alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First Amendment to Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective the 1st day of January, 2006, by Novoste Corporation, a Florida corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) and
Daniel G. Hall (hereinafter referred to as the “Executive”). The Company and Executive are hereinafter referred to collectively, as the “Parties.” 
  
 W I T N E S S E T H : 
  
 WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into a Letter Agreement dated November 11, 2005, pursuant to which the date of Executive’s termination
of employment with the Company is established as December 31, 2005 and pursuant to which the Executive is entitled to receive certain payments upon the termination of his employment; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to extend Executive’s employment
beyond December 31, 2005. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 
  
 1. Termination of Employment: The terms of paragraph 1 of the
Letter Agreement shall be altered and amended so that the Executive shall continue to be employed by the Company through January 31, 2006. 
  
 2. Certain Payments: Paragraph 2 of the letter Agreement shall be amended by adding the following paragraph: 
  

	 	(iii)	a third payment (the “Third Payment”) in the amount of $16,250, less applicable deductions, including, without limitation, federal and state withholding, to be paid on
January 31, 2006, provided, however, that the Executive shall not receive the Third Payment if the Executive voluntarily terminates employment with the Company prior to January 31, 2006. 

  
 3. All other and further terms and provisions of the Letter Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect as entered into by the Parties on November 11, 2005. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Amendment to the Letter Agreement as of the date
indicated their respective names. 
  
 Date:
1/3/06 
  

					
	 	 	 /s/ Daniel G. Hall


	 	 	DANIEL G. HALL
		
	 	 	NOVOSTE CORPORATION
			
	Date: 1/3/06	 	 	 	 
			
	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Alfred J. Novak


	 	 	Name:	 	Alfred J. Novak
	 	 	Title:	 	PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 46 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 46 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 46 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 14 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-01698-AKH Document 14 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 11  

STATEMENT REGARDINGCOMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE  

Basic net loss per share is computedby dividing the net loss by the weighted-average common shares outstanding in thereporting period. Diluted net loss per share normally includes common stock equivalents(options and warrants), but were excluded since their effect was antidulitive.
Case 1:07-cv-05423-AKH Document 11 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05423-AKH Document 11 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 2 of 2
# C_2019093EN.01005101.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — TP v Commission

(Case T-464/17) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Deduction from salary - Maintenance awarded by a national court in the context of divorce proceedings - Sincere cooperation with the national courts - Circumscribed powers - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour - Rule of correspondence - Act adversely affecting a person - Claim for compensation - Compliance with the pre-litigation procedure))

(2019/C 93/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: TP (represented by: W. Limuti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission to make a monthly deduction from the applicant’s salary in respect of maintenance to be paid to his ex-wife pursuant to the ruling of an Italian court and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---
#### Robert BLUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard SKOLNIK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-17394.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 28, 2013.*

Filed June 3, 2013.

Robert Blue, Lovelock, NV, pro se.

Micheline Noel Nadeau Fairbank, Esquire, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Robert Blue appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendant prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. *Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,*555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); *Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l,*686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER 

LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

21MC102(AKH)

GREGORY FISCO, (AND WIFE, NICOLE FISCO), 

Plaintiff(s), 

-against100 CHURCH LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

07CV5289(AKH)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby enters an appearance as counsel 

for Defendants 100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a 

SAPIR REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. in the above-captioned action and all future 

correspondence and papers filed or serviced in connection with the above-captioned action are to 

be directed to the undersigned. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 May 14, 2008 

Yours etc., 

HARRIS BEACH PLLC 

Attorneys for Defendant 

100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY 

MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a SAPIR 

REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP.

