alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(o)

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO

LOAN AGREEMENT



THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGEEEMENT (the "Amendment") is entered into as of the 31st day of December, 2002 by and between THE PROVIDENT BANK, an Ohio banking corporation, One East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio  45202 (the "Lender"), and LCA-VISION INC., a Delaware Corporation, (the "Borrower") 7840 Montgomery Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45236.



RECITALS:



A.

Lender and Borrower entered into a Loan Agreement on June 29, 1998 which Loan Agreement has been amended by various letter agreements and by an Amendment to the Loan Agreement dated as of September 30, 1999, and by a Second Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as of November 30, 2001 (as amended, "Loan Agreement").



B.

The parties desire to modify the terms of the Loan Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, all of which are considered to be a part of this Amendment, and the benefits accruing to the parties hereunder, receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the parties, it is agreed as follows:



1.

All capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement.



2.

Section 5.25 of the Loan Agreement is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefore:



Tangible Net Worth.  Maintain a minimum consolidated Tangible New Worth plus Subordinated Debt of not less than $30,000,000.



3.

All of the terms and conditions contained in the Loan Agreement and all other loan documents ("Loan Documents") evidencing and securing the indebtedness evidenced by the Loan Agreement ("Indebtedness"), except as modified by this Amendment, shall remain unchanged, unimpaired and in full force and effect.  This Amendment is hereby made a part of the original Loan Agreement as completely as if incorporated verbatim therein.



4.

Borrower acknowledges and unconditionally promises to pay the entire Indebtedness set forth in the Loan Agreement, as amended as set forth herein, and in the Loan Documents.  Borrower reaffirms all covenants and representations set forth in the Loan Agreement and Loan documents as if such covenants and representations were made as of the due hereof.



5.

This Amendment and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Ohio.  This Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the respective successors and assigns of parties hereto.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Amendment on the date first written above.



LENDER:





THE PROVIDENT BANK





By:  /s/ Philip Dober

Philip Dober

Vice President







BORROWER:





LCA-VISION INC.





By:  /s/ Alan H. Buckey

Name:  Alan H. Buckey

Title:  CFO
#### Spikes *v.*Hibbard.

5-839

288 S. W. 2d 38

Opinion delivered March 19, 1956.

*R. G. Waldron, Jack Holt*and *John F. Park,*for appellant.

*James A. Rohh,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, J.

Upon the reversal of the trial court’s decree in this case the costs were assessed against the appellees pursuant to the usual practice under Supreme Court Rule 24 (b). The appellees have filed a motion to retax the costs, contending that the appellants needlessly enlarged the record by designating for inclusion therein all the testimony taken below. The motion presents, as a matter of first impression, a point involving Act 555 of 1953.

That statute reads in part: “Section 12. *Record to he Abbreviated.*All matters not essential to the decision of the questions presented by the appeal shall be omitted . . . For any infraction of this rule . . . the appellate court may withhold or impose costs as the circumstances of the case and discouragement of like conduct in the future may require.” Ark. Stats. 1947, § 27-2127.6. In revising our rules in 1954 we stated in Rule 24 (e) that “the court will impose or withhold costs in accordance with Section 12 of Act 555 of 1953.”

In the case at bar the appellants designated for inclusion in the record not only the pleadings and decree *94but also “all tlie evidence, exhibits and proceedings” in the trial court. As a result of this designation the record contains 138 typewritten pages of transcribed testimony and exhibits. None of this testimony was abstracted in either brief, for the appellants’ statement of the case narrowed the issue to a jurisdictional question raised by demurrer to the amended complaint. This court’s decision was reached without reference to the testimony, which comprises more than three fourths of the record.

The appellants were right in not abstracting the testimony, as Buie 9 (d) requires that the abstract be limited to those matters that are necessary to an understanding of the questions presented to this court for decision. But the issue raised by the motion to retax the costs is whether the testimony should have been in the record at all. We think its inclusion was contrary to the purpose of § 12 of Act 555. It is the clear intention of that section to reduce the expense of litigation by encouraging the omission of matter irrelevant to the questions presented by the appeal. Doubtless there are situations in which there may fairly be a difference of opinion as to whether certain proceedings should be designated for inclusion in the record. But in this case the appellants in effect admitted by their opening statement that the transcribed testimony had no bearing upon the issues brought up for review. In these circumstances the statute contemplates that the appellees will be relieved from liability for the expense attributable to the unnecessary portions of the record. The motion to retax the costs is granted, the appellants to bear the cost of the reporter’s transcription of the testimony.

