 	ALLIED ESPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Adam Pliska
	 	Name: 	Adam Pliska
	 	Title: 	President
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Frank Ng
	 	Frank Ng
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15118]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt 
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-106-000.
    Applicants: Big Sky North, LLC.
    Description: EWG self-certification for Big Sky North, LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1987-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3054R1 Upstream Wind Energy 
LLC GIA to be effective 6/12/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1988-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Obsidian Renewables E&P Agmt 
to be effective 6/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1989-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits two ECSAs, 
Service Agreement Nos. 4926 and 4927 to be effective 9/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1990-000.
    Applicants: Stonepeak Kestrel Energy Marketing LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 
7/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15118 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (Chief Executive Officer)




In connection with the annual report of HealthWarehouse.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Lalit Dhadphale, President and Chief Executive Officer, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




April 15, 2011
/s/ Lalit DhadphaleLalit DhadphalePresident and Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to HealthWarehouse.com, Inc. and will be retained by HealthWarehouse.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




This certification is being furnished to the SEC with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1206

AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 380

‘‘Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center’’.Trapelo Road in Waltham, Massachusetts, as the
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1206

AN ACT

To redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo

Road in Waltham, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Frederick C.

Murphy Federal Center’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1206 ES

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road

3 in Waltham, Massachusetts, and known as the Waltham

4 Federal Center, shall be known and designated as the

5 ‘‘Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

9 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

10 a reference to the ‘‘Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center’’.

Passed the Senate February 1 (legislative day, January 25), 1994.

Attest:

Secretary.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6397

STEVE ALLEN SHELTON, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cv-00549-jct) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steve Allen Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Steve Allen Shelton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shelton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<MULTIPLIER>           1000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          566
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    84
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 95
<PP&E>                                        10,370
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,958
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            374
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    1,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  9,950
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,661
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (159)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0

        

</TABLE>
-  Tick-Borne Disease Working Group      -  21st Century Cures Act 
  -  Charter 
  -  Meetings 
  -  Reports 
  -  Contact Us 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# April 27, 2020, TBDWG Meeting (on-line)

## April 27, 2020

 

The thirteenth meeting of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (TBDWG) was held on April 27, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Eastern Time. For this meeting, the TBDWG reviewed the work of the Public Comment and Federal Inventory Subcommittees and the chapters being developed for the 2020 report to Congress on federal tick-borne activities and research.

Federal Register Meeting Notice

Written Public Comment

Meeting Summary

Archived Webcast

If you would like the meeting slide presentation, please send your request to tickbornedisease@hhs.gov.

Content last reviewed March 17, 2020
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 01-50349

Summary Calendar

_______________________

MARK KYLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

OF NORTH AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas, Austin

A-00-CV-195-JN

_________________________________________________________________ October 17, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mark Kyle, the plaintiff, appeals the district court’s grant

of summary judgment for Indemnity Insurance Company of North

America (“Indemnity”). For the reasons stated by the district

court in its order, we affirm.

The question in this contractual dispute is whether damage to

the engine of Kyle’s aircraft is covered by a comprehensive2

insurance policy issued by Indemnity. The insurance policy

contains a section entitled “Losses Not C overed,” which contains

the following sub-section:

Wear and tear to engines

. We will not cover the

following types of damage to your aircraft’s engines or

auxiliary power units:

[1] damage caused by heat that results from the

operation, attempted operation, or shutdown of the

engine.

[2] damage caused by the breakdown, failure, or

malfunction of any engine part or accessory.

[3] damage caused by an object not part of the engine or

its accessories, whether the damage results from

ingestion of the object or not. . . .

At the summary judgment stage, Indemnity pre sented evidence

that the damage to Kyle’s aircraft was caused by excessive heat

resulting from the pilot’s attempt to start the engine. Kyle does

not dispute that heat caused the damage. Instead, Kyle insists

that the insurance policy is ambiguous because not all heat damage

is related to “wear and tear,” as that phrase is ordinarily

understood.

Kyle’s appeal to the everyday understanding of “wear and tear”

is inconsistent with the principle that individual phrases must be

read in the context of the contract as a whole. S ee State Farm

Life Ins. Co. v. Beaston

, 907 S.W.2d 430, 433 (Tex. 1995). The

sub-section heading

-- “wear and tear to engines”

-- is nothing

more than a short-hand introduction to the specific provisions

included in that sub-section. In other words, the contractual3

meaning of “wear an d tear to engines” is supplied by the three

s pecific references (to heat damage, malfunctioning parts, and

foreign objects) that follow the caption. To quote the district

court, “The insured must read beyond the caption to ascertain the

specific types of damage the policy def ines as wear and tear and

excludes from coverage.” The judgment is therefore

A F F I R M E D .
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Stacey L. Moran, Executive Vice
President & Chief Financial Officer of Suffolk Bancorp (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained
in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 12, 2010                             
|                                                  
|/s/ Stacey L. Moran                               
|Stacey L. Moran                                   
|Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          29,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,970 
<INVENTORY>                                     18,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,076
<PP&E>                                         124,537
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,115
<BONDS>                                        232,576
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,865
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,560
<SALES>                                         43,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               153,612
<CGS>                                           50,939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,939
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               111,854
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (35,733)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,733)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,733)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.97)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ruth AARONSON, Appellant, v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., and Francis X. Fallert, Appellees.

No. 69-1033.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 2, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2023024EN.01001301.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA v Enedis SA

(Case C-691/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Article 3 - Liability for defective products - Meaning of ‘producer’ - Operator of an electricity distribution network changing the electricity voltage level for distribution)

(2023/C 24/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cafpi SA, Aviva assurances SA

Defendant: Enedis SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999,

must be interpreted as meaning that an electricity distribution system operator must be regarded as a ‘producer’, within the meaning of that provision, where it changes the voltage level of electricity with a view to its distribution to the final customer.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MATTIE LOMAX,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHNNIE 

BERNELL MATHIS,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2023-1504

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in No. 1:12-cv-23836-JAL, 

Judge Joan A. Lenard.

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Having considered Mattie Lomax’s response to this 

court’s March 23, 2023, order to show cause, we dismiss. 

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 

205, 214 (2007), and, in order to be timely, a notice of appeal must generally be filed within 30 days after entry of 

final judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(1)(A). Here, Ms. Lomax filed her notice of appeal 

nearly 10 years after the district court’s entry of final

Case: 23-1504 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2023
2 LOMAX v. MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT

judgment in this case. At least because of this untimeliness, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, and we cannot 

transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 because the appeal would 

not be timely in any other court of appeals. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

 May 18, 2023

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

Case: 23-1504 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2023
#### FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF SOUTH MIAMI (Incorporated), a non-profit corporation under the laws of Florida, Appellant, v. Alexander W. ALVIN, Appellee.

No. 71-1139.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,643
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,643
<PP&E>                                          10,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,039,229
<BONDS>                                        280,491
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       148,926
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,023,974)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,255
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               589,567
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (502,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (502,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (502,761)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>