alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.14





Amendment
No. 4 To Employment Agreement





Amendment No. 4, dated as of November
2, 2009, by and between The Berkshire Bank, a New York banking corporation
("Employer"), and David Lukens ("Employee"), to the Agreement, dated as of
January 1, 2001, between Employer and Employee
(the "Employment Agreement").





WITNESSETH:





WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered
into the Employment Agreement; and





WHEREAS, Employer and Employee wish the
amend the terms of the Employment Agreement with respect to the term
thereof.





NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
covenants herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as
follows:





1.           Paragraph
3 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as
follows:





"3.
            Term
      of Employment.  The employment by Employer of Employee pursuant
      hereto shall commence as of the date hereof and, subject to the provisions
      of paragraph 4 hereof, shall terminate on June 30, 2012; provided,
      however, that Employee's employment hereunder shall be automatically
      renewed for up to three additional periods of one year each unless
      Employee or Employer notifies the other, not less than 60 days nor more
      than 90 days prior to the expiration of Employee's then current employment
      period, that he or it elects not to extend Employee's employment hereunder
      beyond the expiration date of the then current employment
      period."





2. Except as otherwise amended hereby,
the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unamended from
and after the date hereof.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No.
4 has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto as of the date first
above written.





THE
      BERKSHIRE BANKBy:
              /s/ Moses KrauszPresident
      and CEO/s/ David
Lukens
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                                MICROGRAFX, INC.

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



Information is set forth below concerning all subsidiaries of the Company as of
June 30, 1998:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                      Incorporation              Company
------------------                      -------------              -------
<S>                                     <C>                        <C>
Micrografx France, SARL                 France                        100%
Micrografx Deutschland GmBH             Germany                       100%
Micrografx Japan. K.K.                  Japan                         100%
Micrografx B.V.                         The Netherlands               100%
Micrografx Technology N.V.              Netherlands Antilles          100%
Micrografx, Ltd.                        United Kingdom                100%
Micrografx Australia Pty. Limited       Australia                     100%
Micrografx Italia S.r.l.                Italy                         100%
Visual Acquisition, Inc.                Delaware                      100%
AdvanEdge Acquisition, Inc.             Delaware                      100%
WebKnight Acquisition, Inc.             Delaware                      100%
</TABLE>
#### Henry A. KELLER, Appellant, v. Eleanor Keller BELCHER, Appellee.

No. 42030.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 31, 1973.

Appeal same.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., and VOLIE WILLIAMS, Jr., C.J., concur.
## SERVE D MA Y 14 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C 

### DEP IOFMNSPO R nOCKEI S 1 A^'; : l4 l E^ TH EMATTE RO F JOSMA N BLYTH E FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10SO000 5 (Civi l Penalty Action ) FAANO . FAA-2010-031 8 NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No . 2009SO270263 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Isaa c D . Benkin . Al l future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r person s name di n th e attache dServic e List .

Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t jhni e A . Yoder

Chie f Administrativ e l^a

w Judg eFA A DOCKE T NO . CP10SO000 5 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Josman Blythe , Responden t 62 9 StarboardRoad , N.W . Shallotte,N C 28470-183 5 Taneesh aD . Marshall , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Southern Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlant aGA 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r

202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e i n perso n o r

b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wright Building—Suit e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
TERRY DWIGHT JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4720

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 1, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, and 

Justin Karpf, Certified Legal Intern, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jason W. Rodriguez and Jennifer J. Moore, 

Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
HCFC Transfer Documents 

1.) Arkema Transfers 

2.) Solvay Transfers 

3.) CBI Placeholder for Coolgas Investment Property Transfers
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Nos. 06-17-00071-CR, 06-17-00072-CR & 

06-17-00073-CR

CHRISTOPHER DALE JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 31461, 31462 & 31463

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

The clerk’s records in these appeals were filed May 24 2017, and the reporter’s records 

were filed July 27, 2017, making the appellant’s brief originally due August 28, 2017. This Court 

extended that briefing deadline twice, on Jones’ motions, resulting in the most recent due date of 

October 18, 2017. We informed counsel when we granted the last extension request that further 

requests for extension of time would not be granted; nonetheless, counsel has filed a third motion 

seeking an additional thirty days to file Jones’ brief.

We have reviewed counsel’s most recent motion to extend time and find no extraordinary 

circumstances that would warrant an additional thirty-day extension of the filing deadline. We 

have also reviewed the case file and record on appeal. In light of the fact that this brief was 

originally due three months ago and because the brief has actually been completed, the reasons 

offered by counsel in his motion are not compelling enough to justify another extension of the 

briefing deadline.