Holt, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 31.1 

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Peter K. Stevenson, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Globix Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal controlover financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statementsfor external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

d. Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 24, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00836-CV 

ROCHELLE POPE, Appellant 

V. 

RDSK LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-03089-D 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without 

a reporter’s record and for appellant’s brief to be filed by January 8, 2023. By 

postcard dated January 12, 2023, we informed appellant her brief was overdue and 

directed her to file her brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed her brief or otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

220836F.P05 

 

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ROCHELLE POPE, Appellant 

No. 05-22-00836-CV V. 

RDSK LLC, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-03089-

D. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Reichek and Garcia 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered February 24, 2023
#### Richards v Rockwell International,

No. 90808.

In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. MCR 7.302(F)(1). Court of Appeals No. 133367.
Exhibit 10.5

 


	ID
    Global Solutions Corporation
	160 East Lake Brantley
    Drive
	Longwood, Florida 32779



 


	 	September
                                         25, 2015



 



Douglas
Solomon


 



		Re:	Employment
                                         Agreement (the “Agreement” ) dated February 27, 2014 between ID Global
                                         Solutions Corporation (the “Company” ) and Douglas Solomon (“Executive” )	 



 



Dear
Mr. Solomon:


 



Reference
is hereby made to the Agreement. It is hereby agreed to by the parties that Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended and restated
to state the following:


 



“h.Additional
Compensation. The Company shall issue to Executive a common stock option (the “Option”) to purchase 20,000,000 shares
of common stock of the Company exercisable at $0.45 per share for a period of five years. The Option may be exercised for cash
or on a cashless baseless.”


 


We
kindly request that you execute this letter below indicating that you agree with the above Amendment and statements.


 


	 		Sincerely,
			 
	 		ID Global Solutions Corporation
			 
	 		By:/s/ Thomas R. Szoke
	 		Name: Thomas R. Szoke
	 		Title: CEO
			 
	AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:		
	 	 	 
	/s/ Douglas Solomon		 
	Douglas Solomon
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                 Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for
the quarter ended March 31, 2005 of Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc.(the "Company")
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



        /s/ Mark Clancy
        -------------------------------------------------------------
        Mark Clancy
        Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

Date: August 10, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TUNKARA YAHYA, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-1021; 17-cv-1073 

 Petitioner, Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

 v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et. al, 

 

 Respondent. 

ORDER 

 On June 27, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that this consolidated action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2241 be dismissed and that Petitioner’s Motion for an Immediate Stay of Removal be denied. 

See Case Number 2:17-cv-1021 (ECF No. 15); Case Number 2:17-cv-1073 (ECF No. 17.) 

Although the parties were advised of the right to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. 

The Court notes that the docket reflects that notice of the Report and Recommendation was 

returned as undeliverable, with no forwarding address. Although Petitioner may no longer reside 

at the address he initially provided, he has an affirmative duty to notify the Court of any change 

in address. See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) 

(“If [pro se Plaintiff’s] address changed, she had an affirmative duty to supply the court with 

notice of any and all changes in her address.”); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th 

Cir. 1991) (“[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with 

sophisticated legal issues . . . there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward 

procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend.”); Walker v. Cognis Oleo Chem., 
2 

LLC, No. 1:07cv289, 2010 WL 717275, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2010) (“By failing to keep the 

Court apprised of his current address, Plaintiff demonstrates a lack of prosecution of his 

action.”). 

 Therefore, the Report and Recommendation (ECF Nos. 15, 17) is ADOPTED and 

AFFIRMED. The Motion for an Immediate Stay of Removal (ECF Nos. 2, 3) is DENIED. The 

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. This action is hereby DISMISSED. 

 Petitioner has waived his right to appeal by failing to file objections. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court thus 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 20, 2018 s/Algenon L. Marbley ______ 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 28, 2009 

l0420 

Order 

 

April 28, 2009 

137885 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137885 

 COA: 288207 

Macomb CC: 2007-001213-FH 

JAMES LAWSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 26, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the cases 

of People v Idziak (Docket No. 137301) and People v Jackson (Docket No. 135888) are 

pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases may resolve 

issues raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the 

application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4165 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4165

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend through December 31, 2010, the authority of the Secretary of 
 the Army to accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public 
            entities to expedite the processing of permits.

