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


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment to Consulting Agreement dated as of July 1,
2005 (the “Amendment”) amends the Consulting Agreement dated as of February 1,
2005 (the “Original Agreement,” and as amended hereby,  the “Agreement”) between DG Network (“the
Consultant”) and Superior Essex Inc. and its subsidiary, affiliated and
associated companies (collectively “SEI”).


 


WHEREAS, Consultant agreed to provide
Consulting Services to SEI in connection with the potential combination of SEI’s
winding wire operations in the UK with Nexans’ European winding wire operations
(the transaction being called “Project Lancaster,”);


 


WHEREAS, SEI has entered into a definitive
Contribution and Formation Agreement with Nexans with respect to Project
Lancaster;


 


WHEREAS, SEI desires to extend the term of
the Consulting Services until the closing of Project Lancaster;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as
follows:


 


1.  Extension
of Agreement Term.  The term of the
Agreement shall continue until the earlier of (i) the date of closing of
Project Lancaster or (ii) the termination date specified by either party
by giving the other party thirty (30) days prior written notice of termination.


 


2.  Consulting
Services.  During the remaining term
of the Agreement, the Consulting Services shall include:


 


(i)                  assisting SEI in
developing a business plan for the European WW Business and its operations,
including consolidation and restructuring activities;


 


(ii)               assisting SEI in
developing a plan to manage and operate the European WW Business following the
closing of Project Lancaster, including preparedness for Day One operations as
a standalone company;


 


(iii)            assisting SEI in
developing a plan for integrating the operations of Nexans and Essex UK; and


 


(iv)           providing such other
services as SEI may reasonably request in connection with Project Lancaster.


 


3.                                       General.  Except as provided herein, the Agreement
shall remain in full force in effect, including the terms regarding payment for
Consulting Services.  All capitalized,
undefined terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Original Agreement.


 





















 


	
   

  	
  SUPERIOR ESSEX INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Monte R. Haymon

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Monte R. Haymon

  
	
   

  	
  Chairman of Board of Directors

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DG NETWORK

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Denys Gounot

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  The undersigned acknowledges the Amendment.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DENYS GOUNOT

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Denys Gounot
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 11


                               THE O'GARA COMPANY
               COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                      For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
                                  (unaudited)
                 (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Pro Forma
                                                                 Weighted Average                           Pro Forma
                                                                 Number of Common        Pro Forma         Earnings per
                                                                Shares Outstanding       Net Income        Common Share
                                                                ------------------       ----------        ------------
<S>                                                             <C>                      <C>               <C>
Year Ended December 31, 1996
     Shares outstanding January 1, 1996......................        4,490,383           $        -        $          -
     Dilutive stock options outstanding prior
          to exercise........................................           77,989                    -                   -
     Issuance of common stock upon exercise
          of options.........................................           43,474                    -                   -
     Newly issued shares necessary to fund payment
          of certain indebtedness and AAA distributions
          (1,809,015 shares at $7.29 per share
          net proceeds to fund $13,181,658)..................        1,561,882                    -                   -
     Initial public offering of common stock.................          273,224
     Issuance of shares through underwriter's
          exercise of over-allotment option..................            2,098
     Pro forma net income....................................                -                4,449                   -
                                                                     ---------           ----------        ------------
                                                                     6,449,050           $    4,449        $       0.69
                                                                     =========           ==========        ============
</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                          ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

Bank One, West Virginia, N.A., as Trustee
707 Virginia Street East, 2nd Floor
Charleston, West Virginia  25301

Attention:  Corporate Trust Department

     I, C. David Ramsey, President of Southpoint Structured Assets Inc. (the
"Depositor"), hereby certify as follows:

          (a) The review of the activities of the Depositor under the Standard
     Terms for Trust Agreements, dated as of November 1, 1996, as amended by the
     Series Supplement, dated as of March 19, 1998 (collectively, the "TVA
     Series 1998-1 Trust Agreement"), by and between the Depositor and Bank One,
     West Virginia, N.A., as trustee, for the period from January 1, 2002,
     through December 31, 2002, and the performance of the Depositor under the
     TVA Series 1998-1 Trust Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

          (b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Depositor
     has fulfilled all of its obligations and covenants under the TVA Series
     1998-1 Trust Agreement throughout such period.

Dated: March 25, 2003

                                   Sincerely,


                                   By:   /s/ C. David Ramsey
                                      --------------------------
                                      C. David Ramsey, President
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


<PAGE>   2
                       IMC HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1996-3

                             Officer's Certificate

In connection with the above-referenced trust and pursuant to Section 8.16 of
the related Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("Agreement"), Industry Mortgage
Company, L.P. ( as "Servicer"), hereby confirms the following:

(i)  a review of the activities of the Servicer during 1996 and of performance
under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement for the calender year
1996.

                                Industry Mortgage Company, L.P.

                                By:  /s/  Thomas G. Middleton 
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                         Thomas G. Middleton
                                         President and Chief Operating Officer
August 2, 2005

Coconut Palm Acquisition Corp.
595 South Federal Highway
Suite 600
Boca Raton, Florida 33432

                  Re:  Coconut Palm Acquisition Corp. ("Company")
                       ------------------------------------------

Gentlemen:

                  Each of the undersigned hereby waives its or his right to
exercise conversion rights with respect to any shares of the Company's common
stock owned by the undersigned, directly or indirectly, and agrees that it or he
will not seek conversion with respect to such shares in connection with any vote
to approve a business combination (as is more fully described in the Company's
Prospectus relating to the Company's initial public offering).

