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


 


AMENDMENT NO. 4

TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 to
the Employment Agreement, dated as of November 1, 1999, as amended to date
(the “Agreement”), by and between
EACCELERATION CORP.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and CLINTON L.
BALLARD (“Employee”)
is dated for reference purposes as of August 21, 2004 (this “Amendment”).


 


WHEREAS, the
Company and Employee desire to amend the terms of the Agreement, pursuant to
the terms and conditions set forth herein, as of the date hereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, and
intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.                                     The first sentence
of Subparagraph (a) of Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended in
its entirety as follows:


 


During the term of
employment, Employee shall be employed by the Company as President, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer or in such other equivalent positions
with the Company and its affiliates, as may be determined by the Board of
Directors of the Company, and shall also serve as a director of the Company.


 


2.                                       Subparagraph
(a) of Paragraph 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety as
follows:


 


The Company shall pay to
Employee a salary at the rate of $208,000 per annum, payable in equal bi-weekly
installments, or in such other manner as shall be consistent with the Company’s
payroll practices.


 


3.                                       Paragraph
10 of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete in its entirety the reference
to Neil M. Kaufman and insert in its place “Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson,
P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101-2925,
Attention: Joel N. Bodansky.”


 


4.                                       The
changes to the Agreement made by this Amendment shall be effective as of the
date hereof, and shall amend and supersede any provisions to the contrary
contained in the Agreement.  Except as
expressly amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement.


 


(signature page follows)


 


1





















 


IN WITNESS HEREOF,
the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


	
   

  	
  EACCELERATION CORP.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ E. Edward Ahrens

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Name: E. Edward
  Ahrens

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Title: Chief
  Financial Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EMPLOYEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Clinton L. Ballard

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Clinton L. Ballard

  



 


2
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 45715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket DOT-OST-2009-0116]

Application of Key Lime Air Corporation for Commuter Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order To Show Cause (Order 2012-7-5); Docket DOT-OST-
2009-0116.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Key Lime 
Air Corporation fit, willing, and able, and awarding it a Commuter Air 
Carrier Authorization.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
August 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket DOT-OST-2009-0116 and addressed to U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, 
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the 
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa R. Balgobin, Air Carrier 
Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-487), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 
366-9721.

    Dated: July 6, 2012.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2012-18741 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
# C_2008142EN.01003001.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/30

---

Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

(Case T-122/08)

(2008/C 142/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the procurement notice under reference EuropeAid/126316/C/SER/CY for the conclusion of a contract entitled ‘Establishment of a Programme Management Unit to support the implementation of investments projects in the field of water/wastewater and solid waste’, which was published, only in English, on the webpage http://ec.europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/ on or around 4 January 2008, and annul points 5 and 28.2 of the notice; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the procurement notice under reference EuropeAid/126316/C/SER/CY for the conclusion of a contract entitled ‘Establishment of a Programme Management Unit to support the implementation of investments projects in the field of water/wastewater and solid waste’, which was published, only in English, on the webpage http://ec.europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/ on or around 4 January 2008, and annul points 5 and 28.2 of the notice;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant's pleas in law and main arguments are identical or similar to those advanced in Cases T-91/08, T-92/08 and T-93/08 Cyprus v Commission.

Cyprus

Commission

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5772-H5773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                WE WILL NEVER FORGET SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

  (Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

[[Page H5773]]

  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, 11 years ago today, our 
Nation was attacked by a group of Islamic terrorists who declared war 
on our country and the freedoms we cherish. The innocent civilians who 
were murdered by this act of terrorism will never be forgotten.
  In order to protect American families, our country's military 
capabilities must remain the strongest in the world. Sadly, due to the 
President's policies and the looming threat of sequestration, our 
national security stands at risk. The budget reductions to defense will 
reduce the Navy to the smallest fleet since 1916, the smallest Army and 
Marine Corps since 1939, and the smallest Air Force since it was 
created.
  House Republicans have passed legislation to save 2.14 million jobs 
by offering a replacement for sequestration. Unfortunately, the 
President has failed to show leadership and refused to act. It is my 
hope the liberal-controlled Senate will put aside party politics and 
work to prevent the weakening of our defense capabilities.
  In conclusion, we will never forget the cowardly attacks of September 
the 11th on innocent civilians.

