alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.140


 



Exhibit 4.140



			
	

	Nevada Geothermal Power Inc.


	 
	 

	Suite 900

	Tel: 604-688-1553


	409 Granville St.

	Fax: 604-688-5926


	Vancouver, B.C

	Toll: 866-688-0808


	Canada VC6 1T2

	Web: www.nevadageothermal.com





 

 

 

 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT – STUDLEY, EFFECTIVE AS OF AUGUST 1, 2007

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of August 1, 2008 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Nevada Geothermal Power Company, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and Andrew Studley (“Employee”), with reference to the following: THE ABOVE REFERENCED

AGREEMENT IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Clause 4.1(c) is amended as follows: “For a period of up to twenty-our (24) months from August 1, 2007, the Company will pay $1,250.00 towards the cost of interim Vancouver rental accommodation and one half (1/2) the cost of travel between Toronto and Vancouver up to a maximum of $500 per month.”

2. Clause 4.1(d) is amended by extending the period of time for reimbursement of moving expenses to July 31, 2009.

 

 

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK.




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT – STUDLEY Page 2

     In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

			
		NEVADA GEOTHERMAL POWER CO.	
		 	
		Per: Signed	
		Authorized Signatory: Brian Fairbank	
		President & CEO	



				
	SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED by	)		
	ANDREW STUDLEY in the presence of:	)		
	 	)		
	 	)		
	Signed	)		
		)		
	Cynthia Woodward	)	Signed	
	 	)		
	900 – 409 Granville Street	)	Andrew Studley, CFO	
	 	)		
	Vancouver, British Columbia	)		
	 	)		
	Executive Assistant	)
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code, the undersigned, Michael T. Kennedy, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Radnor Holdings Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that:



The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the most recent fiscal quarter (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|Dated: November 10, 2003 |  | 
|                         |  | 
|                         |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
sportend_s1a2-ex1004.htm


    
      
        

      
Exhibit 10.4


    


    MINUTES
OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

    OF

    SPORT
ENDURANCE, INC.

    


    


    


    


    The meeting of the Board of
Directors  of the Corporation was held on August 20, 2009 at 2620
South Maryland Parkway #819 Las Vegas, Nevada 89109  and at, as set
forth in the written Waiver of Notice signed by all of the Directors, and
prefixed to the Minutes of this meeting.

    


    There were present the
following:

    Robert L. Timothy being all the
Directors of the Corporation.

     

    Robert L. Timothy called the meeting to
order and stated the objects thereof.  Upon motion duly made, seconded
and unanimously carried, that the company in order to restructure the market cap
would buy back 6,320,000 restricted common shares from Calbridge Capital LLC for
$1.00.


    


    RESOVED, that the company in order to
restructure the market cap would buy back 6,320,000 restricted common shares
from Calbridge Capital LLC for $1.00.

    


    Upon
motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, it was:

    RESOLVED, that all the acts taken and
decisions reached at he meeting of the Directors and Shareholders be, and they
hereby are, ratified and adopted by this Board of Directors.

    


    There
being no further business to come before the meeting, upon motion duly made,
seconded and unanimously carried it was adjourned.

    


    


    
      	 
      	
               

            
	
              Dated;
      August 20, 2009

            	
                    
                /s/
      Robert Timothy

              

            
	 
      	
              Robert  Timothy,  President,

            
	 
      	
              Sport
      Endurance, Inc.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**Certificationpursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Hal M.Krisbergh, the Chief Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc.,hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the three months endedMarch 31, 2003 (the “March 31, 2003 Form 10-Q”), which this certificationaccompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and informationcontained in the March 31, 2003 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGateCommunications, Inc.

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toWorldGate and will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 
| Dated: | 05/15/03 |   | /s/ HAL M.  KRISBERGH |   |
|--------|----------|--------|-----------------------|--------|
|   |     |   |                  |   |   |
|   |     |   | Hal M. Krisbergh      |   |

 

----
[No. 10402.

Department One.

August 19, 1912.]

#### William G. Pratt *et al., Appellants,*v. The City of Spokane, *Respondents.*
      *1*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Webster, J., entered January 30, 1911, dismissing an action to cancel an assessment, upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

Reversed.

*John Salisbury,*for appellants.

*A. M. Craven*and *Wm. E. Richardson,*for respondent.

Reported in 125 Pac. 777.

