alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.14



Amendment No.1 to Employment Agreement


By and Between Green Earth Technologies, Inc. and


Greg D. Adams


This Amendment No.1 to the Employment Agreement is
dated as of June 15, 2008 and amends that certain Employment Agreement by and
between Green Earth Technologies, Inc. and Greg D. Adams dated as of March 25,
2008 (the “Employment Agreement”). 


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Employment
Agreement as follows:


1.     In Section 4, the first sentence and 17th
word shall read “accrued to the” instead of “commencing upon.”


2.     In Section 4(ii), the
terms shall be replaced by the following sentence:


“(ii) 2,500,000 Stock Options upon adoption of the
Company’s 2008 Stock Plan (granted at market price and vesting over three
years) to purchase the Company’s stock pursuant to the terms and conditions of
the Company’s 2008 Stock Plan.


Other than as provided for herein, all terms and
conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


The parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of
the date first written above.


	
  

 	
  

 
	
 GREEN EARTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 
	
  

 
	
  

 
	 

 	
  

 
	
 By: Jeff Marshall

 
	
 Its: Chief Executive Officer and President

 
	
  

 
	
  

 
	 

 	
  

 
	
 Greg D. Adams

 


Page 1 of 1
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




RealNetworks, Inc.




Amendment No. 1 to the RealNetworks, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan,

as amended and restated on June 1, 2001





	1.	 	A new Section 7.13 is added to the RealNetworks, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan, as amended and
restated on June 1, 2001, to read as follows:






     “Section 7.13. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, upon
approval of the Company’s shareholders of this Section, the Administrative Committee may
provide for, and the company may implement, a one-time-only option exchange offer, pursuant
to which certain outstanding Options could, at the election of the person holding such
Option, be tendered to the Company for cancellation in exchange for the issuance of a
lesser amount of Options with a lower exercise price, provided that such one-time-only
option exchange offer is commenced within 12 months of the date of such shareholder
approval.”



     This Amendment No. 1 is effective on December 17, 2009, and was approved by the Board of
Directors of RealNetworks, Inc. on July 24, 2009 and by the shareholders of RealNetworks, Inc. on
September 21, 2009.
|EXHIBIT 21
|----------



|List of Subsidiaries of Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc.
|---------------------------------------------------------

|1. | Blonder Tongue International, Inc.                               
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Blonder Tongue Investment Company                                
|3. | Hybrid Networks, LLC                                             
|4. | Blonder Tongue Far East, LLC                                     
|5. | Vu-Tech Communications, Inc. (79% - owned subsidiary)            
|6. | NetLinc Communications, LLC (50% - owned subsidiary)             
|7. | MegaPort Technology, LLC                                         
|8. | Blonder Tongue International Holdings, LLC (50%-owned subsidiary)

---
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 50 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas given the importance of the Internet to the global 

economy, it is essential that the Internet remain stable, 

secure, and free from government control; 

Whereas the world deserves the access to knowledge, services, 

commerce, and communication, the accompanying benefits to economic development, education, and health care, 

and the informed discussion that is the bedrock of democratic self-government that the Internet provides; 

Whereas the structure of Internet governance has profound 

implications for competition and trade, democratization, 

free expression, and access to information; 

Whereas countries have obligations to protect human rights, 

which are advanced by online activity as well as offline 

activity; 

Whereas the ability to innovate, develop technical capacity, 

grasp economic opportunities, and promote freedom of 

expression online is best realized in cooperation with all 

stakeholders; 

Whereas proposals have been put forward for consideration at 

the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications that would fundamentally alter the governance and operation of the Internet; 
2 

†SCON 50 ES 

Whereas the proposals, in international bodies such as the 

United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations 

Commission on Science and Technology for Development, 

and the International Telecommunication Union, would 

attempt to justify increased government control over the 

Internet and would undermine the current multistakeholder model that has enabled the Internet to flourish 

and under which the private sector, civil society, academia, and individual users play an important role in 

charting its direction; 

Whereas the proposals would diminish the freedom of expression on the Internet in favor of government control over 

content; 

Whereas the position of the United States Government has 

been and is to advocate for the flow of information free 

from government control; and 

Whereas this and past Administrations have made a strong 

commitment to the multistakeholder model of Internet 

governance and the promotion of the global benefits of 

the Internet: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Sec3 retary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Com4 merce, should continue working to implement the position 

5 of the United States on Internet governance that clearly 

6 articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the 

7 United States to promote a global Internet free from gov-
3 

†SCON 50 ES 

1 ernment control and preserve and advance the successful 

2 multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today. 

