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

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT

(Performance-Based Vesting)

 

Tuesday Morning Corporation

2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into between Tuesday Morning Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Steven R. Becker (the “Participant”) for purposes of amending that certain Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement dated February 2, 2016 by and between the Company and the Participant (the “Agreement”).  Any terms used in this Amendment that are not specifically defined herein shall have the meaning specified in the Tuesday Morning Corporation 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”) and the Agreement.

 

WHEREAS, on February 2, 2016,  the Committee approved the grant of certain performance-based nonqualified stock options to the Participant relating to 295,508 shares of common stock of the Company, $0.01 value per share (the “Common Stock”);

 

WHEREAS, the Committee’s approval on February 2, 2016 did not include the grant of an additional 295,508 shares of Common Stock (the “Stretch Shares”) as required by that certain Employment Agreement by and between the Participant and the Company dated December 11, 2015 and as specifically described in the Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS, the Committee approved the grant of the Stretch Shares on September 21, 2016 and the parties now desire to amend the Agreement to reflect the grant and provide that the exercise price for the Stretch Shares equals the closing price of the Common Stock on September 21, 2016; now, therefore

 

IT IS AGREED:

 

1.                                      Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following:

 

Grant of Option. Subject to the terms of the Plan and this Agreement, on February 2, 2016 (the “Date of Grant”), the Company granted to the Participant an option to purchase 295,508 shares (the “Target Options”) of the common stock of the Company, $0.01 par value per share (“Common Stock”) with an exercise price of $5.64 (the “Target Share Option Price”) and on September 21, 2016 the Company granted to the Participant an option to purchase an additional 295,508 shares of Common Stock (the “Stretch Options,” collectively referred to herein with the Target Options as, the “Option”), at a price of $5.89 per share (the “Stretch Share Option Price,” collectively referred to herein with the Target Share Option Price as the “Option Price”), subject to adjustment as provided in the Plan.

 

2.                                      Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof.

 

3.                                      In the event of a conflict between the Agreement and this Amendment, this Amendment shall govern.

 

The Participant and the Company agree that this Amendment may be accepted, executed and approved by each party electronically.
Charity CHAPMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5025

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 26, 2019

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

November 20, 2012

d1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

142492

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142492

COA: 300585

Wayne CC: 10-000312-FC

ANTHONY HOWARD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2023063EN.01004701.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/47

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2022 — Leonardo v Frontex

(Case T-675/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Tendering procedure - Aerial surveillance service - Remotely piloted aircraft system - Refusal to grant access - Application of the two main parties for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate - No discontinuance or withdrawal - Sound administration of justice - No need to adjudicate)

(2023/C 63/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Leonardo SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Esposito, F. Caccioppoli and G. Calamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard, T. Knäbe and W. Szmidt, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, the annulment of the decision of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) of 5 October 2020, by which it rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents submitted by the applicant under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Leonardo SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Leonardo SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex).

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---
# C_2021490EN.01003201.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2021 — M.I. Industries v EUIPO — Natural Instinct (INSTINCT)

(Case T-1/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark INSTINCT - No genuine use of the trade mark - Extent of use - Overall assessment of the evidence - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 490/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M.I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebé Marin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Newman, E. Yates, J.-M. Fearnley, Solicitors, and J. Moss, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2019 (Case R 178/2019-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Natural Instinct and M.I. Industries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders M.I. Industries, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - (-)products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(3)

## By Location

              - alaska(15)
              - arizona(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(11)
              - colorado(10)
              - connecticut(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(3)
              - nevada(7)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - (-)oklahoma(1)
              - pennsylvania(3)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(14)
              - virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

map        September 1, 1996        Maps showing petroleum exploration intensity and production in major Cambrian to Ordovician reservoir rocks in the Anadarko Basin
Case 2:03-cv-00327-J Document 14-2 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 44
Exhibit 32.0

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 Quarterly Report of Ocean Shore Holding Co. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                  
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2008 |  | /s/ Steven E. Brady                              
|                   |  | Steven E. Brady                                  
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                   | 
|Date: May 14, 2008 |  | /s/ Donald F. Morgenweck                         
|                   |  | Donald F. Morgenweck                             
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
# C_2022128EN.01002001.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING)

(Case T-498/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING - Earlier international word mark STEP - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Free movement of goods)

(2022/C 128/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Dabas, Hungary) (represented by: P. Jalsovszky, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Forbo Financial Services AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Kramer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 (Case R 1630/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Forbo Financial Services and Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

IN RE: 

 § Case 24-32668 

Yogunda Brooks § 

 § 

 § 

 § 

DEBTOR § Chapter 13

 

 WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM 

TO: CLERK OF THE COURT

The Texas Workforce Commission hereby withdraws its Proof of Claim No.1 in the 

amount of $12858 dated 09/11/2024, which was filed with the Court on 09/11/2024, for 

Texas Workforce Commission Account No.xxx-xx-6966. 

Respectfully submitted, this 11th day of September 2024. 