Peb Cubiam

The judgment in this case is reversed on the authority of *Cook v. Spokane, ante*p. 526, 125 Pac. 776, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
# C_2019206EN.01003501.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/35

---

Action brought on 1 April 2019 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-276/19)

(2019/C 206/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. X. P. Lewis, J. Jokubauskaitė, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by introducing new simplification measures that extend the zero-rating and the exception to the normal requirement of keeping Value Added Tax records provided for by the original Terminal Markets Order 1973 without applying to the Commission with a view to seek the Council’s authorisation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 395 (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘VAT Directive’); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by introducing new simplification measures that extend the zero-rating and the exception to the normal requirement of keeping Value Added Tax records provided for by the original Terminal Markets Order 1973 without applying to the Commission with a view to seek the Council’s authorisation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 395 (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘VAT Directive’);

| — | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 28 December 1977, the United Kingdom notified special measures including the Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) Order 1973 that permits commodity futures to be traded on certain markets in the United Kingdom free of VAT and of the recording requirements of VAT subject to certain conditions.

The Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) Order 1973 was amended several times to add to its scope a number of commodities markets that were not listed in the original notification.

The Commission claims that the amendments made to the Value Added Tax (Terminal Markets) Order 1973 enlarge the scope of the original derogation that the United Kingdom had notified in 1977. They should consequently have been notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 395 (1) of the VAT Directive but they were not.

---

(1)  OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Hal M. Krisbergh, theChief Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the Form 10-Q ofWorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended March 31,2004 (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and(2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGateCommunications, Inc.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WorldGateand will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: | May 14, 2004 | /s/ HAL M. KRISBERGH                           |   |
|--------|--------------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |         |                                           |
|   |         | Hal M. Krisbergh,  Principal Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 13a





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 on Form 20-F/A of LiveReel Media Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby 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 annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.  The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.








Date:  February 7, 2013








/s/ Jason D. Meretsky


Jason D. Meretsky


Chief Executive Officer











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.














Exhibit 13a





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 on Form 20-F/A of LiveReel Media Corporation. for the year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby 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 annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.  The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.








Date:  February 7, 2013








/s/ J. Stephen Wilson


J. Stephen Wilson


Chief Financial Officer











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7427

CHRISTOPHER M. PALMER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PROPERTY CONTROL DEPARTMENT STAFF; MAILROOM

STAFF; J. HORTON, Mailroom Supervisor, Keen

Mountain Correctional Center; C. RAMBO, Property Room Supervisor, Keen Mountain Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-365-5)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 24, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher M. Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order denying his

discovery motion and granting Appellees' motion for a protective

order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the

order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

(1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices 

# Order

August 13, 2021

162766

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 162766

COA: 355510

Calhoun CC: 2012

- 000577

- FC

MICHAEL WILLIAM KUZMA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 23, 2020

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to a ppeal, we VACATE the October 27, 2020 order of the Calhoun Circuit

Court denying the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment, and we REMAND this

case to the trial court for reconsideration of that motion. The trial court’s stated basis for

denying the motion was that “the defendant’s motion is without merit and in violation of

MCR 6.502(G).” However, the order failed to “include a concise statement of the

reasons for the denial,” as required by MCR 6.504(B)(2).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

Z AH RA , J. ( dissenting ).

I respectfully dissent from this Court’s order vacating the judgment of the trial

court and remanding for reconsideration of that motion. MCR 6.504(B)(2) provides, in

relevant part, that “[i]f it plainly appears from the fac e of the materials

. . . that the

defendant is not entitled to relief, the court shall deny the motion without directing

further proceedings. The order must include a concise statement of the reasons for the

denial.” Defendant’s successive motion for rel ief from judgment raises a claim of newly

discovered evidence alleging that the prosecutor knowingly allowed a witness to falsely

testify that he did not receive anything in exchange for his testimony. After reviewing

defendant’s motion, the trial court d etermined that “defendant’s motion is without merit

and in violation of MCR 6.502(G),” and denied it without directing further proceedings.

Given that “this Court presumably satisfies its obligation under Const 1963, art 6, § 6 toI, Larry S. Royster, 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.

August 13, 2021

a0810 2

Clerk provide the ‘reasons for each denial of leave to appeal’ by issuing a general statement

that ‘we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court,’

I discern no principled reason why the trial court’s statement that ‘the defe ndant’s motion

is without merit’ does not similarly satisfy its obligation under MCR 6.504(B)(2)

. . . .”

People v Finnie , 504 Mich 968, 968 (2019) ( M ARKMAN , J., dissenting). See also People

v Holmes , 505 Mich 856 (2019) ( M ARKMAN , J., dissenting). Becau se this Court

continues to hold trial courts to a higher standard than that to which we hold ourselves, I

dissent and would instead deny leave to appeal.
# C_2019187EN.01004801.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/48

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 27 March 2019 — EUROVIA Ipari, Kerskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-258/19)

(2019/C 187/52)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the practice of a Member State infringe the principle of fiscal neutrality and the formal requirements of the right to deduct VAT where, for the purposes of exercising the right to deduct the tax, it has regard solely to the time the chargeable event occurred, and does not take into account the fact that there was a civil dispute between the parties concerning performance of the contract, which was determined in judicial proceedings, and that the invoice was only issued once a final judgment was delivered? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the practice of a Member State infringe the principle of fiscal neutrality and the formal requirements of the right to deduct VAT where, for the purposes of exercising the right to deduct the tax, it has regard solely to the time the chargeable event occurred, and does not take into account the fact that there was a civil dispute between the parties concerning performance of the contract, which was determined in judicial proceedings, and that the invoice was only issued once a final judgment was delivered?

