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




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





This AMENDMENT NO. 2 to the Employment Agreement dated as of June, 2002 is by and between SkillSoft Corporation , a Delaware corporation and SkillSoft Limited, an Irish Private Company (collectively the “Company”), and Charles Moran (the “Executive”).





WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of June 2002 (the “Employment Agreement”);





WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously amended the Employment Agreement on December 23, 2008 (such amendment, “Amendment No. 1”).





WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the Employment Agreement;





NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:





1.
Section 7(b) of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety.


2.
Unless otherwise specifically defined in this Amendment No. 2, each term used herein that is defined in the Employment Agreement shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the Employment Agreement.


3.
Except as set forth expressly herein, all terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without change.


4.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2, effective as of June 10, 2011.





SkillSoft Corporation








By:       /s/ Tom McDonald


Tom McDonald





SkillSoft Limited








By:       /s/ Tom McDonald


Tom McDonald





CHARLES MORAN








/s/ Charles Moran
Exhibit 12.1

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 annual report on Form 20-F of Nokia Corporation (the Company) for the period ending December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                     |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                    |  | /S/ RAJEEV SURI    
|                    |  | Name:               |  | RAJEEV SURI                          
|                    |  | Title:              |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    | 
|Date: April 1, 2016 |  | /S/ TIMO IHAMUOTILA
|                    |  | Name:               |  | TIMO IHAMUOTILA                      
|                    |  | Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3876

To set forth the appropriate budgetary treatment of the health reform

program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1994

Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. PENNY) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Government Operations

A BILL

To set forth the appropriate budgetary treatment of the

health reform program.

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

3 SECTION 1. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF HEALTH REFORM

4 PROGRAM.

5 For purposes of budget scorekeeping by the Office

6 of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget

7 Office, any proposed change in law (such as those made

8 by the Health Security Act) respecting—

9 (1) any obligation, payroll tax, assessment, pre10 mium or fee required of an employer or of any other
2

HR 3876 IH

1 individual and which is to be paid to a particular en2 tity established pursuant to Federal law shall be

3 treated as a Federal receipt; and

4 (2) any related expenditure made by any such

5 entity required pursuant to Federal law shall be

6 treated as a Federal outlay.

Æ
EX-10.9



 Exhibit 10.9 

AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO 
 WHEREAS, the
parties listed herein known respectively as CHEROKEE EQUITIES CORPORATION as Landlord and BANCCOMPLIANCE GROUP, LLC., a Tennessee Limited Liability Company and Constance and David Edwards, personally as Tenant entered into a Lease Agreement dated
October 17, 2005, for commercial real estate property (“the Premises”) located at Suite A 102 in Premier Professional Office Park, located at 256 Seaboard Lane, Franklin, Tennessee 37067, and 

WHEREAS, the parties amended said Lease by Amendment Number One dated October 30, 2008, and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to renew said Lease by virtue of this Amendment Number Two, and have mutually agreed to the following terms 

 

	 	1.	     

  

	 	2.	Term: The Term of this renewal period shall be one (1) year and six (6) months commencing on the first day of May 2010 and ending on October 31, 2011. 


 

	 	3.	Rental: The monthly rental for the renewal period shall be $2,297.00 payable without demand or further notice on the first day of each month. 


All other terms and conditions of the original Lease and Amendment Number One, with exception of monthly rental, shall remain in full force and
effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment in duplicate on the date as noted below 

 

									
	LANDLORD: Cherokee Equities Corporation	 		 	TENANT: BancCompliance Group, Inc.
	By:	 	The Stanton Group, Inc. Agent	 		 	Constance E. Edwards, President
				
		 	



	 		 	




		 	  
	 		 	  

		 	Debra C. Viol, President	 		 	Constance E. Edwards
					
	Date:	 	 4-13-10
	 		 	Date:	 	 April 7, 2010

					
	Witness:	 	



	 		 	Witness:
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3552

Respecting market exclusivity for certain drugs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

Respecting market exclusivity for certain drugs.