____________/s/________________

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG-7062) 

100 Wall Street 

New York, NY 10005 

212 687-0100 

212 687-0659 (Fax) 

Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 26 Filed 05/14/2008 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATION AS TO SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on May 14, 2008, I caused to be filed and served 

the following document electronically via the Court’s ECF system upon the parties: 

 1. 100 Church and Zar Realty Management Corp. n/k/a Sapir Realty 

Management Corp. Notice of Appearance 

Dated: May 14, 2008 

 /s/ 

 Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG 7062) 

Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 26 Filed 05/14/2008 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 21.1



                                  SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             STATE OF INCORPORATION                 NAME UNDER WHICH
SUBSIDIARY                                                                      SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
----------                                   ----------------------             ------------------------
<S>                                               <C>                                <C>
Hall GMC, Inc.                                    North Dakota                       Corporate Name
     (100% owned)

Hall Truck Center, Inc                            North Dakota                       Corporate Name
     (100% owned)

Minnesota Valley Irrigation, Inc.                  Minnesota                         Corporate Name
     (100% owned)                                                                      (inactive)

RDO Agriculture Equipment Co.                     North Dakota                      RDO Equipment Co.
     (100% owned)

RDO Construction Equipment Co.                    North Dakota                      RDO Equipment Co.
     (100% owned)

RDO Financial Services Co.                        North Dakota                       Corporate Name
     (100% owned)

RDO Material Handling Co.                          Minnesota                         Corporate Name
     (100% owned)

RDO Truck Center Co.                              North Dakota                       Corporate Name
     (100% owned)

RDO Truck Riverside Co.                           North Dakota                    RDO Truck Center Co.
     (100% owned by RDO Truck
      Center Co.)

Salinas Equipment Distributors, Inc.               California                        Corporate Name
     (100% owned)                                                                      (inactive)
</TABLE>



                                       1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

GLUE WILKINS,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY BENJAMIN D. KOHLER,

PROTHONOTARY, PA SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 8 MM 2024

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14 th day of May , 2024, the “King’s Bench Motion” and the “Motion

for Judicial Notice” are DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            5308
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           31089
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       9795
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           18540
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             18479
<LOANS>                                         190114
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  263112
<DEPOSITS>                                      165158
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1167
<LONG-TERM>                                      11650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                       85071
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  263112
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  13130
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  749
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  1368
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 15247
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                5678
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6187
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             9060
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      155
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   4594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5510
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        5510
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3669
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.44
<LOANS-NON>                                       5386
<LOANS-PAST>                                       226
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1716
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      138
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1733
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1733
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 26 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 26 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 26 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 26 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 26 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 26 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 6 of 6
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ARK ALAN LANE, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. M AR ION FEATHER , R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-35676

D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02346-PA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Owe n M . Panne r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Fe de ra l prisone r M ark Ala n La ne a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 28 U.S.C . § 2241 ha be a s pe t ition c h a lle nging theloss of good c onduc t tim e following a prison disc iplina

ry he aring. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo thedism issa l of a se c tion 2241 

# FIL ED SEP 30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).pe tition, se e Alaimalo v . Unite d State s , 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th C i r. 2011), a nd we a ffirm . Lane c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by dism issing the

insta nt pe tition on the ba sis of La

ne ’ s pre vious se c tion 2241 pe tition. C ontra ry to La ne ’ s c onte ntion, thedistric t c ourt did not err by a pply ing R ule 4 of the R

ule s Gove rning Se c tion 2254 C a s e s to theinsta nt pe tition. Se e R

ule 1(b), R

ule s Gove rning Se c tion 2254 C a se s, 28 U.S.C . foll. § 2254. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the insta

nt pe tition be c a

use La ne ’ s pre vious se c tion 2241 pe t ition ra ise d the s am e c la im s and wa s de n ie d on the m e rits by

the Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Ge orgia . The a buse of the writ doc trine ge ne ra lly

“ forbids there c onside ra tion of c la i m s tha t we re or c ould ha

ve be e n ra i se d in a

prior ha be a s pe tition.” Se e Alaimalo , 645 F.3d a t 1049 (interna l quota

tions omitte d). Lane ha s not shown c a

use for bringing a

suc c e ssive pe tition, or tha t a funda m e nta l m isc a rria ge of justic e will re sult from the fa ilure to e n te rta i n his c la im . Se e Mc C le sk e y v . Zant , 499 U.S. 467, 494-95 (1991). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 56 7 6 2
By Electronic Mail

March 27, 2020

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Amendmentsto ICE Trade Vault, LLC Fee Schedule Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of 

the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulation 40.6

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) Regulation 40.6, ICE Trade Vault, LLC (“ICE Trade 

Vault”) submits, by written certification, proposed amendments to the ICE Trade Vault Fee Schedule to 

revise certain fees for virtual currencies. The proposed amendments are blacklined in the text of the ICE 

Trade Vault Fee Schedule attached hereto.