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

SECTION 1. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

    Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 
U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 318; 120 
Stat. 3197; 121 Stat. 1067) is amended by striking ``2009'' and 
inserting ``2010''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 4165

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To extend through December 31, 2010, the authority of the Secretary of 
 the Army to accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public 
            entities to expedite the processing of permits.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ; Case No. 3:17-CV-303
Plaintiff, é Judge Walter H. Rice
Vv.
ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND $ ORDER UNSEALING COMPLAINT
FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR AND ENTIRE CASE

DOLLARS IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY ($130,464.00), et al.,

Defendants.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint and the entire case, which were sealed by

Order of this Court on September 5, 2017, be unsealed by the Clerk of Courts.

Date: _[/-3%-<4 [Av wG

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Globix Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
M. Dennerlein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:


         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all
         material respects the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.




Date: December 6, 2004                                 GLOBIX CORPORATION


                                                       /s/ Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
Unassociated Document


    EXHIBIT
10.10

    


    FIRST
2010 AMENDMENT TO

    LA-Z-BOY
INCORPORATED

    2004
LONG-TERM EQUITY AWARD PLAN

    


    La-Z-Boy
Incorporated (the “Company”) adopts this First 2010 Amendment to the La-Z-Boy
Incorporated 2004 Long-Term Equity Award Plan (the “Plan”).

    


    WITNESSETH:

    


    WHEREAS the Company previously
established the Plan for the benefit of certain of its eligible employees;
and

    


    WHEREAS pursuant to Article X,
Section 10.2 of the Plan, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan
subject to the conditions provided therein; and

     

    WHEREAS the Company believes
it advisable and in the Company’s best interests to make certain changes to the
Plan;

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is
amended to add the following section 3.8:

    


    3.8.  Cessation of
Awards.  Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no
Awards pursuant to this Plan shall be granted on or after June 11, 2010;
provided, however, that if, at the Company’s annual meeting of shareholders on
August 18, 2010, the Company’s shareholders fail to approve the La-Z-Boy
Incorporated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan, this Section 3.8 shall be null and
void.

    


    The above amendment shall be effective
June 11, 2010.

    


               Except
as specifically amended by this Amendment, the provisions of the Plan are
reaffirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has signed this Amendment to evidence adoption of this Amendment on
the _____ day of June, 2010.

    


    


    LA-Z-BOY
INCORPORATED

    


    


    By           ________________________________

    


    Its           _____________________________
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4445 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend Public Law 95–232 to repeal a restriction on 

treating as Indian country certain lands held in trust 

for Indian pueblos in New Mexico. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4445 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indian Pueblo Cultural 

3 Center Clarification Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON TREATING AS INDIAN 

5 COUNTRY CERTAIN LANDS HELD IN TRUST 

6 FOR INDIAN PUEBLOS IN NEW MEXICO. 

7 Public Law 95–232 is amended in the first section 

8 in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘However, such property 

9 shall not be ‘Indian country’ as defined in section 1151 

10 of title 18, United States Code.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON GAMING. 

12 Public Law 95–232 is amended in the first section 

13 by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(e) PROHIBITION ON GAMING.—Gaming, as defined 

15 and regulated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 

16 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), shall be prohibited on land held in 

17 trust pursuant to subsection (b).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 30, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
OMB Package for Pell Grant Exp eriments Random Assignment Data Collection Form

Data Collection Form: PGE Student Random Assignment Data Collection Form **Instructions** : Please provide the following data elements for all students at your institution who are qualified for and have agreed to participate in the Pell Grant Experiments Study . The data matrix below can be completed electronic ally and uploaded to the secure website upon completion (inser t web submission instructions here ).

**List of Data Elements for Entry into Random Assignment Database**

**Data Element Entry Field**  **Instructions** Student ’s First Name Student’s Middle Name Student’s Last Name Social Security Number ( xxx -xx -xxxx ) Date of Birth ( yyyy, mm, dd

) Name of PGE Program ( Insert name )