The motion to extend time to file Jones’ appellate brief is denied. We hereby order counsel 

to file Jones’ appellate brief with this Court on or before October 30, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

BY THE COURT

Date: October 24, 2017
Exhibit 10.2
  FIRST
    AMENDMENT
    TO
    EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
  th
          Section 1.409A-1(d)).
    Termination by Employee for Good Reason




---



##### 



Effect of Termination Without Serious
    Cause or With Good Reason Section 1.409A-1(n)
               2




---



##### 



Effect of Termination Section 1.409A-1(n) th
          Section 22.  Code Section 409A
    Compliance.
  2007-78, 2007-86
  Section 1.409A-3(i)(2).
    Regulation Section 1.409A-1(h)).
 3




---



##### 



Regulation Section 1.409A-1(n)).
    AXS-ONE INC.
  By
    /s/  William
    P. Lyons      /s/  Joseph
    P. Dwyer   4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                         110,456
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,698,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                   225,295
<INVENTORY>                                 12,840,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,625,850
<PP&E>                                      16,459,473
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,368,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,801,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,229,152
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,038
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,142,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,801,751
<SALES>                                     28,022,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,022,626
<CGS>                                       23,738,102
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,738,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (17,051)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               225,295
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             354,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                620,885
<INCOME-TAX>                                   224,749
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            396,136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   396,136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Thomas D. O’MALLEY, Jr., Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer as substituted Ancillary Receiver of North American Guaranty Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Carey C. MATTHEWS and Philip J. Mandina, co-partners, doing business under the firm name of Matthews, Mandina & Lipsky, Appellees.

No. 71-1309.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 20, 1972.

Guión T. DeLoach, Miami, for appellant.

Philip J. Mandina, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ., and HOWELL, CHARLES COOK, Jr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Proceeding in the name of the State of Florida, the Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer, as ancillary receiver of North American Guaranty Insurance Company, *256filed an action against the appellees, seeking recovery of a sum of money representing payment of a fee for legal services, alleged to have been a preferential payment by the insurance company after it had been declared insolvent. Based on the pleadings and certain evidence developed in discovery proceedings, both parties moved for summary judgment. The motion of the plaintiff was denied. The motion of the defendants was granted and summary judgment was entered in their favor. The plaintiff appealed. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, with inferences properly drawn therefrom, which were before the court on the hearing on motion for summary judgment, we conclude that genuine issues of fact were raised thereby, bearing on the question of whether the payment was preferential, which properly could not be resolved by motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
DWAYNE CORDELL 

PINESTRAW,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1167

Opinion filed April 1, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Dwayne Cordell Pinestraw, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Argued November 24,

affirmed December 18, 1969

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*DUANE OLIVER DODSON, SR., *Appellant.*

462 P. 2d 692

*360
      *Edward Brelche,*Milwaulde,-argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. ... , ,

*Thomas H. Denney,*Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Roger N. Rook, District Attorney, Oregon City.

LANGTRY, J.

Defendant was tried by jury and convicted under ORS 163.220, which provides:

> “A person convicted of raping his sister * * * or his daughter or the daughter of his wife, shall be punished * * *”

The indictment charged him with rape of the daughter of his wife. In this appeal he contends that the state must prove that he was the stepfather of the alleged victim, and this was not done. In fact, he claimed she was his natural daughter. He also argues that ORS 163.220 is a penalty statute which does not define a crime, and that the trial court should have allowed his motion for a new trial because of newly discovered evidence, previously withheld by the state.

The allegations of the indictment accusing him of rape of the daughter of his wife were sufficient to charge a crime under ORS 163.220. Under the charge, it was not necessary for the state to either prove or negate his parentage of the child, although it was required to and did prove defendant was then married to the child’s mother. The statute, with the aid *361of the preceding section of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 163.210) which defines rape, defines a crime and is not simply a penalty statute.

The motion for a new trial was supported by defendant’s attorney’s affidavit alleging the discovery of new evidence in that after the case had been submitted to the jury a deputy district attorney had informed him the victim’s clothes and the bedding on which the rape occurred had been tested for semen and none was found.

In closing argument, defendant’s counsel argued long and forcefully about the failure of the state to produce any evidence on this exact point. In reply to this argument, the deputy district attorney said to the jury, “Well, it would be a rather silly thing for the state to bring in sheets and clothing and so forth that had nothing on them.”

