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



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO TRANSACTION BONUS AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSACTION BONUS AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of January 6,
2017, by and between DESTINATION MATERNITY CORPORATION (the “Company”) and ANTHONY M. ROMANO (the “Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into a Transaction Bonus Agreement, dated as of May 31, 2016 (the
“Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the Executive is currently eligible to receive a
transaction bonus, provided that such transaction is closed prior to June 1, 2017; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to extend
the closing deadline and the Executive desires to agree to such change. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and
covenants set forth herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows, effective as of the date hereof: 
 1.
Section 1.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “‘Approved
Transaction’ means after the Effective Date and prior to January 1, 2018, the consummation of a transaction (or series of related transactions) that is (a) approved by the Board, and (b) results in (i) a sale
of substantially all the assets of the Company, or (ii) a change in control event described in Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-3(i)(5)(v).” 

2. Section 4.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

“Expiration of Transaction Bonus Opportunity. Section 2 of this Agreement will expire, and Executive will have no further
rights thereunder, if an Approved Transaction does not occur prior to January 1, 2018.” 
 3. Except as specifically provided in
and modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is in all other respects hereby ratified and confirmed and references to the Agreement shall be deemed to refer to the Agreement, as modified by this Amendment. 

4. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together
shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 [Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has executed and delivered this Amendment and the
Company has caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered by its duly authorized representative, in each case on the date first above written. 
  

			
	DESTINATION MATERNITY CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ronald J. Masciantonio

		 	Name: Ronald J. Masciantonio
		 	 Title: Executive Vice President & Chief

Administrative Officer

		
		 	 /s/ Anthony M. Romano

		 	ANTHONY M. ROMANO
EXHIBIT 32


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Paul G. Laird, Chief Executive Officer and I, Les Bates, Chief Financial
Officer of New Frontier Energy, Inc. (the "Company") certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of New Frontier
Energy, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

Date:    January 11, 2008


/s/ Paul G. Laird
-----------------
Paul G. Laird,
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Les Bates
-------------
Les Bates,
Chief Financial Officer
GE Capital Real Estate


GE Capital Loan Services, Inc.
P. 0. Box 671568, Houston, 7X 77267
363 North Sam Houston Parkway East Suite 1200
Houston, 7X 77060
281405-7000
March 5, 2002

Arthur Andersen LLP
711 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300
Houston, Texas 77002

For the seven months ended July 31, 2001 (on August 1, 2001, GE Capital Loan Services Inc. (GECLS) was merged into GEMSA Loan Services, L.P.), GECLS' servicing of multi-family and commercial mortgage loans has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers ,4ssociation of America's Unif6rm SingleAttestation Program for Mortgage Bankers.  GECLS's Fidelity Bond policy provides coverage of up to $25,000,000 and GECLS's Errors and Omissions policy provides coverage of up to $25,000,000 as of July 31, 2001. For other errors and omission liabilities GECLS was self-insured for risks of errors and omissions in the performance of its commercial mortgage loan servicing business by General Electric Capital Corporation, its indirect corporate parent as of July 31, 2001.
A GE Capital Services Company
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1456-E1457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

        HONORING THE LIFE AND SERVICE OF 1ST LT. TODD W. LAMBKA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. HEATH SHULER

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service 
of 1st Lt. Todd W. Lambka. On August 1st, 2012, he passed away while 
serving in the Paktika province of Afghanistan.
  1st Lt. Lambka attended Robbinsville High School where he 
participated in both football and wrestling. He was known for his 
maturity as well as his work ethic, building a reputation for 
outworking his teammates and making others around him better. Following 
high school, 1st Lt. Lambka excelled as a student at the United States 
Military Academy at West Point,

[[Page E1457]]