Passed the Senate September 22 (legislative day, 

September 21), 2012. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 50 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding actions 

thrived. governance model under which the Internet has to preserve and advance the multistakeholder
# C_2020348EN.01001301.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/13

---

Order of the General Court of 3 July 2020 — Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission

(Case T-143/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Hellenic Republic — Operators on the market in electricity produced from renewable energy sources - Power purchase agreements - Legislative amendments with retroactive effect limiting tariff advantages - Complaint to the Commission alleging aid in favour of energy suppliers - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Status as an interested party - Safeguarding of procedural rights - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 348/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Solar Ileias Bompaina AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Metaxas and A. Bartosch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K.-Ph. Wojcik and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking, in essence, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2018) 6777 final of 10 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.38967 (2014/NN-2) — Greece — National operating aid scheme in favour of installations using renewable energy sources and highly efficient combined power and heat installations.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Solar Ileias Bompaina AE is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Solar Ileias Bompaina AE is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-61095

Summary Calendar

Michael Leonard Mora-Jimenez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A203 825 273

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Michael Leonard Mora-Jimenez is a native and citizen of Cuba. 

Originally, Mora-Jimenez sought review of a decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of the 

Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen hisremoval proceedings 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 15, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-61095 Document: 00516239203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-61095

2

and rescind his in absentia order of removal. Because the BIA has since 

granted a motion to reopen, the parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss 

the instant petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

This court generally has jurisdiction to review a “final order of 

removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). An order of removal is final when the BIA

affirms an IJ’s finding of removability or when the time for appealing an IJ’s 

decision has expired. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B). “Judicial review of a final 

order of removal is available only where the applicant has exhausted all 

administrative remedies of right.” Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 

2004); § 1252(d)(1); see also Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 320 (5th Cir. 

2009). In this case, the BIA has granted a motion to reopen and remanded 

the case to the IJ. The BIA has specifically ordered that the IJ reopen the 

proceedings in which Mora-Jimenez was ordered removed in absentia. The 

BIA must address any claims arising from these proceedings before MoraJimenez can assert them before this court. See Roy, 389 F.3d at 137. Because 

Mora-Jimenez is currently pursuing administrative remedies below, he is no 

longer subject to a final order of removal that this court has jurisdiction to 

review. Id.; see Gregoire v. Holder, 421 F. App’x 432, 433 (5th Cir. 2011) 

(holding that a BIA order granting reconsideration and remanding the matter 

to an IJ deprived this court of jurisdiction). 1

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED. PETITION FOR 

REVIEW DISMISSED.

1 Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2996, are not binding 

precedent, but they may be persuasive authority. Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 

(5th Cir. 2006); 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 20-61095 Document: 00516239203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack Gregory, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  August 13, 2010 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
# Official Journal L 38/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 38 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6518 February 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 38

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6518 February 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) 2022/225 of 17 February 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/226 of 17 February 2022 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe | 3 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/227 of 17 February 2022 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe | 5 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EU) 2022/225 of 17 February 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/226 of 17 February 2022 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe

3

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/227 of 17 February 2022 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe

5

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
February 19, 2001

Mr. David A. Rescino

202 Lake Crest Drive

Southlake, TX  76092

Dear Dave:

I am pleased to offer you the position of Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer for Vanguard Airlines.  I have outlined a general package that I think would be of mutual acceptance.  Please review and give me your thoughts:

1.	Work scope and responsibilities:

a.	Responsibilities include all functions associated with the finance are of the company.

b.	Both parties mutually agree that work can be accomplished outside the headquarters of the company and will be flexible in terms of "in-office" requirements.

