alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1





Exhibit 10.1

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of January 26,
2009, is made and entered into by and between ION Geophysical Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(hereinafter referred to as “Employer”), and Robert P. Peebler, an individual currently residing in
Harris County, Texas (hereinafter referred to as “Employee”).



W I T N E S S E T H:




     WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement effective on March 31,
2003, and amended by that certain First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated September 6, 2006,
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement dated February 16, 2007 and Third Amendment to Employment
Agreement dated August 21, 2007 (as amended, the “Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as set forth below;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Employer
and Employee agree as follows:



     1. Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:



Employee’s employment with Employer will commence on March 31, 2003, and will
continue for eight (8) years to expire on December 31, 2011 (the “Term”), unless
terminated earlier in accordance with Section 5.



     2. In accordance with the terms of the Employer’s 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan or such other
stock plan as shall be determined by Employer (the “Plan”), Employee’s voluntary termination of
employment from the Employer at any time upon or after December 31, 2010 shall be treated for all
purposes under the Plan as a termination due to the retirement of Employee.



     3. The Agreement, as amended hereby, is in all respects ratified, approved and confirmed.



     4. This Amendment shall in all respects be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of Texas, including all matters of construction, validity and performance.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound, have executed this
Amendment as of the date set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EMPLOYER:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 /s/ James M. Lapeyre	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	
 

James M. Lapeyre

 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:	 	 Chairman of the Board	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EMPLOYEE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 /s/ Robert P. Peebler	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Robert P. Peebler	 	 







2
KENF, L.L.C., Appellant, v. JABEZ RESTORATIONS, INC., Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4260

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 14, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STARVONA HARRIS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 7/28/17 JOINT 

LETTER RE: PLAINTIFF STARVONA 

HARRIS'S DEPOSITION

Re: Dkt. No. 62

On July 28, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning Defendant Best Buy’s request 

to depose Plaintiff Starvona Harris in the instant lawsuit. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 62 at 2.) This is 

the third class action lawsuit Ms. Harris has filed against Best Buy, and she has twice undergone 

deposition in the original 2015 action, which totaled 7.5 hours. Id.

Here, Plaintiffs seek a protective order to preclude a third deposition and seeking other 

duplicative written discovery1on the grounds that this creates an undue burden and expense for 

Ms. Harris. (Joint Letter at 3.) Ms. Harris is a single mother who works a “slightly more” than 

minimum wage job in the Bay Area, and she would not be paid for her day off. Id.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Ms. Harris decided to file multiple lawsuits, and that 

does not excuse her from her discovery obligations. (Joint Letter at 4.) Best Buy represents that 

Ms. Harris’s 2015 lawsuit was dismissed after her federal claim was dismissed and she declined to 

amend to assert continued jurisdiction under CAFA. (Joint Letter at 5.) Instead, Ms. Harris filed 

 

1

The Court declines to make any determination regarding allegedly “duplicative written 

discovery” based on the contents of this joint letter, as the issue is not properly briefed. The parties 

are encouraged to meet and confer regarding this issue to avoid unnecessarily requiring court 

intervention. The Court notes that the parties filed five joint letters in the span on five days—

including this one— which is uncommon and suggests that they are not properly meeting and 

conferring. (See Dkt. Nos. 56, 57, 60-62.)
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

two additional lawsuits. (Joint Letter at 5-6.) Best Buy contends that the instant lawsuit adds a 

new co-plaintiff, redefines all of the classes and subclasses, and splits claims between this lawsuit 

and the other pending lawsuit. (Joint Letter at 6.)

Ms. Harris decided to file three lawsuits, and the instant case involves an additional coplaintiff, different claims, and the redefinition of the classes and subclasses. Defendant, therefore,

is entitled to take her deposition for 7 hours. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Ms. Harris’s motion for protective order. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the 

scheduling of her deposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge
**
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

**Servicer Compliance Certificate**

FIFTH THIRD AUTO TRUST 2017-1

 

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Fifth Third Bank (“Fifth Third”), an Ohio banking corporation, as servicer (insuch capacity, the “Servicer”) under the Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 20, 2017 (as amended and supplemented, or otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the “Servicing Agreement”), byand among Fifth Third Auto Trust 2017-1, the Servicer and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, does hereby certify that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 throughDecember 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations underthe Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

[Signature Page Follows] 
**

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of theServicer this 28th day of March, 2019. 

 

**FIFTH THIRD BANK**

 
 
                

By:
 
/s/ Nathan Steuber
 
Name: Nathan Steuber

Title: Vice President
  
*Servicer Compliance Certificate*

*(FTAT 2017-1)*
Allen Anthony CHANEY and Karen D. Chaney v. FIRST METRO BANK

2160850

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 23, 2018

Affirmed.
Winfred J. ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-5105

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 2019

Winfred J. Roberts, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED. *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Lewis, B.L. Thomas, and Roberts, JJ., concur.
Alan FEUER, Appellant, v. Krassimir IVANOV and Robert Miller, Appellees.

No. 3D18-0453

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

Alan Feuer, in proper person.

Robert Miller, for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*414Alan Feuer appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to vacate an order of dismissal entered after Feuer failed to appear for a hearing on the court's Notice of Lack of Prosecution and Order to Appear for Hearing (the "Notice"). Feuer contends the notarized affidavit he submitted attesting to him having not received the Notice is sufficient grounds to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate. We disagree. Feuer failed to allege any of the grounds set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). Accordingly, upon consideration of the record on appeal, as well as the initial brief, we summarily affirm the order on appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a).

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include an assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. These meetings will primarily take place at NSF's headquarters, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

                    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the                     **Federal Register**                    . NSF intends to publish a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF website:                     *https://new.nsf.gov/​events/​proposal-review-panels.*                     This information may also be requested by telephoning 703/292-8687.                