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

3 That section 505(j)(4)(D)(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug,

4 and Cosmetic Act is amended by adding the following: ‘‘If

5 an application (other than an abbreviated new drug appli6 cation) submitted under subsection (b) for a drug, no ac7 tive ingredient (including an ester or salt of the active in8 gredient) of which has been approved in any other applica9 tion under subsection (b), was filed before September 1,

10 1982, was under regulatory review (as the regulatory re11 view period is defined in section 156(g) of title 35, United

12 States Code) for at least 78 months and was approved
2

•HR 3552 IH

1 October 29, 1992, no application may be submitted under

2 this subsection which refers to the drug for which the sub3 section (b) application was submitted before the expiration

4 of 5 years from the date of the approval of the subsection

5 (b) application and no such application can be approved

6 before the expiration of 5 years from the date of the ap7 proval of the subsection (b) application plus the amount

8 by which the regulatory review period exceeds 84 months,

9 except that the period of additional market exclusivity may

10 not exceed 24 months.’’.

Æ
259 La. 773

#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Zeadous M. HART.

No. 51642.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1971.

In re: Zeadous M. Hart, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 249 So.2d 310.

Application denied; on the facts found by the Court of Appeal, their judgment is correct.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          16,401
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,434
<INVENTORY>                                      9,094
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,096
<PP&E>                                           8,915
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,020
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,339
<SALES>                                         82,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,650
<CGS>                                           27,220
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   369
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,209
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,275
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,296)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,979
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

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 Summer Highlands Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. {section} 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.



|Dated:  November 19, 2010
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
----

VACANCY NOTICE FOR THE CTA

(2005/C 4 A/02)

THE TECHNICAL CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL COOPERATION is seeking to recruit a Director (M/F)

The role assigned to the CTA under the Partnership Agreement between the EU and the ACP States (Cotonou Agreement) is that of institutional capacity-building in the ACP States, with particular emphasis on information management, so as to improve access to technologies and thereby boost agricultural productivity, marketing, food safety and rural development. The Centre is based in Wageningen (Netherlands).

Website: http://www.cta.int/

Applicants must:

The post may be held for a maximum, non-renewable period of five years, and does not entitle the holder to the status of European official.

Address for applications (in English or French, indicating the reference: Application CTA 12-2004) and further information:

Deadline for applications: 28 January 2005.

----
259 La. 772

#### Ronald C. LEGER v. FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 51635.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1971.

In re: Ronald C. Leger, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 248 So.2d 921.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
#### Web. M. Rubey, Respondent, *vs.*Ed. C. Shain, *et al.,*Appellants.

1. *Judgment on demurrer.** *What will not support an appeal.*— A record entry that the “demurrer was by the court overruled ; to which ruling the defendant at the time excepted; and defendant filing no further pleadings, judgment is rendered for plaintiff,” is no such judgment as will support an appeal.

*Appeal from Macon Court of Common Pleas.*

*W. M. Ruby,*for Respondent.

*F. White,*for Appellants.

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of trespass, and the defendant interposed a demurrer to the petition, which was overruled by the court.

There is no final judgment or assessment of damages in the case. The only record entry is, that the “demurrer was by the court overruled, to which ruling the defendant at the time excepted, and defendants filing no further pleadings, judgment is rendered for plaintiff.” This is not such a judgment as will support an appeal.

We have looked into the petition, and from the allegations therein made, it is obvious that the defendants should have answered to the merits, instead of demurring. The appeal will be dismissed, but the court below should permit the defendants to file an answer if they see proper to do so. Appeal dismissed.

