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






Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

RIGHTS AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CORPORATION AND

AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER &

TRUST COMPANY, AS RIGHTS AGENT




RECITALS




     A. Express Scripts, Inc. (the “Company”) is a party to that certain Rights Agreement, dated as
of July 25, 2001, between the Corporation and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, as Rights
Agent, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated as of May 25, 2005 (the “Rights Agreement”).



     B. Pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights Agreement, the Company has the right to supplement or
amend certain provisions of the Rights Agreement.



     C. On December 18, 2009 (the “Approval Date”), the Board of Directors of the Company approved
this Amendment to the Rights Agreement as set forth below.



AMENDMENT



1. The form of Certificate of Designations of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock of
Express Scripts, Inc. (the “Series A Certificate of Designations”) attached as Exhibit A to the
Rights Agreement be, and it hereby is, amended by deleting Section 10 of the Series A Certificate
of Designations in its entirety and replacing it with the following:





Section 10. Amendment. If any proposed amendment to the Certificate of
Incorporation (including this Certificate of Designations) would alter, change or
repeal any of the preferences, powers or special rights given to the Series A
Preferred Stock so as to affect the Series A Preferred Stock adversely, then the
holders of the Series A Preferred Stock shall be entitled to vote separately as a
class upon such amendment, and the affirmative vote of a majority of the
outstanding shares of the Series A Preferred Stock, voting separately as a class,
shall be necessary for the adoption thereof, in addition to such other vote as may
be required by the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.


2. Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Rights Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.



Certified as of this 18th day of December, 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	
/s/ George Paz
 	 	 
	George Paz 	 	 
	Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Paul Katzeff, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004;



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 such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this 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 of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers
most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting;



5. The small business issuers other certifying
officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 23, 2005



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Paul Katzeff                     
|    |  | Paul Katzeff, Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Russell Gillette, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), *409rendered June 14, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence as a second felony offender.

Judgment affirmed.

We find no error in the court’s *Sandoval*or suppression rulings *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282; *United States v Reid,*517 F2d 953,965-966, n 15). We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
#### General Electric Company, Respondent-Appellant, v Town of Salina et al., Appellants-Respondents.

— Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding under Real Property Tax Law article 7, petitioner’s appraiser properly relied upon sales beyond the area of the subject property, since there is a broad regional market for this type of large industrial plant *(see, Matter of Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v Kiernan,*42 NY2d 236, 242). We find that at least two of those sales — sale No. 1 and the 1983 *973sale — were of sufficient comparability to serve as a guide to the market value of the subject property and that those sales support the Judicial Hearing Officer’s finding of full value. The Judicial Hearing Officer properly rejected respondents’ local sales because, for the many reasons stated by him, they were not comparable to the subject property or to any part thereof.

We reject petitioner’s contention on its cross appeal that the campus-like setting of the subject property did not add to its value. We determine, also, that the Hearing Officer made no mathematical error in computing his adjustments. In addition to the 20% upward adjustment for aesthetic value, he increased the location adjustment by 5% and the land adjustment by another 5%, making a total upward adjustment of 30%.

Finally, contrary to respondents’ assertion that the Hearing Officer made a mathematical error in arriving at the total square footage of the property, we find that he properly relied upon the figures used by petitioner’s appraiser, which were substantially the same as those used by respondents’ appraiser. The difference between the figures used by the appraisers is accounted for by four relatively small structures, which neither appraiser valued in his appraisal. (Appeals from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Aronson, J.H.O. — RPTL art 7.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
# C_2022171EN.01002601.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Govern d’Andorra v EUIPO (Andorra)

(Case T-806/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Andorra - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Govern d’Andorra (Andorra la Vella, Andorra) (represented by: P. González Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Crawcour, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 (Case R 737/2018-2), concerning an application for registration of figurative sign Andorra as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Govern d’Andorra to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Govern d’Andorra to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
# C_2019312EN.01000302.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/3

---

Appeal brought on 8 May 2019 by José-Ramón Herrero Torres against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 March 2019 in Case T 326/18 Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES)

(Case C-369/19 P)

(2019/C 312/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: José-Ramón Herrero Torres (represented by J. Donoso Romero, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and DZ Licores S.L.U.

By order of 15 July 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered José-Ramón Herrero Torres to bear his own costs.

---
Exhibit 10.30 AMENDMENT
TO THE
NOBLE
CORPORATION2008 SHORT TERM INCENTIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Noble
Corporation, a Cayman Islands exempted company limited by shares
(“Noble-Cayman”), has previously established the Noble Corporation
2008 Short Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); WHEREAS,
Noble-Cayman has determined that the Plan should be amended to address Internal
Revenue Code Section 409A; NOW THEREFORE,
Noble-Cayman does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of the close of business
on December 31, 2008, as follows: 1. Section 2 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding
the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph which shall read as
follows: “Bonus
payments, if any, payable under the Plan shall be paid to the employee no later
than the March 15 following the year in which such bonuses are no longer
subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.” 2. A new
Section 8 is hereby added to the Plan which shall read as follows: “Section 8.Section 409A The payments
provided pursuant to the Plan are intended to be exempt from Section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(‘Section 409A’) as ‘short-term deferrals.’
Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, the Plan shall not be
amended in any manner that would cause (i) the Plan or any amounts payable
hereunder to fail to comply with the requirements of Section 409A, to the
extent applicable, or (ii) any amounts or benefits payable hereunder that
are not subject to Section 409A to become subject thereto (unless they
also are in compliance therewith), and the provisions of any purported
amendment that may reasonably be expected to result in such non-compliance
shall be of no force or effect with respect to the Plan.” 3. This
Amendment shall amend only those provisions of the Plan set forth herein, and
those sections, subsections, phrases or words not expressly amended hereby
shall remain in full force and effect.  1