Dated: February 3, 2025.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2025-02295 Filed 2-5-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Pollard-Kelley
Auditing Services, Inc.


Auditing
Services                                             4500
Rockside Road, Suite 450, Independence, OH 44131 330-864-2265
















Report of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm













Liberty
Capital Asset Management, Inc.


Henderson,
NV





We have
audited the accompanying balance sheets of Liberty Capital Asset Management,
Inc. as of March 31, 2009 and CD Bank DBA Liberty Capital as of March 31, 2008,
and the related statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash
flows for the two years in the period ended March 31, 2009.  These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.





We
conduct our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit
includes examining on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.





In our
opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of the Company at March 31, 2009, and
the results of its operations and it cash flows for the two years in the period
ended March 31, 2009, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
standards.





Pollard-Kelley
Auditing Services, Inc.





/S/
Pollard-Kelley Auditing Services, Inc.





Independence,
Ohio


July 15,
2009
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD COTRELLE TIDWELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CARRINGTON REAL ESTATE

SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00437 WHA

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

TO CONTINUE HEARING

Plaintiff Edward Tidwell has filed a request to continue tomorrow’s hearing on two

motions to dismiss his complaint (Dkt. Nos. 44, 60) to September 7, 2017, “to allow the Parties

time to resolve this matter in its entirety” (Dkt. No. 73). Insofar as this submission argues the

merits of plaintiff’s case and requests “that the District Court order Defendants [sic] motions

denied” (id. at 5), it is improper and will not be considered. Otherwise, the mere fact that

“settlement discussions are in the making” (ibid.) is not reason to delay hearing or decision on

defendants’ motions. Plaintiff’s request to continue tomorrow’s hearing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION*

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Shawn O'Connor, Chief Executive Officer of Pharsight
Corporation (the "Company"), and Charles Faas, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

1.  The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2003, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "Annual
Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 9th day of June 2003.

| | /s/SHAWN O'CONNORSHAWN O'CONNOR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
| | --------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/CHARLES FAASCHARLES FAAS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER    

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
("SEC") or its staff upon request.

* This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 46

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-47 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
Frank GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1158

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Christopher LEE

CR-17-0405

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. C 05-1939 JF (PVT)

ORDER (1) DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO THE BARNES LAW FIRM ETC.

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 2/3/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KELU NDUNGE MAUNDU,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE BARNES LAW FIRM, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-1939 JF (PVT)

ORDER (1) DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO THE

BARNES LAW FIRM AND KAY

DAVIS; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AS TO SHARON

BARNES; AND (3) DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO FILE STATEMENT

OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

[Doc. No. 22]

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on May 11, 2005, alleging violation of the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act against The Barnes Law Firm, its principal, Sharon Barnes, and an

employee, Kay Davis. The Barnes Law Firm subsequently filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7,

thus triggering the automatic stay of litigation. Kay Davis was not served with process. Plaintiff

requests that the action be dismissed without prejudice as to The Barnes Law Firm and Kay

Davis. That request will be granted.

The remaining defendant, Sharon Barnes (“Barnes”), did not file opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion and did not appear at the hearing. It appears that Barnes was served with notice of the

Case 5:05-cv-01939-JF Document 24 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 05-1939 JF (PVT)

ORDER (1) DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO THE BARNES LAW FIRM ETC.

(JFLC2)

motion, and chambers staff left a message with her answering service confirming the hearing

date. The motion is well-taken and will be granted. Plaintiff requests $1000 in statutory

damages and, in addition, reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided under the statute. Counsel for

Plaintiff shall file a statement of attorneys’ fees on or before February 10, 2006. Once the Court

determines reasonable attorneys’ fees, the Court will enter judgment in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 2/3/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01939-JF Document 24 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 05-1939 JF (PVT)

ORDER (1) DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO THE BARNES LAW FIRM ETC.

(JFLC2)

This Order was served on the following persons:

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com,

fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com

Sandra J. Shapiro sjshapiroecf@yahoo.com, 

Sharon L Barnes

The Barnes Law Firm, APC

Suite 121 West

2151 E. Convention Center Way

Ontario, CA 91764

Case 5:05-cv-01939-JF Document 24 Filed 02/03/06 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT




To the Board of Directors
Frontline Communications Corporation


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement of Frontline Communications
Corporation on Forms S-3 (#333-89811 and 333-35058) and Form S-8 (#333-86792) of
our report dated February 20, 2003, on the consolidated financial statements of
Frontline Communications Corporation as of December 31, 2002 and for each of the
two years in the period then ended appearing in the annual report on Form 10-KSB
of Frontline Communications Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2002. We
also consent to the reference of our firm under the caption "Experts" contained
in such Registration Statement.




/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
-------------------------------
GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

October 6, 2003
EX PARTE Jerry Lee MATTHEWS

CR-16-1105

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Asia Electrical Power International Group Inc. a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Yulong Guo, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.
|   

/s/ Yulong GuoYulong GuoPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2008

---
EX PARTE Richard Letray WILSON

CR-17-0139

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Wallace Clayton STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-191

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 17, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 149-150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32326]



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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems: Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:

    [[Page 150]] Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and 
Mechanical Systems (1205).
    Date and Time: January 18, 1995, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: NSF, Room 580, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230.
    Contact: Dr. John B. Scalzi, Program Director, 703-306-1361.
    Type of meeting: Closed.
    Purpose of meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning support for research proposals submitted to the NSF for 
financial research.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b. (c) (4) 
and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: December 28, 1994.
Linda Allen-Benton,
Deputy Director, HRM.
[FR Doc. 94-32326 Filed 12-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M