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

**AMENDMENT AGREEMENT**

THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made asof May 5, 2008, by and among NOBLE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), ARCELORMITTAL S.A. (formerly known as Arcelor S.A.), a corporation organized under the laws of Luxembourg(“Arcelor”) and ROBERT J. SKANDALARIS, an individual residing in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (“Skandalaris”). 

**RECITALS**

The Company, Arcelor and Skandalaris are parties (i) to that certain Standstill and Stockholder Agreementdated as of August 31, 2007, as amended by the Agreement and Waiver, dated as of March 20, 2008 (as so amended, the “Standstill and Stockholder Agreement”) and (ii) to that certain Registration Rights Agreement datedas of August 31, 2007, as amended by the First Amendment to Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of March 20, 2008 (as so amended, the “Registration Rights Agreement”). 

Arcelor and Skandalaris are parties to a letter agreement, dated March 12, 2008, pursuant to which Skandalaris and Arcelor agreed that, upon theclosing of the stock purchase provided for therein, Skandalaris’ rights under the Standstill and Stockholder Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement shall terminate (the “Termination of Rights”). The closing of suchstock purchase occurred on April 7, 2008. 

The Company, Arcelor and Skandalaris desire that the Termination of Rights provided for inthe March 12, 2008 letter agreement shall be deemed further amendments to the Standstill and Stockholder Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement. 

Accordingly, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. Amendments. The Standstill and StockholderAgreement and the Registration Rights Agreement are hereby amended to terminate all of the rights of Skandalaris therein and thereunder. 

2. Miscellaneous. 

2.1 Remainder of Agreements Unmodified. Except as modified by this Agreement, the Standstill andStockholder Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement shall both remain unmodified and in full force and effect. 

2.2Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties anddelivered to the other party, it being understood that both parties need not sign the same counterpart. Facsimile signatures shall, for all purposes of this Agreement, be deemed to be originals and shall be enforceable as such. 

**Execution**

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment Agreement as of the day and year first above written. 

 
NOBLE INTERNATIONAL, LTD.By: 
/s/ Thomas L. Saeli
Name: Thomas L. SaeliTitle: Chief Executive OfficerARCELORMITTAL S.A.By: 
/s/ Jean-François Crancée
Name: Jean-François CrancéeTitle 
 
By: 
/s/ Jean-Luc Maurange
Name: Jean-Luc MaurangeTitle: VP ArcelorMittal
/s/ Robert J. Skandalari
ROBERT J. SKANDALARIS
 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         220,104
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               348,247
<PP&E>                                      13,538,100
<DEPRECIATION>                            (10,534,575)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,029,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,237,420
<BONDS>                                      4,600,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,826,367)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,029,589
<SALES>                                      9,246,156
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,246,156
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,953,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,323,920)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             44,548,950
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         44,548,950
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                44,548,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
---

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

I, Ryan S. McCleery, Chief Financial Officer of Terrace Ventures
  Inc. (the "Company"), hereby 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:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company,
        for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2004, and to which this certification
        is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
        and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.                                                                                                                                                        



| | By:    | /s/ Ryan S. McCleery   
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | RYAN S. McCLEERY       
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | September 7, 2004      

A signed original of this written statement required by
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

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

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46248-46249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17652]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice: 2021-6023]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part 
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the 
proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995. The Application for Exporter Short Term Single Buyer 
Insurance form will be used by entities involved in the export of U.S. 
goods and services, to provide EXIM with the information necessary to 
obtain legislatively required assurance of repayment and fulfills other 
statutory requirements. Export-Import Bank customers will be able to 
submit this form on paper or electronically.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2021 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on

[[Page 46249]]

WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV (EIB 10-02) or by email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#780c190a1956081d161c1d0a381d001115561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92e6f3e0f3bce2f7fcf6f7e0d2f7eafbffbcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>, or by 
mail to Tara Pender, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 
Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The application tool can be reviewed 
at: https://ww.exim.gov/pub/pending/EIB92-64.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information, 
please Tara Pender. 202-565-3655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-64 Application for Exporter Short 
Term Single Buyer Insurance.
    OMB Number: 3048-0018.
    Type of Review: Renewal.
    Need and Use: The information requested enables the applicant to 
provide EXIM with the information necessary to obtain legislatively 
required assurance of repayment and fulfills other statutory 
requirements.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 310.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.5 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 465 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting of Use: As needed.
    Government Costs:
    Reviewing Time per Year: 465 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $19,762.5 (time*wages).
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $23,715.

