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








Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) by and between Employers Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Michael S. Paquette (the “Employee”), is made as of October 30, 2017, and is effective January 1, 2018.


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement effective as of January 1, 2017 (the “Agreement”);


WHEREAS, Appendix A: Relocation Benefit (“Appendix A”) to the Employment Agreement provides that the Employee would be entitled to reimbursement for an expense described therein only if the expense were incurred before December 31, 2017; and


WHEREAS, the parties agree to extend this expiration date until December 31, 2018.


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:


“Appendix A is hereby amended so that the sentence following the eleventh bullet is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: “All relocation expenses must be incurred before December 31, 2018.”


Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement, including the Appendix, is hereby confirmed in all respects.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed and delivered as of the date and the year first written above.


COMPANY




__________________________________________
By: Douglas D. Dirks
Title: Chief Executive Officer




EMPLOYEE
                


_________________________________________
Michael S. Paquette
#### MASSIE v. STATE.

No. 24169.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was indicted for robbery by assault. He waived a jury, asking permission to be tried before the court. The county attorney in writing gave his permission thereto, and all of the procedure required by statute appears to have been complied with, after which the appellant entered his plea of guilty before the court. Judgment was entered, finding him guilty and assessing his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The record is before this court without bills of exception or statement of facts. In such condition nothing is presented for review.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

          In connection with the quarterly report of New Century Equity Holdings
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  I, Steven J.
Pully,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge that:

   (1)    The Form 10-Q report for the quarter  ended June 30, 2007,  filed with
          the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on August 14,  2007,  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 Form 10-Q  report for the  quarter
          ended June 30, 2007 fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the
          financial  condition and results of  operations of New Century  Equity
          Holdings Corp.