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned has executed this Amendment as of the 31st day of
December 2008. NOBLE CORPORATION By:
/s/ Julie J.
Robertson
Name:
Julie J. Robertson
Title:
Executive Vice President_  2
No. 75-6745.

#### Stevenson *v.*Brewer, Warden.

Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 10.2**THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT     THIS AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of October 1, 2005,by and between RENAISSANCE LEARNING, INC., a Wisconsin corporation (“Borrower”), and WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (“Bank”).RECITALS     WHEREAS, Borrower is currently indebted to Bank pursuant to the terms and conditions of thatcertain Credit Agreement between Borrower and Bank dated as of December 1, 2003, as amended fromtime to time (“Credit Agreement”).     WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower have agreed to certain changes in the terms and conditions setforth in the Credit Agreement and have agreed to amend the Credit Agreement to reflect saidchanges.     NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyacknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Credit Agreement shall be amended as follows:     1. Section 4.9 (a) is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following substituted therefor:     “(a) Total Liabilities divided by Tangible Net Worth not greater than 0.85 to 1.0, measured asof the end of each fiscal quarter, with “Total Liabilities” defined as the aggregate of currentliabilities and non-current liabilities less subordinated debt, and with “Tangible Net Worth”defined as the aggregate of total stockholders’ equity plus subordinated debt less any intangibleassets.”     2. Except as specifically provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Credit Agreementremain in full force and effect, without waiver or modification. All terms defined in the CreditAgreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Amendment. This Amendment and the CreditAgreement shall be read together, as one document.     3. Borrower hereby remakes all representations and warranties contained in the CreditAgreement and reaffirms all covenants set forth therein. Borrower further certifies that as of thedate of this Amendment there exists no Event of Default as defined in the Credit Agreement, nor anycondition, act or event which with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both wouldconstitute any such Event of Default.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the dayand year first written above.      RENAISSANCE LEARNING, INC. WELLS FARGO BANK,
#### Mary Robinson, Respondent, v Parkway Private Cab Service et al., Appellants.

Appeal from default judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irwin Silbowitz, J.), entered on October 19, 1983, unanimously dismissed as nonappealable, without costs and without disbursements. Were we to reach the merits, we would affirm. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Bloom and Ellerin, JJ.
# C_2022198EN.01003101.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — HB v EIB

(Case T-757/19) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Complaint alleging psychological harassment - Administrative enquiry - Decision dismissing the complaint - Decision rejecting the request for conciliation - Right to be heard - Liability)

(2022/C 198/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the decisions of the EIB of 20 June and 10 October 2019 rejecting, respectively, a complaint of harassment and intimidation, and a request for conciliation, and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 20 June 2019 of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 20 June 2019 of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB);

| 2. | Orders the EIB to pay HB the sum of EUR 1 000 in respect of the loss of opportunity to settle the dispute amicably; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EIB to pay HB the sum of EUR 1 000 in respect of the loss of opportunity to settle the dispute amicably;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HB. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HB.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2011, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
Jersey Mining 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: August 17, 2011

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCHFred W. Brackebusch,
President, Treasurer & Director

---
Exhibit 99.2





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 Quarterly
Report of Minera Andes Inc. (the Corporation), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bonnie L. Kuhn, Chief
Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





| | 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 Corporation.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




MINERA ANDES INC.





Date: August 7, 2002


By:

/s/    BONNIE L. KUHNBonnie L. Kuhn Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gustavo Abreu, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered May 17, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (10 counts), criminal use of a firearm in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (four counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed. As so modified, judgment affirmed, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that defendant’s challenge to the validity of his guilty plea is unpreserved and, in any case, is without merit *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Monroe,*54 NY2d 35, *cert denied*455 US 947; *People v Santiago,*100 AD2d 857).

However, the minutes of defendant’s sentencing reflect that he was illegally sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years upon the counts of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, which is a class A misdemeanor *(see,*Penal Law § 70.15 [1]; § 135.05). Moreover, Criminal Term erred in failing to pronounce sentence on one of the counts upon which defendant had been convicted *(see,*CPL 380.20; *People v Charles,*98 AD2d 780; *People v Licitra,*84 AD2d 539). In view of these infirmities, defendant must be resentenced. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Hooper, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,350
<SECURITIES>                                    21,224
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                       165
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,918
<PP&E>                                           5,385
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,883
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,288
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            88
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,420
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,267
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,870
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,942
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,942
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
<FN>
<F1>(1) TAGS 40 AND 41 PRESENTED ON A PRO FORMA BASIS AS IF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN
FULLY SUBJECT TO FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAXES FOR ALL PERIODS PRESENTED.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>