alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.28

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT

This Amendment No. 1 to Common Stock Purchase Warrant is made and entered into as of the 30th day of December, 2005, by and among Digital Generation
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), and Omar Choucair ("Choucair").

WHEREAS,
on or about August 2003 Scott K. Ginsburg assigned the right to purchase 86,660 shares of common stock of the Corporation to Omar Choucair and a new Common Stock Purchase
Warrant was issued to Choucair for 86,660 shares of common stock of the Corporation (the "Warrant");

WHEREAS,
the Warrant was amended on or about June 24, 2004 pursuant to resolutions adopted by the unanimous written consent of the board of directors of the Corporation; and

WHEREAS,
the Corporation and Choucair wish to further amend the terms of the Warrant as described herein;

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants herein contained, the Corporation and Choucair hereby agree as follows:

1.     Unless
otherwise defined, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Warrant. All references to Section herein shall be to Sections
of the Warrant.

2.     The
entirety of Section 2 in the Warrant shall read as follows:



3.     The
first sentence of Section 7 in the Warrant shall read as follows:



[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Common Stock Purchase Warrant as of the date first above written.

| |  | DIGITAL GENERATION SYSTEMS, INC.                 
| |  | -------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                              
| |  |                                                  
| |  | Name:                                            
| |  |                                                  
| |  | Title:                                           
| |  |                                                  
| |  | CHOUCAIR:                                        
| |  | /s/OMAR A. CHOUCAIROmar A. Choucair, Individually

---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1369-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin, (FEMA-1369-DR), dated May 11, 2001, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 8, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 11, 2001:

Bayfield County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance). (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Lacy E. Suiter,

Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 01-15266 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
#### Timothy L. BILIOURIS; Anne M. Bullock; Brian Bullock; Robert Bullock; Randy Cough; et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. SUNDANCE RESOURCES, INCORPORATED; Michael Patman; David P. Patman, Defendants-Appellants. Timothy L. Biliouris; Anne M. Bullock; Brian Bullock; Robert Bullock; Randy Cough; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Michael Patman; David P. Patman, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 10-10940, 11-10283.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 3, 2012.

Robert Brian Shields, Michael D. Donohue, Esq., Friedman & Feiger, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Alan B. Rich, Law Office of Alan B. Rich, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cir. R. 47.6.1

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. The appeal is stayed as to Sundance Resources, Inc., pending bankruptcy proceedings.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1149/2004

of 22 June 2004         

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 of 29 April 2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia (1), and in particular Article 11(a) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 June 2004.

For the Commission

Christopher PATTEN            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 162, 30.4.2004, p. 32.

----

ANNEX

‘ANNEX I

List of natural and legal persons, bodies or entities referred to in Article 2

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
<S>                            <C>
<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
combined statement of operations for the period January 1, 1998 to January 13,
1998 of Northeast Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership and North Jersey 
Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.

<CIK>                          0000934666
<NAME>                         North Jersey Energy Associates
                               A Limited Partnership
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   JAN-13-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                1
<CASH>                              $0
<SECURITIES>                        $0
<RECEIVABLES>                       $0
<ALLOWANCES>                        $0
<INVENTORY>                         $0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    $0
<PP&E>                              $0
<DEPRECIATION>                      $0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      $0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               $0
<BONDS>                             $0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               $0
<PREFERRED>                         $0
<COMMON>                            $0
<OTHER-SE>                          $0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        $0
<SALES>                        $13,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               $13,109
<CGS>                               $0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   $7,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  $136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              $2,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 $2,909
<INCOME-TAX>                        $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             $2,909
<DISCONTINUED>                      $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     $0
<CHANGES>                           $0
<NET-INCOME>                    $2,909
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                       $0

        

</TABLE>
#### Morris B. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT INC.; Dwight Alford; Blake Alford; Ray Creech, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-2119.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 20, 2012.

Decided: March 29, 2012.