By:  /S/ Steven J. Pully                                Date:  August 14, 2007
   -----------------------------                             -------------------
Steven J. Pully
Chief Executive Officer
```
| Exhibit 32.0 |
|--------------|

| 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by this Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Thomas F. Gibney                       |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Thomas F. Gibney                           |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer      |
|   |   | August 14, 2009                            |
|   |   |                                       |
|   |   |                                       |
|   |   |                                       |
|   |   |                                       |
|   | By:    | /s/ Stephen W. Dederick                    |
|   |   | Stephen W. Dederick                        |
|   |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | August 14, 2009                            |
**Exhibit 32.3**

**Certification**

I, Martin F. Ellis, Special Advisor to the Chairman of the Boardof Directors of Agilysys, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies (1) with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. 

Dated: June 14, 2011 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request. 

(2) As explained more fully in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Annual Report does not include, asrequired by the Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X , the separate financial statements of Magirus AG, a privately owned German company in which the Company formerly held a 20% equity interest until the Company disposed of such interest onNovember 15, 2008.
# C_2023136EN.01001201.xml

| 19.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/12

---

Corrigendum to Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11023 – ADP / JCDECAUX / MEDIA AEROPORTS DE PARIS JV)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 130 of 14 April 2023
  )

(2023/C 136/05)

Publication 2023/C 130/03 on page 3 is to be considered null and void.

---
# C_2023222EN.01003601.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10879 – EMZ PARTNERS / IK INVESTMENT / OAKLEY CAPITAL / MR VALENTIN SCHÜTT / WISHCARD)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 222/10)

On 27 September 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10879. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10879. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

     In connection  with the  quarterly  report of New Century  Equity  Holdings
Corp.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof, I, Steven
J. Pully, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge that:

(1)  The Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended  September 30, 2004,  filed with
     the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2004, 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 Form 10-Q report for the quarter  ended
     September 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
     condition and results of operations of New Century Equity Holdings Corp.

By:  /s/ Steven J. Pully                           Date:  NOVEMBER 15, 2004
   ----------------------------                           ---------------------
Steven J. Pully
Chief Executive Officer
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALEXIS MORA-REYES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-440

[April 13, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.801 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ernest A. Kollra, Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 21-002048CF10A & 21-002812CF10A.

Alexis Mora-Reyes, Indiantown, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Official Journal C 23A/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 23A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 501 February 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 23A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 501 February 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 023A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — 25th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 023A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — 25th complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.28
 Signature Page to the Stock Option Agreement Terms and Conditions (rev. 2006)  (executive officers)
 Complete Production Services, Inc.  Amended and Restated 2001 Stock Incentive Plan
 [Executive Name]
    
    [Street Address]Optionees Tax ID #: [SSN]
    
    [City, State, Zip, Country]
  Option Grant Date:Total Shares Subject to the Option:
    
    sharesExercise Price per Share:
    
    $Total Exercise Price:
    
    $Expiration Date**:Type of Option:
 o
 o
 Vesting
Schedule**:
 
 Shares
    
    Vest Date___/___/______/___/______/___/___
 
 **
  COMPLETE PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC.
    
    EXECUTIVEName:
    
    [Executive Name]Title:
Exhibit 32.1

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

     This  certification  is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002.  This
certification  is  included  solely  for  the  purpose  of  complying  with  the
provisions  of Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act and is not to be used for
any other purpose.  In connection with the accompanying  Qarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Aspen Racing  Stables,  Inc. for the quarter ended April  30,2007,  I,
Dwight  McLellan,  hereby certifies in my capacity as an officer of Aspen Racing
Stables, Inc. that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Aspen Racing Stables,  Inc. for
          the quarter ended April 30, 2007, 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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of
          Aspen  Racing  Stables,  Inc.  for the quarter  ended April 30,  2007,
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Aspen Racing Stables, Inc.

Date:    September 19, 2007                /s/ Dwight McLellan
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Dwight McLellan, President
                                       and Chief Executive Officer
                                       (Principal Executive, Financial
                                       and Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1394

In Re: DONNA J. FERNICOLA; ROBERT E. FERNICOLA,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:08-cv-00516-TLW-TER)

Submitted: August 11, 2008 Decided: October 28, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donna J. Fernicola, Robert E. Fernicola, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donna J. Fernicola and Robert E. Fernicola petition for

a writ of mandamus directing the district court to enter default

judgment in their favor in the underlying action. Our review of

the district court docket sheet reveals that the district court has

remanded the underlying case to Utica City Court in Utica, New

York. See GPO Federal Credit Union v. Fernicola, No. 4:08-cv00516-TLW-TER (D.S.C. July 11, 2008). Accordingly, we deny this