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is it possible to exceed the limitation period for exercising the right to deduct VAT, set by the legislation of the Member State at five years from the time when the services were supplied? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is it possible to exceed the limitation period for exercising the right to deduct VAT, set by the legislation of the Member State at five years from the time when the services were supplied?

| 3. | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is the exercise of the right to deduct VAT affected by the conduct of the recipient of the invoice in the present case, which did not pay the contractor’s remuneration determined by a final judgment until the contractor had brought enforcement proceedings, for which reason the invoice was not issued until after the limitation period had expired? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is the exercise of the right to deduct VAT affected by the conduct of the recipient of the invoice in the present case, which did not pay the contractor’s remuneration determined by a final judgment until the contractor had brought enforcement proceedings, for which reason the invoice was not issued until after the limitation period had expired?

---
FDIC-Stats At A Glance

Total

Dollar Amounts in Billions 4th Qtr 2001 4th Qtr 2000 4th Qtr 2001 4th Qtr 2000 4th Qtr 2001

Number of FDIC-Insured 8,080 8,315 1,533 1,589 9,613

Number of FDIC-Supervised 4,971 5,093 513 523 5,484

Total Assets $ 6,569 6,245 1,299 1,217 7,868

Total Loans $ 3,895 3,820 871 828 4,766

Domestic Deposits $ 3,762 3,473 798 735 4,560

Net Income $ 18.672 17.679 3.713 2.588 22.385

Percent Profitable % 87.2 87.8 89.8 88.3 87.6

Average Return on Assets % 1.13 1.15 1.16 0.86 1.14

Assets under $1 Billion % 1.08 1.09 0.79 0.66 1.01

Assets over $1 Billion % 1.15 1.16 1.27 0.92 1.16

Average Return on Equity % 12.57 13.44 13.60 10.23 12.73

Net Interest Margin % 4.15 3.90 3.44 2.90 4.03

Equity to Assets % 9.09 8.49 8.44 8.47 8.99

Noncurrent Loans * % 1.41 1.12 0.86 0.71 1.31

Real Estate Loans % 0.96 0.81 0.83 0.66 0.92

C&I Loans % 2.40 1.66 1.96 1.57 2.38

Consumer Loans % 1.50 1.41 0.65 0.82 1.42

Coverage Ratio ** % 131.04 149.36 102.34 124.44 127.56

Net Charge-Off Rate % 1.31 0.93 0.34 0.24 1.13

Real Estate Loans % 0.22 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.17

C&I Loans % 2.41 1.30 1.15 1.31 2.35

Consumer Loans % 3.32 3.01 3.05 1.86 3.29

* Nonaccruing loans and loans past due 90+ days

** Loss reserve as a percentage of noncurrent loans

All Insured Institutions 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

Credit Card Loans

Held on Balance Sheet $ 232 266 227 242 243

Securitized and Sold $ 342 306 395 261 193

Unused Commitments $ 2,908 2,537 2,129 2,042 1,677

Total Credit Card Lines $ 3,482 3,108 2,751 2,544 2,112

Credit Card Loss Rate % 5.14 4.28 4.39 5.15 5.10

No. of Personal Bankruptcies 1,451,575 1,217,628 1,281,360 1,397,695 1,349,510

As of December 31, 2001

Commercial Banks Savings Institutions
#### SAMUEL J. GRAHAM, Jr., *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. GRACE ONDERDONK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Messrs. Weltchek & Weltchek*and *Mr. Ernest Prupis*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Kasen, Schnitzer & Kasen*for the respondent.

May 4, 1960.

Granted.
# C_2019363EN.01000301.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/3

---

Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by Camomilla Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2018 in Case T-44/17 Camomilla v EUIPO — CMT (CAMOMILLA)

(Case C-68/19 P)

(2019/C 363/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Camomilla Srl (represented by: M. Mussi, H.G. Chiappetta, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl

By order of 11 September 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded, and ordered Camomilla Srl to bear its own costs.

---
#### In re Harry FISCH.

No. 2011-1068.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2011.

William F. Smith, Woodcock Washburn, LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was John F. Murphy.

Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor Associate, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Kristi L.R. Sawert, Associate Solicitor.

LINN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.