NY. He was awarded the Robert Foley Scholarship of Honor for receiving 
high marks and persevering despite the loss of his mother, Donna. After 
graduation in 2010, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion of the 28th 
Infantry Regiment in the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the 1st 
Infantry Division based in Fort Riley, Kansas.
  1st Lt. Lambka is survived by his wife, Cassie, twin brother Jordan, 
who is also serving in Afghanistan, and father Brian. He has been 
awarded the Bronze Star Medal and Purple Heart posthumously.
  In his writings with others, 1st Lt. Lambka frequently referenced a 
quote from President Teddy Roosevelt, ``There has never yet been a man 
in our history who led a life of ease whose name is worth 
remembering.'' Mr. Speaker, with the life that 1st Lt. Lambka has lived 
and the sacrifices he made, his name is not merely worth remembering. 
Rather, it shall be engrained in our national consciousness with the 
other fallen servicemembers of this generation--men who sacrificed 
their lives for our country and freedom. I urge my colleagues today to 
join me in honoring 1st Lt. Lambka.

                          ____________________
```
**Exhibit 23.3****Consent of Independent Auditors**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-135910, 333-125862, 333-107659, 333-73904, 333-55978, 333-32092, and 333-65923) and Form S-3ASR (No. 333-132672) of Hanover Compressor Company and the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No.333-141695) of Iliad Holdings, Inc. therein of our report datedApril 26, 2007 with respect to thefinancial statements of WilPro Energy Services (PIGAP II) Limited, included in the Annual Report(Form 10-K/A) of Hanover Compressor Company for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLPTulsa, OK
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4569 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4569

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 10, 2018

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require counterterrorism information sharing coordination, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Counterterrorism Information Sharing 
Improvement Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. COUNTERTERRORISM INFORMATION SHARING COORDINATION.

    (a) In General.--The President, acting though the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, shall ensure that, for counterterrorism purposes, 
the Department of the Homeland Security has access to biographic and 
biometric data collected by the United States Government on individuals 
associated with a terrorist organization.
    (b) Coordination.--The President shall direct the heads of relevant 
Federal departments and agencies to coordinate with the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to minimize and overcome any administrative, 
technical, capacity, or classification challenges to carrying out 
subsection (a).
    (c) Protections.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure 
that all relevant laws, rules, and procedures, including the section 
552(a) of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
``Privacy Act'' or the ``Privacy Act of 1974''), regarding 
classification levels and civil rights and civil liberties are followed 
while seeking to carry out subsection (a).
    (d) Report to Congress.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
        shall, consistent with the protection of classified 
        information, submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of 
        the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
        Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the 
        implementation of this section.
            (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
        shall include a description of how the data referred to in 
        subsection (a) is utilized for Department of Homeland Security 
        screening and vetting purposes and any challenges associated 
        with incorporating such data into departmental screening and 
        vetting systems.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
| ·   | The Leather Factory, Inc., a Nevada corporation |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | The Leather Factory of Nevada Investments, Inc., a Nevada corporation |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | The Leather Factory, LP, a Texas limited partnership |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | The Leather Factory, Inc., an Arizona corporation |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Hi-Line Leather & Manufacturing Company, a California corporation |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Roberts, Cushman & Company, Inc., a New York corporation |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | The Leather Factory of Canada Ltd., an Ontario domiciled Canadian corporation |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Tandy Leather Company, Inc., a Nevada corporation |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Tandy Leather Company Investments, Inc. a Nevada corporation |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Tandy Leather Company, LP, a Texas limited partnership |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Tandy Leather Factory Australia Pty Ltd, an Australian proprietary company |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Tandy Leather Factory Espana, S.L., a Spanish limited liability company |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | Tandy Leather Factory UK Limited, a United Kingdom limited liability company |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael S. Ramirez, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), rendered August 22,1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from two police officers regarding the contents of the defendant’s description as received over the police radio. However, this contention is not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v West,*56 NY2d 662). In any event, in light of the complainants’ clear and strong identification testimony and the ample opportunity they had to observe the defendant during the commission of the crime, the officers’ testimony in this regard was harmless *(see, People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969; *People v Jones,*160 AD2d 731).

The defendant’s contention that the court’s instructions to the jury regarding his failure to testify deprived him of a fair *850trial is unavailing. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant neither requested that the court limit its instruction to the statutory language nor excepted to the charge as given *(see, People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836; *People v Priester,*162 AD2d 633). Moreover, although the court’s "no inference” charge was lengthier than prescribed by law, it was neutral in tone and did not diminish the importance of the constitutional right by implying either that the defendant should have testified or that his decision not to do so was a strategic one *(see, People v Gonzalez,*167 AD2d 556).