                          ____________________
```
#### Application of Claud S. KNAPP for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12961.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 22, 1961.

Claud S. Knapp, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis. A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner filed herein his petition for a. writ of habeas corpus to secure his release-from the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. Petitioner did not have benefit of counsel iru preparing same, there was no judgment' and sentence attached thereto. It could hardly be classified as sufficient to be considered by this Court. However, the Court being thoroughly conscious of the handicap borne by inmates who are not versed in legal proceedings, will consider the pleading as a writ of habeas corpus.

The instrument filed by petitioner consists of the following language:

> “Comes now the plaintiff in his own proper person and request this honor*1085able Court to cut my time to time served and releas I the plaintiff from prison and deliver me to the county in witch I the plaintiff lives.

> “The plaintiff request this honorable Court to do this on the grounds his constitutional rights was violated a number of times and that the plaintiff was misstreated was refused medical aid and was refused legal council. That the County Attorney, in and for the County of Okmulgee, in the state of Oklahoma, Did unlawfully purposefully and without any dew respect for the defendants Bill of rights in a manner not noticeable to the public did trick force and compel the defendant to plead guilty to the charge of 2nd degree burglary.”

To this pleading the attorney general has filed a response stating that defendant is confined in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary by virtue of a valid judgment and sentence made and entered on the 5th day of March, 1960, in the Superior Court of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma, upon a plea of guilty to the charge of burglary in 2nd degree and was sentenced to serve two years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

The attorney general attached to his response a photostatic copy of the judgment and sentence of the trial court. He contends that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus does not allege facts sufficient as a matter of law to entitle the petitioner to be released on a writ of habeas corpus.

The Court has carefully examined the records before us and concur in the attorney general’s contention.

An examination of the judgment and sentence appears to be valid upon its face and recites therein that petitioner waived counsel and entered his plea of guilty as charged in the information.

This Court held in the case of In re York, 283 P.2d 567 that:

> “In a collateral attack by habeas corpus, upon a judgment of conviction regular on its face, the judgment will not be vacated unless it is void as having been rendered without jurisdiction.”

Such matters as stated in the petition could very easily have been raised on appeal, but the record before us does not indicate an appeal was taken from the judgment and sentence.

It appears that the trial judge had jurisdiction of the person, the subject matter and authority to pronounce the sentence. The writ is therefore denied.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
SCHOONER HARBOR VENTURES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

2010-5134

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 06-CV-087, Judge Marian Blank Horn.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________

C RAIG J. G ERACI , J R ., Rushing & Guice, P.L.L.C., of Ocean Springs, Mississippi, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was W ILLIAM L EE G UICE , I II

.

R OBERT J. L UNDMAN , Attorney, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department ofJustice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantappellee. With him on the brief was I GNACIA S. M ORENO , Assistant Attorney General.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (G AJARSA , S CHALL , and P ROST , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 20, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 009 36

- CV
JOEL D. MALLORY , JR. , Appellant

V.
WEST BELLFORT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION , Appellee Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

( Tr. Ct. No. 1039665 ). After due consideration, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellee. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal

.
The Court orders that costs be taxed against appellant.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered July 9 , 201 5

. Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justice s Higley and Massengale

. y
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

        DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions as follows:

       H. Res. 177: Mr. Hultgren.
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4775 

To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems and for 

prevailing rate employees by 3 percent, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2018 

Mr. CONNOLLY (for himself, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. HOYER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. 

BEYER, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. CLAY, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. KAPTUR, 

Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, Mr. SHERMAN, Mrs. 

COMSTOCK, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. KILMER, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. DELANEY, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Mr. SIRES) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems 

and for prevailing rate employees by 3 percent, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Adjustment 

5 of Income Rates Act’’ or the ‘‘FAIR Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4775 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT TO RATES OF PAY. 

2 (a) STATUTORY PAY SYSTEMS.—For calendar year 

3 2019, the percentage adjustment under section 5303 of 

4 title 5, United States Code, in the rates of basic pay under 

5 the statutory pay systems (as defined in section 5302 of 

6 title 5, United States Code) shall be 3 percent. 

7 (b) PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES.—Notwith8 standing the wage survey requirements under section 

9 5343(b) of title 5, United States Code, for fiscal year 

10 2019, the rates of basic pay (as in effect on the last day 

11 of fiscal year 2018 under section 5343(a) of such title) 

12 for prevailing rate employees in each wage area and the 

13 rates of basic pay under sections 5348 and 5349 of such 

14 title shall be increased by 3 percent. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### Jerry COULTER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12107.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 19, 1955.

*357Tom Finney, William N. Christian, Ida-bel, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

Plaintiff in error Jerry Coulter, defendant below, was charged by information in the district court of McCurtain county, Oklahoma, with the crime of assault and battery with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, Title 21, § 652, O.S.1951. The assault was allegedly committed on or about the 21st of November 1953 with a certain .38 caliber automatic pistol by shooting one Emma Butler with the same and inflicting upon her certain serious bodily wounds likely to effect death. The defendant was tried by a jury, convicted, his punishment fixed at 2 years in the penitentiary; judgment and sentence was accordingly entered from which this appeal has been perfected.

The facts herein involved are briefly that Emma Butler and Jerry Coulter were living together as common law man and wife. On the’ 21st day of November 1953 they engaged in a heavy round of beer drinking which ultimately led to a disagreement between them, which resolved itself into a fight. In the fight the defendant Jerry Coulter shot Emma Butler in the stomach with a 38 automatic pistol. In the evidence produced at the trial there was some conflict, which presented a question of fact for the jury. Sadler v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 97, 179 P.2d 479. The jury found the issues against the defendant and the record supports that finding. No briefs were filed. We have examined the information, instructions, the judgment and sentence and finding no substantial or fundamental error therein, the judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

JONES, P. J., and POWELL, 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.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2024-1)]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.

# SUMMARY:

The Surface Transportation Board has adopted the first quarter 2024 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads.

# DATES:

*Applicability Date:*                         January 1, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The rail cost adjustment factor (RCAF) is an index formulated to represent changes in railroad costs incurred by the nation's largest railroads over a specified period of time. Under 49 U.S.C. 10708, the Surface Transportation Board (Board) is required to publish the RCAF on at least a quarterly basis. Each quarter, the Association of American Railroads computes three types of RCAF figures and submits those figures to the Board for approval. The Board has reviewed the submission and adopts the RCAF figures for the first quarter of 2024. The first quarter 2024 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 0.974. The first quarter 2024 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.383. The first quarter                           ( print page 89004)                        2024 RCAF-5 is 0.367. Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available at                     *www.stb.gov.*

Decided: December 19, 2023.

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.

Brendetta Jones,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2023-28318 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________
```
No. 07