The evidence against the defendant was overwhelming. He had a fair trial.

Affirmed.
#### Kenneth E. McGUIRE, Appellant, v. FIRST ARLINGTON INVESTMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a La Playa Apartment Hotel and La Playa of Redington Beach, Inc., d/b/a La Playa Apartment Hotel, Appellees.

No. 69-347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 17, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1970.

Michael J. Freedman, of Levine & Freedman, Tampa, for appellant.

Ray Ulmer, Jr., of Roney, Ulmer, Wood-worth & Jacobs, St. Petersburg, for ap-pellees.

MANN, Judge.

McGuire, an invitee at a beach hotel, dived from a railing at the end of a dock extending 300 feet into the Gulf and was injured. There was no sign warning of danger and whether he was actually warned was disputed. The depth of the water was not discernible. The trial judge granted summary judgment on the ground that McGuire was contributorily negligent as a matter of *lazv.*He may have been con-tributorily negligent as a matter of *fact,*but a jury must decide this. The case is governed by Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 320.

Reversed and remanded.

HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-9040-5]

*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7156 or                     *https://www2.epa.gov/​nepa/​.*

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements

Filed 07/16/2018 Through 07/20/2018

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

## Notice

                    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/​cdx-enepa-public/​action/​eis/​search.*

EIS No. 20180165, Draft, USFS, CA, Williamson Rock and Pacific Crest Trail, Comment Period Ends: 09/14/2018, Contact: Chinling Chen 626-574-5255

EIS No. 20180166, Final Supplement, FHWA, AK, Juneau Access Improvements Project, Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FTA has issued a single document that consists of a final environmental impact statement and record of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to this action. Contact: Tim Haugh 907-586-7418

EIS No. 20180167, Draft, NMFS, DC, Draft Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 10/01/2018, Contact: Guy DuBeck 301-427-8503

EIS No. 20180168, Draft, USACE, AL, Mobile Harbor, Mobile, Alabama Draft Integrated General Reevaluation Report with Supplemental, Comment Period Ends: 09/10/2018, Contact: Jennifer L. Jacobson 251-690-2724

EIS No. 20180169, Final, BLM, NV, Gold Rock Mine Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/29/2018, Contact: Maria Ryan 775-289-1888

Dated: July 24, 2018.

Kelly Knight,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2018-16094 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**Exhibit 99.2**

**MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING**

Barrick’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. 

Barrick’s management assessed the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting as atDecember 31, 2011. Barrick’s Management used the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting. Based on Barrickmanagement’s assessment, Barrick’s internal control over financial reporting is effective as at December 31, 2011. 

The effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2011 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Chartered Accountants, as stated in their reportwhich is located on pages 83 - 85 of Barrick’s 2011 Annual Financial Statements.
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KENDALL COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on February 4, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Carolyn Jane Babbitt, Appellant

V.

Ronald Hugh Below, Appellee

No. 04-13-00759-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 64

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we REVERSE the

part of the trial court’s judgment awarding interest and attorney’s fees. We

AFFIRM the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. We REMAND the case

to the trial court for a recalculation of interest consistent with this opinion and

for a new hearing on attorney’s fees. The parties shall be responsible for their

own costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on April 15, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-13-00759-CV

Carolyn Jane Babbitt

v.

Ronald Hugh Below

(NO. 64 IN 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KENDALL COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

COPIES

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

FILING

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

INDIGENT

$4.30

$10.00

$948.70

$221.00

$20.00

$100.00

$50.00

$25.00

PAID

E-PAID

PAID

UNKNOWN

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

NONE GIVEN

JO CHRIS LOPEZ

MS. CHRISTINE THARP

N/A

BETH WATKINS

BETH WATKINS

BETH WATKINS

BETH WATKINS

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this April 15, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### State of Missouri to use of Samuel T. Davis, Adm. of Francis M. McCloud, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*L.W. Maulsby, *et al.,*Defendants in Error.

State to tile use of Hunter vs. Maulsby, ante, p. 500, affirmed.

*Error to JYew Madrid Circuit Court.*

*Louis Houck and 8. T.*Davis, for Plaintiff in Error. See brief in prior cause.

*Hatoher fy*Watkins, for Defendants in Error.

Vories, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This ease is similar in all particulars to the case of *“*The State to the use of Hunter against Maulsby,” decided at the present term, and for the reasons given in that case the judg-. ment of the Circuit Court must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judge Sherwood absent. The other Judges concurring,

the judgment is reversed and the' cause remanded.