During its charge, the court had informed jurors that a verdict sheet would be sent in with them. The defendant’s contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was not proper is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to its submission, failed to make further requests, and failed to object to the charge as given when afforded the opportunity to do so *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Melendez,*160 AD2d 739; *People v Fitzgerald,*157 AD2d 666). In view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, particularly the strong and clear identification testimony of the complainants, review of this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction is unwarranted *(see, People v Lugo,*150 AD2d 502; *People v Mathis,*150 AD2d 613; *cf, People v Testaverde,*143 AD2d 208).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those arguments raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2009032EN.01003702.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/37

---

Action brought on 31 October 2008 — Umbach v Commission

(Case T-474/08)

(2009/C 32/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dieter C. Umbach (represented by: M. Stephani, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the defendant's decision (reference: SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 6991) of 2 September 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the defendant's decision (reference: SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 6991) of 2 September 2008.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant has brought an action against the Commission decision by which that institution refused full and unrestricted access to documents connected with a TACIS programme and a TACIS contract to which the applicant was a party. The applicant claims that access to the documents in question is essential for his defence in the action filed by the Commission against him, following termination of the TACIS contract, for reimbursement of the monies paid in advance.

In support of his action the applicant claims, first, that general principles of Community law have been infringed, in particular the right to sound administration and the right to due process, because he, as a concerned party, must be given the possibility to obtain full and unfettered access to documents necessary for his defence and subsequent vindication of his own claims against the Commission.

The applicant also claims, secondly, that a right to full and unfettered access to the files arises from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), inasmuch as the Commission erred, in particular, in the exercise of its discretionary powers under Articles 4 and 9 of that regulation.

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

1

---
# C_2008272EN.01004702.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/47

---

Action brought on 29 August 2008 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)

(Case T-364/08)

(2008/C 272/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: 2nine Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Palmer, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (Anaheim, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 2008 in case R 1591/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 2008 in case R 1591/2007-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs; and

| — | Take any further action as the Court may deem appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take any further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘nollie’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 11, 14, 18, 20, 25 and 26 — application No 4 601 621

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 839 740 of the word mark ‘NOLI’ for goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 361 525 of the word mark ‘NOLI’ for goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25.

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to find that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks with respect to all the contested goods; infringement of Article 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed or neglected to take into account properly the facts, evidence and arguments submitted.

Pleas in law:

---
# Pickens - Appalachian Regional Commission

- South Carolina Office of Rural Health: Dreaming Up New Recovery Solutions   Recovering from Substance Use Disorder (SUD) can be a vicious cycle, especially when it comes to accessing the treatment and support services needed to successfully secure meaningful employment. Furthermore, it’s not just an individual who feels these effects, but entire communities. In upstate South Carolina, public services in Cherokee, Pickens, and Union counties have been [&#8230;]The post South Carolina Office of Rural Health: Dreaming Up New Recovery Solutions   appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments Executive Director Steve Pelissier Email &#160;&#x69;&#x6e;&#x66;&#x6f;&#x40;&#x73;&#x63;&#x61;&#x63;&#x6f;&#x67;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x67;The post South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2011152EN.01000401.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique

(Case C-119/09) (1)

1

(Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 24 - Prohibition of total prohibitions on commercial communications by the regulated professions - Profession of qualified accountant - Prohibition on canvassing)

2011/C 152/05

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société fiduciaire nationale d’expertise comptable

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) and, specifically, Article 24 thereof relating to commercial communications by the regulated professions — Commercial practice of canvassing — Proscription, in respect of the regulated professions covered by the directive, of any general prohibition, whatever the form of commercial practice concerned, or the option for the Member States to maintain general prohibitions in respect of certain commercial practices, such as canvassing

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24(1) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which totally prohibits the members of a regulated profession, such as the profession of qualified accountant, from engaging in canvassing.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---