Judge Adams concurs. Judge Bliss absent.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

d0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

137574 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137574 COA: 286152 Livingston CC: 93-007419-FH TAD SPENCER DEWULF, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of March 23, 2009, the applica tion for leave to appeal the September 8, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals was he ld in abeyance pend ing the decision in People v Jackson (Docket No. 135888). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 10, 2009, 483 Mich 271 ( 2009), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leav e to appeal, we VACATE the Livingston Circuit Court’s Order to Remit Prisoner Funds for Fines, Costs, and Assessments, entered on November 18, 2005, which assessed the defend ant $475 in unspecifie d fees or costs. The circuit court failed to cite any authority, and we are not aware of any, that permitted it to order an assessment of un identified costs and/or fees tw elve years after the defendant was sentenced and without provid ing notice and an oppo rtunity to be heard. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 3-30-97, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE FIFTY-TWO WEEKS ENDED 3-30-97, OF AMERILINK CORPORATION AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                             120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       171
<INVENTORY>                                      1,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,088
<PP&E>                                           5,928<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,409
<BONDS>                                          9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,085
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,211
<SALES>                                         63,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,036
<CGS>                                           41,297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (7)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   349
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,691
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
<FN>
<F1>PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT IS REPORTED NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION ON
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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











The undersigned, Timothy J. Neher, the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of ACCELERATED ACQUISITIONS XI, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 15th day of February, 2011.











/s/ Timothy J. NeherTimothy J. NeherChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ACCELERATED ACQUISITIONS XI, INC. and will be retained by ACCELERATED ACQUISITIONS XI, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-11073 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. COREY HOLMES, also known as Blue, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-89-2

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Corey Holmes appeals the sentence imposed followin g th e r evocation of his supervised release on the basi s , inter alia, that he possessed a controlled substance and failed to submit to drug testing. The district court imposed a 24- month sentence to “serve as punishment and deterrence as well as protection of the public from further criminal activity.” Holmes contends that the court erred in light of United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011). We review for plain error because Holmes failed to preserve U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 23, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-11073 Document: 00511930254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2012No. 11-11073

the purported Miller error in the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). In Miller , we held that it is improper for a district court to rely on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) facto r s , w h ich include punishment, for the modification

or revocation of a term of supervised release because Congress d e l iberately omitted that subsection from the first clause of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 634 F.3d at 844. Unlike the revocation under § 3583(e) at issue in Miller , the revocation of H o l m e s ’ s term of supervised release was mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Because § 3583(g) does not e x pressly invoke the § 3553(a) f actors or the limits imposed by the first clause of § 3583(e), we find no clear or obvious error under Miller

. See United States v. Giddings , 37 F.3d 1091, 1095-97 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Ibanez , 454 F. App’x 328, 330 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 1981 (2012). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

2 Case: 11-11073 Document: 00511930254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2012
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18859]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. FD 36160]


Great Lakes Terminal Railroad, LLC--Lease and Operation 
Exemption--Rail Line of Great Lakes Reloading, LLC

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Correction to Notice of Exemption.

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

    On December 20, 2017, Great Lakes Terminal Railroad, LLC (GLTRR), a 
noncarrier at the time,\1\ filed a verified notice of exemption under 
49 CFR 1150.31 to sublease from Great Lakes Reloading, LLC, and to 
operate, approximately 12,500 feet (2.37 miles) of railroad right-of-
way and trackage and transloading facilities located at 13535 S. 
Torrence Avenue, in Chicago, Ill. The notice was served and published 
in the Federal Register on January 5, 2018, (83 FR 691), and became 
effective on January 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GLTRR stated that the transaction described in the December 
20, 2017, notice was its initial railroad acquisition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 17, 2018, GLTRR filed a request to amend the notice. 
According to GLTRR, the map provided with its notice incorrectly 
depicted the property on which the subject trackage is located. Thus, 
GLTRR requests that the Board substitute the map identified as Amended 
Appendix 1-B to its petition for the map submitted in the notice. This 
correction is recognized here. All remaining information from GLTRR's 
original filing and the notice published on January 5, 2018 remains 
unchanged.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
WWW.STB.GOV.

    Decided: August 24, 2018.

    By the Board, Amy C. Ziehm, Acting Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2018-18859 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4915-01-P