Morris B. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra W. Mitterling, Ragsdale & Liggett, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Morris B. Campbell appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action alleging employment discrimination for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Campbell v. Commercial Equipment Inc.,*No. 5:10-cv-00313-WW, 2011 WL 3925068 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 7, 2011). 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.*
Shahiee Jermaine FLOWERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6100.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT
      32.2




**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 this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Voxware, Inc. (the
        "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Paul
        Commons, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
        to
        18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Voxware, Inc. and will be retained by Voxware, Inc. and furnished to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 /s/
                    Paul CommonsDated:
                    September 28, 2006
                Paul
                    CommonsChief
                    Financial
                    Officer
EXHIBIT 10.03


4th Amendment to Advisory Agreement


This 4th Amendment (the "4th Amendment") is made as of April 1, 2016 (the “Effective Date”) among OASIS ROW LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Trading Company”), R.J. O’Brien Fund Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Managing Member”), and ROW Asset Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Trading Advisor”), parties to that certain Advisory Agreement dated October 1, 2014 and as previously amended.


The Trading Company, the Managing Member, and the Trading Advisor now desire to amend the terms of the Agreement as set forth below:


1. Exhibit C – Futures Interests Traded is hereby amended to add the following under the column entitled “Currencies”:


 



	
Australian Dollar

	
AD


	
British Pound

	
BP


	
Canadian Dollar

	
CD


	
Euro

	
EC


	
Japanese Yen

	
JY


	
Mexican Peso

	
PE


	
New Zealand Dollar

	
NV


	
Russian Ruble

	
RU


	
South African Rand

	
RA


	
Swiss Franc

	
SF







2. Except as provided in this 4th Amendment, all terms used in this Amendment that are not otherwise defined shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.




3. Except as set forth in this 4th Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. If there is conflict between this amendment and the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this 4th Amendment shall prevail.












*SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS*


 



Page 1 of 2












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this 4th Amendment first effective as of the Effective Date.


	
OASIS ROW, LLC

by R.J. O’Brien Fund Management, LLC

 Managing Member


 


	
By                                                               

 Name: Julie DeMatteo

 Title: Managing Director


	 
	
R.J. O’Brien Fund Management, LLC


 


	
By                                                              

 Name: Julie DeMatteo

 Title: Managing Director














ROW Asset Management, LLC


By                                                              


Name: Ryan O’Grady

 Title: Chief Executive Officer









Page 2 of 2
Eric Richard ELESON, petitioner, v. Joe A. LIZARRAGA, Warden, et al.

No. 16-5987.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
arcb_EX_105



		

			Exhibit 10.5

		





		
			AMENDMENT ONE TO THE
		

		
			ARCBEST CORPORATION 2012 CHANGE IN CONTROL PLAN
		

		
			WHEREAS, ArcBest Corporation (the “Company”), formerly Arkansas Best Corporation, sponsors the Arkansas Best Corporation 2012 Change in Control Plan (the “Plan”); 
		

		
			WHEREAS, the change of the corporate name of the Company from Arkansas Best Corporation to ArcBest Corporation was made effective as of May 1, 2014 (the “Name Change”); 
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS the ArcBest Corporation Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) discussed the need to update the name of the Plan name in light of the Name Change.
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Committee also reviewed and updated the participant list for the Plan; 
		

		
			WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan from time to time by resolution of the Committee; 
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, the Company amends the Plan as follows:
		

		
			1.Effective January 1, 2016, the current participant list is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
		

		
			Tier I
		

		
			Judy McReynolds
		

		
			 
		

		
			Tier II
		

		
			Tim Thorne
		

		
			Lavon Morton
		

		
			Jim Ingram
		

		
			David Cobb
		

		
			Michael Newcity
		

		
			Michael Johns 
		

		
			 
		

		
			2.Effective immediately, all references in the Plan to Arkansas Best Corporation are replaced with ArcBest Corporation
#### Stephen W. BOURGEOIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-56781.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dee. 4, 2006 *.

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

Stephen W. Bourgeois, Jr., San Diego, CA, pro se.

Robert L. Baker, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Stephen W. Bourgeois, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s orders granting the United States’ motion to dismiss and *723denying Bourgeois’ motion for reconsideration in his action against Internal Revenue Service employees involved in the collection of his unpaid federal income taxes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, *Hicks v. Small,*69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir.1995), and review for abuse of discretion its denial of a motion to reconsider, *School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bourgeois’ claims against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue based on sovereign immunity. *See Gilbert v. DaGrossa,*756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that a suit against IRS employees in their official capacity is essentially a suit against the United States and is barred by sovereign immunity).