2.	Compensation and Benefits:

a.	Salary of $130,000 per year.  A one-time signing bonus of $25,000 to be payable under the following terms:  $10,000 upon agreement acceptance, $7,500 upon two weeks of employment, and $7,500 upon four weeks of employment.  In the event you voluntarily terminate your employment with Vanguard prior to completion of (6) six months from your hire date, for reasons other than the company's breach of its obligations to you, you shall repay signing bonus in its entirety, net of sums owed to you by the company.

b.	The company shall maintain directors and officers liability insurance covering you in the amount currently shared by other officers and directors of the company.

c.	You will receive the same benefits available to other officers of the company, including, but limited to:  vacation, holidays, pass privileges, and health and welfare benefits. All benefits would be on the same terms generally provided to officers of the company.  Included with your employment would be use of cell phone/pager and laptop computer, both at the expense of the company.

d.	Understanding that you will be commuting from your permanent place of residence, the company will pay all expenses associated with hotel/lodging expenses during the next 6 months, at which time the company and you agree to review.

e.	You will receive 140,000 stock options under the current officers stock plan, which are vested quarterly over a four-year term.

										
David A. Rescino				Jeff S. Potter

						President and CEO
# C_2019155EN.01004501.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/45

---

Action brought on 25 February 2019 — Necci v Commission

(Case T-129/19)

(2019/C 155/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Claudio Necci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 18 April 2018 rejecting his application for membership of the JSIS; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 18 April 2018 rejecting his application for membership of the JSIS;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and one alternative plea in law.

Primarily, he claims that the European Commission infringed Article 95 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘the CEOS’) by refusing to admit him as a member of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS), without taking into account the additional contribution period granted to him in the pension scheme of the institutions of the Union in consideration for the transfer of his national pension rights.

In the alternative, the applicant raises an objection of illegality in respect of Article 95 of the CEOS having regard to Article 45 of the TFEU.

---
#### In the Matter of John C. Wirth, Jr. (Admitted as John Christopher Wirth, Jr), a Suspended Attorney.

[945 NYS2d 562]

Motion by John C. Wirth, Jr., for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Mr. Wirth was admitted to the bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on March 18, 1964, under the name John Christopher Wirth, Jr. By decision and order on application of this Court dated April 14, 2000, the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Wirth and the issues were referred to the Honorable William Zeck, as Special Referee to hear and report. By opinion and order of this Court dated August 19, 2002, Mr. Wirth was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years based on 28 charges of professional misconduct *(see Matter of Wirth,*298 AD2d 36 [2002]). By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 26, 2011, Mr. Wirth’s motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on his fitness to be an attorney. Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the report of the Committee on Character and Fitness and the exhibits annexed thereto, it is Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further, Ordered that, effective immediately, John Christopher Wirth, Jr., is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law and the Clerk of the Court is directed to restore the name of John Christopher Wirth, Jr., to the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law. Mastro, A.P.J., Rivera, Skelos, Angiolillo and Eng, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:03-cr-00779 Document #: 141 Filed: 01/31/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:712
# C_2019139EN.01006201.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/62

---

Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Othman v Council

(Case T-58/19)

(2019/C 139/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

| — | as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea and one alternative plea, alleging the harm that she has allegedly suffered and for which the Council of the European Union is liable.

The main plea alleges that the restrictive measures at issue, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, they infringe the obligation to state reasons as laid down in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, second, they infringe the applicant’s right to property and the right to respect for her reputation. That infringement was the direct cause of significant material and non-material damage to her, consisting respectively of damage to her reputation, on the one hand, and breach of contracts, loss of material and loss of income, on the other, for which she claims to be entitled to compensation.

The alternative plea is based on the existence of a strict liability regime in the European Union.

---
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1950/2004

of 11 November 2004         

fixing the maximum export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 581/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 581/2004, for the tendering period ending on 10 November 2004, the maximum amount of refund for the products referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 November 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 November 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 64.

(3)OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58.

----

ANNEX

----