Bassam Doughman,
IT Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2021-17652 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Sofia Becker, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 771]—

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 27, 2011, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she did not comply with registration requirements.

Claimant was suspended from her job on February 15, 2010 and was terminated on March 5, 2010. She filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits the date she was terminated. *1589Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits for the period February 15, 2010 through February 28, 2010 because she did not comply with registration requirements. This decision was upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and claimant now appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that certifying for benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Law and pertinent regulations is a prerequisite to eligibility *(see Matter of Weinstein [Commissioner of Labor],*60 AD3d 1228, 1228 [2009]; *Matter of De Lelio [Commissioner of Labor],*19 AD3d 917, 918 [2005]). Whether good cause exists to excuse a claimant’s failure to comply with registration requirements is a factual issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Weier [Commissioner of Labor],*30 AD3d 951, 951 [2006]; *Matter of Breton [Commissioner of Labor],*30 AD3d 661, 662 [2006]). Here, claimant stated that she did not apply for benefits prior to March 5, 2010 because she believed that she would continue to be paid during her period of suspension. However, claimant was not informed by the employer that she was being suspended with pay, nor did she make an inquiry to the employer in that regard. Inasmuch as claimant received no misrepresentations from the employer and made no attempt to contact the local unemployment insurance office regarding her eligibility to file a claim for benefits, the Board could reasonably conclude that claimant failed to demonstrate good cause for her noncompliance with the reporting requirements *(see Matter of Weinstein [Commissioner of Labor],*60 AD3d at 1228; *Matter of Troise [Commissioner of Labor],*45 AD3d 1163, 1163-1164 [2007]; *Matter of Breton [Commissioner of Labor],*30 AD3d at 662; *Matter of De Lelio [Commissioner of Labor],*19 AD3d at 918). Claimant’s remaining assertion has not been preserved for our review.

Peters, EJ., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3635

_____________________________

LEO HOLLINGSWORTH,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Charles W. Dodson, Judge.

June 25, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Leo Hollingsworth, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Brett Michael Roy Coleman, 

Assistant Attorney General, and Kenneth S. Steely, General 

Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**Exhibit10.74**

** **

**DEFERRED COMPENSATIONTERMINATION AGREEMENT**

 

                This Deferred CompensationTermination Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2002, is by and between Vari-LiteInternational, Inc. (the “Company”) and James H. Clark, Jr. (the “Director”).

 

# W I T N E S S E T H:

                WHEREAS, the Company (formerlyknown as Vari-Lite Holdings, Inc.) and the Director entered into a DeferredCompensation Agreement, dated July 1, 1995, as amended by Amendment No. 1 tothe Deferred Compensation Agreement, dated November 2, 1998 and Amendment No. 2to the Deferred Compensation Agreement, dated December 28, 2001 (as amended,the “Deferred Compensation Agreement”); and

 

                WHEREAS,the Company has suffered a decline in its financial performance and managementand the Board of Directors of the Company have reviewed and maderecommendations for reducing expenses of the Company in order to improve theCompany’s financial performance; and

 

                WHEREAS,the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the“Compensation Committee”) has determined that it is in the best financialinterest of the Company to terminate the Deferred Compensation Agreementeffective June 30, 2002; and

 

                WHEREAS,the Director is a significant stockholder of the Company and agrees that it isin the best financial interest of the Company to consent to the termination ofthe Deferred Compensation Agreement as proposed by the Compensation Committee;

 

                NOW, THEREFORE, in considerationof the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt andsufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agreethat the Deferred Compensation Agreement is cancelled and terminated and shallbe of no further force or effect.

 

                INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the datefirst above written.

 

 
|   | VARI-LITE INTERNATIONAL,  INC. |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |                           |   |
|   | By:                            |   |
|   |                           | T. Clay Powers, President |
|   |                           |   |
|   |                           |
|   | James H. Clark, Jr.            |
731 A.2d 128

#### Julianna EIDEM v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (GNADEN-HUETTEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL). Petition of Gnaden-Huetten Memorial Hospital and Phico Insurance Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 9, 1999.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 9’ day of June, 1999, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED and the parties are directed to brief the issue as follows:

> Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in finding that the referral letter did not provide sufficient notice of a job position, where employee had previously been employed in that position, in order to satisfy employer’s burden of proof pursuant to *Kachinski v. W.C.A.B. (Vepco Construction Co.),*516 Pa. 240, 532 A.2d 374 (1987).