The district court properly dismissed Bourgeois’ claims against individual IRS agents for actions taken to collect taxes because Congress has established a comprehensive statutory scheme for seeking redress in federal tax matters. *See*26 U.S.C. § 7433; *Adams v. Johnson,*355 F.3d 1179, 1186 (9th Cir.2004) (“Because the Internal Revenue Code gives taxpayers meaningful protections against government transgressions in tax assessment and collection, we hold that *Bivens*relief is unavailable for [a] suit against IRS auditors and officials.”).

Bourgeois’ motion to reconsider argued, *inter alia,*that the federal government has no jurisdiction over him. He supplied an affidavit averring that he is not involved in any income producing activity, he does not live within a federal area over which the Internal Revenue Code has jurisdiction, he is a non-taxpayer, and he is not a person as defined by United States law. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bourgeois’ motion to reconsider. *See ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d at 1263.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32830-32831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine; Notice 
of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel.

[[Page 32831]]

    Date: June 21, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Four Points Garden, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Martin H. Goldrosen, BS, MS, PhD., Chief, 
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National 
Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd, Ste. 106, Bethesda, MD 
20892-5475, (301) 496-4792, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5b2bab9b1a7baa6b895b8b4bcb9fbbbbcbdfbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aacdc5c6ced8c5d9c7eac7cbc3c684c4c3c284cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 28, 2001.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Cecelia Maryland, Grants Technical Assistant, 
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National 
Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room 5B50, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 480-2419.


    Dated: June 11, 2001.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-15252 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY

#### Reston Hospital Center v. Barry A. Querry

March 13, 1992

Case No. (Law) 13135

By Judge James H. Chamblin

After hearing from Mr. Fishman and Mr. Querry on February 14, 1992, and from Mrs. Irene Dix of Farmers & Merchants National Bank (“F&M”) on March 6,1992,1 took under advisement the issue of whether F&M acted properly in withdrawing from Mr. Querry’s checking account the sum of $375.00 pursuant to the garnishment summons served on it and paying it to the Court.

For the reasons hereinafter set forth, I am of the opinion that F&M erred in paying the $375.00 to the Court, debiting Mr. Querry’s account for that sum and creating an overdraft in his account of $375.00.

*Findings of Fact*

Reston Hospital Center (“RHC”) secured a judgment against Mr. Querry in this Court in October, 1991, in the amount of approximately $9,000.00. Mr. Querry and his wife had various checking accounts with F&M during December, 1991. RHC requested a garnishment summons to F&M as garnishee in early December, 1991.

At 2:00 p.m. on December 12, 1991, there was a balance in F&M checking account # 1220519 in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Querry of $453.19. After 2:00 p.m. on December 12, 1991, Mr. Querry cashed a check on that account for $375.00. When the check was cashed and Mr. Querry received $375.00 in cash, a computer entry reduced the “available balance” by $375.00. However, because the transaction *207occurred after 2:00 p.m., the check was placed with items to be processed on the next business day, December 13, 1991. The actual balance of the account as shown in the bookkeeping department’s records continued to be $453.10.

At 12:12 p.m. on December 13, 1991, the garnishment summons was served on the appropriate officer of F&M. At that time, the $375.00 check had not been debited on the actual balance of the account in the bookkeeping department. Therefore, the actual balance showed $453.19 which was debited from the account pursuant to the garnishment and paid to the Court. When the $375.00 check finally was processed, it was debited from the account creating a $375.00 overdraft.

*Conclusions of Law*

Under Virginia Code § 8.4-213(l)(a), an item is finally paid by the payor bank when it pays the item in cash. Hence, F&M finally paid the check when Mr. Querry cashed it on December 12, 1991, and received $375.00 in cash.

Under Virginia Code § 8.4-303(l)(b), any legal process, such as a garnishment summons, served upon a payor bank comes too late after the bank has finally paid the item in cash. Therefore, the garnishment summons was ineffective as to the $375.00 paid by F&M to Mr. Querry before service of the summons. It would only have been effective as to the remaining $78.19 in the account.

Accordingly, the sum of $375.00 should be returned by the Court to F&M for crediting to the account so as to negate the overdraft. However, the Court will not order such return of the $375.00 pending the outcome of Mr. Querry’s motion to set aside the judgment.