mandamus petition as moot. We also deny as moot the Fernicolas’

motion for a stay. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                     SUBSIDIARIES OF POWELL INDUSTRIES, INC.


<Table>
<Caption>
NAME OF DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARY                    STATE OF INCORPORATION
---------------------------                    ----------------------
<S>                                            <C>

Delta-Unibus Corp.                             Illinois
Powell Electrical Manufacturing Co.            Delaware
 Powell Power Electronics Company, Inc.        Delaware
Powell-Process Systems, Inc. (Inactive)        Utah
Powell-ESCO Company                            Texas
Unibus, Inc.                                   Ohio
Powell Energy Systems Inc. (Inactive)          Nevada
Transdyn Controls, Inc.                        California
Traction Power Systems, Inc.                   Delaware
</Table>

<Table>
<Caption>
NAME OF FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY                     COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION
--------------------------                     ------------------------
<S>                                            <C>
Powell Foreign Sales Corporation               Barbados, West Indies
</Table>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Alan Campbell, Chief Financial Officer of Freescale
Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2009 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor
Holdings I, Ltd.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: October 23, 2009



/s/ ALAN CAMPBELLAlan CampbellChief Financial Officer,Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
#### LAUGHLIN v. STATE.

No. 16117.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1933.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Unlawfully carrying a pistol is the offense; penalty assessed at a fine of $100.

No statement of facts or bills of" exception are found in the record.

In the motion for new trial appellant sets up what he claims to be newly discovered evidence. In order to intelligently pass upon the merits of the claim that new evidence has been discovered which would probably have produced a different result if present at the time of the trial, it would be necessary that this court know what evidence was hoard upon the motion. In the absence of a statement of the facts, this court is not in a position to appraise the merits of the contention mentioned.

Misconduct of the jury is also set up in the motion for new trial. The alleged misconduct consists of the averment in the motion that the jury discussed the fact that the appellant was engaged in the loan business and had been guilty of reprehensible acts in his loans; that the acts of the jurors constituted misconduct and disclosed that appellant did not have a fair trial.

It is also averred that there was some discussion in the jury room that appellant had on a previous occasion been charged with an offense similar to the present and that fact was proved upon the trial. This recital is verified by the affidavit of the appellant, but is not supported by the testimony of any of the jurors or any one else. It seems to be a mere conclusion of the appellant. He manifestly was not present during the deliberation of the jury, and, the trial court having approved the verdict, this court would not be in a position to overturn it.

The judgment is affirmed.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NETLIST, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SANDISK LLC,

Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2016-2274, 2016-2275, 2016-2338, 2016-2339

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2014-00970, IPR2014-00971.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

THOMAS J. WIMBISCUS, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, 

Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by WAYNE BRADLEY, SCOTT P. MCBRIDE, GREGORY 

SCHODDE, RONALD SPUHLER. 

 JON WRIGHT, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, 

Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by LORI A. GORDON, PAULINE PELLETIER, ROBERT 

EVAN SOKOHL. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and 

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 November 14, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
No. ____________

In the

Court of Criminal Appeals

At Austin 



No. 04-14-00878-CR

No. 04-14-00879-CR

In the

Court of Appeals

for the

Fourth District of Texas

at San Antonio



No. 2013CR10841W

No. 2013CR10842W

In the 437th District Court 

Bexar County, Texas



MATTHEW DOUGLAS HAYES

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee



APPELLANT’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE 

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW



PD-0885&0886-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/16/2015 7:11:30 AM

Accepted 7/17/2015 2:42:42 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

APPELLANT, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(c) moves for an extension of

time within which to file its petition for discretionary review. In support of its

motion, appellant submits the following:

1. Appellant was charged with two felony offenses of aggravated robbery. 

2. Appellant pled guilty to the charged offenses and submitted to a presentence investigation. There was an agreement that the court’s

sentence could not exceed ten years confinement in the Institutional

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. After a hearing

was held, appellant was sentenced to seven years confinement in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on

September 9, 2014.

3. A motion for new trial was timely filed. It was overruled by operation of

law. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and subsequently filed a brief

with the Fourth Court of Appeals. 

3. In a Per Curium decision, the Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed

appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on June 10, 2015. 

4. By appellant’s calculation, a petition for discretionary review would be

due in this Court on July 10, 2015. However, CaseMail indicates that the

petition is due on July 27, 2015. 

5. Out of an abundance of caution, and in the event a mistake was made in

calculating the time, appellant seeks an extension, in accordance with

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(c), until July 27, 2015, to file its petition for

discretionary review. 

2
WHEREFORE, the Appellant prays that this Court will grant the requested

extension until July 27, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/MANDY MILLER

 Attorney for appellant

2910 Commercial Center Blvd., Ste. 103-201

Katy, TX 77494

SBN 24055561

PHONE (832) 900-9884

FAX (877) 904-6846

mandy@mandymillerlegal.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, this certifies that on July 16, 2015, a copy of

the foregoing was delivered to the following addresses:

Amanda Byrd

Amanda.Byrd@bexar.org

Bexar County District Attorney’s Office

Lisa McMinn

State Prosecuting Attorney

lisa.mcminn@spa.state.tx.us

/S/MANDY MILLER

3