- 16

- 00355

- CV

Maria Ramos Appellant

v.

Ann Marie Castaneda Appellee §

§

§

§ From the County Court of Deaf Smith County

April 28, 2017

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 28, 2017

, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that this appeal be dismi ssed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis , no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
#### Nancy D. Ishkanian, Appellant, v City of Troy et al., Defendants, and Marie E. Saddlemire, Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Prior Jr., J.), entered May 4, 1990 in Rensselaer County, which, upon reargument, granted defendant Marie E. Saddlemire’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her.

Plaintiff tripped and fell while walking across a public sidewalk adjacent to property of defendants Marie E. Saddle-mire and Harry Saddlemire* located at 260 Madison Street in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County. Plaintiff initiated suit against both the City and the Saddlemires. The City subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it on the ground that it had not, as required by law, received prior written notice of any sidewalk defect and, further, that it had not affirmatively created any hazard. The motion was granted in an order not relevant to this appeal. Defendant then moved for similar relief, alleging that as an abutting landowner she was not liable since she neither controlled the sidewalk nor was it designed for any special use to benefit her.

Supreme Court conditionally denied defendant’s motion pending the production of proof by plaintiff that defendant did maintain or repair the subject sidewalk. When plaintiff’s papers were found to be deficient in disclosing any evidentiary proof as to defendant’s involvement with the sidewalk, defendant’s motion to reargue was granted and, upon reargument, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant was granted. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. "It is well settled that an owner or occupier of property will not be liable solely because his property abuts a public sidewalk where an injury occurred” *(Brady v Maloney,*161 AD2d 879, 880 [citations omitted]). "However, liability will be imposed where it is shown that the sidewalk was constructed in a special manner for the benefit of the abutting owner * * * when the abutting owner affirmatively caused the defect * * * or negligently constructed or repaired the sidewalk * * * or where a statute, ordinance, or municipal charter specifically charges an abutting landowner with a duty to *465maintain and repair the public sidewalk and provides that a breach of that duty will result in liability” *(Stewart v Town of Waterford,*152 AD2d 837, 838 [citations omitted]). Here, plaintiff’s cause of action is premised upon allegations that defendant caused or created an unsafe condition by directing or permitting her son to place sand into the broken up area of the sidewalk. Nothing in the record, however, even hints that this was the case as defendant went no further than to admit that her son merely removed some broken pieces of the sidewalk after the accident. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to lay bare affirmative proof that the issues alleged are real and capable of being established at trial, thus rendering summary judgment the appropriate remedy.

Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*

 Harry Saddlemire died in 1977. We hereinafter refer to Marie Saddle-mire as defendant.