The Petition for Supersedeas is DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos 333-64238, 333-63950, 333-44852, 333-87759, 333-62437,
333-11577, 33-96302,33-81236,33-69350 and 33-44336) and Form S-3 (Nos 333-76544
and 333-32766) of our report dated February 21, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Epimmune, Inc. included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001

                                                  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
March 27, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JACQUELINE B. DOTZAUER,, Case No. 6:13-cv-00829-HA 

Plaintiff, JUDGMENT 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COL VIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

HAGGERTY, District Judge: 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision of the Acting Commissioner must be 

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR AN AW ARD OF BENEFITS. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this j_Q_ day of June, 2014. 

~ Ancer L. >::dk~~~- HaggertY -('.\ 

United States District Judge 

JUDGMENT- I 

Case 6:13-cv-00829-BR Document 20 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 1
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S H IR L E Y IN G R ID P A T R IC IA T UR AN GA N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 71967 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 875- 537 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l16, 2013 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , IK U T A , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S hi r l e yI ngr i d P atr i c i aT ur angan, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng her m o tio n to r e c o n s id e ran dto r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v ern edb y 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r ev iew fo r a n ab u se o f d iscr etio n th e B IA ’s 

# FI LED APR22 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 71967 2 d e n ia l o f m o tio n s to r e c o n s id e ro rr e o p e n . Ca n o -Me r i da v . I NS , 311 F . 3d 960, 964 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e d is m is s in p art an dd e n yin p art th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g T u r an g an ’s m o tio n to re co n sid erw h er e T u ra n g an d idn o t p o in t t o an y e rr o r o f law o r f ac t i n th e B IA ’s u n d e r ly in g d e c is io n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . F i nal l y, w i th res pectt o the B IA ’ s deni alof her m ot i on t o reopen, T urangan doe s notc ha l l e nge the B I A ’ s c onc l us i on thats he f a i l e d t o s how he rr e l i gi ous stud i es es t abl i shed a pri m a f ac i e c as e thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n otshe w ou l d fac e p e r s e c u tio n in I n d o n e s ia . Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259- 60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( i ss ues notsupp ort ed by ar gu m entar e dee m ed w ai ved). W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w anyc ha l l e nge m a de t o the B I A ’ s O c t obe r20, 2 0 1 0 , O r d e rb e c au s e th e p e titio n is n o t tim e lya s to th at d e c is io n . See 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; Si n gh v . I NS , 3 1 5 F .3 d1 1 8 6 , 1 1 8 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5959

REGINALD LAMAR DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Graham C. Mullen, District Judge.

(CR-95-81)

Submitted: January 31, 1997

Decided: February 24, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terry F. Rose, CLOER & ROSE, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Thomas G. Walker,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Lamar Davis appeals from his conviction for aiding and

abetting in the commission of a bank robbery in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2113 (1994), and use of a firearm in a crime of violence in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). We affirm.

Davis first contends that the district court erred in overruling his

objection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), to the Government's use of a peremptory challenge to strike a juror allegedly on

account of race. Our review reveals that the district court was not

clearly erroneous in its finding that the juror was struck not because

of race, but because of a delay prior to her affirmance that she would

follow the law as instructed by the court, especially when the evidence reveals that three other members of this candidate's race were

in fact seated on the jury.

Davis next contends that the district court erred in failing to

instruct the jury on the definition of reasonable doubt. This court generally disapproves of judicial efforts to define reasonable doubt absent

a specific request from jury itself, and therefore we find no error in

the district court's refusal to further define the term. See United States

v. Reives, 15 F.3d 42, 46 (4th Cir. 1994) (stating that district court

does not err by refusing to instruct jury on meaning of reasonable

doubt even when specifically requested by the jury).

Finally, Davis contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aiding and abetting in the robbery. We find,

when viewing the evidence in its totality and in the light most favorable to the Government, that there is ample evidence from which a

reasonable trier of fact could find Davis guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).

Accordingly, we affirm Davis' conviction. 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.

AFFIRMED

 2