ICE Trade Vault certifies that these amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and 

the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission thereunder. No substantive opposing views have 

been expressed by Participants or others with respect to the amendments. ICE Trade Vault further certifies 

that, concurrent with this filing today, a copy of this submission was posted on its website and may be 

accessed at: www.icetradevault.com. ICE Trade Vault intends to implement this amended Rulebook on 

April 10, 2020.

As noted above, enclosed with this letter is a marked version of the ICE Trade Vault Rulebook

which is being submitted in whole. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact 

me at Kara.Dutta@theice.com or (770) 916-7812.

Sincerely,

Kara Dutta

General Counsel

ICE Trade Vault, LLC

Enclosures
Case 1:07-cr-00568-HBP Document 14 Filed 06/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 11, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00560-CV

MARSHALL REINHART, Appellant

V.

LLEAH LYNELLE NARRELL, A/K/A LLEAH LYNELLE HOLLIS, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR H.S.W., A MINOR, S2 

EQUITIES, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-18350

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Smith

Opinion by Justice Osborne

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case have not 

been filed. By postcard dated June 8, 2022, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee 

was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly 

cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also

by postcard dated June 8, 2022, we informed appellant the docketing statement in 

this case was due. We cautioned appellant that failure to file the docketing statement 

within ten days might result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. 
–2–

On July 7, 2022, we sent a letter informing appellant the clerk’s record had not been 

filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to 

provide, within ten days, verification he had either paid for or made arrangements to 

pay for the record or was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned 

appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without 

further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing 

statement, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the 

Court regarding the status of this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

220560f.p05

/Leslie Osborne/

LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MARSHALL REINHART, 

Appellant

No. 05-22-00560-CV V.

LLEAH LYNELLE NARRELL, 

A/K/A LLEAH LYNELLE HOLLIS, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS LEGAL 

GUARDIAN FOR H.S.W., A 

MINOR, S2 EQUITIES, LLC, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-18350.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Osborne. Justices Schenck and Smith 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 11th day of August, 2022.
# C_2017283EN.01005101.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/51

---

Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — No Limits v EUIPO — Morellato (NO LIMITS)

(Case T-43/17) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark NO LIMITS - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 283/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: No Limits International Investments SA (Bissone, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Canu, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Morellato SpA (Fratte di Santa Giustina in Colle, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 2007/2015-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Morellato and No Limits Investments.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by No Limits International Investments SA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by No Limits International Investments SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

1

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

723 CA 12-01789 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN J. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND KENNETH P. BERNAS, DEFENDANT.

BARTH SULLIVAN BEHR, BUFFALO (LAURENCE D. BEHR OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

GROSS, SHUMAN, BRIZDLE & GILFILLAN, P.C., BUFFALO (KATHERINE M. LIEBNER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paula L. Feroleto, J.), entered April 13, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant Brian J. Johnson to compel plaintiff to comply with the release agreement entered into by the parties.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.
Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of Brian J. Johnson (defendant) to compel plaintiff to comply with the release agreement between plaintiff and defendants. Defendant brought his motion after the related third-party action was settled and an unconditional stipulation of discontinuation as to him with respect to this action was signed by the attorneys for plaintiff and defendant and filed. Although a trial court has the power “to exercise supervisory control over all phases of pending actions and proceedings” ( Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold , 48 NY2d 51, 54), it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion after the action has been “unequivocally terminated . . . [by the execution of] an express, unconditional stipulation of discontinuance” ( id. at 56; see Yonkers Fur Dressing Co. v Royal Ins. Co. , 247 NY 435, 444; DiBella v Martz , 58 AD3d 935, 937; Germanovich v Bethlehem Steel Corp. [appeal No. 1], 270 AD2d 863, 863).

Entered: June 14, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court