                                      Very truly yours,

                                      RPCP INVESTMENTS, LLLP


                                      By: /s/ Richard C. Rochon
                                          ---------------------
                                            Name: Richard C. Rochon
                                            Title: President


                                      /s/ Richard C. Rochon
                                      ---------------------
                                      Richard C. Rochon


                                      /s/ Stephen J. Ruzika
                                      ---------------------
                                      Stephen J. Ruzika


                                      /s/ Jack I. Ruff
                                      ----------------
                                      Jack I. Ruff


                                      /s/ Mario B. Ferrari
                                      --------------------
                                      Mario B. Ferrari


                                      /s/ Robert C. Farenhem
                                      ----------------------
                                      Robert C. Farenhem
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 454/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 454/2013 of 7 May 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications (Ail fumé d’Arleux (PGI))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 454/2013                     

# of 7 May 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ail fumé d’Arleux                        (PGI))                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 entered into force on 3 January 2013. It repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006                              of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(2).

(2)Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Ail fumé d’Arleux’ was                              published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3).

(3)As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name                              should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 7 May 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.6.****Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed**U.K.

#### FRANCEU.K.

Ail fumé d’Arleux (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.                           

3

OJ C 212, 19.7.2012, p. 6.
ESTATE OF EPLEY EX REL. EPLEY v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TEACHERS' and State Employees' Retirement System Div.

No. COA06-689.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Ashe (05CVS226).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
Wayne SHEPARD and Rosemary Sanders Shepard v. OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, FSB and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, and Donald T. Ritter, in his capacity as Trustee.

No. 476A05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 1, 2007.

Mallam J. Maynard, Maria D. McIntyre, Chandra T. Taylor, J. Jerome Hartzell, Raleigh, for Wayne & Rosemary Shepard.

William Walt Pettit, Matthew T. McKee, Charlotte, Adam H. Charnes, Winston-Salem, for Ocwen Federal Bank, et al.

Carlene McNulty, for NC Justice Center, et al.

Hazel Mack-Hilliard, Susan Gottsegen, Winston-Salem, for Legal Aid of NC.

Kenneth J. Schorr, Charlotte, for Legal Ser. of Southern Piedmont.

William J. Whalen, for Pisgah Legal Services.

Gary W. Jackson, for NC Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Seth P. Rosebrock, for Center of Responsible Lending.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 24th day of January 2007 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of February 2007."
STATE v. SUTTON.

No. COA06-612.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Nash (98CRS7050).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. SWIFT.

No. COA06-224.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 15, 2006.

Certification Date September 5, 2006.

Appeal from Gaston (04CRS8611).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6387

BARTHOLOMEW ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; EXECUTIVE HEAD;

GEORGE ALLEN, Governor; RONALD ANGELONE,

Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; R. A. YOUNG, Region Administrator,

Western District of Virginia Department of

Corrections; GEORGE DEEDS, Warden of Keen

Mountain Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-96-212)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bartholomew Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Robinson v. Virginia, No. CA-96-212 (W.D. Va. Mar. 6, 1996).

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
1

The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3730

___________

Larry Rodriguez, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Mallinckrodt, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 18, 2009

Filed: March 24, 2009

___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Larry Rodriguez appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his diversity product-liability action against Mallinckrodt, Inc. Having

conducted de novo review, see Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057, 1062-63 (8th

Cir. 2008), we agree with the district court’s analysis and find no basis for reversal.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
#### Kathryn Wade-Westbrooke, Respondent, v Ebrahim Eshaghian et al., Appellants, and XYZ Cleaning Contractors, Inc., Respondent. (And a Third-Farty Action.)

[802 NYS2d 11]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J), entered March 10, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them or, in the alternative, for summary judgment upon their third-party claim for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellants, in support of that branch of their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint, failed to make the requisite showing that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of the alleged hazard. While appellants stress that plaintiff did not notice the hazard on the morning of, and just prior to the accident, that circumstance does not definitively establish their lack of notice *(see Straus v New Wah Fung Corp.,*269 AD2d 140 [2000]). Since there are issues of fact as to whether negligence on the part of appellants or XYZ caused plaintiffs harm, appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION



I, C. David Ramsey, President of Southpoint Structured Assets, Inc. certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution reports or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of TVA Security-Backed Trust, Series 1998-1;



2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;



4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing,
or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.



In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied
on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Bank One, West Virginia, N.A., as trustee.



Dated: November 10, 2003



Sincerely,By:

/s/    C. David RamseyC. David Ramsey, President
#### In the Matter of Leroy Wilson, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 329]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, *638entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from engaging in solicitation or harassment, interfering with a plea and violating facility correspondence procedures. The Attorney General has advised this Court by letter that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Insofar as petitioner has been accorded all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter must be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Terry v Goord,*14 AD3d 766 [2005]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6788** 

JOHN LAMONT LEWIS , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,

v. HERB JACKSON , Respondent

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the We stern District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Graham C. Mullen , Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00091

- GCM )

Submitted : July 27, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and K EENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per cu riam opinion

.

John Lamont Lewis , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Lamont Lewis seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wron g. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, a nd that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lewis’s motion f or a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSE D