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


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment to the Employment Agreement, (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 8th
day of October 2021, by and between ORBSAT CORP, a Nevada corporation (the “Corporation”), and Paul R. Thomson (the
“Employee”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
the Corporation and Employee entered into an employment agreement dated August 24, 2021 (“Employment Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS,
the Corporation and Employee desire to enter into this Amendment No. 1 to modify certain terms of the Employment Agreement as more
fully set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 


 


(a) Amendment.
With effect commencing on October 9, 2021, the first sentence of Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows:


 


“The
Employee shall serve as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, with such duties, responsibilities,
and authority as are commensurate and consistent with his position, as may be, from time to time, assigned to him by the Board of Directors
(the “Board”) of the Corporation. During the Term (as defined in Section 3), the Employee shall devote all of his full business
time and efforts to the performance of his duties hereunder unless otherwise authorized by the Board.”


 


(b) Entire
Agreement. Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect. The
Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, contains the entire agreement between the Corporation and Employee with respect to
Employee’s employment, and supersedes any and all previous agreements, written or oral, between the parties relating to the relevant
matter.


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


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


 


	 	ORBSAT
    CORP
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Charles M. Fernandez
	 	Name: 	Charles
    M. Fernandez
	 	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 
	 	/s/
Paul R. Thomson
	 	Paul
    R. Thomson
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 12636-002; Project No. 12153-000]

Take notice that some pre-filing activities related to the preparation of the license application for the Middle Mohawk Hydroelectric Project (P-12636) were undertaken in docket number P-12153. Documents pertaining to that proceeding are available in the Commission's eLibrary under docket number P-12153.

For further information, please contact Monir Chowdhury at (202) 502-6736.

Dated: March 18, 2015.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-06739 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# CA2015288EN.01000201.xml

| 2.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 288/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 288/2

---

RESERVE LIST

OPEN COMPETITION

EPSO/AD/294/14

ADMINISTRATORS (AD 6) IN THE FIELD OF DATA PROTECTION

(2015/C 288 A/02)

| BYK | Guillaume |
| --- | --- |
| COSTA | Graça |
| D’CUNHA | Christian |
| DE LOCHT | Priscilla |
| SZILVASSY | Zsofia |
| FIERRO SEDANO | Elena |
| GARCÍA SÁNCHEZ | Manuel |
| GAYREL | Claire |
| HOMANN | Dirk |
| KAMPOURAKI | Kostoula |
| LANGFELDT | Owe |
| LAREO | Xabier |
| LIM | Laurent |
| MATTER | Olivier |
| PAVESI | Francesca |
| PEREZ GUTIERREZ | Nayra |
| ROBERT | Romain |
| SCHILMOLLER | Anne |
| SPINA | Alessandro |
| TEPINA | Polona |
| VEREECKEN | Isabelle |

BYK

Guillaume

COSTA

Graça

D’CUNHA

Christian

DE LOCHT

Priscilla

SZILVASSY

Zsofia

FIERRO SEDANO

Elena

GARCÍA SÁNCHEZ

Manuel

GAYREL

Claire

HOMANN

Dirk

KAMPOURAKI

Kostoula

LANGFELDT

Owe

LAREO

Xabier

LIM

Laurent

MATTER

Olivier

PAVESI

Francesca

PEREZ GUTIERREZ

Nayra

ROBERT

Romain

SCHILMOLLER

Anne

SPINA

Alessandro

TEPINA

Polona

VEREECKEN

Isabelle

The reserve list will be valid until 14 July 2018.

14 July 2018

---
## HM-Jiolt-.U<>1 Docket**No.~** 

### Regulatory Evaluation 

## OloHr.lC-or/'-AiJ Directorate Identifier: 

### l'BD AI)4 

## If

you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update according(v. 

## ff theydo not, click (or Tab) into andthen out qfthe changedcell.
I Cost" Action Costs P" , ongino, (e.g., Inspection,**Work~hours** Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total**C~st**

replacement) Do not include on- (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

### n\ -our) I and 

### 40'o 'll:IAOO.O 

# IM' :'.1 A·-i li.-1110 .0 

### installation of S},,'IOO.Oii 

### 426**~.** 

### •03 

# " (I 

### TU357 03 

# 0" ll! '\; 1_1.0(}

### ~$:;'JJ1l S16.:-->0ll.OO 

### 426 Sri .()''I.!JJOO.U


### ,. : (I 

# _;,w ' .Oil 

# s ,1)(1 ; 

## '-:.. 

## s 

# '-'"' (I .IJIJ**~** 

## s )

# ""**-~:/'.** 

### ; IJO 

## s (I l.IJO ·.; (I 

# '"" ,, I, 

## s " (II)



## .. __

## .. ·_· 

## s ()IJ 

### I (I I 

## s 

# ' ()() 

## s I)IJ 

# ,,

.(J(J

·- 

## s
.[l[l $ I I 

### ,_ ),(l(j ' 

## . s ) I)IJ 

# ' I -'" (j_{l[J 

## s 1.00 I, 

## s I 

### s 

# ,,, '


# .. ') .00 

# s 

# '-''" 5'ci'·. 

## s ) _(Ill ' (I (II) 

## s. IJ 00_ ',) 

# "-"" $ l.IJIJ 

## s Oil

. 

### ' S O.I!IJ 

### s
.IJO (I Ulll 

## s 

# ' \ )_(j() '· IJ. 1)1) 

### ' (I "-'"' 

# --c--* -;_(}(] 

## s 0.0 

## ;;• I 

## s il.IJU



# ,r• ' ).Oil 

## s ' IS uUI


### ,. HJII 

# ·," s () (J 

## s ).()('1 '()() 

# ;·•:.••· s () 00 

## . o . on The known in 

### 0 Total Costs , for'



### . fleet $8,477,400 Costs' I under· 

### •(: $0

1Costs' Action Laborcost Parts Cost Cost per (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) testing, and**close~** replacement)

. up) ,(111 

# '•'' •. i

> liU 

# ll ., 

## ',' )_()(l \ 

# ' ' _1 "-'"' 

### -.· ·1!\2:

... 

# " .,) 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfieldto explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed ormight notbe obvious. Thisfield can also be usedto explain warranty costs):

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?- 

### YES' 

## 0 NO 

### [21 *Explanation: 

### DOTRegulatory Policies andProcedures: Is the AD significant? 

# (liJ YES* 

# 0 NO 

### [21 *Explanation: 

### RegulatoryFlexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities? Explain for either a Yes orNo answer .• 

### YES 

# D N0[2J Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation inAlaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the onlymode oftransportation?

# ~ YES' 

# 0 NO 

### [21 *Explanation:
Exhibit 99.1

           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Dr. Eugene Stricker, certify that:

1.) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Kushi Natural Foods
Corp.

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;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c.  Presented in the quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the Audit committee
of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
a.  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;

6.) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 21, 2004

/s/ DR. EUGENE STRICKER
-------------------------------------------
Dr. Eugene Stricker, President
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)

                                       10
# C_2016231EN.01001901.xml

| 25.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/19

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8030 — The Carlyle Group/Crestview Advisors/Nep Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 231/02)

On 20 June 2016, 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 the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32016M8030. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8030. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6388** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:10

- cr - 00096

- MSD

- TEM

- 2; 2:11

- cv - 00462

- MSD )

Submitted : June 30, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Angelo Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit
.2 PER CURIAM: Angelo Galloway seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 ( 2012 ) motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) ( B ) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by dem onstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Galloway has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Galloway’s motions to expedite, for bond, and for in camera review of gr and jury transcripts. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Mahler vs. Wise and another.

*Reversal of judgment: Mcpress provision for redemption.*

A judgment for the sale of the separate property of a wife (for debts contracted in her own name, in the course of a business carried on by her for her own benefit), will not be reversed because it does not contain any express provision allowing her to redeem.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Milwaukee*County.

The defendants, *Sigmund Wise*and *Marie,*his' wife, appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

*B. W. Austin,*for appellants,

cited Laws of 1859, ch. 195, § 2; *Jones v. Oilman,*14 Wis. 450; *Yam Wostrand <o. Mansfield,*16 id. 224; *Carberry v. Benson,*18 id. 489.

*Waldo, Ody <& Van,*for respondent.

DixoN, C. J.

This is a proceeding in equity to charge the separate property of the defendant *Mrs. Wise,*who is a married woman, with the payment of a debt contracted by her in she own name, in the course of a separate business carried on by her for her own benefit with the assent of her husband. Certain real estate belonging to *Mrs. Wise*was described in the complaint, and a judgment declaring the debt due the plaintiff to be a lien thereon, and for the sale thereof, was demanded. A recovery having been had by the plaintiff, judgment according to the demand of the complaint was entered for the sale of the real estate, but without the right of redemption. From this jfidgment there is an appeal; and the only error *301assigned is, that a provision should have been inserted allowing *Mrs. Wise*to redeem. The judgment in this respect is the same as that in *Todd v.*Lee, 16 Wis. 480, which was a like proceeding, and where the same objection was taken, and overruled by this court. The question was then settled agreeably to the established practice in chancery, and so it must remain until changed by act of the legislature. The observation in *Leonard v. Logan,*20 Wis. 543, was not intended to establish any different practice, and we are surprised that it should have been so understood. Mrs. Rogan was there sued in equity,» when she should have been sued at law, and, if sued at law, she would have been entitled to the regular time for redeeming fixed by law. What we there said was, that if the judgment in equity should be permitted to stand, it would only be on condition of her having the same right to redeem as if sued at law, or as the law gave.

It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
SCOTT ALLEN ACKMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4593

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 15, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Jr., Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Charles Lee, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6916

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENDALL LADELL BLUE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,

Chief District Judge. (7:11-cr-00135-D-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kendall Ladell Blue, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Jason Cameron, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kendall Ladell Blue appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion, in which Blue 

sought a reduction of his 252-month sentence based on Amendment 

782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Mann, 

709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (reviewing district court’s 

decision under § 3583(c)(2) for abuse of discretion). 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Blue, No. 7:11-cr-00135-D-1 (E.D.N.C. 

June 13, 2016). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015384EN.01000301.xml

| 18.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/3

---

Special Report No 14/2015

‘The ACP Investment Facility: does it provide added value?’

(2015/C 384/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 14/2015 ‘The ACP Investment Facility: does it provide added value?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          26,644
<SECURITIES>                                    12,418
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,713
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,788
<INVENTORY>                                     28,420
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,989
<PP&E>                                          11,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,457
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                     124,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,746
<SALES>                                          8,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,899
<CGS>                                            6,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,563
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   196
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (95,702)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (95,727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (95,727)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (5.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.21)


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0560. WILMER BURTON v. CYNTHIA BURTON.

The superior court found Wilmer Burton in contempt of a family violence

protective order. He has filed a direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

Appeals of orders in domestic relations cases must be initiated by filing an

application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2); Schmidt v. Schmidt,

270 Ga. 461, 461-462 (1) (510 SE2d 810) (1999). Burton’s failure to follow the

required appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is

hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/28/2016

November 28, 2016