By: /s/ James Vowell 

Account Examiner III 

 Texas Workforce Commission 

Case 24-32668-swe13 Doc 14 Filed 09/11/24 Entered 09/11/24 14:44:39 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Richard J. JENKINS v. STATE

CR-16-0660

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017 Reh. denied September 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2016165EN.01001602.xml

| 10.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/16

---

Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Laboratoire de la mer v EUIPO — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma (RESPIMER)

(Case T-109/16)

(2016/C 165/18)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire de la mer (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Ingelheim, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘RESPIMER’ — Application for registration No 11 228 004

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 3109/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | allow the EU trade mark application ‘RESPIMER’ No 11 228 004 to mature to registration for all designated goods in classes 3, 5 and 10; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the EU trade mark application ‘RESPIMER’ No 11 228 004 to mature to registration for all designated goods in classes 3, 5 and 10;

| — | order Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG to reimburse all costs to the applicant before the Opposition division of the EUIPO, the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG to reimburse all costs to the applicant before the Opposition division of the EUIPO, the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | By refusing to take into consideration the decision of April 4, 2013 of the French national institute of industrial property as regards the same marks, the fifth board of appeal has failed to provide legal basis to its decision of January 21, 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

By refusing to take into consideration the decision of April 4, 2013 of the French national institute of industrial property as regards the same marks, the fifth board of appeal has failed to provide legal basis to its decision of January 21, 2016;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
TEXAS HOLD'EM, LLC, and Squeeze Me Inn, LLC, Petitioners, v. TOWN OF FORT MYERS BEACH, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-3603

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019.

Denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50853

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERALDO H. RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-96-CR-152-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

August 10, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Geraldo H. Rodriguez appeals his jury conviction of

possession with intent to distribute heroin. He argues that

1) his confessions were involuntary because they were induced by

police officers’ promise to not file charges against his wife if

he cooperated, and 2) the district court erred in attributing 730

grams of heroin to Rodriguez.

The record indicates that there was sufficient evidence to

support a good faith arrest of Rodriguez’s wife, and therefore

Rodriguez’s argument that his confessions were involuntary 
No. 97-50853

-2-

because of his desire to extricate her criminal charges is

without merit. See Allen v. McCotter, 804 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th

Cir. 1986). 

The presentence report’s and the officer’s testimony at the

sentencing hearing provided a sufficient indicia of reliability

for the district court to find that Rodriguez was accountable for

730 grams of heroin. United States v. Golden, 17 F.3d 735, 736-

37 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gracia, 983 F.2d 625, 628-30

(5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022002EN.01002902.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case T-220/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Article 266 TFEU - Administrative investigations - Principle of sound administration - Principle of impartiality - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 2/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (La Forclaz, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the Commission note of 27 March 2017 informing the applicant of the resumption of disciplinary proceedings and the decision of 11 July 2019 issuing him with a warning and, secondly, compensation for the damage which he claims to have sustained as a result of the handling and duration of three disciplinary procedures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 11 July 2019 issuing Mr Petrus Kerstens with a warning; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 11 July 2019 issuing Mr Petrus Kerstens with a warning;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Kerstens. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Kerstens.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

DC INDUSTRIAL LIQUIDATING TRUST 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO

 AMENDED AND RESTATED 

AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST 
 THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF TRUST (this “Amendment”) is effective as of September 19, 2016 by and among Dwight L. Merriman III, Marshall M. Burton and Stanley A. Moore (collectively, and
including any successors thereto, the “Trustees”). 
 WHEREAS, DC Industrial Liquidating Trust, a Maryland statutory trust
(the “Trust”), adopted an Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust (the “Original Trust Agreement”) as of November 3, 2015; 

WHEREAS, the Original Trust Agreement provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the Beneficial Interest of a Beneficiary may not be
transferred other than by will, intestate succession or operation of law; 
 WHEREAS, the Trustees wish to amend the Original Trust
Agreement to clarify that, upon the consent of the Trust, the title of the Beneficial Interest of a Beneficiary may be changed from joint tenancy to sole ownership or from sole ownership to joint tenancy with a spouse or domestic partner; 

WHEREAS, the Original Trust Agreement provides that the Trustees may amend the Original Trust Agreement without a vote of Beneficiaries to
facilitate the transferability by Beneficiaries of Trust Units, subject to the ability of the Trust to remain eligible for relief from the registration and reporting requirements under the Exchange Act; and 

WHEREAS, capitalized terms used by not defined in the Amendment have the meaning set forth in the Original Trust Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Trustees agree as follows: 

1.     Section 3.3 of the Original Trust Agreement is hereby amended by inserting after the first sentence thereof
“; and provided further that, upon the written consent of the Trust, which consent may be withheld by the Trust in its sole discretion, the title of all or any part of the Beneficial Interest of a Beneficiary may be changed from joint
tenancy to sole ownership or from sole ownership to joint tenancy with a spouse or domestic partner.” 
 2.    
Except as expressly provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Original Trust Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 







 3.     If any provision of this Amendment, or the application of such
provision to any Person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this Amendment, or the application of such provision to Persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. 

4.     This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but such
counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. 
 [Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Trustees herein have executed this Amendment, effective this 19th day of September, 2016.
  

	
	THE TRUSTEES:
	
	 /s/ Dwight L. Merriman III

	Name: Dwight L. Merriman III
	
	 /s/ Marshall M. Burton

	Name: Marshall M. Burton
	
	 /s/ Stanley A Moore

	Name: Stanley A. Moore
J.M., Father of E.M. and K.M., Minor Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0510

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 20, 2019

Michael A. Tupper of Tupper Law, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Children's Legal Services, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellant's response to the Court's order of February 12, 2019, the Court has determined that its jurisdiction to review the Final Judgment *738for Termination of Parental Rights, rendered on December 4, 2018, was not invoked in a timely fashion. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to the Appellant's right to seek relief in the trial court. *In the Interest of E.H.* , 609 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1992).

Roberts, Ray, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Robert Jon CHELICO, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Kristie Kay CHELICO, Former Wife, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1054

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 7, 2019

Craig A. Vigodsky, Pensacola, for Appellant.

Ross A. Keene of Ross Keene Law, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Roberts, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.